1969-04-29

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Third report of Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, in English and in French- Mr. Legault (Nipissing).
[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization-Mr. Blair.
[Editor's Note: For reports of Committees above referred to, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table copies in English and in French of the report of the second meeting of the Constitutional Conference held in Ottawa in February last.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister, in connection with the Air Canada strike which continues to cause increasing inconvenience to Canadians, whether the government proposes to take any steps to encourage a settlement of this strike, and whether there have been any developments today or yesterday which encourage the government to believe that the parties can be brought together to continue the discussions.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there are no developments or steps beyond those which were reported to the house yesterday by the Minister of Labour.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Are we to assume from the statements of the Minister of Labour yesterday that the government has abandoned the guideline which was laid down by the Prime Minister in the house prior to the strike taking place?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that the supplementary question is argumentative in nature.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am seeking confirmation or otherwise of an impression created by the Minister of Labour yesterday, and with respect I suggest that the Prime Minister might confirm or deny the impression that has been created.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's understanding is exactly contrary to that which was said in the house. When asked a few weeks ago about guidelines, I said there were no guidelines, and I went on to add other things. The hon. member is implying that there are guidelines. Of course there are none.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport, if there is a Minister of Transport in the house. Due to the inconvenience and hardship caused by the Air Canada strike to certain people on the Atlantic side of this nation, would the minister check with his officials or with the officials of the Canadian Transport Commission to explore the possibility of the landing in Halifax of international carriers now taking off from Montreal. I have in mind in particular B.O.A.C., which flies from Montreal. At present people have to journey from Halifax and other parts of the Atlantic area to catch the plane in Montreal, and even so the service between Montreal and Halifax is not good.
April 29, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. James Richardson (Aciing Minister of Housing):: I will be glad to have that suggestion brought to the attention of the Canadian Transport Commission.



WHEAT-TWO PRICE SYSTEM AND ACREAGE REDUCTION PAYMENTS

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In the light of statements made recently by the minister, will he inform the house if it is the government's intention to institute a two price system for wheat and a program of compensation for acreage reduction on the prairies. Can he also inform the house of the government policy on these two matters.


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: In response to the hon. member's question as to the content of statements made recently, what I said, or what I intended to say, was that these proposals had been made to the government by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and by other bodies.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister assure the house that it is not the intention of the government to say to the farmers of western Canada that it is abandoning any real effort to sell or dispose of stocks of western grain?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: As has been indicated positively on a number of occasions, the government intends to do everything possible to be helpful.


Mr. Lome Nysirom (Yorkion-Melville):: have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. Does the government in this session intend to implement a two price system for wheat?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The government has received representations from provincial legislatures and a number of farm organizations. What I said last night was that these representations had been received.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: If the
minister is not able to give the house any assurance about the two price system, is he able to say whether there will be a just price for farmers?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Whatever the government does will be just.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: I suggest to the minister he should
IMr. Nowlan.l
go west and find out. He will then get an answer to that suggestion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the right hon. gentleman rising for the purpose of asking a question?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it is gratuitous observations such as the minister has just made that result in the necessity of answers being given by the opposition.
What I wish to ask the minister is this: In view of the increasingly calamitous conditions in the prairies-the Minister of Finance bends his head in the negative, is he going to do anything about it-will the government provide emergency legislation to meet the serious situation, or will the minister have to set up himself as a task force to go out west to find out how serious the situation is?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: As I indicated, we have
received representations-


John George Diefenbaker: Why don't you act?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: -respecting the two price system, and I am sure my right hon. friend would want us to consider them very carefully. This examination ought to include the reasons why his government rejected this proposal on a number of occasions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: That statement is false. But my question is this-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister himself used to advocate the two price system; has he changed his mind?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that on television last night I heard him say, not that he had received these representations but that the government was giving serious consideration to a two price system for wheat and acreage reduction payments, can I ask the minister if this is being considered by the government as a matter of policy, and if the government is likely to carry out the commitment it made to the western farmers of a guaranteed price for wheat and a two price system for wheat?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: What I said on television, disregarding the interpretations that were put on
April 29, 1969	COMMONS
what I said, was that responsible bodies such as the provincial legislatures of the three prairie provinces as well as the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Farmers Union and a number of other bodies had made these representations to the government. Certainly, if responsible bodies such as these make representations, this government takes them seriously.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I should like to ask the minister whether the government is now in a position to award an acreage payment to western farmers, something which the government headed by my right hon. friend from Prince Albert did.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That, also, is part of the representations which are under consideration.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Since the minister has just said that whatever the government does will be just, does he not think that if the government waits too long before announcing its farm policy, the farmers will be led to believe that whatever the government does will be just for fun?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me the hon. member's question is rather argumentative and, therefore, is out of order.



HOUSING


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasi-ings):: I have a question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Could the Prime Minister have an appropriate member of his government contact the government of Australia and acquaint himself with the housing policies of that government which have made it possible for builders to sell first class three-bedroom suburban homes for $13,000 on a down payment of $1,200 and a mortgage at 5 per cent?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think a question in this form is acceptable by the Chair.


George Harris Hees: With great deference, on a point of order: If I do not give the Prime Minister the background he will make an awful mess of the answer.
DEBATES	8099
Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR CONDITIONS EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR STUDENTS


Mr. W. B. Nesbilt (Oxford):: I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister any immediate and specific plan for providing summer employment for students who are now leaving our universities in great numbers?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Could the minister tell us what this plan is, and how soon it will come into effect?


Mr. Speaker:: Before the minister rises, may I point out that the hon. member is asking a question which is very general in nature, and that the type of statement he is inviting the minister to make would normally be made on motions.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Perhaps I could put it this way: Can the minister tell us how soon he will make a statement on motions providing us with this information?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Has the Canadian government informed our NATO allies, or some of them, that Canada intends to withdraw all its forces from Europe except one battalion?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not that I know of, Mr. Speaker.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Have the members of the military committee of NATO, who are responsible for military planning, been given information along that line?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I hope not, Mr. Speaker.



CONSULTATION WITH TEACHERS OVERSEAS BEFORE CONTRACT CHANGE

Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I have a question for the Minister of National Defence arising out of a statement made by the Canadian Teachers Federation. Can the minister inform the house whether he has refused to consult teachers, or the federation
Inquiries of the Ministry of teachers, before changing -a contract of employment for teachers under the Department of National Defence, and whether the contract has in fact been changed in the absence of such consultation?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: First of all, the contract has not been changed. In the second place, I hope the hon. member understands that we are not employing these teachers; it is a tripartite contract between the school boards, the teachers and the Department of National Defence.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I do understand, and that is the reason for my question. I should like to ask the minister whether there has been some change along the lines of making it possible for teachers to have a particular period of service extended, without discussion with them but after discussion with the school board concerned. In addition, have there been any changes relative to the provision of medical assistance and the like? If not, are these provisions in fact in the contracts?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, as far as medical services are concerned, the exercise of my ministerial discretion simply indicates that the minister is not responsible for medical services when they are available at the place the teachers serve. There has been no change in the contract regarding prolongation of the stay overseas. Our oversight might have been not to inform the teachers that, in the event of a prolongation required by national defence and the school board, obviously we would also consult the teachers.


David Lewis: A further supplementary question. Would the minister inform the house whether the teachers federation, or one of the teachers federations, sought an appointment with him to discuss the matter, and that the minister refused to meet them on the ground that it would serve no purpose? If that happened, or even if it did not happen, would the minister now assure the house that he would be ready to meet with the teachers federation to discuss the whole problem of teachers' contracts for overseas service?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I have always received with pleasure representatives of the teachers federation. What I did refuse was a visit from Mr. Nason, who wrote me a letter and wanted to explain the letter to me.
I can read.

April 29, 1969



VOLUNTARY REDUCTION OF CRUDE EXPORTS TO U.S.

Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Calgary Souih):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has the National Energy Board requested the petroleum industry in western Canada to reduce voluntarily its exports of crude oil to the United States, and further has it indicated that if these reductions are not made voluntarily it will impose export quotas?


Hon. Otio E. Lang (Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I think the strict answer to the question has to be no. However, the National Energy Board has been in touch with various suppliers and buyers of Canadian oil in the light of the existing agreement between the United States and Canada. As I indicated in the house yesterday, no agreement other than that has been reached. Accordingly that agreement stands and we have certain obligations in relation to it.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In fulfilling these obligations, is the National Energy Board or the department indicating that they will impose export quotas?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, in discussing the whole situation between the United States and Canada in regard to oil exports, needless to say the question of alternative action in the absence of voluntary compliance is always1 an issue. It was indeed impliedly referred to in the agreement between the two countries.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the minister would now make it clear that in his answer to the hon. member for Calgary South he was saying that what the National Energy Board has done is to implement government policy, which is to reduce the amount of exports to the United States and to introduce quotas.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I believe my answer in fact dealt with that issue. The hon. member is carrying my answer to the question further, when he asks what in fact government policy is. It is government policy that, as long as an agreement exists between the United States and Canada, we are obligated to honour it.

April 29, 1969	COMMONS



REQUEST FOR REPORT ON CANADA-U.S. CONTINENTAL POLICY

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In answer to a question that I asked either earlier this week or at the end of last week the minister said he would make a statement in reference to the new agreements that are now being made between Canada and the United States. Is the minister prepared to make this announcement either today or soon?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I did not make any statement about making any statement and I will indeed not do so until there is something specific to say about any new agreement.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, that is the first honest answer we have had. The minister admits that he will make no statement.



ACCESSIBILITY OF WESTERN OIL TO EASTERN MARKET

Mr. Sieven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources take the house into his confidence on the question of the establishment of a national oil policy for Canada under which western Canadian oil may gain access to markets in eastern Canada.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the whole question of oil policy both in Canada and in the United States, and the question of the proper handling of oil in North America, is under review. As decisions are made in this regard statements of course will be made to the house. I could, indeed, make a statement at this time or at any time reviewing the tremendous progress that has been made in developing oil resources as a result of existing government policies in this field.



STATEMENT OF NATIONAL POLICY FOLLOWING VISIT WITH PRESIDENT NIXON

George Harris Hees: May I address a supplementary question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. As it is more than six weeks since he discussed oil policy with President Nixon and others interested in the subject, can he report on any progress which has been made that would indicate it will be possible for Canada to achieve in the near future a successful
DEBATES	8101
Inquiries of the Ministry national oil policy similar to that introduced by the former government in 1961.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



FORESTRY


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. It relates to an announcement which he made in the latter part of February concerning a voluntary ban on the export of logs from British Columbia. Since the export of logs from Crofton and Chemainus on Vancouver island has increased sevenfold in March as compared with one year ago, is the minister now willing to consider imposing a ban and denying export licences for export of logs until domestic requirements have been met?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, the figures the hon. member has mentioned are news to me. I will check into the matter and let him know my answer.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Since the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has removed "Don Messer's Jubilee", the last program devoted to Canadian folklore, from its programming schedule, does the Prime Minister intend to suggest to the Secretary of State, responsible to the house for the C.B.C., to replace that program by another one on Canadian folklore, a tradition dear to millions of Canadians?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That could be a useful expedient for introducing television in the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker. There is quite a lot of folklore around here.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of Transport. I hope he has not been too busy with his new duties to provide an answer to my question of April 18 with respect to the future of Bill C-182 and the Maritime Freight Rates Act. I hope the minister can answer the question, in order to alleviate the fears of shippers in the maritimes.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the government has introduced legislation in the form of Bill C-182 which has received first reading in the house, the purpose of which is to extend the freeze on rail freight rates until March 23,
1970.	Provisions are made in the bill to compensate the railways for extending the freeze on their rates.


Thomas Miller Bell: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the government house leader indicate when this bill is to come forward. There seemed to be a great rush a few days ago to bring it on.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of ihe Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I could do that if I had some indication as to when we will finish with Bill C-150.


Thomas Miller Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We gave an assurance in this house, which is indelibly recorded in Hansard, that we will pass this freight rates bill post haste, as soon as it is brought on. The government has held it up on three or four occasions.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
FARM PRESS RATE INCREASES Mr. Heaih Macquarrie (Hillsborough): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. I welcome him back from his western think-out. My question is based on information that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture has finally been granted an audience with members of the government. Can the minister advise if he or an acting minister gave any assurance that sympathetic consideration would be given to representations made on behalf of the farm press of this country which is now suffering from postal rate increases which are, in some instances, as high as 2,000 per cent.
Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I did attend a meeting. I was accompanied by my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, and we were able, at that time to discuss the problem quite fully. Since that time I have written a number of letters to individual papers suggesting 
April 29, 1969
they do come under a different classification. I understand they are quite happy.



EXTENSION OF SECOND CLASS RATE TO COMMUNIST PUBLICATIONS

Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swiff Current-Maple Creek):: Can the Postmaster General explain why the department has lifted the second class mailing privileges of the Canadian Legion magazine?


Eric William Kierans: Because it represents the interests of a very important, but still a particular group.


John (Jack) McIntosh: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister explain why his department, while lifting second class privileges from legitimate labour union publications, has granted such privileges to a whole string of communist and subversive publications, such as Canadian Tribune, Communist Viewpoint, Combat, American Exile in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking a question-


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What about Playboy?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that within the past few days the International Nickel Company of Canada and Imperial Oil Limited have announced plans for increasing the pensions of their retired employees, will the Prime Minister, as head of the government, expedite the cabinet's consideration of the question of increasing the pensions of retired public servants?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We are proceeding according to plan, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact the President of the Treasury Board indicated on January 8 to an organization representing these people that there would be a report within a few weeks, can the Prime Minister say when there will be a statement as to the progress that has been made?

April 29. 1969	COMMONS


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The plan is secret, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten
o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



HOUSING


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Housing. Is the minister in a position today to answer a question I directed to him on Friday? I asked him if he would look into the matter of precedence in the making available of C.M.H.C. mortgage money for high rise apartment construction at Thompson, Manitoba?


James Armstrong Richardson: No, Mr. Speaker. I do not have a specific answer to that question.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister advise if he received representations from the various federations of agriculture and other organizations in the Atlantic area stressing the need for the continuation of the present feed grain policy in that area? If so, what reply was given?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We have received such representations, Mr. Speaker.


Howard Russell MacEwan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister advise as to what reply he has made or what action he intends to take on this very important matter to the feeders and others in that area?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, we have indicated to them that this program, which has been in effect for a number of years, is under review, and that any adjustments which seem to be reasonable and positive will be part of that review.


Howard Russell MacEwan: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister advise whether he endorses the apparent policy of the task force to the effect that these subsidies should be discontinued?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The views of the task force are completely independent of the government's views. I would like to advise my hon. friend
DEBATES	8103
Inquiries of the Ministry that, when we have completed the review of this and a number of other programs, government policy will be announced.



FARM CREDIT ACT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple
Creek): I ask the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the serious situation in which western farmers find themselves, resulting from diminished revenues arising from reduced wheat sales, he will consider advancing farm credit repayments by one year as is done in the case of farm improvement loans, since these loans are always adequately secured?
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I have announced on several occasions in this house that if an individual who has a loan from the Farm Credit Corporation would make application, along with substantial evidence that it is difficult or impossible to make the payments, they will be given consideration.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Could I ask the minister at this time what he will accept as evidence? Will he accept a low quota which is controlled by the Canadian Wheat Board as sufficient evidence that these payments cannot be met?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the evidence is an indication of his receipts and expenses.



ARTS. LETTERS AND SCIENCES NATIONAL ARTS CENTRE OPERATING DEFICIT

Mr. Ed Schreyer (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the fact the National Arts Centre Committee predicts a net operating deficit of between $400,000 and $500,000, depending on interpretation, for the two week opening festival of the arts, can the minister say whether Treasury Board has given approval to any such plans?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether the question is acceptable at this time. The hon. member might want to discuss this at the time of adjournment.


Edward Richard Schreyer: May I rephrase the question so that it will be in order? I ask the minister whether he will use his good offices and try to lower the operating deficit, and at the same time give Ottawa high society a treat by having Don Messer appear at the National Arts Centre?
8104	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT



COURTENAY, B.C.-INAUGURATION OF CARRIER SERVICE

Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Question, I have a speaker for the-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You
are out of practice; you have been away too long!


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I will try again. I have a question for the Postmaster General. I ask the minister when he intends to inaugurate in the city of Courtenay a letter carrier service, since that city has been qualified under the rules for a number of months?


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt if the question is in order, but in view of the very special circumstances perhaps the house will allow the minister to answer the question.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Miay I put it down for ten o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: Possibly the minister would prefer to answer now.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, there is a freeze on introducing new letter carrier service. As soon as this is lifted, 1 think we will be able to give this service to Courtenay.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Why this freeze?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the supplementary might be considered at ten o'clock.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Henry Laiulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
In view of the deplorable and disturbed economic situation now prevailing in agriculture, would the minister inform the house if he expects new tendencies and an adequate policy so as to give practical assistance to the Quebec farmers and prevent a great many of them from going bankrupt?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is now inviting the minister to make a general statement which should normally be made on motions.
[Mr. Schreyer.)
DEBATES	April 29, 1969



EDUCATION


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration a question on an urgent matter. This is the time of year when many students of Canadian universities are at the stage of making career decisions. Is the minister satisfied in his capacity as Minister of Manpower and Immigration that a sufficient mechanism exists in the country so that our universities are aware of Canadian scholars available for employment in the universities?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am not exactly certain of what is meant by mechanism. We in the department, through our manpower centres and other devices, maintain fairly complete information respecting the university labour market. We do assist the universities in recruiting abroad by our retrieval program and I do not believe, unless the hon. gentleman has some specific obstacle in mind, that there is any difficulty in the flow of this information.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: As a supplementary question, is there any machinery in the country specially for the purpose of making certain that Canadian universities are aware of the qualifications and availability of Canadian scholars, or is the minister simply relying on the normal machinery of his department in this regard?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as the main network of service in the country, we have over 300 Canada Manpower Centres. We have over 3,000 counsellors who are informed as to the opportunities in Canadian universities, and we do maintain a close relationship with the Canadian Association of Universities on this and other matters.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask one further supplementary question. Last week the minister indicated that he was conducting some inquiries into difficulties that might be encountered by Canadian scholars seeking teaching employment in this country. Would he include in those inquiries the adequacy of the existing machinery in this country, so that Canadian scholars may have an adequate opportunity to have their services made known, and will his inquiries also include a determination as to whether the proportion of
April 29, 1969

Canadians teaching in our universities has fallen from roughly 75 per cent a few years ago to less than 50 per cent last year?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Leader of the Opposition has made a submission to the minister.



FISHERIES


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. It is based upon his new statement of policy concerning the salt cod fish industry. In view of the fact that there is a great deal of doubt as to the efficacy or effectiveness of this new policy, would the minister tell the house when he proposes to set up the advisory committee which was announced in the policy statement?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, we are now in the process of setting up the advisory committee. It is a good scheme and I do not think we will have any difficulty getting it over to the fishermen.



OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister with respect to the program of dinners he is holding for his backbenchers. Is he going to extend an invitation to the hon. member for Trinity?



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development My question relates to the proposal for self-government in the Territories, a subject that has been inquired about over some months now. Has his proposal yet received cabinet approval and when will he be making an announcement about it?


Hon. Jean Chretien. (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, these proposals have not yet been approved by the cabinet, but I hope that they will be very soon.
Inquiries of the Ministry AGRICULTURE



MEETING BETWEEN FARM ORGANIZATION AND FEDERAL MINISTER

Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Is it a fact that the Quebec C.F.U. has
asked for a meeting with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion?
Would the Prime Minister also tell us whether the Minister of Agriculture will be invited to this meeting?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know exactly to what meeting the hon. member is referring. I have met representatives of some agricultural federations yesterday and I shall be seeing another delegation on Monday next. It may be that the C.F.U. will be a member of that delegation.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolielie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
In view of the fact that the Quebec Public Service Minister and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion were to meet last Friday, could the minister tell the house whether or not such a meeting has taken place?
In addition, since I am interested in the development of this famed national park in the province of Quebec, could he tell us whether an agreement has been reached in this connection?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, there was a meeting last Friday between the Quebec Public Service Minister, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and myself, but we did not make much headway.


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Matane):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Has he entered into an agreement with the province of Quebec about Forillon Park, in the Gaspe peninsula?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No, Mr. Speaker.
8106	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a supplementary question.
Has the minister received realistic counterproposals from the province of Quebec?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, there have been counter-proposals but I am not in a position to talk about them at this time.



MARKETING OF PRODUCTION FROM YUKON AND NORTHWEST TERRITORIES

Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, I would like to answer the question which was put to me last Friday by the hon. member for Battle-ford-Kindersley (Mr. Thomson).
The answer is no.



WATER RESOURCES


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is the minister's proposed water act nearly ready for introduction to the house, and can we expect it this session?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it is our intention to have the water act ready for introduction before the end of this session.



INDUSTRY


Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whil-by):: Mr. Speaker, I rise for the first time in my new position as a left-wing Conservative. In the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio from Sas-katoon-Humboldt. In view of the report of all-time high levels reached by shares of the Ford Motor Company on the Toronto Stock Exchange would he request the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to make a statement to the house on the progress he is making with the Ford Motor Company in his attempt to achieve price parity-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

DEBATES	April 29, 1969



TRANSPORT


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Transport. Would he give most urgent consideration to suspending the recent order of the Canadian Transport Commission withdrawing the port of Corner Brook from the coastal service of the Canadian National system, until such time as a full public hearing may be held to establish a true basis for decision?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I will convey that representation to the Transport Commission.



ACTION ON MEASURE RESPECTING MARITIME FREIGHT RATES

John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport supplementary to an earlier question asked by the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster, having to do with the freeze on rates in the Atlantic area. Do we understand from the minister's answer that there is also going to be a freeze on transportation policy in the Atlantic area, and when may we expect a statement of policy on that matter, now that the minister has received the opinions of the four premiers on Atlantic transportation problems?


James Armstrong Richardson: The matter is being given very definite consideration, Mr. Speaker. We have still to hear the final report of the Standing Committee on Transportation but the matter is not being unduly delayed.



TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Government House Leader. As the government is not prepared to bring forward the legislation to deal with the Maritime Freight Rates Act would it give immediate consideration to bringing forward debate for concurrence in the fifth report of the Committee on Transport and Communications, so that we can get on with the committee's final recommendations, as mentioned by the Acting Minister of Transport?
April 29, 1969


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we are now
going into the 14th day of debate on Bill C-150 and I hope all hon. members will agree to reach an end to that debate as soon as possible so that we can get on with further business.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Would the Government House Leader give an assurance to the house that upon completion of the Criminal Code amendments bill the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications would be brought into the house for debate?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, at the current rate of progress on the Criminal Code bill I cannot give an assurance that we will ever get finished with it.



HOUSING


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet might I say that I have checked with the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation concerning the question asked me by the hon. member for Churchill. I cannot give him much more information than I could have had I been briefed before the question period, but C.M.H.C. advises that the application in Thompson to which he referred is under consideration but has not yet been approved.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Has he received representations from yet another veterans organization, in this case the War Amputations of Canada, complaining about or protesting the length of time in getting the Woods Commission report before the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This morning I received a brief and a covering letter from the War amputees, and I do agree with what the President of the War Amputations of Canada had to say in the covering letter, Padre Lambert, who is a very highly respected veteran. In his letter he said this:
We do not urge that the government should attempt to rush the preparation of the white paper.
Income Tax Act
The importance of this document justifies that sufficient time be taken to ensure its excellence.
I agree with that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did Padre Lambert not also state in that letter that the Woods report should be referred to the committee without waiting for the white paper?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Yes, he did. But we believe that it would be an advantage to the veterans associations to appear before the committee with the full knowledge of the government's policy as it will be expressed in the white paper, otherwise they will have to appear twice, once to confirm their support of the Woods report, about which we already know, and again to express their views on the white paper. We believe they should appear only once.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When will that be?



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance) moved:: That a ways and means motion to amend the Income Tax Act, laid upon the table, Monday, April 28, 1969, be now concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
division.
Motion to concur agreed to.
Mr. Benson thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill C-191, to amend the Income Tax Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might indicate for the benefit of hon. members that it will not be the government's intention to call this bill for debate before Monday, May 12, barring contingency in the meanwhile, to give hon. members of the house and various professionals the opportunity to examine this proposed legislation.


An hon. Member:: Another month will not mean much, as this has had six months already.

April 29, 1969
Criminal Code CRIMINAL CODE



REPORT STAGE

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, April 28, consideration of Bill C-150, to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, and motion No. 24, Mr. Woolliams (for Mr. Valade).
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, last evening I was discussing the amendment before the house in reference to abortion and had almost concluded my remarks. I want to make one or two further references to this matter.
Before doing so let me say that as a result of the remarks made by the President of the Privy Council in respect of delay during this debate-and I only speak for this party-the minister would surely agree, were he here, that we gave full co-operation during the committee hearings. If anyone looks at the record he will note that the opposition members made very few remarks on this amendment. There was no delay so far as we were concerned. I made it my duty to explain this amendment as it appears on the order paper in the absence of the hon. member who put it on the notice paper.
In my opinion the amendment concerning abortion does not change the law very much. It was worded in the manner it was worded in order to catch two classes of people, those who are absolutely against any extension of the laws on abortion and those who think that abortion should be carried out in a wholesale manner. As far as I am concerned, the law as it is drafted in the new bill does not change the present law in Canada.
The bill proposes an amendment to Section 209, which I dealt with last evening, in that it adds the words "act of birth". This would mean that when a woman was in labour in the delivery room there would be no need for a doctor to go to a committee. If he could in all faith say it was necessary to cause a miscarriage for the purpose of preserving the life of the mother or the health of that mother it would be done without delay.
The second amendment the minister brought in was based on the opinion of the committee that if, in the act of birth, it was necessary to preserve the life or health of the

mother a doctor could perform the operation in an accredited hospital. I am at a loss to understand why the minister would suggest that Section 209 has nothing whatsoever to do with abortion. As found on page 333 of Crankshaw's Criminal Code, section 209 refers to the killing of an unborn child. This is the law as defined in Crankshaw or in any other book on criminal law dealing with this section. This is the law as referred to by Professor Mewett of the University of Toronto and other legal opinion. In other words, the killing of an unborn child would be caused by a miscarriage, and under that heading would mean an abortion.
It seems to me to be impossible for the minister or his officers to come to the conclusion that Section 209 has nothing to do with abortion. The killing of a foetus at any stage of development is really what is meant by abortion under the law today. This section has reference to the preservation of the life or health of the mother, and there really has been no change in that regard.
The hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Chappell) probably let the cat out of the bag in respect of the Liberal plan to satisfy everybody. I say the government is speaking out of both sides of its mouth in that it wants to get across to the nation that it is helping those who want whosesale abortion and those who do not want abortion extended. This is a policy adopted in order to get the votes of all these people by putting them in one basket.
I do not think anybody could have put this more clearly than that hon. member did in a letter he sent to a Mr. Edward O'Brien of 95 Roywood Drive, Don Mills. The letter is dated March 14, 1969. I will not read it all, but I think a part of it is of great interest. The hon. member said in the last paragraph:
Actually the laws of Canada now in respect to abortion and homosexuality are the most archaic in the western world. Although the expression "unborn child" is used by those who oppose the bill, this is not a life and no religion that I know of anywhere in the world recognizes or claims that the foetus has a soul. Rather than turning the clock back 1,000 years, the change will bring us forward from the laws of the middle ages.
I do not know what he means by that because it does not change the law very much. This letter really tells us what is going on in the Liberal caucus. That party embraces all religions and philosophies and it arrives at the same conclusion for everyone. The hon. member states in his letter:
As I said before, it was supported by all members of the Liberal party including Roman Catholics from every province with the exception of one.
April 29, 1969

I do not know who that exception is but that letter was signed by the hon. member for Peel South.
What I am really saying is that we should not for one moment believe that the new bill will change the law. The amendment in the bill really is a lot of window-dressing designed to satisfy that group of people who are against abortion while at the same time satisfying those who are in favour of abortion. As Professor Mewett says, this bill really does nothing for the girl who has been raped or for any individual whose case does not fall within the narrow interpretation of health or life.
I do not intend to say anything more on the amendment, but it does not change the law of Canada. It is just a vote-catching part of the bill. There are many other similar parts to which I could refer, but if I did so I would be ruled out of order so I will not go into them this afternoon.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
I wish to re-emphasize the co-operation of hon. members during the committee hearings. We co-operated with the Minister of Justice and attempted to state our thoughts to the committee expeditiously. I suggest that the committee members worked in a non-partisan way. Since these amendments were introduced into the house members of the Conser-ative party have been brief and to the point, and we have co-operated with the minister. In spite of this, the President of the Privy Council has tried to leave the impression that our party has caused delay in the passing of this legislation. Let us have no more of this misrepresentation and fraud on the part of the President of the Privy Council when he talks about this debate or any other. He is always leaving that impression. In this way he creates bad will in the house. That is why he is not a good house leader.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking on this amendment in the abortion debate, I am sure that in the future this legislation will be referred to as the long talked of great step forward that resulted in a step backward. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in his election promises stated that abortion would be legalized in line with 20th century thinking, and that our abortion laws would be modernized. What has happened? Nothing. There has been absolutely no progress in this respect. The new legislation is a step backward.
Criminal Code
Therapeutic abortion has been practised in Canada for many years. Therapeutic abortions have been condoned by the Bourne case of 1938 when Dr. Alex Bourne,, an English surgeon,, aborted a 14 year old girl who had been raped by soldiers.
The Criminal Code states that therapeutic abortion may be carried out when the life of the mother is at stake. This provision is open to wide interpretation. What is the rate of therapeutic abortion in Canada? A study of non-Catholic, Canadian hospitals shows that in 1967 there was an average of six abortions per 1,000 deliveries or live births. There is no wholesale abortion there.
How is an abortion carried out in Canadian hospitals? It is carried out by the patient's physician in conjunction with a consultant of his or the patient's choice. Now we are to set up a committee, none of whose members will know the patient or will be likely to interview her or her husband. This effectively removes from the patient and her physician the decision to abort.
If the abortion law has to specify indications for abortion, rather than leave the decision to a woman and her physician, as is done in regard to nearly all decisions to carry out a surgical operation, the indications should include all the physical diseases of the mother that would jeopardize her health or that of the baby should the pregnancy continue. It should include obstetrical indications if carrying the pregnancy to full term would be hazardous to either mother or baby. The law should include psychiatric indications where continuation of the pregnancy may result in psychotic episodes or suicidal thoughts.
The law should include provisions to cover the situation where because of an unwanted pregnancy there would be adverse effects on the emotional health of the mother, the existing child or children. It should include provisions to cover cases of rape or incest. A therapeutic abortion should be permitted if there is a reasonable possibility that the child, if born, would be physically and mentally incapacitated. Does the legislation do any of these things? The answer is no.
Another important factor is the safety of the abortion procedure. With a woman less than eight weeks pregnant, D. and C. carries little risk. Beyond eight weeks of pregnancy the chances of complication increase rapidly, especially after the tenth week, owing to the high risk of hemorrhage or perforation of the uterus. Legislation designed to keep down mortality must ensure that the period

April 29, 1969
Criminal Code
between application and abortion is the shortest possible.
The best way to increase the period is to insist upon mutiple consultations. The legislation will increase the danger and risk involved in the procedure more than has been the case in the past. It will increase the risk and danger to the patient. The committee will probably have a discouraging effect on both the patient and her physician. There is a higher mortality rate when there is an exasperating abortion committee system. Awkward abortion legislation tends to divert patients from orthodox health care systems to self-abortion or criminal abortionists. The morbidity of criminally induced abortions is substantial. Criminal abortions in the United States are estimated to be one million to one and a half million a year, with deaths running from 5,000 to 10,000. The figures for Canada are probably proportional to those of the United States because our laws are essentially the same.
Why is there a cloud over abortion, necessitating an abortion committee in addition to other hospital committees? Abortion is as old as history; it was practised in primitive cultures by the midwives and physicians of Rome and Greece. The definitive edict against abortion is only about 100 years old. Abortion was practised in England up until the early 1900's. It is restrictive legislation of this type that many countries are today attempting to revise.
Abortion should be taken out of the Criminal Code and placed in the hands of qualified medical practitioners. This legislation is not good legislation; it creates barriers of time in respect of patients who would benefit by abortion; it does nothing to define the conditions where an abortion is indicated. People living in sparsely populated areas of Canada will be denied the services of an abortion committee unless they travel great distances, involving time, expense and danger to health. This legislation discriminates against them.
The legislation before us is a great abortion hoax. It does nothing to bring our abortion laws in line with public desire or 20th century needs. It is a step backward into the 19th century; it is not a step forward in the 20th century. Any real change in our abortion laws has yet to come. The minister would be wise to remove from the bill the provision for a therapeutic abortion committee and substitute therefor the practice which has been adopted for many years, that of consultation

between the patient's own physician and a colleague.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak briefly to amendment No. 24. By the amendment the hon. member is attempting to insist that any means used to procure a therapeutic abortion be employed before the period of implantation. We must reject the amendment. I think the simple way of stating it is that implantation occurs about five days after intercourse. Therefore this amendment would in effect negative the whole aim of clause 18 relating to therapeutic abortions. The woman would not know she was pregnant, and even if that fact could be determined there would not be enough time for the therapeutic abortion committee to consider the case or for the doctor to perform the operation. Therefore I submit to the house that in strict medical terms, and in terms of the facts, it would be impossible to implement this amendment. That is the simple answer to it.
But since certain latitude was allowed the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wool-liams) to reintroduce the argument he made before the committee as to the relationship between section 209 and section 237 of the Criminal Code, without repeating the legal arguments that I introduced on behalf of the government before the committee I want to state again that there is absolutely no relationship in fact between those two sections. With the greatest respect, Professor Mewett was in error when he suggested that if an abortion could not be legally performed under section 237, one could await the time of birth and obtain a defence under section 209. There are two different factual situations here. I should like to read the first two subsections of section 237 of the Criminal Code. These are the operative sections relating to the factual situation involved.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
Every one who, with intent to procure the miscarriage of a female person, whether or not she is pregnant, uses any means for the purpose of carrying out his intention is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for life.
Subsection 2 reads:
Every female person who, being pregnant, with intent to procure her own miscarriage, uses any means or permits any means to be used for the purpose of carrying out her intention is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for two years.
April 29, 1969

Clause 18 exempts from those two subsections a therapeutic abortion which has been approved by a medical committee in an approved or an accredited hospital where the operation is performed by a qualified medical practitioner for the purpose of protecting the woman where her life or health is in danger. This section obviously relates to any killing of the foetus before natural birth and to a miscarriage or an abortion, which legally are equivalent terms. I introduced an argument to that effect before the committee. A miscarriage or an abortion is any killing of the foetus before natural birth and before the child becomes a human being.
Section 209 is a completely different factual situation. It was before this bill and it certainly will be after the bill because clause 15 adds some clarifying words. Section 209 (1) as amended reads as follows:
Every one who causes death, in the act of birth, of any child that has not become a human being, in such a manner that, if the child were a human being, he would be guilty of murder, is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for life.
Subsection 2 provides a defence where, in good faith, a person causes the death of the child before it becomes a human being when he considers it necessary to preserve the life of the mother of the child and for that reason causes the death of the child. Therefore section 209 of the Criminal Code relates to any killing of a child who has not yet become a human being at the time of the act of birth.
Section 237 relates to the killing of a foetus before the natural time of the birth. Section 209 relates to the killing at the time of the birth. Section 237 involves a miscarriage or an abortion, and section 209 involves homicide.
There is a third factual situation in the Code to be found in section 195 which is not amended by this bill. Section 195 reads as follows:
(1)	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 an independent circulation, or
(c)	the navel string is severed.
Subsection 2 sets forth the offence. It reads as follows:
(2)	A person commits homicide when he causes injury to a child before or during its birth as a result of which the child dies.
Here we have a third factual situation: Injury caused to a child before or during birth
Criminal Code
as a result ,of which the child dies after birth, after the child has become a human being. So in sections 237, 209 and 195 we have three absolutely separate factual situations. It is for this reason that we rejected the argument of the hon. member for Calgary North, supported as he was by Professor Mewett, that the Bourne case in any way applied to section 209 of the Criminal Code. The Bourne factual situation applies to section 237. That being so, I rely merely on the fuller treatment of the subject we introduced before the committee. If hon. members wish to review it, of course the proceedings of the committee are available.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to preface the question I wish to put to the minister by saying that the words of the amended section 209 include the phrase "to preserve the life of the mother". Subsection 2 reads:
This section does not apply to a person who, by means that, in good faith, he considers necessary to preserve the life of the mother of a child, causes the death of such child.
If in fact any person in good faith performs an operation to preserve the life or the health of the mother, is that person not performing a legal abortion? My second question is. If such a person performs a legal abortion, is the foetus not killed?


John Napier Turner: The simple answer to that is that section 209 does not relate to an ahortion at all.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not want to harp on this subject, Mr. Speaker, but may I ask the minister one more question. Let me read again subsection 2.
This section does not apply to a person who, by means that, in good faith, he considers necessary to preserve the life of the mother of a child causes the death of such child.
To cause the death of the foetus or of an unborn child would in fact under the law be considered an abortion. The minister said that this section does not apply to abortions, but surely these are indentical words to the ones used in section 237. In spite of what the minister's advisers have told him, I ask him to consider this matter again. When a person is performing an abortion in good faith and takes the life of a foetus he is exempt from a penalty under the law, as stated in section 209(2), because he performs a legal abortion.


John Napier Turner: I have done a great deal of thinking about this. Section 209 relates to a killing at the time of birth.

April 29, 1969
Criminal Code
When performed at the time of natural birth, it is not an abortion.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to put a question to the minister on a particuler point before delivering my speech, if the rouse agrees. The minister referred earlier to the famous Bourne case. As far as section 209 is concerned, I would like to ask him, in connection with what the hon. member for Calgary Nroth (Mr. Woolliams) stated, whether it would be fair to say, to clear up the matter, that for several years, Canadian and British courts have been constructing in a broad way this qualification stated in section 209 (2) of the Criminal Code-the minister is speaking of-so that it would be generally accepted that, to save the mother's life, it would not be necessary to wait unit the mother runs an immediate risk of death. In the famous Bourne case, the ruling of the judge was-if I remember well-that the doctor had a right to procure a miscarriage for his patient, if it was his conviction that the pregnancy could probably result in ruining her physical and mental health. Does the minister take into account the proposed amendment to the bill? Is it in keeping with that precedent? Would the Bourne case constitute a legal precedent?
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my simple answer is no.
The Bourne case was a case of rape, following which the woman had become pregnant and the doctor had agreed to perform an abortion. The actual facts must be considered in that Bourne case. The rape was committed on April 27, 1938, and the abortion performed on June 14, 1938, which leaves an inbetween period of about seven weeks. That is a typical case of abortion.
Section 209 rather applies to an operation; or to actual facts in the natural act of birth of a child. Therefore, the Bourne precedent does not apply to the circumstances as defined in section 209.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question my earlier interpretation which to my mind, constitutes a precedent, was corroborated by the famous Newton vs. Stongo case, which is found at page 469 of the Criminal Law Review. In that famous case, it was specified that protection of a woman-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must remind hon. members that we are not in committee. If the IMr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton).]
hon. member for LOtbiniere wishes to deliver a speech, he has the right to do so, but at this stage, he can only ask a question.


André-Gilles Fortin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My argument is borne out by the famous Newton vs. Stongo, case, when it was specified that the word "health" meant the physical health as well as the mental health of a woman. Can the minister tell me whether my interpretation of that precedent is correct?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I am in a position at this stage to analyse the entire British jurisprudence. I did my best in an attempt to explain the difference between section 209 and section 237 and I cannot add anything more to the evidence I gave a few weeks ago before the committee on justice and legal affairs.
Now, if the hon. member wants to know my innermost thoughts about this, he will find them there.


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: The
semantics of legal affairs leave me somewhat mixed up, Mr. Speaker, and I think it would be as well to look at the medical side for a moment. After all, this is a medical problem and we are dealing with people.
I did not understand the minister clearly, if he was clear, when he spoke about what would be done in the case of an alleged rape reported a month or six weeks after the event when the woman found she was faced with a pregnancy. It is my opinion, and I believe it is the opinion of the medical profession generally, that after five days, once the foetus attaches itself to the uterus, a human life is begun. In the hospitals today doctors are engaged in saving every human life in utero they can, and I can see very little difference between the abandonment of a life in utero and ex utero. We are now able to treat babies in the uterus itself when necessary. We are treating them for the Rh. factor and other conditions, and recently we have discovered a vaccine for the treatment of rubella which, when administered to the mother, will prevent deformation of the new-born infant. We are working to preserve life. Regardless of what the hon. gentleman's opinions are, life starts once the foetus attaches itself to the wall of the uterus.


John Napier Turner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I did not get into the question of when life starts or does not start.
April 29, 1969


An hon. Member:: Why avoid it?


Philip Bernard Rynard: The proposals here will destroy life in utero, completely ignoring the fact that a human being has been started in the uterus with a long life ahead in most cases. Why not destroy older people? The live foetus in the uterus may have a long and successful life ahead. This is what disturbs me. We in the medical profession are doing everything we can to see that every woman is able to carry her baby through to full term. Millions of dollars are being spent on research to prevent deformities and illnesses which may cause trouble for the baby after it has been born. Again, it seems to me that in a country such as ours, with a population of 21 million people living in an affluent society, we should be working to preserve every Canadian baby in utero.
It was not very long ago that a Liberal minister of immigration who later became minister of transport and who, while in that office, created a job he was able to step into after resigning, placed a high value on Canadian babies. If the minister would like the reference in Hansard I think I could supply it to him. It is disturbing to note that in Sweden, for instance, in 1939-and at that time they were already on the road we may be embarking on now-there were 439 legal abortions. In 1965 the number was 6,245. I was told not long ago by a doctor from Stockholm that businesswomen were now becoming pregnant and raising children as a result of the creative imbalance between males and females. This is a story we do not want to see repeated in Canada. Canada was not founded on those principles. Doctors work to protect human life from the embryo to the end of the road. This proposition upsets their efforts.
I ask the minister again what he proposes to do in cases of abortion when the woman concerned has alleged rape. He tells us that five days is not enough time in which to set up an abortion committee. How is the law to deal with such a situation?


Mr. Speaker:: I have to remind hon. members that the rules do not allow the minister to speak a second or a third time.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I wonder whether I could ask the question so as to clarify the position.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member might have asked the question while the minister had the floor. However, with the consent of the house he may be allowed to put his question to the minister and have it answered, but certainly we shall get ourselves into difficulty if we
Criminal Code
disregard the rules. As I pointed out at the beginning, we are not in committee and we should as far as possible keep this in mind. As I say, there may be a disposition on the part of the house to allow the hon. member for Simcoe North to ask a question of the minister and to allow the minister to reply to it if he wishes.


John Napier Turner: Because of my respect for the hon. member for Simcoe North, who is a medical doctor, may I say that my opposition to this particular amendment which would restrict the performance of a therapeutic abortion in the sense that it would have to be performed before the period of implantation, which, as I understand it, is about five days after conception, derives from the fact that it would render the clause inoperable. In most cases a woman does not know she is pregnant so early, and even if she did it would be impossible for the therapeutic abortion committee to meet and judge the case. This is a very technical amendment and I am replying to it on these specific grounds. When we are discussing clause 18 as a whole perhaps I shall be able to deal with the general question the hon. member has raised, and I may do so at that time.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I ask the minister whether he would not make some statement on a later occasion covering the case I mentioned a few moments ago, that the woman concerned must lay a charge alleging she was raped, before the expiration of the five days, or file a legal complaint.


John Napier Turner: If I may
continue the liberty which was extended to me before Mr. Speaker's alter ego took the chair, let me say that when we are dealing with amendment 19 covering the whole aspect of clause 18 I shall certainly include that question in my statement.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the statement of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wool-liams) who moved the amendment No. 24 on behalf of the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade).
I was very much amazed by that statement, and what strikes me most is to see how the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), who is alone to defend his bill, is losing no time in refusing all the measures proposed by the opposition.

April 29. 1969
Criminal Code
He said more or less that the hon. member for Simcoe-North (Mr. Rynard) was all mixed up, because he does not want to accept the assertions of this eminent doctor.
He said, at the beginning of the statement he made earlier, that the professor Mewett was wrong.
If the Minister of Justice is the only one who knows the conseqences of the amendments to the Criminal Code, I think we should simply close the debate, go home and let the Minister of Justice take care of all this.
However, it seems to me that such is not the case. We were not elected to fully endorse all the proposals of the government, but rather to defend the views of our constituents, of the medical associations, of the hospitals and of the clergy, whether Catholic or not.
It is disconcerting to notice how unanimously the members of the Liberal party support Bill C-150 now under study.
I find it strange that the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who first sponsored Bill C-195 which has now become Bill C-150, used to blame the right honourable Lester B. Pearson about his way to deal with the members of the house. Indeed, as we can read in an issue of Cite Libre of 1963, he said, and I quote:
The Pope had spoken-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but at this point the house is really not discussing Bill C-150 but a specific amendment moved by the hon. member for Calgary North for the hon. member for Ste.-Marie, seconded by the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster. The Standing Orders are very specific on this point. They require hon. members to restrict their remarks to the amendment under discussion. Under the circumstances I would invite the hon. member for Abitibi, who knows the rules better than I, to try to confine his remarks as much as possible to the specific amendment.


Gérard Laprise: Thank you for your explanations, Mr. Speaker but I do not accept the statement that I know the rules better than you do for I do not boast of being a specialist in matters of procedure. I do believe, however, that the rules allow me to support or to oppose a bill and to do so I have to offer some kind of clarifications. That is why I

want to be specific about my reasons for supporting the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wool-liams) and to say why it does, indeed, seem strange to me that all the amendments we have so far suggested would always be defeated in the same way, as if everybody were wrong on this side of the house and the government members the only ones to be right.
I shall have the opportunity, in some further debate, maybe in the debate on the motion for third reading, to speak out my mind on the present leadership of the Liberal party.
The amendment now before us is quite acceptable for it also tends to clarify Bill No. C-150. Mr. Speaker, the fact that we are considering amendments tending to amend section 18 of the Criminal Code does not necessarily mean that we do accept section 18.
I would like to stress the fact that it was one of my colleagues who first presented an amendment for deleting section 18 from the aforesaid bill. Had we considered the section and had the house accepted amendment No. 19 as suggested by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau), there would have been no need for debating section 18. Such is not the case, however, and were section 18 to be retained in Bill No. C-150, we would be bound to introduce amendments in order to improve the wording of this section and to make it less harmful to the public.
Mr. Speaker, I have here an article published in the Quebec L'Action dated March 18, 1969, in which the Organized Medical Staff of the Laval Hospital of Quebec states' for the second time for the guidance of the government and the public that its point of view had not changed.
Here is the statement of the Staff, of which Paul-Emile Gareau is chairman and Claude-D. Hebert, secretary. I quote:
The Medical Staff of the Laval Hospital studied carefully the bill on abortion introduced in the House of Commons by the Minister of Justice.
It has pronounced itself unanimously against this bill for the following reasons:
Mr. Speaker, those doctors could not have made this public statement without having given it serious thought.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. The hon. Minister of Justice has raised a point of order.
April 29, 1969


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member explain to the house in what way his remarks are relevant to the amendment now before us?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
point is well taken, and I thank the Minister of Justiee for raising it.
The hon. member for Abitibi should confine his remarks to the amendment under consideration.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, the amendment needs no clarification as it states "that those means are employed before the period of implantation".
So, if I confine my remarks to that matter I would simply have to state that I am for or against the amendment, and it seems to me that I am allowed by the rules to give some explanations. That is why I want to express the views of the medical board of Laval hospital.
So, Mr. Speaker, whether abortion is allowed during the period of implantation or a few hours, a few weeks or a few months before or after, it remains an abortion. Regardless of when the abortion takes place, it remains an homicide because there is life from the moment of implantation.
The doctors of Laval hospital, like the great majority of doctors, are against abortion because,, in their view, any abortion is an homicide, the foetus being a human being.
At this point I would like to quote the following:
Some say that the foetus is not a human being until it becomes viable. The notion of viability of the foetus, outside the womb, is a matter of medical opinion. Today, the foetus is not considered to be viable outside the womb of the mother before the twenty-eighth week of gestation,... but this period will perhaps be reduced with the acquisition of new data and the development of proper techniques.
This is exactly what Doctor Jutras said when he appeared before the committee on justice and legal affairs.
And I continue:
Whether or not the foetus will be viable outside the mother's womb depends on the degree of maturity of the foetus. But is it possible to define a human being on the basis of the obvious maturity it has reached, especially since this maturity is attained after many years only?
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is generally agreed among gynecologists that the foetus is a human being right from the beginning. And the period between conception and delivery
Criminal Code
of a viable foetus is but one stage in the life of that human being.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) is perfectly valid and should be inserted into clause 18, so as to avoid any mistakes. It was with this in mind that the hon. member for Calgary North moved this amendment and it is my intention to support it.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, upon reading the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), which states:
-that those means are employed before the period of implantation.
-we realize that, in essence, it seeks to restrict abortion, because the intent of the legislation before us is to legalize abortion without any medical or scientific restrictions.
The amendment establishes that the period of implantation is the time when life appears in a mass of cells and, in my opinion, it is important to specify at what moment life appears and when according to the law it does not exist, not necessarily from a scientific point of view but from a legal one.
The legislation introduced by the minister aims to specify that life begins only once the foetus has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of the mother. According to the law, that would be the definition of a human being: a foetus that has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of the mother.
The proposed amendment is to the effect that abortion could not be legalized before the period of implantation. Under the present bill, abortion would be legalized if it is performed before or after implantation, until the foetus has completely proceeded from the mother's womb.
We can see the difference between the two wordings. The government party supposes life does not exist while the foetus is still inside the womb.
As for us, we have a strong, sincere, honest and scientific conviction that life exists during the period the foetus is inside the mother's womb.
I would hardly see the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) rising to deny that statement, because he is aware of the fact. He knows that a foetus is alive.

April 29, 1969
Criminal Code
We want the law to be more specific, in order that abortion be allowed, but before the implantation period.
In support of my assertion, I will quote an excerpt of the interesting, scientific and conclusive testimony of Dr. Rene Jutras, who lives in my constituency, since he is a member of the pediatrics service of the Hotel-Dieu of Arthabaska. Several members apparently have this next on hand.
This is why I am pleased to make use of his knowledge, in order to give fuller details.
Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with the life of the unborn child before and after implantation. But let us see rather what science says in that connection. Dr. Jutras stated on March 25, and I quote:
The chromosome contains in itself all the genes. There are 46 chromosomes and in the deoxyribonucleic acid there is a complete code which is the code of heredity. This code contains, according to present research, about 100,000 special characteristics, descriptions or connotations determined in advance which will lead the impregnated cell to its final state of man at the age of 20.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, this merely means that there is an evolution from the time of sexual intercourse to the time of birth and even up to 20, 30, 50 and even 70 years of age. That evolution at the various stages of life will only stop at the time of death.
Mr. Speaker, we are now discussing a bill which seeks to establish as a fact that there is no life during the time the foetus is in the woman's womb, while science states positively the contrary. In fact, science says that not only there is life then, but that as soon as implantation takes place the chromosomes are perfectly arranged and the deoxyribonucleic acid contains already all the genetic information regarding the future physiological and biological characteristics of the man at 20.
Some members, the hon. member for Merrier (Mr. Boulanger) for instance, if I am correct, do not speak often, not to say never. Well, at the time of his conception, it was already settled that the hon. member for Merrier would never say a word. The die was cast.
Now, let us go back to serious business. I think there is continuity and this fact has been established scientifically.
Dr. Jutras says and I am quoting:
This is to tell you that we are facing a real challenge. It is more than a negative.

This is what the person I referred to earlier had to say on this subject, and I quote:
It is more than a negative. Everything is codified and sealed in advance. And what is fantastic in all this is to see that before impregnation-
Mr. Speaker, I hope I am not out of order. I continue the quotation:

there is a phase of immeasurable hazard.
More than 400 million spermatozoa are participating in a frantic race to reach the ovule. Only one reaches it, and thus the foetus begins to take form. Therefore, it is a race to the finish.
In examining the bill introduced by the minister, it is useless to wonder why the spermatozoa are racing, Mr. Speaker. They do not want to be overtaken by the omnibus bill.
Dr. Jutras went on to say, and I quote:
But there is one thing about which human beings do not often think. It is that once the head of the spermatozoon has penetrated into the ovule-
At this stage, I ask the hon. member for Chambly (Mr. Pilon) to listen carefully-
*-the hazard has ended.
Well, Mr. Speaker, from then on, it is scientifically possible to foresee what the future human being will be like. It is possible to know what his defects, even the smallest ones, will be, his qualities, the colour of his eyes, the shape of his ears and of hisi nose, etc. It is possible to foresee everything, even his mental or physical deficiencies. Biologists and scientists are saying so, not me.
-there is no more chance happening.
Dr. Jutras states, and he says so on the basis of studies he has been conducting on the subject for eight years, particularly in the United States. And I continue:
After that, the setting into motion is extraordinary, if one reflects on it.
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that this question can be treated lightly, for this is a matter of life or death. Ultimately, we have to know whether after implantation the foetus can be considered as a human being. If not, abortion raises no problem, but otherwise, the problem is immense.
I said a moment ago that there was continuity from the moment of fecundation until the human being reaches the age of 20. This continuity will only end at death.
So, Mr. Speaker, what we are to-day at the age of 20, 30, 40 and 50 years could be found not only as a mere potentiality, but in an
April 29, 1969

embryonic stage, within the ovule and the spermatozoon when they met, and combined to create the outstanding features of the new human being.
I shall illustrate this by a very simple example. Let us suppose that the hon. member for Chambly is thirty years old-this must certainly flatter him-that he is trying to remember what happened in his life, ten years ago. He will be able to remember certain things. Ten years seems a very long and a very short span of time. We feel that if we can remember what happened ten or twenty years ago, we can also remember what we were doing at the age of three, four or five. Anybody can.
These memories are vague and remote though at the same time precise. Nevertheless, the most fantastic and extraordinary thing, is that we feel we have not really changed from the time we were five years old.
No hon. member could rise and say that evolution stopped abruptly between the time he was five years old and today. Everybody realizes that there is so much continuity that the individual does not feel he has changed.
In other words Mr. Speaker, the foetus in the womb of his mother is a potential human being. It is just as clear if we follow this reasoning that birth, as I said yesterday, is not the beginning of life as the Minister of Justice would have us believe, but a stage in this life which took a nine-month long preparation and scientific "alignment"; the mother fed the embryo for nine months. She took care of him. He is entirely dependent at that time both of the mother and the father.
He is totally dependent and right from the moment of his birth, his mother is giving him all he needed to become a human being.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, the fact of performing abortion without any serious reason is, in my view, a homicide.
And I say again, Mr. Speaker that I simply cannot believe the Minister of Justice dares to suggest, together with his colleagues, that life is absent from the foetus in the mother's womb.
And if he admits that life is indeed present, he must also admit that it is a crime to kill this foetus.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I give on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The Minister of Justice on a point of order.
Criminal Code


John Napier Turner: I never said life was absent from the foetus and therefore the remark of the hon. member has nothing to do with my argument. I said nothing at all because, to defeat the amendment, it was not necessary.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice so far, did not tell us whether life was present or not in the foetus. He says he never said it, but he never said the contrary. I would like him to be more specific about facts. The point is to have a bill that become law would allow a committee of qualified doctors to jeopardize the normal development of the foetus after implantation.
It is therefore important to know if the surgical operation will be performed on a human being or just on a cluster of cells. There is a difference. If one considers the foetus just as a cluster of cells, there is no problem; we are wasting our time discussing it, since bringing about abortion would not be a homicide but simply eliminating a cluster of cells.
But if it is definitely not a cluster of cells, every scientific conclusions leads us to believe it is a foetus.
Let us go further. Let us suppose that we are not quite sure whether it is a cluster of cells or a foetus, whether it can live or not. In the light of those considerations, are we authorized, from the legal as well as the human point of view, to legalize abortion when there is some doubt?
If we have doubts whether we are dealing with a viable foetus, it is impossible to legislate as clearly as the minister would have us, because abortion is dangerous, since the doctor himself cannot determine whether or not he is interfering with the normal development of the foetus.
Since some risk is involved, the wisest attitude would be to abstain from doing so until science has dissipated all doubts and abortion can be allowed because, then, it will not entail moral consequences.
But, if we are sure to be dealing with a viable foetus, we do not have the right to interfere by the artificial means that therapeutic abortion constitutes: there would then be homicide.
Mr. Speaker, to my mind it is extremely important that we should clear up this matter. The minister does not tell us whether he considers the foetus as a human being or as a group of cells but, really, that is the question.
If we are dealing with a mass of cells, there is no problem; but if we are dealing

April 29, 1969
Criminal Code
with a human being, the minister must recognize with us-for this is not stated in the text of the legislation-that he is forcing the doctors, the therapeutic abortion committees and hospitals concerned, to practise homicide, no less.
The situation is all the more serious as the foetus, from the stage of implantation, is a human being, and is not only completely dependent on his mother and on her psychic and physical behaviour, but is also innocent and defenceless.
This is why, if one follows this argumentation, one will admit that the minister is unable to show up its weakness'-and I tell him clearly-without running the risk of making himself ridiculous and contradicting everything the Prime Minister might have said, because he knows as well asi we do that the foetus is a human being and that to destroy it after the period of implantation would be nothing short of compulsory murder if the bill proposed by the minister were passed.
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Eynard) said that the passing of such a law in other countries had increased the number of abortions. I think that in view of the foreseeable consequences-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I must ask him first to restrict his remarks to the amendment under study and secondly remind him that his time has expired.


André-Gilles Fortin: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. With all due respect, I would like to tell you that you would find it very difficult to show the house that I am out of order because if I am, other hon. members have been so for a long time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The last words of the hon. member were in fact out of order.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to speak on this amendment but having listened to the arguments for or against from the hon. minister, I suggest they failed to convince me and I find this amendment perfectly logical.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my opinion on the amendment which reads as follows:
-that those means are employed before the period of implantation.

This amendment, which allows abortion "before the period of implantation", will inevitably lead-as pointed out by the hon. minister and on this I agree with him-to the avoiding of abortion. It is precisely for those reasons that we are in favour of applying "those means	before the period of
implantation".
I said in my remarks yesterday before the committee on justice and legal affairs that 12 weeks after the period of implantation a baby could suck its thumb. Now I know government members who have been in this house for twelve years and have done nothing else yet than sucking their thumbs.
Mr. Speaker, I have here a statement from a doctor, which impressed me very much and describes an abortion performed after the period of implantation. I refer to Professor Ian Donald, professor of gynecology at the Queen Mary hospital of Glasgow University in Scotland, who is not Catholic but Anglican. In the 1967 July edition of WAY magazine, he describes the killing of a foetus, perpetrated "after the period of implantation".
Here is a doctor who takes us to a hospital in order to witness an abortion practised "after the period of implantation". This is what he says:
I must resist describing the disgusting details of an operation designed to put an end to a pregnancy. Within a few minutes, you would feel sick and go out vomiting.
An abortion can be performed through a tiny Caesarian section-
-that is to say "after the period of implantation".
However, you have a baby alive in your hands, a baby who stirs, who kicks and who wants to live. But you have to kill it... you hide it from the nurse... it is a depressing sight. There is no mistake about It, it is a murder in slow motion. Besides, the baby can be killed while still in his mother's womb.
Is there such a big difference? The intention is still the same: to destroy the child.
Mr. Speaker, if we are in favour of that amendment, it means that we approve of abortion induced "before the period of implantation", that is to say before life begins.
In the Way Catholic Viewpoints, July 1967 issue, Dr. Edward Cossel, a biologist, says, and I quote:
In my opinion, scientific evidence shows conclusively that every human life begins at the time of fertilization of the ovule by a spermatozoon to form the child at his primary stage. At that stage, according to biologists, the individuality (character, qualities, shortcomings) is created in animals.
April 29, 1969

The same is true for human beings.
Failure to apply the same principle to the development of the human being would not be scientific. Therefore, destroying a child at that stage, that is from his conception to his birth, is contributing to destroy a human life.
It is precisely because we do not want to destroy human lives that, in our opinion, these means should be employed before the period of implantation.
We were given several reasons why we should object to the legalization of abortion, and why means of abortion should be employed before the period of implantation. In that connection, there is no consensus among medical practitioners and biologists. We are convinced that the foetus is a human being, however imperfect it may be, from the moment of conception.
As the human being is the most valuable creature of any organized society, it has undeniable rights to temporal property which must be fully respected and protected.
Now, natural rights involve duties because natural law, even though it confers rights, imposes corresponding duties.
In fact, we recognize and favour the right to life. We want these amendments to be accepted, and abortion means employed before the period of implantation.
For instance, the right to life entails the right to maintain it. The right to a decent existence entails the duty to act with dignity. Moreover, if the right to start a family derives from the natural right of man to choose freely his state in life, members of parliament then have an obligation to take financial, social, cultural and ethical measures to consolidate the general stability of man's environment and facilitate the uneasy role that rests with him.
Mr. Speaker, we favour the use of such abortion methods before the period of implantation, and we say so in the house as we have been requested to by the physicians of the province of Quebec and the Association of French-speaking medical practitioners. Indeed, immediately after implantation, life exists. Doctors do not wish to have to procure abortion contrary to the basic aim of medicine, to wit, the protection of the human being, of the individual and of the foetus inside or outside the uterus.
Also on the basis of those very principles of the protection of life and of the right to life, of the human being or of the foetus, the government must be at the service of man.
Criminal Code
Therefore it is incumbent on us to pass legislation likely to protect the weakest. We should protect the most disposessed and without the means to defend themselves. We should protect the human being still in the mother's womb, the foetus.
Some time ago, the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) made recommendations to the house concerning the killing of baby seals. The baby seals, he said, cannot see. To insure their protection and the survival of their species, the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry introduced legislation to that effect. He showed much solicitude for the baby seals that cannot see; and yet he displayed flagrant inhumanity towards the foetus that does not see and is unable to defend itself.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
It is the government's duty to comply with the people's wishes, provided it is physically possible and morally desirable to do so. It must therefore find and retain a truly democratic formula of life in society, based upon just laws. This is why we are opposing the
bin.
We want those abortion methods to be applied before implantation because we are in favour of fair legislation based on fair principles which will permit every individual to enjoy social, economic, political and religious freedom.
Through a collective effort, prosperity, security and cultural progress will be assured.
Mr. Speaker, I could quote several other doctors who have submitted briefs to us, as well as to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), but it seems he does not want to take them into consideration.
Mr. Speaker, we are certainly in favour of applying those methods before the period of implantation, since I have in hand an article about the life of a foetus. It is a note appearing in an article written by Stefan Cardinal Wyszynski, and I quote;
This story was issued by Stefan Cardinal Wyszynski as a pastoral aid to help resist pressure from the Red Polish government for abandonment of the church's stand against abortion.
The Communist government of Poland was then exerting all kinds of pressures on the Church in order to prevent the government from opposing the abortion law. In Canada, unfortunately, a so-called Liberal government which advocates the establishment of a just society wants to force on us what the Communist government wanted to force on Poland.

April 29, 1969
Criminal Code
Here is what Cardinal Wyszynski wrote about the life of a foetus:

October 5: Today my life began. My parents do not know it yet. X am as small as a seed of an apple, but it is I already. And I am to be a girl. I shall have blond hair and azure eyes. Just about everything is settled though. Even the fact that I shall love flowers.
October 19: I have grown a little, but I am still too small to do anything by myself. My mother does just about everything for me. And what is odd-she still doesn't even know that she is carrying me here under her heart, and that she is helping me already, that she is even feeding me with her own blood. She is so good.
Some say that I am not a real person yet, that only my mother exists. But I am a real person, just as a small crumb of bread is yet truly bread. My mother is. And I am.
October 23: My mouth is just beginning to open now. Just think in a year or so I shall be laughing, and later talking. I know that my first word shall be-mama.
October 28: My heart began to beat today all by itself. From now on it shall gently beat for the rest of my life. Without ever stopping to rest. And after many years it will tire. It will stop, and then I shall die.
November 2: I am growing a bit every day. My arms and legs are beginning to take shape. But I have to wait a long time yet before those little legs will raise me to my mother's arms, before those little arms will be able to gather flowers and embrace my father.
November 12: Tiny fingers are beginning to form on my hands. Funny how small they are, I shall be able to stroke my mother's hair with them. And I shall take her hair to my mouth and she will probably say: "Oh, nasty!"
November 20: It wasn't until today that the doctor told mom that I am living here under her heart. Oh, how happy she must be! Are you happy, mom?
November 25: My mom and dad are probably thinking about a name for me. But they don't even know that I am a little girl. They are probably saying Andy. But I want to be called Cathy. I am getting so big already.
December 10: My hair is growing. It is smooth and bright and shiny. I wonder what kind of hair mom has?
December 13: I am just about able to see. It is dark around me. When mom brings me into the world, it will be full of sunshine and flowers. I have never seen a flower, you know. But what I want more than anything is to see my mom. How do you look, mom?
December 24: I wonder if mom hears the whispering beat of my heart? Some children come into the world a little sick. And then the delicate hands of the doctor perform miracles to bring them to health. But my heart is strong and healthy. It beats so evenly-tup-tup, tup-tup ... You'll have a healthy little daughter, mom!
December 28: Today my mother killed me.


Mr. Speaker, it is precisely to prevent such atrocities that we ask that amendment No. 24 be adopted, because it says:
-that those means are employed before the period of implantation.
This is in order to prevent such murders by unscrupulous people who would be allowed by the act to do as they please without any consideration for life, or for the principles any sound society needs to perpetuate itself.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, we have before us another important amendment to Bill C-150, which seeks to add the following words to clause 18:
-that those means are employed before the period of implantation.
I have not heard the remarks made by hon. members on this subject, but nevertheless I wish to make a few comments on the importance of considering human life as a whole, and more particularly at the time when it begins, according to scientific evidence.
It must be recognized that a certain period of time may elapse before the fertilized ovum is really implanted. That is the basis of the amendment that I find most logical. Even if impregnation takes place, if there is no environment propitions to the development of the embryo, of course there can be no human life. If necessary, one could boil down the question to some experiments made recently, when scientists succeeded in reproducing the phenomenon of fecundation in laboratories. Can the result of such experiments be considered as a real human being? I doubt it very much.
Therefore, in the days following fecundation, it may happen that implantation does not take place and I believe that in such a case it would only be fair to consider the possibility of adopting an amendment which would specify that before such methods are used, nobody can be accused of having performed an illegal abortion.
Mr. Speaker the matter now under study deserves our full attention. It is not a question of taking only religious beliefs into consideration. In fact, there are unfortunately too many members who believe that those who oppose abortion are only doing so on religious grounds, because if religious factors are one aspect of our argumentation, it remains that they are only secondary. What we are considering first and foremost is the scientific viewpoint.
April 29, 1969



The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) has spoken at length on the report submitted by Dr. Jutras to the committee on justice and legal affairs. This report demonstrates most eloquently the merits of our arguments.
I can well remember that after hearing Dr. Jutras' evidence, all the members of the committee were dumbfounded. They were all left gaping and no one put a question to the man who had just given us such an extraordinary demonstration of what life is.
I am of the opinion that we would make a serious mistake if we admitted that the human being exists only after he comes out of his mother's womb. This demonstration left us dumbfounded and I wish that all those who were present would attempt to deny it. I wish they would express their views or ask the questions they were unable to ask at that time.
Mr. Speaker, it is normal that we, who are only laymen in the matter, should rely on experts.
The experts prove that there is perhaps less difference between a child of five or six and a man of 21 than between the foetus at the moment of fertilization and at the end of pregnancy. There is less transformation before than after birth.
As stated by Dr. Jutras, we remember quite well part of the events which occurred when we were five or six years old. However, most cells from that stage have been renewed many many times, even if essentially the individual has remained exactly the same, because the human soul, the essential principle of individuality, cannot undergo any transformation. This is exactly what happens at birth. As many changes occur during adult life as from conception to birth.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
This explains the importance of human life. When the amendment under consideration states that "those means are employed before the period of implantation", it is entirely normal since before that implantation it is impossible to speak of development.
As I see it, it is the reason for the amendment and that is why we should support it.
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, too many members are not interested in this matter, and it is a disappointment to those who take their responsibilities seriously and would like the law to be well thought out so that they would not incur reproaches later on.
Let us really consider each of the amendments and the possible consequences if
Criminal Code
adoption of the bill or rejection of the proposed amendments in a few years from now, led to complete chaos.
It is in a way what is happening in countries where, under the pretense of being in the van, abortion was authorized. In Japan, where abortion is obtainable on resquest for only a few dollars, the government is beginning to realize it made a mistake.
According to what a newspaper, wrote last week, the Japanese population is steadily dropping off and there will be no Japanese left within a century.
What is happening in England is hardly more encouraging. According to an article, in last week's issue of Le Droit, a doctor is supposed to have performed 62 abortions in one day, which is an unprecedented occurrence.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. In all kindness, I would like to remind the hon. member that he is not allowed to deal in a general way with section 18 of Bill No. C-150; he should confine his remarks to the amendment under consideration, introduced by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) which reads partially as follows: -page 43, the "period" after the word "practitioner" on line 8 on page 43 and inserting the following words: "and",
(e) that those means are employed before the period of Implantation."
The hon. member, together with a number of others, has been indulging in generalities on clause 18 and I would like him to confine his remarks to the amendment before the house.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you have taken the trouble to consider the question thoroughly, but I can tell you it is not just a matter of a period and-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The question is not to remind the hon. member the rules for the sake of a period but to ask him to confine his remarks to the amendment before us.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the proposed amendment would be to prevent people from being prosecuted for having procured abortion, this being, in fact, was impossible, since the impregnated ovule was not implanted.

April 29, 1969
Criminal Code
This is a very technical matter that would require thorough consideration, but if the hon. members did not bother about scrutinizing it, considering it throughly-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I think the hon. member cannot impute any motives to any member I ask him once again to limit his remarks to the amendment before us.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that whenever we speak in the house, it should not be merely to enlighten chairs and desks, but to try to convince our hon. colleagues of the need of an amendment. If such is not our function, I wonder what it could be.
Our business is to try and state our case as well as we possibly can, in order to reach a clear understanding of the matter in hand. And as a good number of people turn a deaf ear, we try to wake them up and make them understand what those amendments are all about.
Mr. Speaker, if we thoroughly examine the matter, we have to acknowledge that it is logical and based on scientific grounds and I wonder whether every member should not make some efforts to vote in favour of the amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I know that sometimes we indulge in digressions but I can assure you that it is not out of ill-will. The point is merely to deal with amendments in depth and to convince the house to vote seriously on a matter which will have repercussions on the future.


@Acting Speaker: Is the
house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: In my
opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75 (11) the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Gatineau) moved: amendment No. 26:
That Bill C-150, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act, be amended by deleting in clause 18 the words "or would be likely to"' on line 4 on page 43.
Mr. Speaker, I think there are at least three schools of thought on abortion.
According to one of them, abortion could be secured at will, and the right to abortion should be a matter between the pregnant woman and her doctor.
A second school of thought would not allow abortion on any ground whatever, and a third contends that it should very seldom be permitted, as is proposed in clause 18 of Bill C-150.
I think that clause 18 (4) (c) of this bill is too important for us to pass it right away because if it contains obscure wording it could be given a meaning much beyond the one intended by its proponents.
Mr. Speaker, clause 18 (4) (c) reads as follows:
-has by certificate in writing stated that in its opinion the continuation of the pregnancy of such female person would or would be likely to endanger her life or health, and-
Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to follow the argumentation of clause 18 (4) (c) when I read it and I confine myself strictly to the French text of Bill C-150-
-would or would be likely to endanger her life or health, and-
I think there is a contradiction here. I was asked why I recommend deleting the words "or would be likely". In my opinion, the expression: "would be likely to endanger" is too vague and would leave wide open the interpretation of this legislation.
And if I refer to the Petit Dictionnaire Larousse, I can read that the word "certaine-ment" means "assurement", (certainly) "in-dubitablement" (indubitably). As for the
April 29, 1969

expression "assurement", (assuredly), it means "certainement", (certainly) "surement" (surely); as for the word "probablement" (probably), the Petit Larousse givesi it the meaning of "vraisemblablement" (likely). As for the word "vraisemblablement" (likely), its meaning is "avec vraisemblance" "selon la vraisemblance" (with all likelihood).
This is why I proposed the amendment to delete the words "or would be likely to".
Another aspect of clause 18 (4) (c) on which I would like to comment is the word "health". And, Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that one did not include in clause 18 a paragraph allowing the governor in council to enact regulations in order to define what is meant by the word "health".
Indeed, I would like to have an answer to the following question:	What is health?
Where does it begin? Where does it end? Still, we must admit that we are dealing here with a sector of medicine that lends itself more easily than others to individual interpretation. Consequently, psychiatrists are far from unanimous on this point.
Mr. Speaker, some remarks have been made concerning the word "health". I refer to volume No. 16 of the proceedings and evidence of the standing committee on justice and legal affairs at its March 27, 1969 sitting.
On page 801, to a question put to him on the word "health", Mr. D. H. Christie assistant deputy attorney general replied, and I quote:
So far as we are aware there is no legal definition of the word, and presumably it would be interpreted in accordance with its ordinary dictionary meaning.
To another question put to him on the same page, on the same topic, his reply was as follows:
Once the courts define the word it will take on the aspect of a judicial definition.
Presumably, in accordance with the ordinary rules, they will apply the ordinary dictionary meaning to the word.
On page 802, in reply to a question on the definition of the word "health", Mr. J. A. Scollin, director of the criminal law section of the Department of Justice, made the following comment:
At the meetings which took place between representatives of ... the Canadian Medical Association, the advice of the representatives of the Canadian Medical Association was that from a medical point of view they preferred the word "health", treating mental and physical health as a whole; and that the word "health", from a medical point of view-from their point of view-
Criminal Code
On page 803, giving his own definition of the word "health", Mr. Scollin said, and I quote:
I really have no difficulty myself... "Health" means just what it means; mental and physical- the total health of the being. It would not give me any difficulty at all.
If I refer to No. 16 of the proceedings of the committee on justice and legal affairs of March 27, 1969, I see that my colleague the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) made a few comments based on what had been said before the committee on health and social welfare, when studying the first draft of Bill C-195, and I quote:
The committee in its consideration intended health to mean physical and mental health and not the wider definition given to it by the World Health Organization.
I continue my quotation:
The committee feels that a simple amendment to the proposed legislation should establish that a clear and direct serious threat to the mother's health must be present.
In my opinion, the door is left open, because persons wishing to get an abortion will give psychological and social reasons.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I proposed amendment No. 26 to delete the expression "or would be likely" which appear on page 43 of Bill C-150.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I hope that this time the hon. member will excuse me if I speak in English. I have to be very specific. The terms he referred to are rather specific also. I find three distinct parts in his argumentation. I want to deal with each one of them.
He said first that there might be a difference between the French version and the English version of the section.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)

We have already received an opinion that the two versions relating to the words on page 43, line 4, "would or would be likely", which come in the larger context of "in its opinion the continuation of the pregnancy of such female person would or would be likely to endanger her life or health", and the French version "mettrait certainement ou probablement en danger la vie ou la sante de cette derniere", do correspond. However, I have asked the department to look into this matter again.
I also understand that it is the practice, if there is a subtle difference between the two

April 29, 1969
Criminal Code
versions, to bring them into accord in the sense of the English version "would or would be likely" by way of clerical correction by parliamentary counsel. I want to assure the hon. member that I will look into it again, but it would merely involve a clerical comparison of both versions.
As to the substance of the amendment, which in the English version seeks to delete the words "or would be likely to", and which in the French version seeks to eliminate the words "ou probablement", I would have to recommend to the house the rejection of the amendment. If the words were removed, the therapeutic abortion committee would be restricted to the prognostication of certainty only. We would be asking for an opinion of medical certainty from a committee of doctors that the life and health of the mother would be in danger. Such certainty would be virtually impossible to achieve.
I recall the speech on second reading of the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle), who is a medical doctor and who dealt with this very point. The most that can reasonably be required of a professional medical judgment is an honest and competent prognosis of the likely or probable medical consequences. I do not think we could expect anything more from a medical judgment, and I think we could expect less from a legal opinion. The realm of certainty is beyond the limitation of professional judgment, which is what the hon. member is asking from the medical profession if those words are eliminated.
There is one final point which the hon. member made that is not quite pertinent to his amendment and which has to do with the definition of "health". The earlier house committee on health and welfare, the committee on justice and legal affairs, the Canadian Medical Association when it appeared before the earlier committee, and the Canadian Bar Association were all unable to arrive at a satisfactory definition of health. This is a question that is left to medical judgment. Certainly it has to be taken in a global sense. You cannot isolate physical from mental health; they interact and react each upon the other. In that sense health is incapable of definition, and this will be left to the good professional judgment of medical practitioners to decide.
For these reasons and subject to the clerical problem that I outlined, which is clerical only and can be remedied by parliamentary counsel if that is necessary, I would have to recommend to the house that it reject the amendment.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are the following:

The hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie)-Transport; the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis)- Industry; the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski)-Agriculture.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of Bill C-150, to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, and motion No. 26, Mr. Clermont.
Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I was very glad to hear the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) admit that there had been an error in the drafting.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I did not admit that at all. I said that we would look into the matter again and that if it were a mistake the two versions could be reconciled clerically.


Philip Bernard Rynard: There certainly is an error because there is no certainty. A doctor could not be certain.


John Napier Turner: I admitted that.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Then there is an error in clarification, if you want to put it in that way.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think we are talking about two different
April 29, 1969

things. There is the question of the drafting of the words, and there is the question of medical judgment. I admit that there is no such thing as a medical judgment that is certain, which is the reason I have to reject the amendment.


Philip Bernard Rynard: The point I am making concerns the drafting of the words that would be legally applied. A doctor could not be certain. He could use the best judgment and the best equipment that is available, and we do have great diagnostic equipment today. All who practice medicine have seen people get better who they felt would not get better. On the other hand, they have seen people die who they felt should not have died. There is always the unexpected, though this does not happen very often, I was very glad to hear the minister admit that there is a problem here and that he will look into it. There will be more objections if the matter is not corrected and made very plain to the house.


Mr. Ovide Lallamme (Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Justice.
I ask him to clarify the French and the English versions, since there is apparently a strong tendency to stick to the English version, which says:
Would or would be likely to-
I wonder whether it would not be desirable, in order to simplify both versions, to come back to the original version which read as follows:
-likely to endanger her life or her health-
This is the question I put to the minister.
As long as that has not been clarified, I will be inclined to support the motion of the hon. member of Gatineau (Mr. Clermont) because I cannot see how the words "would" and "would be likely to" can be reconciled in the same text, as those are two contradictory terms.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Mr. Romuald Rodrigue (Beauce):: I endorse the remarks of the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Laflamme) regarding the words "or would be likely". Sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph (4) reads as follows:
c) has by certificate in writing stated that in its opinion the continuation of the pregnancy of such 29180-515
Criminal Code
female person would or would be likely to endanger her life or health;
Of course, I also agree with the member for Gatineau (Mr. Clermont) when he says that he finds it hard to understand the grouping of these words. Not only did I have difficulty to understand this phrase but, it is somewhat difficult for me to understand the whole paragraph 4(c). It should be entirely rewritten. I feel that if we deleted the words "would be likely" the meaning would be more precise and would also prevent different interpretations either on the part of doctors, or on the part of the person who is seeking an abortion. Moreover, it would perhaps avoid litigations.
I also share the opinion expressed by Dr. Legare when he appeared before the committee of justice and legal affairs. He was answering a question put by the member for Calgary-North (Mr. Woolliams). This is what he said:
In fact, this is why it is so difficult to legislate. When legislators have in all good faith drawn up a legislation, you may be sure that someone will come and try to find faults in the text. It is quite possible that such is the case. In fact, the difficulty for the legislator is to draw up legislation whose text is well-structured in order to prevent abuses in one way or another. This is not impossible however. We can always try but I do not know whether it will be a success from a legal viewpoint. I am not acquainted with that field.
Abortion is a rather serious surgical operation. According to Dr. Cairns, who appeared in Ottawa on December 14, 1967 before a parliamentary committee responsible for studying the question of abortion, therapeutic abortion performed under the best possible circumstances, as it is done in Denmark and in Sweden has a death rate ten times higher than deliveries attended by obstetricians.
In a Toronto hospital where 250 abortions have been performed in the last 12 years, the rate of complications is 9 per cent.
This means that errors of judgment are possible. Some decisions must be made and the wording should be clarified further in order to avoid errors that would naturally be imputed to a doctor or to an abortion committee that might have been established.
Many scientific discoveries have been made. The risks of error are much slighter, since the number of cases where therapeutic abortion would be needed is reported to be

April 29, 1969
Criminal Code
around 3 out of 10,000 pregnancies. I feel this is further reason to prompt the legislator to make the law more explicit.
Any abuse should be avoided unlike certain countries where, after abortions have been allowed for a while, people are wondering if it was not a mistake.
I agree with the hon. member for Gatineau who moved this amendment that it is necessary to clarify paragraph (c). I hope the Minister of Justice will be agreeable to this.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the speech made by the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Clermont), I want to congratulate him for the courage he has shown in spite of his party's admonition.
I also hope that people will finally understand that what French Canadians or Canadians are expressing in their own terms is that one cannot legislate with any certainty when there is some doubt.
I do not intend to play on words, even if the debate is a very sophisticated one, as the minister might object. Nevertheless, there is a distinction to be made.
Mr. Speaker, paragraph (c) of clause 18 reads as follows:
(c) has by certificate in writing stated that in its opinion the continuation of the pregnancy of such female person would or would be likely to endanger her life or health-
Mr. Speaker, we are asked to adopt this provision on the ground that the Criminal Code is evasive, non-applicable and difficult to understand. We are asked to insert that paragraph which attempts to establish a link between the danger inherent to pregnancy and the danger to the life or health of the mother.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that that is not logical and that is why I give my wholehearted support to the motion submitted by the hon. member for Gatineau.
Mr. Speaker, the progress of medical science has been amazing, as the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) said a moment ago. Less and less will pregnancy be likely to endanger the health of the mother, and still less will it be likely to endanger her life.
Medical experience has shown-the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) could probably corroborate this-that German measles

can in some way endanger the life and the health of the mother and even of the child. However, last week, I had the pleasure and the honour of meeting a group of doctors from my riding and, in their opinion, such cases are extremely rare.
Mr. Speaker, this is a borderline case. But the minister would like to put together in the same clause not only such cases where the woman's health would likely be impaired, but all abortion cases without distinction.
If a woman pretends to be ill to justify an abortion, the medical practitioner will then abort her, thus killing a human being. No attempt was made to find out whether that woman was truly ill.
Mr. Speaker, doctors agree, as a rule, that a pregnant woman often claims to be sick whereas she is not really. On the contrary, a woman is ill when she cannot bring forth a child, not when she is bearing one. That is why this is completely illogical. It should be the other way around, Mr. Speaker.
A woman is considered ill-and I challenge the member for Hull to deny this-when she cannot have a child. Doctors are at a loss to find a way whereby that woman could satisfy her natural need to give birth to a child. Pregnancy is not an illness.
Having heard other members of parliament, I think it is a mistake to tell women that pregnancy is a form of illness. Not at all. Several women claim nevertheless to be sick when they are pregnant. Why? Because they feel they have lost something of their beauty, etc. They say they are sick for such reasons of a psychic nature.
To the woman who consults him, a doctor will say what is in the law. He will tell her that he can state, by way of a certificate, that in his opinion the continuation of pregnancy-for this woman who says she is sick, psychologically, even if she does not admit it frankly-would or would be likely to endanger her life.	,
The law leaves much latitude for its interpretation. I think we cannot afford not to clarify the situation.
In my opinion, the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Laflamme) has clearly established the difference between the French and English versions. This is a poor French translation.
April 29, 1969

That is why we must consider the situation very seriously.
Pregnancy, Mr. Speaker-and it is important to repeat it-is not a sickness. The doctors themselves acknowledge the tact, and since the hon. member for Hull does not deny it, that proves I am right.
The fact that she is pregnant does not necessarily mean that a woman is sick. Some women feel temporary discomfort, but generally with the almost safe medical advances and new techniques, few are really sick to the point that their health or life is endangered. That is why, Mr. Speaker, even if the words "health" or "life" remain, we cannot leave the words "or would be likely to".
We can at least ask the minister to add thereto, as the hon. member for Montmorency suggested a while ago, the words "likely to endanger" so that the physician will have to prove that the condition of the patient is liable-since there is a fifty-fifty chance-to endanger her health or her life.
To show how important the shades of meaning of those words are, I would like to remind the minister of two precedents that already have been mentioned. It is quite important to clarify the situation for physicians, experts, professionals and to protect them. In addition, we must give precise details, since some cases could go before the courts, in order to help judges and lawyers. Moreover, the minister has spoken about it a while ago.
For several years, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian and British courts have been broadly interpreting-and I insist on the word broadly-the reservation provided in subsection 2 of section 209 of the Criminal Code, so that it is now generally recognized-we know the great influence of precedents

that to save the life of the mother, it is not necessary to wait until the latter is in an imminent danger of death.
And to confirm my statement, I rely on two specific cases to show how important it is to specify the terms of that section not only to protect the patient, the father and the mother, but also the physician and the courts.
a (5:10 p.m.)
In the famous Bourne case in England-and I hope my colleagues remember it-the judge 29180-5151
Criminal Code
stated that the doctor had the right to procure the abortion of his patient. It must be observed that it is not a question of interpretation but rather an extract from the judgment. The presiding judge alleged that "the doctor has the right to procure the abortion of his patient if he thinks the pregnancy will likely contribute-note the significance of those words likely contribute-to ruin the physical and mental health of the latter".
Legally, the words "will likely contribute to ruin the physical health" mean that there is more than a fifty-fifty chance. From the scientific point of view this is almost a certainty.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, the word "likely" is not necessary here. It is even dangerous.
This interpretation was later corroborated in the Newton vs Stongo case, where it was explained that "the protection of the woman's health meant the protection not only of her physical health but of her mental health also".
The courts of justice, the doctors or patients can go as far as that in requesting abortion if the word "likely" is not clearly defined. The word "health" should also be defined.
In that judgment the court ruled "that the protection of the woman's health meant the protection not only of her physical health but of her mental health also."
In the bill now under consideration mention is made of health in general in paragraph (c). What do we mean by health?
If a pregnant woman has a headache, visits her doctor-the hon. member for Hull, for instance-and requests an abortion, that doctor can read the Act and say that the headache in question "would or would be likely to endanger her life or health". Then abortion would be allowed. The headache would be considered as an unusual and abnormal illness and indicate that the physical condition of that woman is deficient at this time.
Mr. Speaker, let us define the word "health", for the matter is of consequence. Otherwise, one might allege all kinds of indispositions to request abortion.
The more I look into that legislation, the more I feel that the government is opening the door to all possible excuses not to discharge its responsibilities and apply the law.

April 29. 1969
Criminal Code
That is why it does not give a clear definition of the word "health" and resorts to the word "likely".
Now, the medical practitioner will not have to be sure that the health or life of the mother is being endangered, and any illness might be considered as threatening one's health. Consequently, it could be a valid excuse to ask for an abortion.
Mr. Speaker, if the house rejects the amendment moved by the hon. member for Gatineau, it will prove irresponsible, since the hon. members' basic duty is to be explicit. Mr. Speaker, before completing my remarks, I would like to tell the house that I am pleased to see, as I was saying at the very beginning of my speech, that the hon. member for Gatineau was not afraid to rise and to move an amendment to the bill since everything cannot be perfect from the start.
In my opinion, it is important that everyone should contribute in some way to the improvement of the legislation. That is why we are legislators and if we do not express our opinions, we do not fulfil our responsibilities and duties.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to see that the hon. member for Gatineau was not deterred by the fear of being given a good scolding by the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who do not want to understand anything. However, it is important that his colleagues, the members of his party, should take the floor to encourage him and that the members of the Ralliement Credi-tiste should rise to support him because he feels lonely. I think it is a pity, Mr. Speaker.
Therefore I would like to invite his colleagues to support him, as all of us should. All hon. members should be free to move amendments which might improve the legislation. Perhaps the minister thinks he has a full knowledge of everything, but I have a feeling that it would be to his advantage to listen to what people say to him, in order to improve the legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I have so much to say that I just do not know where to stop. My head is simply buzzing with ideas. But if we fail to delete the words "or would be likely to" in the wording of the bill, we are on the wrong track and fail to assume our responsibilities. Let us be honest enough to ask ourselves where this law is likely to lead us.

Could any member or the minister tell me about a single case in which under the law, a doctor would not be allowed to perform an abortion?
There would not be a single case, where abortion would be forbidden. Indeed all the doors are left wide open, every pretext and every excuse is good, because the government fails to assume itsi responsibilities and, under all sorts of phony excuses is legislating without giving us the slightest assurance, that the law will be effective, in some cases at least.
The government is introducing a bill that will open every door; and tells us: Here's for you, all cases are permitted. Go ahead. Abortion is legalized. No more problems, thanks to the great, big Liberal party.
Mr. Speaker, this is an irresponsible approach. The minister does not realize the awkwardness of his position and we would all admire him if he had the guts to, urge his colleague, the hon. member for Hull to enter the debate instead of merely telling us that we are wrong.
Mr. Speaker, ministers would profit by considering what ordinary members are doing. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) is wrong when he says that it is merely a subtle distinction, and house should be enlightened as to the exact meaning of the words probable-ment, certainement and sante. Otherwise there will always be some grave doubt in our mind and, as I said earlier, any doubt involves a risk which, in the present case, may lead us to commit a criminal act.
In conclusion, I urge for the third time the hon. member for Hull to tell us whether our statements are true or not.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) I extend my congratulations to the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Clermont) on taking a stand that he feels he should take regardless of the position of his party. However, any similarity between my views and those of the hon. member for Lotbiniere on this question end there. That, indeed, is the reason for my taking the floor for just a few minutes.
I want to say that I feel, and I am sure most if not all of my colleagues agree with me, that this amendment must be rejected. The hon. member for Lotbiniere suggested.
April 29, 1969



that this amendment was a way of improving the legislation. I submit that it destroys the whole attempt to bring our abortion laws in line at least with modern thinking and modern practice.
If we were to take out the words that the hon. member for Gatineau wishes to be removed, then the section would permit therapeutic abortions only when a therapeutic abortions committee was absolutely certain, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that the continuation of the pregnancy would endanger the life or health of the pregnant woman. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that that would mean practically no abortions at all. What therapeutic abortions committee could be absolutely certain that that would be the result?
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons that members like the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) and other medical men in the house have supported the idea of improving our abortion laws is that at the present time they are in a difficult position. At the present time the law is unclear, and many a time a doctor just does not know what to do because of the uncertain state of the law. If the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Gatineau were carried the law would be worse. No therapeutic abortions committee could ever be in a position of absolute certainty, and so there would be no such certificates and no matter how much an abortion might seem to be necessary there would be a very real danger it would not be permitted at all.
In such circumstances you would still find doctors who were human beings, who had compassion, who felt in certain cases that this should be done and who would go ahead in spite of there not being a certificate from the committee, and the law would be still in a mess. So, Mr. Speaker, as I said at the start I cannot but give my hon. friend across the way full marks for moving an amendment that does not have the support of his party, but I think the position stated by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) is absolutely right. If we are going to write this new abortion law into our statute books let us not destroy it by wording it in such a way that it would not have any operative effect at all. Therefore I ask the house to reject this amendment.


Gaston Clermont: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) permit a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: With pleasure.
Criminal Code


Gaston Clermont: If the hon. member followed attentively my remarks, he must have realized that I was dealing strictly with the French version of paragraph (c), subclause 4 of clause 18 and I even gave the Larousse definition of the word certainement. And that word, even according to the Larouse definition, leaves some doubt, Mr. Speaker, for according to that dictionary, the word certainement also means surement. But that does not mean that there is no doubt. So I referred to the French version.
As I am not a linguist, I cannot comment on the English version. But according to my interpretation of the word certainement, if doctors have a valid doubt, I believe that word would justify their performing an abortion.
What I do not accept, Mr. Speaker, is the use of the words "ou probablement". If the officials of the Department of Justice find a more adequate expression, I will have no objection. But I cannot see-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member asked permission to ask a question, but I believe he is now making another speech.


Gaston Clermont: Maybe I should have raised a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, as I would not like the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, by his remarks, to leave the house under the impression that I am absolutely against abortion. But in my opinion, the word certainement leaves the doctor free to perform an abortion, if there is a valid doubt.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I take a moment to answer the hon. member's question which I am very pleased to have on the record. May I say that I am less an expert in the two languages than he is, much less, and I appreciate the fact that he is concerned about the French text, but it does seem to me that we need to have in the English version the two concepts, namely, that it would endanger or that it would be likely to endanger the life or health of the female person and, by the same token, it seems to me that in the French text there must be the same two concepts. There must be the idea of certainty but there must also be the idea of reasonable probability.
If better words can be found by experts in the French language I am sure the Minister of Justice would be quite happy to accept

April 29, 1969
Criminal Code
them. But I think that just as the two concepts are necessary in the English version so the two concepts must also be in the French version. If you have in the French version only the concept or certainty, even with the nuance the hon. member for Gatineau has put on it, it seems to me it would have the effect I described earlier of limiting a committee from making recommendations for abortions where they really were needed.
I appreciate the last remark of the hon. member for Gatineau that he is not opposed to abortions where they are necessary, that he is merely trying to straighten out the wording of the French text. But it does seem to me that the wording in English is satisfactory, and so far as the French is concerned there must be the same two concepts, one of certainty and one of reasonable probability.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, there were a few digs at me, this afternoon, as to medical science, health and especially as to the interpretation of the words certaine-ment and probablement.
I do not intend to speak at length but I hope the members opposite may one day leave to future generations the speeches they delivered during the last few days and I am afraid that one of their descendants might say to his mother: Good were it for that man if he had never been born.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member for Lotbiniere on a question of privilege.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member for Hull is a doctor, I would like to tell him that thanks to the progress of science, it is more and more probable that even after an abortion the foetus is still alive and it will then say to the Liberal party: You wanted me to die and I live.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: We have daily examples of this.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: I would like to explain somewhat to the house the meaning of both texts. In my opinion and as a doctor, if one of the two words expresses adequately the thought of:

-would or would be likely to injure-


I think one should delete the word cer-tainement because medicine is still an art and even today there are not only diseases but also patients. One can operate today on somebody under normal conditions, and if the patient dies, one is incapable of determining, even with the help of the post mortem examination what he died from.
Thus, medicine still remains an art. There is never any certainty in medicine and there will never be, because the doctor works on man who is subject to changes and on cells which are not identical in all individuals. The proof of it is the phenomenon of rejection and you cannot graft on victims of serious burns the skin of another person. On the contrary, it is necessary to use the skin of the patient. Then, it simply means there is no certainty in the field of medicine, and consequently, this should not be included in the wording of any legislation. And if you want to give a legal definition of health, there is a great risk of making a mistake. Indeed, if lawyers find it often difficult to interpret legislation, how would they manage to express their views on health, since they do not know anything about it.
So, law should be left to lawyers and to legislators, and health, especially its definition, should be left to medicine. It belongs to doctors to define health; and the bill has taken this into account. Then, let no one say that doctors are against the measure.
An association of 25,000 doctors, which includes all the doctors in Canada, that is the Canadian Medical Association wrote on January 29, 1969-I saw this by accident while I was glancing through a few publications-and I quote:

We have recently obtained a copy of your Bill C-150 to amend the Criminal Code, and again wish to congratulate you and your colleagues in bringing in legislation to amend the Criminal Code in respect to therapeutic abortion



It groups 25,000 Canadian doctors, including those of the province of Quebec.
Now, there are dissident doctors in the province of Quebec as everywhere else. Of the 11 provinces, some protest against the federal government.
The same thing exists in medical ranks. The interpretation of certain individuals has
April 29, 1969

been given; I shall mention that of associations such as the Canadian Medical Association.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How many provinces?


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Ten. There will be another one soon: the federal district.
I follow the idea of the member for Gatineau (Mr. Clermont); there must have been some confusion, some error in the translation or interpretation. That is why we insist so much, when requiring a document, on the original copy being produced.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member for Shefford on a point of order.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: I should like to point out to the hon. member that he may not impute motives to the hon. member for Gatineau.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: The member for Gatineau always has good intentions. That is why the wording of an act-and we discussed this with my colleague, Mr. Clermont-seems to have been poorly translated-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I should like to remind the hon. member that he must identify members by the name of their ridings and address his remarks to the Chair.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: He is such a good friend of mine that I often slip up on that: I apologize. If the member for Gatineau belonged to the medical profession, I am sure he would have removed the word "Certainement" and left the word "probablement" for the reasons I have just given.
Medicine will always be an art, Mr. Speaker, regardless of any new scientific discoveries; for it will always involve that undefinable element that is life. It is almost as difficult to define life as it is to detect cancer, in spite of all our modern scientific methods, precisely because we are dealing with the phenomenon of the multiplication of cells.
So, Mr. Speaker, if it is possible to find a solution, I would suggest that the word "certainement" be deleted with a view to perhaps enabling the medical profession to do its work properly.
Criminal Code


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I have been
listening for the past few minutes to a French lesson, to the meaning to be given to the words certainement or probablement. I know very well that if the government maintains its position, the word probablement will probably be replaced by the word certainement and in the next election, the government will certainly be defeated.
There is a difference, Mr. Speaker, between probablement and certainement.
Naturally, one is always sure that his cause is just and one is surprised by the position adopted by others, namely that of the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle). I understand what he means, I agree with him when he says that medecine is an art of probabilities, that is that one can never state categorically that something will happen or that a certain treatment will surely cure the patient.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
We object to abortion for the same reason that the member for Hull has just given. Therefore, the doctor never can say whether the woman's life or health is endangered. It is exactly the argument he put forward. Medicine is an art of probabilities. The doctor never can say positively in connection with a pregnant woman whether the pregnancy will affect the mother's health or life.
That is the main reason why we are discussing this bill. Feelings or politics are not involved, it is only a matter of life and death. The point is to pass an act or not. Our arguments are serious and well-founded.
In this connection the hon. member for Hull gave us a chance and I thank him for it. If we take up his own words, we must acknowledge that medicine is an art of probabilities. As abortion is part of medicine, we cannot see why we should now be legislating on that matter. That is the very reason why we are discussing so much.
Mr. Speaker, in a letter that the Alliance pour la vie sent to members on November 20, 1968, one could read, and I quote:
Dear Hon. Member:
It seems that you will soon be called upon to vote amendments to the Criminal Code involving radical changes in the clauses concerning abortion. Anyone who considers carefully the proposed amendments realize that they involve major changes, regardless of any assurance given to the contrary.

April 29, 1969
Criminal Code
Mr. Speaker, the second paragraph is most important.
Unfortunately, few members have had the time or the opportunity to consider the amendments carefully. Therefore, very few clearly understand the meaning and the reasons of the amendments proposed. We noticed that such a confusion exists not only among members of the government party and the opposition parties, but even among members of the cabinet.
The Alliance pour la vie gives evidence oi that in the third paragraph, which reads as follows:
During a conversation with one of our members on August 29 last, the Minister of Justice admitted that the government had formed its opinion on the matter of abortion before due consideration had been made. He-
Mr. Speaker, is there anything less responsible, more immature than to propose amendments to a legislation before having considered it, all its implications and all its consequences?
The hon. member for Hull or rather the dull member for Hull, as said the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau), said that he was eager to know what succeeding generations will think of our interventions.
I do not know whether he has listened to or read my other speeches on this subject because I spoke on several occasions. In fact, this is not the last one either since I intend to speak on each amendment.
As I have pointed out, I want at least posterity, that is to say my own children and others, to know that we stood our ground, that we made our views known, that we challenged the position of the government on this question. I feel sure that sooner or later we shall overcome.
The standing committee on health, welfare and social affairs held hearings on the question in the fall and winter. However, as the proceedings will show, the amendments had been drafted before the committee hearings. And we are told that we are not serious to fight in such an untimely way, if I may put it that way, those clauses of the bill! If we are putting up such a fight it is for reasons we are not afraid to explain openly; it is for scientific reasons, for medical reasons and because the government does not face its responsibilities and is passing legislation before having considered it carefully.
The following is the text of a document that everyone has received. I am quoting:
In December last, the government exerted pressure on the committee in order that an interim report should be prepared before having heard

the majority of briefs. Neither the government, nor the committee in its sympathetic report, rely on the proceedings to justify the proposed amendments.
Mr. Speaker, the more I keep on reading this text, the more I get worked up, the more I find this situation ridiculous and childish. That is why I keep harping on about that. I had already put on the order paper a question for the minister asking him if:
-some organizations were bringing pressure to hear on the government to promote the passage of the omnibus bill?
If so, what were those organizations?
On which of the three subjects-homosexuality, divorce, abortion-were the pressures the strongest?
The minister answered in the negative. I have it here, it is the original and complete text.
On the other hand, several organizations have sent us representations and the minister still answered no. Then, he said, and I quote:
Several organizations made representations in favour or against such and such provision of Bill C-195, the first reading of which took place-
Of course, it was the former bill, Bill C-195.
As far as abortions are concerned, here are some organizations that have made representations to us on this subject. I want the minister to tell us-there is a whole page here- how many are in favour of the bill and how many are against it.
According to my information and the documents we have received, not two are in favour of this bill which was given so little consideration prior to its introduction.
I am taking the minister's words, namely that no organization has brought any pressure to bear.
But, a great many organizations have opposed this bill. On that basis, we feel quite justified in defending our position fiercely.
I continue the quotation:
The official explanations given by the government for broadening the grounds for abortion are inconsistent and contradictory. It seems that the proposed amendments are designed to make a distinction between sin and crime and mainly to clarify the existing act.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
That is what the minister had said and before him, the former minister of justice, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
The purpose of the legislation was to make a distinction between sin and crime.
The explanations contradict each other and will not bear examination.
April 29, 1969

First of all, if the government really believe that abortion may be only a sin, why does it not delete any mention of it in the Criminal Code?
One can see how logical it is, since there is no reference to sin in the bill. In fact, at a given time, the debate was diverted on that subject and it was suggested that it did not rest with the government to determine whether an act was moral or not.
If the act was considered immoral-because it is deemed immoral by a number of people-it would not be enough to consider it a criminal act. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I agree on that point, but if the government considers it is only a matter of sin, then, it should stop dealing with sin and legislating on sin.
The Minister of Justice recognized it would have been a logical conclusion to reach. However, such was not the case, for he wrote subsequently:
-that the government would not do so under any circumstances.
Furthermore, the Prime Minister maintained "that the government in its amendments to the Criminal Code was not legalizing abortion."
This is the argument brought forward. Abortion is not legalized but on the other hand it is said:
-the continuation of the pregnancy of such female person would or would he likely to endanger her life or health-
This, Mr. Speaker, constitutes an obvious contradiction brought about by the famous word "likely" and I also commend the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Clermont) who, like us, had noticed this excessive freedom allowed by in saying: ... "or likely".
If all doctors were as honest as the hon. member for Hull, we could most certainly rely on their professional conscience and on their knowledge. There would not be any problems then. Besides, legislation would not even be necessary in any field if everybody was assuming his responsibilities.
When a law is enacted it is because some people are not behaving as they should and it is their case which is provided for in using the famous word "likely".
One can imagine all the possibilities that such a word as "likely" represents. A great many unwed mothers will likely become insane temporarily in order to justify their abortion.
"Likely" a great many married women who in order not to have any more children and to avoid doing more work at home will always 29180-516
Criminal Code
succeed in finding a disease to justify abortion.
There will "likely" always be welfare recipients who will find themselves all kinds of diseases to justify their request for abortion.
What will the physician do in such circumstances? Will he be stubborn and say to the patient that she is not ill; she will reply that she is. And if she succeeds in discussing during 12 hours, the physician will probably decide that she is mentally ill and he will agree to procure an abortion.
Mr. Speaker, we have to think about the implication, of the words. A while ago, the Chair interrupted me on account of a comma, but words "would be likely to" are much longer and much more dangerous for the above-mentioned reasons.
Mr. Speaker, these words give complete freedom to those who wish to evade the law. Complete freedom is liable to bring about a decadence of morals, which should certainly not be promoted by the house.
Mr. Speaker, a great number of persons, due to their lack of education, will maintain that they approve that bill. Others, better educated, will state their views after mature consideration.
This last argument has been suggested to me by a so-called survey reposted in the press and which indicated that most people are in favour of abortion.
Even if such was the case, I do not think that we would be justified in promoting abortion.
If a pregnant woman who has marital troubles or others is asked if she is in favour of abortion and if she answers yes, can we rely on her judgment?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for recognizing me; I would like you to call it six o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock this sitting is suspended until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
Criminal Code AFTER RECESS

April 29, 1969
The house resumed at 8 p.m.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, when the
house rose we were discussing the amendment of the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Clermont), which aims at deleting from the legislation the words "or would be likely to".
I must congratulate the member for Gatineau who was not afraid to speak up; when he says that the legislation is too liberal, we could not agree more. His standpoint tallies with the ideas we have already expressed in this house, with those of many doctors and with testimonies we have received, namely that the proposed legislation we are now proceeding with will impose no restriction on abortion.
Our arguments are supported by the documentation we have on similar legislation adopted in other countries and by the experience in those countries. It would be useless to quote all the figures in connection with experiences made elsewhere where abortion laws have been liberalized the same as we want to do here through Bill C-150. In any event, this legislation has far too much scope and will open the door to all kinds of abuses and that point was made very clear before the committee on justice and legal affairs.
We heard, for instance, quite eloquent witnesses say that childbirth could impair the health of the mother, but that, on the other hand, the child had to be saved. We reject those arguments.
It is obvious that no woman can go through pregnancy without experiencing some inconveniences. But if we should allow all abortions that are claimed for health reasons, there would not be many hon. members in this house.
Perhaps we would have accepted arguments balancing the health of the mother against the life of the child. We have been told that medicine has made big steps forward in this connection and that old arguments whereby the doctors of yesteryear justified the taking away of the life of the child for health reasons do not hold water today. Medical science has overcome them through the rapid and constant progress of medicine.

I have here the evidence of Dr. Legare who is well versed in this field. This evidence appears on page 616 of issue No. 13 of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. Here is what he said:
We believe that this is precisely what makes the text of the bill dealing with therapeutic abortion unacceptable. If even, it were proposed to weigh the life of the foetus as against the life of the mother, the discussion would be possible and furthermore, we are going to come back to this. But when we propose a text that would accept to sacrifice a foetal life in order to eliminate a cause that would "certainly or probably endanger the health of the mother", we feel the argument is one that does not carry any weight and makes the test unacceptable. I would like to know, in fact, who can reply to the following question: "What is health? Where does health begin and where does it end?"
He goes on to say that in the light of experience, what was taught to our doctors does not hold anymore.
And, further, he says:
The main indications in regard to therapeutic abortion under this heading are especially of a psychiatric nature. We know of many pitiful cases and we are not indifferent to these cases. However, we must admit that this is a field of medicine where individual interpretation is easier than elsewhere and also that psychiatrists are far from being unanimous on this subject.
Those doctors who support therapeutic abortion claim attractive results when careful enough to question their patients during the period of euphoria in the weeks following the expulsion of the foetus. But they would be wise to see these patients again a few years later when a feeling of guilt may possibly have developed amongst several of these women a guilt complex that is difficult to overcome. Every one recognizes there is a psychosis after delivery, but therapeutic abortion is not a panacea and does not eliminate the possibility of a post-abortion psychosis that is every bit as serious as the other.
Another indication of therapeutic abortion that is discussed to great extent is the possibility of serious trouble in foetal development caused by the taking of certain kinds of medicine or because of certain virus infections. A pregnant woman who catches German measles during the sixteen first weeks of her pregnancy is the most typical and the best known example. We want to emphasize that this phenomenon is a rare one and will become more and more rare because of the recent appearance on the market of a preventive vaccine that can be given to the mother-
As an Appendix to my brief, I have an article from the Lancet 1966, an English medical journal, to prove this. Therefore, this means that the systematic acceptance of this indication of therapeutic abortion amounts to accepting in cold blood to eliminate, at least, 75 p. 100 if healthy children amongst whom this accident occurs-
Fortunately, medicine is progressing with gigantic strides and indications that were formerly imperative for having recourse to therapeutic abortion have become of minor importance.
April 29, 1969

Concerning the amendment under study, when it says certainement or probablement, we find that the wording of this legislation is much too vague, because a pregnant woman will be able to get an abortion on any ground. Even here, doctors have questioned the merits of this argument and their experience proved to them that even the committees of doctors once they start practicing abortion, accept more or less any reason given by the patient.
To corroborate my argument, here is an excerpt from the brief submitted by the Quebec Association of Medical Boards and I quote:
It is universally admitted by all serious obstetricians that the cases where therapeutic abortion would really save the life of the mother have become extremely scarce and are getting even scarcer with the progress of science.
It is alleged that therapeutic abortion would certainly or probably endanger the life of the mother but we think that this argument is not valid.
We have also here all the evidence of the doctors given on page 606 of the proceedings of the standing committee on health and welfare on the same bill, in which these words by Dr. Whyte are reported, and I quote:
Yes, I think they should include mental disorders.
I know it is difficult to define this area and those who have tried to find such a definition have had difficulties. For some people, this includes even social balance. For example the birth of a child can cause a complete upheaval in the way of living.
And Dr. Whyte has this to say about health on page 695:
That is a very hard word to define, I agree: you can define it as meaning happiness if you like.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
We can also read at page 667 of the report submitted by the Hotel Dieu du Sacre Coeur de Jesus, of Dolbeau, and I quote:
We feel that the health of the mother is an elastic criterion which may involve rather wide interpretations of the law, particularly when psychiatric reasons are taken into account.
We may also read, at page 682 of the same report, the evidence given by Dr. Quigley, and I quote:
We submit that your committee and the government have recommended a change in the law to include health grounds, without adequate information on such a vital issue and without any definition of the meaning of the word "health".
We are here legislating on health, and the text of the law fails to define the word "health".
Criminal Code
At page 486, Dr. Quigley goes on saying and I quote:
The word "health" is used rather loosely. Are you talking about a cold in the nose? Are you talking about a girl who comes into your office and says that she is so upset at being pregnant and so forth? Somebody can say that this girl is really upset and her health is jeopardized. Is this serious enough for abortion?
I am not being facetious when I state that somebody could say, "I am so upset; I am so nervous about this pregnancy that you have to abort me." Now, her health at this particular moment is interfered with. She is a nervous, upset, anxious, possibly depressed, woman. Is this going to be sufficient justification for terminating that pregnancy?
Thus, the word "health" is not defined and it is felt that any meaning can be applied to it. Furthermore, at page 488, one can read the question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) and I quote:
I gather that you are not happy about the inclusion of the words "and health", the health of the pregnant woman, as proposed in the Criminal Code.
And Dr. Quigley answered:
I am very unhappy because I do not know what is meant...
. . .by health. And here is what Jack Walters said about this, and I quote from page 540 of the report:
How you are going to change this law is something that disturbs many of us.
I think the omnibus bill, which has already been submitted, extends it into a field which is going to be very difficult to interpret, and I would submit that we are getting out of a frying pan into a fire. "Health" as defined by the World Health Organization or by a final year medical student on an examination paper, entails a tremendous area-economic, social and emotional.
Again, it is going to come down to interpretation of what you mean, what we in London mean, or what somebody in Ottawa means by "health" ... This is going to be the problem in including "health" as well as "life".
The wording of the bill refers to health and states that life begins at birth, when medical authorities tell that life begins long before birth. This is what dismays the medical profession.
On page 541 of the report, Dr. Walters says:
There is difference of opinion in the medical profession. When you have a group discussing this in a specialty, or in a multi-specialty-the general practitioner group-you have differences

April 29. 1969
Criminal Code
of opinion on a purely medical basis. If it could be established only on the life of the mother being endangered there would be much firmer solidarity.
-I know what life is, but I am not so sure about health ... The term "health" is very ambiguous.
And further on, one can read on page 533:
-As for the doctor, he could give medical evidence concerning the life of the patient in such or such conditions, but it would be asking too much of the members of the medical profession to have them interpret the word "health".
Dr. Paul Christie says on page 475 of the brief submitted by the Anglican Church:
"The term "health" must in this case be subject to the broadest interpretation."
I believe that health as understood now by specialists in health and organic medicine, always involves social factors-
But for health reasons, for social reasons, for psychological reasons, a woman will be able to resort to abortion in order to free herself.
And Dr. H. Brody tells us on page 274:
-What these laws may do is give us a greater opportunity to find medical and psychiatric rationalizations... However, the interpretation of these reform laws will still remain in the hands of physicians. As stated by Howell "the law will again be unclear and dishonest".
Mr. Speaker, I could quote a host of doctors who say that "health" is a general term that is not defined in our statutes.
And to distinguish between "health" and "life", let us see what Dr. Douglas Cannell tells us on page 110 of the Proceedings of the standing committee on health and welfare:
The greatest proportion were done for psychiatric reasons; next to that was rubella; then cardiac disease, renal disease, malignant disease and a variety of others.
Today, medicine proves that it has overcome those problems which were formerly medical indications but which today are readily cured by medicine.
This is what Doctor Gray has to say on page 110:

this type of mental illness may encompass almost any variety of mental illness, but the types which most commonly provide an indication for abortion are the depressive illnesses because of the risk of suicide.
And the risk of suicide is again another pretext to revert to abortion.

Doctor Theodore Lidz, speaking of suicide, as reported on page 174, says as follows and I quote:
(as given in a brief presented by the Emergency Organization for the Defence of Unborn Children): . . . When the psychiatrist says that there is a suicidal risk, in many instances he does not mean that at all, but feels that there are strong socioeconomic grounds for therapeutic abortion. Since the only ground for abortion in many states is if it is felt there is threat of death, suicidal risk is thus established as the only legal way out of the situation.
On page 223, we find the figures given by Dr. Ford. I quote:
-Interruption of pregnancy for psychiatric indications is given as the commonest reason for therapeutic abortion in the United States. In one four-year study from 1960 to 1964 in the States, there were 80 therapeutic abortions per 15,000 deliveries, 77.5 per cent of these therapeutic abortions were done on psychiatric grounds. Another authority states that the incidence of therapeutic abortion on psychiatric grounds is 85 per cent.
A bit further, we read as follows:
One of the commonest ways for a patient to present for an opinion about therapeutic abortion is with the threat of suicide. There is nothing more likely to force the doctor's hand than this and I have little doubt that it has been used frequently as the reason for recommending termination. However, once again, the available opinions indicate a different story. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists report states that it is extremely rare for suicide to take place following refusal of termination for psychiatric reasons. Anderson, in a series of 90 patients, had 33 threatening suicide but only one in fact committed suicide a year later and the refusal of termination was only one amongst other factors. And Lindberg reported on 304 patients with 62 threatening suicide, but without any actual suicides.
Mr. Speaker, the scope of this bill and more particularly of the clause now before us is too wide and so we cannot approve it. We have to congratulate the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Clermont) who moved the amendment.
We received another very interesting evidence which refers to emotion, as a pretence to ask for abortion and, most of the time, it is emotional reasons which bring the women


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to have to interrupt the hon. member who is to quote another evidence, but his time has expired.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, I join with those who have spoken before me in congratulating the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Clermont) who moved the amendment.
April 29, 1969

I have had the honour to work with him on some committees and even then I had great regard for him. He is not the only one who found fault with the omnibus bill. However, Mr. Speaker, he is the only member of the Liberal party who had the guts to move an amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gaston Clermont: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I think the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) also moved an amendment to the omnibus bill.


Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, I am glad there are two of them.
That means we are gaining ground.
The amendment moved by the hon. member for Gatineau on April 14, 1969, reads as follows:
That bill C-150, an Act to amend the Criminal Code... be amended by deleting in clause 18 the words "or would be likely to" on line 4 on page 43.
The hon. member for Gatineau told us this afternoon that he could hardly grasp the meaning of clause 18(4)(c), page 43 of the bill, which reads as follows:
(c) has by certificate in writing stated that in its opinion the continuation of the pregnancy of such female person would or would be likely to endanger her life or health,
Mr. Speaker, when reading the words: "pregnancy of such female person", we realize the significance of this amendment.
If the bill dealt with a male person, it is obvious that the amendment would not be justified since the dangers of a pregnancy would certainly be non-existent.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roland Godin: When we read in the bill, and I quote:
-endanger her life or health-
-the problem is as the hon. member for Gatineau pointed out this afternoon.
We know when life begins, but as far as health is concerned, this is another matter. The word "health" has many meanings. On the occasion of a birth, for instance, one can drink to the infant's health. On the occasion of an anniversary, a graduation, an engagement, a wedding, one can drink to the health
Criminal Code
of the people concerned. On election night, one can drink to the new member's health.
When an hon. member becomes a minister, we extend to him our best wishes and drink to his health. Good luck, good health, do we repeat more often than necessary.
"Good health" are meaningless words, when we know that the persons to whom those wishes are extended are suffering from a deadly illness.
How do you do, how is your health? We know that we will not say the truth, because most of the times, we have to feel sharp pains to make up our minds to disclose publicly our condition.
Personally, Mr. Speaker, I may be mentally ill and it is probably due to their civility that my colleagues refrain from telling you so. I am not at all in a position to speak about it.
On the other hand, when we see those lovely ladies with a hair piece or a man with a well curled wig, we must think that all those persons enjoy a very good health, when probably it is not the case.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate once again the hon. member for Gatineau who is thoroughly conscious that section 18(4) (c) is ridiculous. If the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) would consider that clause a few minutes, he would understand the importance of that amendment.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice is probably aware of that. However, I take this opportunity to quote another article published in Le Soleil and which shows that in the medical or legal fields, it can be difficult to ascertain the truth.
Let me quote you an article published in Le Soleil of Quebec City on Saturday, January 25, 1969. I quote:
When removing a tumour, the physician discovers a nice baby of 9 lbs. 2 oz.
Mrs. Evelyn Crawford, 47 years of age, to whom physicians had told she had an abdominal tumor, had it removed yesterday and at the same time she gave birth unexpectedly to her first child.
The mother, who was unaware that she was pregnant, and the baby girl, Kitty Roslyn, were both well, but the father, Irving, 53 years old, was shaken up.
Crawford, who was working at his snack bar in Houston when the doctors phoned him the news that he was a father, was so shaken that he ruined three cars on his way to the hospital and was given a ticket for causing an accident through careless driving.
The doctors said they did not know about the baby until the birth because the tumor prevented from hearing the heartbeats. The tumor weighed

April 29. 1969
Criminal Code
seven pounds. The little girl, born by Caesarean section weighed nine pounds and two ounces.
The Crawfords, who celebrated their 25th wedding anniversary last December 27, have two adopted children and they take care of three others, all teen-agers.
"Naturally, I was flabbergasted, said Crawford. X expected to hear about the tumor operation. The doctor phoned and said he had a surprise for me. I could never have imagined!"
Mr. Speaker, in No. 13 of Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, on March 25, Dr. Benoit Legare, gyneacologist at St. Francois d'Assise Hospital, in Quebec City, told us and I quote:
We do admit that certain mitral stenoses that cannot be operated on give rise to certain reservations. What does that leave? A handful of cases that will become fewer and fewer as medicine benefits from modern techniques.
Is it worthwhile risking to upset through an Act a state of equilibrium brought about under the status quo? Is it worthwhile setting up a mechanism that would risk going beyond the intentions of the legislator? Would it not be better to have broader consultations, accessible to all the strata of the medical profession, to medical associations, specialists and so on? Would it not be better to find out what we can at that particular level, all the distinctions that may improve the legislation before it is adopted?
Mr. Speaker, in view of those statements and those of many other competent persons, the proposed amendment is clear and stands to reason. If the hon. member for Gatineau had not introduced it, the opposition would have taken this opportunity to move it.
I am therefore happy to give it my wholehearted support and I would be more happy still if I were sure that the Liberal members would do the same.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the house ready for the question?
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: 
Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must interrupt the hon. member to remind him that he must not speak on all the provisions in the bill, but simply on the amendment that was moved by the hon. member for Gatineau.
The hon. member has been talking for a few minutes already and he has not even come close to the matter under consideration.
Of course, he is allowed by the rules to make a 20-minutes speech. However, he is also required, pursuant to the standing orders, to relate his remarks in one way or the other to the amendment being considered.


Bernard Dumont: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I shall probably come to the amendment that has been moved, and to . .


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think an hon. member has a question.
The hon. member for Frontenac has the floor, and it is up to him to permit a question.


Bernard Dumont: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but in view of the interpretation, I would rather ask him to send me his inquiry in writing. I shall supply him with any information he wishes in my office where interpretation is easier.
I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that the phrase "or would be likely to" should be deleted from the omnibus bill; this would clarify the
April 29, 1969

bill legalizing abortions and explain a number of points.
We know that that phrase should be replaced by this one: "when the mother gives her life so that a human being may have a chance to start his own". That is what the Ralliement Creditiste proposes.
As I said at the beginning, we would like at least this amendment to be carried.
The hon. minister has no doubt received a great deal of protests, and this is why I am convinced that he will at least accept this amendment. As a matter of fact, the revised edition of the bill to be introduced in the house is now being printed. As to the comments made to us, they are in favour of the adoption of this amendment.
The Canadian Association of Catholic hospitals, representing 300 hospitals, requested that the amendments which would have to be made to the legislation be not studied before the whole question had been thoroughly considered and more effective research undertaken by the government.
This is the information we received. The minister must also have received it. A translation had been prepared. Since the amendments were proposed by members of his party, he is willing to accept them.
Besides, the brief dealt mainly with the importance of the administrative aspects, that is to say of the real problems faced by hospitals, should parliament, without analyzing beforehand all possible consequences, hastily legalize a practice which the majority of the population consider not only revolting but contrary to the common good of the country.
As far as the amendment moved today is concerned, I could quote a statement made by the Catholic bishops. It says, and I quote:
God, Master of life, entrusted man with the noble ministry of giving life; man must therefore carry it out in a manner worthy of himself. Life must be carefully preserved from the moment of conception. Abortion and child-murder are abominable crimes.
And the brief states further:
The advancement of civilization, we say it firmly, lies in the recognition always clearer, both theoretical and practical, of the dignity of the human being, of its sacred character and of its absolute inviolability.
Everything leads us to believe that it is illusory to think that the proposed amendment by the enactment of a law will bring about a reduction in the number of clandestine abortions. Here again, the experience made in a few countries where legislation has already been approved, similar to the
Criminal Code
one that is proposed here, shows that the contrary is to be feared. But could it be otherwise? With a law that belittles, by the very exceptions that it accepts, the right of the foetus to live, it promotes the development of a permissive attitude that no longer considers abortion as a real crime. Here is where one should be reminded that the lawmaker must not underestimate the educational value of the law. People are indeed easily led to consider as morally acceptable what the law itself allows.
It always rests with the lawmakers alone to find realistic means of adjusting their convictions to the often complex situations of current life. They should not passively wait for the Church to come to their rescue, at this connection; but, on the contrary, they must-in co-operation with their colleagues-endeavour to find efficient means of promoting the common good, especially through the drawing up and the enactment of wise and just laws.
Instead of unjust laws.
I have here the report of an inquiry conducted in United States. Everyone knows that in United States, where the people have a rather liberal mentality, several States have adopted measures to allow abortion for reasons other than the health of the mother, as for example, eugenics, incest, poverty of the family and other social and economical reasons. A woman who is not pregnant from her husband can get an abortion. However, people are not ready to accept abortion for such reasons. They accept it largely when the mother's health is in serious danger.
On the other hand, 56 per cent only of the people are in favour of abortion in case of malformation of a child.
On the other hand, they are against abortion requested for economical reasons, as for instance when a family income is so low that the family cannot be brought up properly-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Bernard Dumont: Refusal in 77 per cent-


Mr. Speaker:: It is with a deep regret that I interrupt once more the hon. member to remind him again that he must limit his remarks, under the standing orders, to the amendment before us.
The hon. member is dealing with abortion in a very general way. That is not the object of the amendment under consideration. As I said a while ago, the hon. member may speak during the time allotted under the rules, but on the other hand, he must limit his remarks to the subject before us.
Criminal Code

April 29, 1969
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
As I mentioned before, this is a subject with a very limited scope, namely the amendment moved by the hon. member for Gatineau, and I am sure the hon. member has very interesting remarks to make on that.


Bernard Dumont: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for following my remarks so closely. However, I read a while ago the speeches delivered by many members, especially from other parties, who had spoken at great length. I thank you for following my speech so closely, so as to call me back to order and I will try to sum up my thinking to the effect that we want the word probablement to be struck off, so as to make sure that this bill will be quite clear.
If they thought fit to add in the omnibus bill words such as ou probablement, the moment has come to make sure that the wording is such that people will interpret it exactly as it should be. That is why we want the word probablement to be struck off so that this abortion law, which will likely be passed, will be clear, even if we do not approve it.
We hope that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Justice, by pleading to the Prime Minister, will succeed in ensuring a free vote, so that we may know the real thinking of Parliament.
We must congratulate the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) for having allowed his members to vote freely, on sections of the bill dealing with homosexuality and we hope that the Prime Minister will let the government members vote also according to their conscience, as was established a long time ago within the Ralliement creditiste. Let us hope that the word probablement will be struck off once and for all from the omnibus bill.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief, but I would like to make a few remarks on the amendment proposed by the government member.
Frankly, this amendment is quite reasonable and I think that government members should at least consider the amendment moved by one of them, an amendment which reveals a certain social spirit and a certain generosity.
No amendment has been made to the bill, as if the minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) or all the members opposite considered themselves extremely strong, powerful, learned,

even more so perhaps, than the Creator himself. In fact, it is a legislation which affects freedom. God wants that in a world men be born and be able to fulfill their destiny, like the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
I wonder if the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister would now be in their seats if their mother had made use of such an immoral and unjust legislation.
We need men, and I think the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister are great men, of the type we need to ensure the progress of the nation. But today, we claim, perhaps like the bad angels, to be more learned than the Creator and to oppose his designs.
Mr. Speaker, as far as this bill is concerned, we are more and more frustrated, more and more annoyed by the fact that the government members and the Minister of Justice refuse to consider the point of view of the opposition. None of the amendments we proposed has been in any way adopted or even considered.
I really wonder if the minister is so convinced that the recommendations of the opposition are worthless and that his views should prevail and this bill should be adopted since what is at stake is life itself and the survival of our nation.
Mr. Speaker, I think that a country as young and vast as Canada, with tremendous resources-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I presume that all we have heard until now from the hon. member is the preamble to his speech, but after hearing his remarks submitted to the house as introductory, I would ask him to come now to the amendment before the house.


Henry P. Latulippe: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think that you will realize that it is rather difficult to keep exactly to the proposed amendment, because it is from this amendment that all the consequences of this bill and of abortion result. That is why we are inclined to go a little beyond the amendment which is meant only to change one word. It is a word with a special meaning and to speak about it we have to use several words and make sentences.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that you will have the opportunity to help us in trying to convince the minister. I know that everything we say will be of no use because so far nothing
April 29, 1969

has been taken into account as yet. So, Mr. Speaker, we could say many things but I will limit myself to asking the minister, as the Lord, through him, is helping the nation and guiding future generations, not to go too far.
For, when it comes to analyze the divine act of creation, I believe that nobody is in a position to oppose the laws of creation. We should let the Creator fulfil His views for what He has done is well done and it does not befit us to interfere with his divine laws. I do not think we are at all qualified to interfere in the rules and commands of the Lord.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


Mr. Oza  Telrault@Villeneuve: Mr. Speaker, before I am asked to vote on Bill C-150, which will legalize the destruction of human life, I wish to make a few comments. I have come to the conclusion that the passage of this bill would create more social evils and injustices than it would cure. Killing can never be a cure. It can only be a denial of the basic right to life which we all enjoy equally before the law. To deny this right, even to so small a human being as a foetus in the womb is to deny it, in principle at least, to every citizen in Canada.
To deny that, a foetus is a living human being is to deny the scientific evidence of biologists who without exception say that human life begins at conception. This is no longer merely a religious belief or opinion; this is a proven scientific fact.
Secondly, this matter involves a change to the whole basic concept on which our laws of society are founded, the equality of all human beings before the law and the dignity of human life. It is useless to have a conference on human rights if we are about to deny the primary right of the dignity of human life, and if we are about to deny the primary right of life itself. The measure of a society is in direct proportion to the protection it gives to its weakest members.
Surely, in this great country we cannot accept the suggestion that we have no room for these innocents because we cannot feed or clothe them. What is always overlooked, however, is the experience in other countries which already have permissive abortion laws. When a country legislates to permit abortion, the demand for it is always increasing. Women become abortion-minded to such an extent that doctors and hospitals find it impossible to respond. Let us look at some of the figures from Japan.
Criminal Code


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before the hon. members refers to the Japanese figures I should like to remind him, as I have tried to remind other hon. members who have spoken during this debate, that it is not the whole bill which is before the house at the present time but just that portion to be amended by those amendments proposed at the committee stage. These matters are open to consideration, but I must remind hon. members that their remarks must be relevant to the amendments under consideration. The hon. member should direct his remarks to the matter which is under consideration.


Mr. Oza  Telrault@Villeneuve: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I will not continue my remarks.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the floor just for a few minutes.
I intended to speak only for two or three minutes because the Speaker seemed slightly exasperated by all those speeches which are so very much alike but like his assistant seems quite fit, I guess I will take a few minutes more.
Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I had not planned to take the floor about this bill for I had already done so to discuss Bill C-196. Here is the reason why I now want to take part in the debate: the amendment now before us is rather short but it is worth being considered, especially since it is introduced by a Liberal member, and a French Canadian.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Gauthier:: I congratulate most warmly the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Clermont) who had the courage to oppose his leader and to introduce this amendment. At the outset very strict orders were issued and we were hoping that the new Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) would show a little more understanding, but that is not true, he is following the others blindly, as in the army.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Gaulhier:: We have here in front of us a military government and a dictatorship. I am sincerely sorry for our hon. friends opposite, for they cannot express their feelings as freely as the hon. member for Gatineau did a moment ago.
We have received many recommendations concerning this bill. I shall certainly not read

April 29. 1969
Criminal Code
all the testimonials and protests I have received.
The first brief on the first bill we dealt with was sent to us by the Quebec Association Hospital Medical Boards. All the members received it and I am sure all of them have read it. That brief gives the point of view of the doctors. It enumerates the reasons which forbid them to accept the principle of abortion, or the bill, as it is from the human and medical points of view.
We have also been made aware of the grievances of the religious authorities through the declaration of the Canadian Catholic Bishops on abortion. Catholics know where they stand.
We also received from the Alliance for Life a release on the reasons for which they oppose the bill.
At the start, as in the case of homosexuality, we tried to pull out from the omnibus bill those two articles so that they could be voted on separately. We failed all down the line. Again tonight my words fall upon deaf ears. My words run off like water on the backs of ducks. The public will know that I speak on deaf ears, because members have been given strict orders, and when the leader has spoken, they must comply. I want to move, Mr.-


Mr. Marceau:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
I point out to my hon. friend that we are not of the Ralliement Creditiste party to comply solely with what our leader has said. We have not received instructions from the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice; the hon. member is presuming a lot. This is the second time it happens and I object to that type of accusations.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder whether this exchange will advance the cause of the debate. The hon. member did not raise a point of order, but rather stated a grievance. I suggest that we might hear the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier). I might also mention to the hon. member for Roberval that, as the Speaker has mentioned previously, he should try to keep his remarks within the framework of the amendment that is now before the house.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my remarks were in order. I was urging government

members to support the amendment. I urge them to express their views. If they claim they were not given any guide-lines, let them speak. We only want to know their views in order to make them known to their constituents. They may be accused of having no opinion, because they remain silent.
I want to congratulate the member for Gatineau on having moved his amendment with a view to deleting at least the words "or would be likely to". And that is the purpose of my intervention.
If a few members of the party in power wanted to be sincere and at least help one of their colleagues to have the words "and would be likely to" deleted, I think many consciences would feel relieved, especially within the medical profession.
On January 19 and 22, I received a letter that all hon. members probably received also. I would like to quote part of it.
Dear Sir,
You will find herewith the opinion of the Quebec Association of Hospital Medical Boards on the problem of abortion.
That report represents the opinion of the majority of doctors-
That brief was not submitted by lawyers but by doctors practising in the hospitals of the province of Quebec.
I continue:
We hope that this will enlighten you so that you may take a fair and just stand towards every citizen of our country.
The letter is signed by Mr. Robert Lavigne, Chairman.
The protest reads as follows and I quote:
Concerning Bill C-195 on abortion, the Quebec Association of Hospital Medical Boards is in agreement on the following:
[DOT]-that an amendment be made to the present text of the Criminal Code.
-that the procedure of case studies by therapeutic abortion committees in each hospital be agreed to.
-that the medical practioners who have decided, after a serious study within their hospital committee, to authorize a therapeutic abortion should no longer be considered as guilty under the Criminal Code.
We believe:
-that only scientific medical research will furnish the true solution to the problem under discussion and we are in favour of any study group.
-that abortion, in the present state of medical science, remains a murder perpetrated on a human being.
These statements are not mine, but those of physicians and surgeons.
April 29. 1969

I continue:
-that any medical practitioner or hospital should be free to refuse to take part in such a medical technique.
That is the reason why I congratulated the hon. member for Gatineau a while ago for he seems to share the views of the experts.
I continue the quotation:
-that as such a technique involves the life of a human being ... the decision should not be left to the sole will of the patient.
We are against:
-a bill creating false hopes among the people.
Heaven knows that the Liberal party has created false hopes since it coming to power. And I go on:
-furthermore we ask that the hospitals entitled to perform therapeutic abortions be designated by the Physicians' College in each province so as to ensure the quality of the established standards. We conclude:
-that is why the Q.A.H.M.B. is opposed to the present wording of the proposed Bill C-195 and would like to have it amended in order to restrict it to cases presenting serious danger to the mother's life.
This is precisely why I am convinced, without having discussed it previously, that the hon. member for Gatineau, in wanting to delete the word "likely" is trying to restrict pretty much the scope of the law. If we do not remove that word, well, an unwed mother or a pregnant woman will pretend to be sick. A pregnant woman is always a little sick. Right there is ground for abortion. Right now. In the case of a mother fearing pregnancy, she will be able under the existing law to procure her miscarriage. Within a year or two this will mean disaster.
We are told that in Canada because of the pill births have dropped by 40 per cent. In two years, births will have decreased by 60 or 75 per cent. We shall no longer need the Chinese to destroy us then. We shall only need abortionists to decimate the Canadian race. We shall import immigrants to replace these people who should have lived and who were killed by abortionists. We who are in the process of passing this anti-social measure ... Well, I believe that-


Gilles Marceau: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: If that point of order is like the other previous one, Mr. Speaker, I shall continue with my comments.
Criminal Code
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Marceau) on a point of order.


Gilles Marceau: Mr. Speaker, I believe that my hon. friend has strayed from the question.
I think he is always coming back to the same point.
I believe that-


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Gilles Marceau: -nothing is said about the amendment and that comments should be limited to the text of the amendment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I might point out to hon. members that I can only hear one point of order at a time. I think out of courtesy to the hon. member for Lapointe I should hear his point of order, after which I will decide whether he has a legitimate point of order. If, following that, the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) has another point of order, I will listen to him and decide that. I did not hear what the hon. member for Lapointe said, so possibly he would like to repeat it.


Gilles Marceau: Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to say that my hon. friend is not speaking about the amendment. His remarks are of a general nature and would be proper on third reading.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: On a question of privilege- [English]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I might point out to the hon. member that I was listening to the hon. member for Roberval fairly carefully. Sometimes it is difficult to decide whether or not he is dealing directly with the amendment. I was trying to give him as much latitude as possible, while recognizing his right to express his point of view. I think that within fairly broad limits he is in order, but I also remind him that the Standing Orders are fairly specific on this matter. We should confine our remarks to the amendment before us. I know that the hon. member for Roberval, who has been in the house for a number of years, knows this as well as I do and I am sure he will try to confine his remarks to the amendment before us.
Criminal Code


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to congratulate you tor being impartial, since my remarks were in order, whereas the silence of the hon. member for Lapointe was not.
Mr. Speaker, I was finishing reading the report on the bill. The hon. member for Lapointe is trying to make me digress from the subject matter.
The amendment under consideration is the best one moved since the beginning of the debate, and I am particularly proud of it as it was moved by a Liberal member. I like it when Liberals are sincere, since I feel there are good people among the Liberal members. However, a good animal on a leash is not worth much. Just set the Liberals free, and you will see that the business of the house will be speeded up and amendments accepted.
I was saying.. .1 have now lost the thread of my thoughts.


An hon. Member:: It was not a big one.


John Napier Turner: Your thread was not a big one.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: But the amendment is not a "big" one. Just one word. We have to speak for 20 minutes on one word, while limiting ourselves to the amendment. The hon. member for Lapointe, being a lawyer, tries to catch us digressing from the subject, but he has nothing to do. He does not digress since he does not speak.
I have another letter of protest which I should like to send to the minister-


Gilles Marceau: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: I realize, Mr. Speaker, that I have only three minutes left. I would then beg leave from the house to read this letter.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I see the hon. member for Lapointe wishes to rise on a question of privilege. I will hear him, as I am duty bound to do.


Gilles Marceau: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw to the attention of my hon. friend the fact that he has just made a rash and untrue judgment. I have talked on second reading of the bill, I have already expressed my viewpoint and what he has said about me is not fair.

April 29, 1969


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. This matter does not constitute a point of privilege.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I respect my hon. friend for Lapointe. I simply told him that he had not spoken to the amendment and that I wanted him to do so. It is not asking too much, I think.
Now, for the information of the Minister of Justice, I would like to read a letter published in Le Droit, January 30, 1969 issue, and which reads as follows:
With respect to the abortion bill, Catholic hospitals say that they are in an awkward position.
In a letter sent to the Minister of Justice-
So he received a letter. I go on quoting:
-the Association of Catholic Hospitals of Canada asserts that the bill... designed to legalize, in certain conditions, therapeutic abortion, could place Catholic hospitals in awkward positions.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
I am sure, once again, that it is for that reason that the hon. member for Gatineau is trying to do something about it. I continue:
Catholic hospitals refuse to provide for such purposes premises, equipment or staff under their authority.
Because of that position, the A.H.C.C. maintains that the bill would place Catholic hospitals in a very vulnerable position, since provincial authorities can oblige them, pursuant to the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, to establish abortion committees in their own institutions.
Therefore, the A.H.C.C. asks, on behalf of all its members, that a special clause be inserted in the proposed amendment to protect Catholic hospitals and their staff against the obligation of establishing such committees.
This amendment answers the desired purpose.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker,
I too should like to congratulate the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Clermont) for having brought in an amendment to Bill C-150, in order to clarify one of its clauses and to make it clearer. However, I wonder if he went far enough.
Mr. Speaker, in rising to support that amendment, I should like to make one thing clear. Even if I support this amendment to clause 18 of Bill C-150, it does not mean

April 29, 1969

that I support clause 18. I wish to mention it again quite clearly. I am against any liberalization of the legislation concerning abortion and I know that there is another amendment for deleting clause 18 of Bill C-150 and I will fully support it.
But since other amendments must be considered before that one, we must necessarily /ote on them.
Then, the hon. member for Gatineau as well as my colleague for Beauce (Mr. Rodrigue), who introduced similar amendments, were right when they asked the members of the house to strike out the words "or would be likely." Otherwise, it could cause trouble to those who are compelled to comply with those rules and to apply them.
As I said, I wonder if the hon. member went far enough with his amendment.
This afternoon, one of my colleagues said something that upset me. According to him, physicians are liable to make mistakes and none of them can come to a categorical conclusion as to any health condition.
It reminded me, Mr. Speaker, of a situation I heard of four or five years ago, about a woman who had come to an Abitibi hospital where she was going to have a child. The doctor who examined her just before the delivery foresaw some difficulties. Thinking that he would have to make a Caesarean section and anxious to make a good job, before he quite made up his mind, the doctor consulted two of his colleagues. While they were talking, the woman was giving birth to her child in the delivery room without undue trouble.
This goes to show that people may often make mistakes, even if they are the greatest physicians, scientists or experts in the world. Then, Mr. Speaker, in view of this irrepressible doubt, we have cause for concern and doctors responsible for the life of human beings are concerned too whenever they have to run this risk. That accounts for the determination of the members of the Ralliement creditiste to take all available means to convince the government of the need to be very careful in connection with the amendment to the Criminal Code dealing with abortion.
Mr. Speaker, this determination results from the requests of persons who are interested in the well-being of patients and of mothers who are to give birth to children.
The question came up: Is the government truly concerned with protecting the life and
Criminal Code
the health of women? The proposed amendment seeks also to add that when a doctor -has by certificate in writing stated that in its opinion the continuation of the pregnancy of such female person-
Yes, a female person.
-would or would be likely-
"Probably" means "perhaps".
-to endanger her life or health.
Then was added to the amendment the word "health", for the bill already contained the expression "to endanger the life of a female person".
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, if the government wants to make health a reason for justifying abortion, one wonders what it will do next. Bill C-150 includes provisions on homosexuality and abortion. Who knows, perhaps next year a bill will be introduced on artificial insemination for human beings? A stop must be put immediately to this excessive liberalizing of the Criminal Code.
Mr. Speaker, when I heard this afternoon-


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I presume the hon. member wants to put a question. The hon. member for Abitibi has the floor and a question may be put to him only if he agrees to it.


John Edward Broadbent: Would the hon. member permit a question? Would he agree that if his party were not so illiberal in its attitude toward homosexuals it would not have to be so illiberal on the question of abortion?


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I shall reply to my hon. friend, that as a Creditiste and a Catholic, I consider myself one of the most liberal members of this house. I recognize freedom for everybody, but I do not admit abuse of liberty.
I shall have the opportunity, later on in the debate, of putting one of his colleagues straight.
This afternoon, when I heard the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) question the wisdom of the amendment proposed by the government-if I understood him correctly, he was in favour of the amendment of his

April 29. 1969
Criminal Code
colleague from Gatineau-I wondered whether the amendment went far enough and, to improve it, to complete it, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin):
That Bill C-150, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, etc., be amended by deleting, in clause 18, on line 4 on page 43, the words "or would be likely to" and inserting therefor the words "according to medical science".
Mr. Speaker, my purpose in moving this subamendment, is to improve this legislation even further and to recognize the importance of the associations, in order to express confidence in the decisions they will take on each application for abortion that is presented to them.


Mr. Speaker:: I have here the amendment just proposed by the hon. member and I must say that I doubt very much that it is in order.
I am ready to make a decision on the spot if the hon. member so desires.
Some hon. members might want to express their point of view but I must remind them that the only thing they are allowed to do at this stage is to amend the amendment itself, but not to amend the clause that the amendment under consideration is trying to amend.
In other words, the hon. member is trying to go back to a previous stage of the debate or to go beyond the terms of the motion now before the house by amending the clause itself. This is clearly out of order.
If the hon. members want to make some comment, I shall listen to them before making a decision.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure your remarks are quite timely, but, with your permission, I would like to present a few arguments which, in our opinion, justify the submission of this amendment to the amendment and make it in order.
First of all, we believe, Mr. Speaker, that under Standing Order 75(8), it is possibly, at this stage of the report of the committee, and I quote:
When the order of the day-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I remind the hon. member that it is not the matter put to the house for consideration at the moment. Nobody denies the hon. member the right to present a subamendment. I admit that the hon. member can, under the rules to which he has just referred to present a subamendment.
[Mr. Laprise.l
What I am telling him now is that the subamendment does not seem to be in order and that is the point on which I would like to hear his arguments.


André-Gilles Fortin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I now come down to this specific question.
The subamendment proposed by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) says this; and I quote:
-be amended by substituting the words "or would be likely to", by the words: "according to medical science".
So, there are two things. The deletion of the wordsi "or would be likely to" and their replacement by the words "according to medical science".
In other words, Mr. Speaker, the amendment before the house moved by the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Clermont) tended to delete the words "or would be likely to", but suggested nothing positive to replace them.
On the other hand, if the words "or would be likely to", are deleted, any sub-amendment must be related to the main amendment. That is why the hon. member for Abitibi thought perhaps of replacing the words: "or would be likely to" by the expression: "according to medical science".
Now, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the terms "according to medical science" are related to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Gatineau since it merely tends to make it more acceptable, and that it is directly related to the amendment, and not necessarily to the bill.
This is why, Mr. Speaker, I believe, in accordance with the clause I was quoting, we have linked up the sub-amendment to the amendment so that it is acceptable.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I argued yesterday for the right of an hon. member to move an amendment with which I did not happen to agree. Tonight, however, I must argue against an amendment with which I do not agree. I think I can do it briefly.
It has already been established under Standing Order 75, paragraph (8), that an amendment to a motion that has been put down at the report stage is in order. However, I submit that this amendment is faulty on two grounds. In the first place, it is not draft-
April 29, 1969

ed in the form of an amendment to the motion that is before the house; it is drafted in the form of an amendment to the bill itself.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
hon. member says no, but even with the limited amount of French that I understand I can assert that it is. The amendment is to section 18 of the bill, and specifically to line 4 on page 43. Section 18, line 4, on page 43 of the bill is not before the house at this time. What is before the house is an amendment moved by the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Clermont).
The other ground on which the amendment is faulty is that it violates the rule of relevancy. While an amendment may be in order at this stage, it must be relevant. I am thinking in particular of citations 202 and 203, and the various paragraphs of those citations, in Beauchesne's fourth edition.
I submit that the hon. member for Gatineau proposes merely to drop certain words. The hon. member who is now proposing an amendment is introducing a new concept, that of bringing medical science into the picture, and surely this is going beyond the substance of the motion he seeks to amend. Therefore, on those two grounds, I submit that while an amendment at this stage is in order, the present amendment itself is not in order.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lotbi-niere has already expressed his views and hon. members know that the Chair can make a ruling when all the arguments have been submitted. However, I would not want to be unfair towards hon. members and if others want to express their views, I will gladly listen to them, in order to reach a fair and equitable decision.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, on the amendment just moved by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) it is obvious that it is not an amendment to the bill itself. The amendment proposed by the hon. member is an amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Clermont). It relates not to the bill itself, but to clause 18, where the words "would be likely to" would be replaced by "according to medical science".
Criminal Code
I think that this amendment automatically relates to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Gatineau and that it is fully relevant. I trust your judgment, Mr. Speaker, but this amendment is in accordance with standing order 75(8). As the debate, since this afternoon, has been on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Gatineau, we want to clarify the intention of the hon. member who merely deplored a factual situation about which the legislation is ambiguous.
As for the linguistic aspect, we wanted to clarify his thought by suggesting that the words "according to medical science" should replace "would be likely to".
For those reasons, I think that this amendment complies with the procedural rules.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Shefford repeated exactly the argument brought forward by the hon. member for Lot-biniere. I do not see why we should listen over and over again to the same argument.
I must point out to the hon. member for Shefford, as I said earlier, that his proposed subamendment is not in order for at least one reason.
I suggest to the hon. member that this amendment is of the kind which could have been proposed under standing order 75, that is to say by giving notice of it before the motions are considered in the house. Once the motions have been proposed-there are 43 or 44 of them I think-the house must consider particular amendments or specific motions proposed by the members and only such motions can be the subject of a subamendment under Standing order 75(8).
What the hon. members can do now is to propose a subamendment to the motion of the hon. member for Gatineau, because they cannot introduce an amendment to change section 18 of the bill under consideration. I suggest to the member for Abitibi and to the other members that the motion of the member for Abitibi is in fact intended to amend clause 18 of Bill C-150 and not the motion of the hon. member for Gatineau.
In fact, the motion of the hon. member for Gatineau is so simple that it would be difficult I think to imagine an amendment which could be in order. Therefore under the circumstances, I find it impossible, even if I wanted to be as tolerant as the Rules allow me, to accept the subamendment proposed by the member for Abitibi.

April 29, 1969
Criminal Code
I thank hon. members who have been good enough to enlighten me and to advise me, but I must say I am in full agreement with the arguments of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Mr.   Malle@: Mr. Speaker, I have not had the opportunity-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member having already taken part in the debate on this amendment can not speak a second time of course.
Mr. Clermont, seconded by Mr. Comtois moved that Bill C-150, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act be amended by deleting in clause 18 the words "or would be likely to" on line 4 on page 43.

The question is on motion No. 26 (Mr. Clermont). Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11) the recorded division on the said motion stands deferred until after consideration of proposed motion No. 28.


Gérard Laprise: amendment No. 27:
That Bill C-150, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act, be amended by deleting in clause 18 the words "a female person who, being pregnant," on lines 29 and 30 on page 42 and by inserting the following words:

"-a female person who is married or of the full age of twenty-one years, or a female person who is under the full age of twenty-one years, with the written consent of her parents or guardian."
Mr. Speaker, I moved another amendment to clause 18 of Bill C-150, in another attempt to clarify the bill. I want to replace the words "a female person who, being pregnant," in paragraph (b) subsection 4 of clause 18 of the bill, by the words "married or of age or a female person under age, with the written consent of her parents or guardian".
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, that amendment stipulates that only married women or those of full age will be allowed to call, on their own, on a medical practitioner or an abortion committee, should clause 18 be agreed to. However, if the pregnant woman is a minor, she should first get an authorization from her parents or guardians.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask parliament to agree to that specific point, so that the relaxing of the law will not cause a mad rush for abortion. We are told already that many people seem to believe that the amendment to the Criminal Code now under study will open the door to various types of abortion for any person wishing to get an abortion. That is the common belief among the public. The same belief prevails, among the public concerning the amendment to clause 7 of bill C-150: homosexuality would be quite legal and allowed. That is what the bill led the public to believe, and people are already talking about it in Montreal.
The same thing will happen, Mr. Speaker, as concerns the relaxing of the abortion law. I believe that clause 18 should spell out that only married women or persons of full age could ask for an abortion on their own. If they so wished, they could, under the provisions of the act, meet a responsible and qualified medical practitioner and be directed to a committee made up of two or three medical practitioners-I know that other amendments on the same subject will be discussed a little later on-who could then decide whether they may get an abortion.
That concerns a married woman of the full age of twenty-one years or a single person of the full age of twenty-one years. However, the unmarried girl under the full age of twenty-one years, will have to get authority from her parents or guardian, that is to say that the committee, it it must decide to procure an abortion for her, should get the written consent of her parents or guardian.
April 29, 1969

Mr. Speaker, I think that with the insertion of that detail in clause 18 of the bill, once more difficulties would be avoided.
If my memory serves me well, it was necessary in the province of Quebec until recently to obtain the father's authorization, for instance in the case of a person under the full age of twenty-one years applying for a driver's licence or any other thing normally granted only to persons over the full age of twenty-one years. The Civil Code of Quebec will be amended soon and the mother will also be able to give her consent if it is impossible to find the father or if he refuses. I therefore think the federal government should use discretion so as not to go beyond the provisions of the provincial laws. That is why I ask for an explanation on clause 18 of Bill C-150. Mr. Speaker, I think it would be important to have the opinion of the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) as well as that of his colleagues and other members of the house. I think that, pursuant to Standing Order 75, the amendment has been tabled early enough to enable members of the house to take notice of it and to appraise it.
I want once more to point out quite clearly that this amendment has been moved with some reservation. I moved it in case clause 18 would be agreed to. However, if the amendment tending to delete clause 18 is agreed to my amendment would not hold out any more. But in case amendment No. 19 were not rejected, I would then ask the house to pass my proposed amendment.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise), had considered asking this evening to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) his opinion on this amendment, but I thought it advisable to rise, in order to enable him to think about it until tomorrow afternoon. It is a serious, logical and judicious amendment, because the hon. member for Abitibi wishes to amend clause 18 by substituting to the words " . . . a female person who, being pregnant" the words "who is married or of age, or a female person under age with the written consent of her parents or guardian."
Now, we are considering a most serious amendment, because how can we imagine that a pregnant girl of 17 years of age could have an abortion without the consent of her parents?
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
It is possible that a young girl, who could be an only child, for instance, becomes pregnant and would like to get an abortion, without the consent of her father who could be anxious to be a grandfather. The girl might want to interrupt her pregnancy for all kinds of social considerations or not to let her parents know. Then, because the law authorizes her to get abortion without the knowledge of her parents, the father could one day learn about it and realize he missed an unique opportunity to become a grandfather.
From that point of view, I believe the girl's father has a right, as far as his grandson is concerned.
Moreover, if his daughter, one day, is remiss in her duties towards her child.-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It
being ten o'clock it is my duty to put the questions to be debated at this time.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the other day when asking the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) about the ferries between Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, I directed my question to the wrong terminal and it ended up with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) who immediately disclaimed responsibility for the cargo and the container. I did not know, in the few days following my question, there would be such change and turmoil as developed in connection with the Minister of Transport.
It is not new, Mr. Speaker, for representatives of the province of Prince Edward Island to be addressing this chamber on questions of transportation. Indeed, the Fathers of Confederation from my province over one hundred years ago very wisely put transportation at the top of the list of priorities. The Province of Prince Edward Island entered Confederation on the promise of "continuous and efficient communication with the mainland". The people of Prince Edward Island were assured that, as far as humanly possible, the province's insular geographic disabilities would be overcome as a result of national governmental
8150	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion policies. We were to be made a part of the national railway system, or I should say more precisely we were to be made a fully integral part of the national system of transportation, whatever contemporary technology made that system to be.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
The issue today is acute, Mr. Speaker. Our promised causeway, on which $15 million has already been spent, has now been finally thrown into the ashcan of unfulfilled obligations. The building of the causeway was not just an election promise but a commitment of one level of government to another, made over and over again by the representatives of the dominion government to the representatives of Prince Edward Island in this parliament of Canada. One must say, and one must always say if he believes in federalism, that without full faith and credit between the various levels of government within a federation, the functioning of federalism is difficult if not impossible.
I had today brought to my desk an old newspaper, the Charlottetown Guardian of February 2nd, 1967, dealing with the causeway in which the then Minister of Public Works, now the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcll-raith) who is doing other things in other places, was reported as having assured me that by 1970-and note the precision, Mr. Speaker

2,004 people would be employed as a result of work that would be undertaken by the causeway. The year preceding that there were to be 1,833 people employed, and the year preceding that there were to be 1,549 people employed. After 1970, he did not wish to predict.
But with the causeway discarded, how cruel to pile Pelion upon Ossa in our terrain of discontent. Surely, this is too much even for the smallest province of Canada. Now, the C.N.R. wishes to increase the rates, and the government is going along with this iniquitous suggestion. I have two comments to make on this suggestion. The first is that while the Government of Canada, rightly or wrongly, decided to farm out this ferry service to the C.N.R. it did not thereby divest itself of its constitutional or indeed moral responsibilities in the field of interprovincial transportation. The mode of communication in transportation between one province and another is a very, very important federal responsibility.
[Mr. Macquarrie.l
DEBATES	April 29, 1989
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, long ago in the days of the Bennett government, the operating deficit on this ferry service was transferred from the C.N.R. account to a charge on the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada. In other words, there was a fiscal recognition of the dominion government's obligation to join province to province. What is confederation all about if not at least that? Therefore, the C.N.R. need not penalize the people of P.E.I. and its neighbouring provinces in any exceptional and unique exercise in economy. Their job is to provide adequate service as agents for the Government of Canada, the government which is solemnly committed to provide full and ample service.
It is presumptuous of the C.N.R., with government connivance, to seek to impose excessive tolls on transportation between P.E.I. and the rest of Canada. To what other province of Canada do we pay admission? Does it cost to enter Ontario, to enter Quebec, to enter Manitoba, or any other province in this dominion except Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland? Why must so high a price be paid by those of us who were born on islands?
We live in an age where discrimination is regarded as an evil ingredient of social life, and properly so. Why, then, is this kind of discrimination tolerated, yea fostered by the government of all Canada and of all Canadians? I ask that this measure be not proceeded with and that the government look into, by means of a modern device such as a task force or some other form of investigation, the prospect not of increasing the tolls or of holding them as they are but of abolishing them altogether. This, at least, would be something of a consolation prize for the long promised and much desired causeway now consigned to 60 years of neglect by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) of the just society. Surely, upon the corpse of our causeway hopes anything less would be inadequate.


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I have a very short and sweet reply to the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarie) in respect of tariffs on the Borden-Tormentine Ferry. The acting minister advises that the government's decision concerning passenger and automobile rate changes on the Borden-Tormentine Ferry will be announced in the very near future.
April 29, 196f	COMMONS



INDUSTRY-DEVCO-COMPULSORY RETIREMENT OF MINERS

Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-Easl Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, earlier this week I put a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) with regard to the Devco corporation, asking that the officials take account of the situation in respect of the Crown Corporation Devco and the suggested compulsory retirement situation. I wanted to know why the minister supported the plan for this compulsory retirement at between age 60 and 65.
It has been brought to my attention that in respect of this voluntary aspect of the situation Devco suggests the employees or dependants of persons employed by the company in coal mining and related work will fall into a similar category. Surely, the minister is aware, as is the Prime Minister, that this case will wind up in court. The final solution, I suggest, will be worked out as a result of a judgment by the court. In seeking a reply to the question I requested further information from the government, but the Prime Minister again referred this matter to the minister who has some responsibility. In spite of the fact that this company has spent some $20 million in respect of this retirement situation, and the reference of this matter to a minister who in fact has nothing whatever to do with the situation, I suggest the government should take a second look at the matter and refer it to another minister who perhaps might have some responsibility.
The Prime Minister's response was that something was being done about it, and that the responsible minister was actively engaged in doing something about the situation. However, my information is that in response to the efforts which have been made, nothing has been done. That is why I feel this situation will wind up in a court case.
I asked the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) a week ago if some answers could be given to the questions posed to the law officers about his last answers in the house, in respect of this matter. He did not give any positive answer, but suggested that the committee chairman, and no one else, could perhaps deal with the answers at this time.
It was my understanding when we were dealing with Section 18 of the act to establish the Cape Breton Development Corporation which provided for the establishment of pension arrangements for the benefit of persons and dependants of persons formerly employed by the companies in connection with coal
DEBATES	8151
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion mining, related works and undertakings formerly operated by the companies, a permanent secretary was to be appointed to look into appropriate legislation.
It may be that Devco assumes it is looking after this obligation, but this is not the case. This has not been the case in respect of any works or undertakings formerly operated or carried on by the company. This has never been the policy in respect of the situation which even now exists. This is the substance of the matter in respect of which I asked the question.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
The miners have been pensioned off by the former company since 1953. The moment they qualified for old age security payments, $40 was knocked off the original $75, on the basis that the coal company had contributed toward the old age security payments. This is nonsense. It should never have been done. I argued this question many times with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) when the Canada Pension Plan was set up. I maintain that this was not a pension but was a gratuity, because there was no such agreement between the union and the company.
I hope that Devco will at least restore to these former workers the $40 that has been lopped off by the Dominion Coal Company, because the legislation makes this mandatory. The Interpretation Act provides that the word "shall" is imperative. It has been laid down that the workers shall compulsorily retire at age 60. Therefore, this government will have to give these miners, former employees, what is theirs according to the legislation passed by parliament.


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is only about a week ago that we reviewed this matter. I indicated then that I thought the hon. member was a little confused, and I have no reason to think that he is any less confused tonight.


Donald MacInnis: Nonsense. This is something entirely new. Let us have the truth. You did not give it to me last week. This will be a question of privilege, if you want to make something of it.


Russell Clayton Honey: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend repeats, shouts and raves, but I do not like-
8152	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder whether this is the way in which we should proceed. We have heard the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis), and the parliamentary secretary now has three minutes in which to reply.


Russell Clayton Honey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In his remarks the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond referred to compulsion being used. I reject that suggestion out of hand; it is not the case. The hon. member again reiterated his former complaint about the legality of the action taken. I assure him that the matter has been approved and authorized by the law officers: of the crown. I think this is the third time I have said that-


Donald MacInnis: That is a lie.


Russell Clayton Honey: It is a little difficult for me and hon. members of the house to understand why my hon. friend is so persistent in this matter. He has had the answer time and time again to this' question. He has persisted, and I suggest to him respectfully that he is arguing against the interests of the people in his constituency. I should like to refer to a report in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of April 23, under the headline "Maclnnis Asked to 'Cool It' by UMW". The article reads:
No. 12 local union of the United Mine Workers has told Cape Breton-East Richmond member of parliament Donald Maclnnis to "cool it."
The New Waterford miners, in a special meeting, decided to send a telegram to Mr. Maclnnis-
I hope the hon. member received that telegram.
-scoring "his destructive attitude towards Devco's plan."


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry, but the parliamentary secretary's time has expired.



AGRICULTURE-ST. PAUL, ALBERTA-PROTEST AGAINST FARM INCOMES

Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: May I
say at the outset, Mr. Speaker, that I am very pleased that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) is able to be in the house this evening to discuss what I feel is a very important and urgent matter. I wish to raise the question of the serious deterioration in farm income in the past seven months in western Canada, and particularly in the north-east central portion of Alberta, the area of St. Paul and Bon-nyville. My question was prompted by the protest meeting by the farmers of this district which took place in the town of St. Paul,

DEBATES	April 29, 1969!
attracting in excess of 800 people last Monday.
I believe it is reasonable to assume that, in general, farmers are quite patient, willing and able to take their share of knocks, as; they certainly have. However, when conditions continue to deteriorate with no immediate sign of improvement, with no significant sign of government interest, and no alternative means of securing a decent living, then I believe protests and lobbies are justified.
At a time when seeding and spring field operations are about to commence, farmers are confronted with a critical shortage of cash. The average return per bushel of wheat delivered to elevators in thisi area amounts to approximately $1.03. Most farmers last fall were forced to seek maximum cash advances, with the result that now, upon delivery, half of their return is deducted to be applied to the advance which was received last fall. As a result, the farmers are receiving an average net of roughly 50 cents per bushel.
The difficult conditions in this area are further aggravated by the fact that generally a large part of this area is a newly developing district, and by the fact that farmers have experienced three or four crop failures prior to this year. The problem that is foreseen now is that if some form of relief does not come in the near future, if markets do not improve, if deliveries are not more adequately accommodated, and if income is not upgraded, farmers will be confronted with a very grave difficulty in clearing their present cash loans on stored grain. They will thus experience much hardship in acquiring new cash advances this fall.
One alternative of course is to launch an all-out aggressive wheat selling campaign, something which this government has failed to do. We have not even been given any assurance that they might try. We have been given no indication of whether or not Russia might exercise her option of picking up 150 million bushels as part of the three year, long term agreement which I believe expires at the end of July.
We have been given no indication of any exploration of new markets. Japan has indicated its lack of interest in Canadian wheat and has elected, just recently, to purchase further large orders from Australia, the United States, and even Bulgaria for the first time. Perhaps Japan has reason to do what it has done. To date, we have failed to settle with the Japanese for a shipment of wheat which was of a low grade quality or which
April 29, 1969	COMMONS
was damaged by rain. Furthermore, I am sure they have not forgotten the bungling and mismanagement in loading itheir ships in Vancouver harbour this winter. We have seen many trade junkets to Asia and Japan but we have see no action, no orders, no sales, no sales programs-just lots of talk.
I suppose that now we shall have to wait perhaps for the resignation of the Minister of Agriculture before any action is taken with regard to western agriculture. The business community in the area to which I referred has also felt these adverse effects. During the period from January 1 to April 30, 1969, the area to which I referred experienced the following decrease in the level of sales as compared with the corresponding period last year. Machinery sales have decreased by 66 per cent; sales of fertilizer have decreased some 60 per cent; feed and prepared supplements have decreased by 15 per cent; hardware supplied by 38 per cent; clothing supplies by 20 per cent; machinery repairs by 55 per cent; and groceries by 10 per cent. So, it becomes very evident that if conditions of this nature continue hardship will be caused in the business community as well. Furthermore, there is a very strong indication of the fact that accounts receivable are being consolidated, and abnormal borrowings are being negotiated from banks and other lending institutions to liquidate accounts receivable which are being carried by the local business concerns. In other words, it would appear that farmers in this area are living on borrowed time.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
We on this side of the house are rather disappointed at the government's lack of concern for western agriculture. We are also disappointed about the attitude of some of the western cabinet ministers. I do not refer particularly to the Minister of Agriculture. Many of the questions we pose during the question period are answered in a flippant or arrogant manner, as if to say these matters are none of our concern. In many cases we get no answer at all. Farmers are at a loss to know what to plant this year. Many are turning to coarse grains and oil seeds. Here, too, we must follow an aggressive sales policy; surely, we can produce far more than we can feed to our own livestock. I cannot understand our failure to develop the potential of the feed grain markets of eastern Canada. This being so, how can we expect to sell our produce abroad? The point I am making is that our marketing arrangements as a whole are in
DEBATES	8153
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion need of a major shake-up. I believe the policies of the Wheat Board have to become more flexible and ought to be upgraded. This is where government leadership is necessary, and until it is provided some form of assistance must be forthcoming.
I,	therefore, plead with the government, asserting that western agriculture requires help, and requires it badly, now. Let it be in the form of an acreage payment or of a direct grant, or in the form of supplementary income to provide farmers with a decent living as a short term measure. If something is not done soon, the wave of protests we are now witnessing could grow and expand, conceivably leading to a form of violence. The agriculture community is communicating a message, Mr. Speaker. I take this opportunity to warn the government that it had better pick up the receiving unit and start listening. It had better start listening carefully to these submissions and institute proposals for overcoming a condition which could well develop into a crisis more severe than any we have witnessed before.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I think the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) would agree that in the three minutes allowed to me to reply I could not make even a cursory examination of all the economic factors involved in the subjects he raised.
I would remind him that the Standing Committee on Agriculture is now in the process of preparing recommendations following its observations during a tour of western Canada when a first hand look was taken at some of the areas affected by the problems the hon. member has raised.
In the question he asked yesterday, the hon. member had something to say about the timing of government programs and policies for dealing with these measures. If the government were to make an announcement respecting precisely the matters which the committee is considering, it would not show the kind of respect I have for this house and for its committees. Surely, if the committee is prepared to come forward with a report in a very few days, the government ought to respect it sufficiently at least to provide enough time for the preparation of that report, which is being done, as far as I am aware, as rapidly as possible.
I am sure we intend to take very seriously the observations and recommendations of that committee. After all, that was the purpose of the tour of western Canada by the committee
April 29, 1969

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion earlier this month. Within the three minutes allowed me, I think that answers the question in the narrow context in which it was placed on Hansard yesterday. The hon. member, as usual, expanded it tonight because he is allowed seven mintues compared with my three.
The hon. member mentioned one or two other positive things that have been done, such as doubling cash advances, which must have been of help to the farmers in that area. They would have been able to get cash to take care of costs incurred last fall and through the winter.
I do not try to contend that this is a complete answer to the problem, which is a very
serious one. However, I do not accept his contention that the Canadian government or the agencies of the farmers, such as the Canadian Wheat Board and other bodies involved, are doing anything less than the full amount that they think is advisable in a sales promotion campaign. There is a very vigorous sales promotion campaign in regard to all cereals and other crops which can be grown on this land. I see my time has expired.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am afraid the minister's time has expired.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.28 p.m.

Wednesday, April 30, 1969



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Third report of Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, in English and in French- Mr. Legault (Nipissing).
[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization-Mr. Blair.
[Editor's Note: For reports of Committees above referred to, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]