1969-05-05

Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the house from my place that Mr. Donald Gordon, one of Canada's most distinguished public servants, died suddenly on Saturday. We are all well aware of his towering accomplishments as deputy governor of the Bank of Canada, chairman of the Foreign Exchange Control Board and, later, as chairman of the Wartime Prices and Trade Board. He was director of the Industrial Development Bank and, at the summit of his career, chairman of the board of directors and president of the Canadian National Railways from 1950 to 1966.
We have always regarded the late Mr. Gordon as the kind of person who personifies Canada abroad. He was large in stature and decisive in action. In his career we all have much to admire and learn. Following his appointment as president of Canada's largest railway, Mr. Gordon is reported to have said:
All my life I had learned things from the bottom up. Now I am learning from the top down and I find it's a lot harder.
From either direction Donald Gordon learned fast and learned well; and Canada benefited as a result. I am sure all hon. members will join with me in expressing sincere sympathy to Mrs. Gordon and the Gordon family.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and the members of this party I join with the Prime Minister in expressing our regrets to the family of the late Mr. Gordon. We appreciate what he did for this country. There are not many people of whom it can be said genuinely that they were builders of the country. Mr. Gordon did his share of building as deputy governor of the Bank of Canada and as chairman of the board and president of Canadian National Railways. Earlier in his career he did good work as chairman of the Foreign Exchange Control Board and of the Wartime Prices and
Trade Board. His accomplishments earned him the gratitude of his country.
He was a big man; he was the kind of man this country needs and it was our good fortune that he came here from Scotland. We did not always agree with what he said, but we always respected him for the vigour and determination with which he pursued his ideas. We hope that condolences of the members of this party will be conveyed to Mr. Gordon's family.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the members of this party join with the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the memory of Donald Gordon, one of this country's great public servants who over a period of years did titanic work as head of the Foreign Exchange Control Board, chairman of the Wartime Prices and Trade Board, director of the Industrial Development Bank and chairman of the board and president of Canadian National Railways. For his work as president of Canadian National particularly this country is deeply indebted to him for his vision and for the vigour with which he discharged his responsibilities.
Although we did not always agree with him we could not help admiring the forcefulness with which he defended his ideas and the efficiency with which he carried out any task assigned to him. Here was a public servant who worked hard to do the job given to him by respective governments of this country. On behalf of this party I join with other hon. members in all parts of the house in expressing our deep sympathy to Mrs. Gordon and the Gordon family.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the leader of our party and of my colleagues, I should like to join with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the previous speakers to extend by deepest sympathy to the bereaved family of the late Donald Gordon.
Mr. Speaker, we mourn his death because Mr. Gordon was a great man who rose from the ranks to reach high positions in the government. As the Prime Minister said, his accomplishments in the service of his country and towards its development were towering. We extend our sincere sympathy to the bereaved family.

May 5, 1969
Questions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I should like to inform the house of certain changes in the ministry which shall take effect as of today.

It has been my pleasure to recommend to His Excellency the Governor General the appointment of the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Jamieson) as Minister of Transport.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: May I carry on, Mr. Speaker? The portfolio of Minister of Supply and Services has been assumed by the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Richardson). The hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Andras) has been designated Minister responsible for housing. I wish to add, Mr. Speaker, that during my absences the hon. member for Eglinton will be Acting Prime Minister.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table two copies in English and French of the first report completed by the task force studying the Post Office. It amounts to a 25 year environmental forecast for the Post Office. I would like also to say, Mr. Speaker, that this does not create a precedent, but it is our purpose to table as many reports as possible, especially those of general interest and those which are critical. I of course reserve the right not to table those which deal with internal matters such as management, personnel and financial matters.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER


Mr. Fortin: 1.	Does the government intend to proceed with a full revision of the Crown Liability Act in order to correct some of the existing cases?
(Mr. Fortin.]
2.	When will this new legislation be introduced?
3.	During the past year, how many actions were brought against the government and what was the total amount of claims laid by claimants?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: 1 and 2. A full revision of the Crown Liability Act is not contemplated at the present time.
3.	During 1968, 73 actions were brought against the Government by way of petition of right in the Exchequer Court of Canada, in which claims for a total of approximately $6,000,000 in addition to general damages were asserted. Claims were also made, of course, by way of appeals from income tax assessments, of which 550 were launched in the Tax Appeal Board, and 170 were launched in the Exchequer Court by tax payers during 1968. The amounts involved in the income tax appeals greatly exceed the amounts claimed by way of petition of right. In addition, approximately 200 other proceedings were launched during 1968 in the Exchequer Court and in the Tariff Board in which large amounts of public funds are involved.


FISHERIES TREATY IN NORTH PACIFIC
Mr. Anderson: 1.	Has the Canadian Government received a copy of the bilateral U.S.-U.S.S.R. fishing agreement covering the area off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, California and Alaska, which was negotiated recently?
2.	Is it the intention of the Canadian Government to negotiate a fisheries treaty with the governments of the U.S.A., U.S.S.R., and Japan to cover other areas of the North Pacific?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: 1. On January 31, 1969 the U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. signed an agreement at Washington which amended and extended an agreement of February 13, 1967, as previously amended and extended, in respect of certain fishery problems in the northeastern part of the Pacific Ocean off the coast of the U.S.A. The appropriate Canadian government departments have copies of the agreements in question.
2.	The Canadian government is conducting negotiations with the U.S. government with a view to reaching an agreement on the continued exercise of reciprocal fishing rights by Canadian and U.S. nationals in the respective fishing zones established by the two countries. Japanese and Soviet nationals do not fish in the fishing zones established by Canada off
May 5, 1969

Questions
the coast of British Columbia, and the Canadian government for the present has not entered into negotiations with these countries in respect of their fishing operations in the North Pacific.


STEPHENVILLE, NFLD.,-GOVERNMENT ACCOMMODATION
Mr. Marshall: What accommodation has been leased to the federal government in the Town of Stephenville, Newfoundland, under (a) location (b) area leased
(c)	annual rental, and (d) department of government leasing the accommodation?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: (a) Location, Building No. 450, near main entrance to Harmon Air Base; (b) Area Leased, 1,354 sq. ft.; (c) Annual Rental, $1,200;
(d)	Department, Canada Manpower.
(a) Location, Second floor, Jet Cleaners Building, Queen Street; (b) Area Leased, 168 sq. ft.; (c) Annual Rental, $660.; (d) Department, Unemployment Insurance Commission.


FORESTRY AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT SUBSIDIES
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of Forestry and Rural Development provide subsidies and/or support programs for any segment of the economy, groups or individuals inside Canada and, if so, to what extent, in what amounts, and to whom are the amounts paid?
2.	What amounts have been paid for subsidies and/or support programs during each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1. No.
2.	Not applicable.


POLYMER CORPORATION DIRECTORATE
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	How many Directors are there on the Board of Polymer Corporation?
2.	How many of the Directors are Frenchspeaking?
3.	What are the names and addresses of each such Director?
4.	What is the annual salary received by each Director?
5.	Does this Corporation have special advisers and, if so, what are the names and addresses of each such adviser?
6 What is the annual salary of each?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1. There are nine
directors on the board of Polymer Corporation.
2.	One director is French-speaking and, in addition, two other directors speak both English and French.
3.	Mr. Eugene Laflamme of Quebec City is the French-speaking director.
4.	Directors receive an annual fee of $1500 plus $100 each meeting attended.
5.	and 6. Polymer does not have special advisers.


CORPORATIONS ACT AMENDMENTS
Mr. Gilbert: 1.	As a result of the review and comment by the panels of lawyers, accountants and businessmen as listed at page 6104 of Hansard, were any changes made in the draft bill amending the Corporations Act or are any contemplated?
2.	Were the members of the panels paid any expenses or honoraria and, if so, how much was each paid?
3.	What was the selection procedure used in selecting the members of the panels?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. The recommendations that were made by the Task Force on the Canada Corporations Act were reviewed and commented on by the panels. The bill to be introduced in parliament which will reflect government policy has not been seen by the panels.
2. No honoraria were paid. Travel expenses were reimbursed as follows: Panel of Businessmen: Mr. Jack Austin, Vancouver, Nil; Mr. R. M. Barford, Toronto, $70; Mr. W. J. Cheesman, Hamilton, $56; Mr. J. W. Dobson, Montreal, $45.60; Mr. R. T. Morgan, Toronto, $81.50; Mr. Claude Tetrault, Montreal $36.40; Mr. J. W. Younger, Hamilton, $86.35. Panel of Chartered Accountants: Mr. A. I. Barrow, C.A., Halifax, $163.03; Mr. R. B. Dale-Harris, F.C.A., Toronto, $11.64; Mr. G. Keeping, F.C.A., Toronto, $57.05; Mr. W. R. C. Patrick, F.C.A., Vancouver, $332.62, Mr. J. Valiquette,
C.	A., Montreal, $73.28; Mr. A. G. Watson, F.C.A., Toronto, $115; Mr. F. Winspear, C.A., Edmonton, $325.78. Panel of Lawyers: Mr. D.	A. Berlis, Q.C., Toronto, $64.90; Mr. G. E. Creber, Q.C., Toronto, $123.60; Mr. C. Scott, Q.C., Ottawa, Nil; Mr. G. B. Robertson, Q.C., Halifax, $228.30; Mr. H. G. Field, Q.C., Edmonton, $476.50; Mr. P. Crawford, Toronto, $122; Mr. J. S. Woods, Calgary,

May 5, 1969
Questions
$334.51; Mr. J. A. Desjardins, Montreal, $140.19; Mr. G. McCarthy, Montreal, $54.10; Mr. P. Legrand, Montreal, $113.87; Mr. A. Sweatman, Q.C., Winnipeg, $236; Mr. C. F. Murphy, Vancouver, $510.49; Mr. M. Green-blatt, Q.C. Montreal, Nil.
3.	The members of the panels were selected on the basis of their professional or business reputation and experience, with due regard to proper regional representation. The Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants and the Canadian Manufacturers' Association were also invited to nominate a number of persons for the appropriate panel. Before serving on the panel, each member took an oath of secrecy.


STUDENT LOAN FUND REPAYMENTS
Mr. McIntosh: 1.	In light of the severely restricted opportunities for employment of persons graduating from Canadian universities this year, will the government amend repayment provisions of the Student Loan Fund, to take account of the inability to repay of those students who cannot find jobs upon graduation?
2.	What other specific steps is the government taking to assist Canadian students who are graduating this year and are unable to find adequate employment?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Departments of Finance and Manpower and Immigration as follows: 1. The regulations made pursuant to the Canada Student Loans Act provide for a large degree of flexibility in setting repayment terms. They are capable of accommodating virtually every conceivable situation, including cases where students are unemployed following graduation and cannot commence regular repayments immediately following the expiry of their interest and repayment free period. Borrowers are required, however, in all cases, to discuss their particular circumstances with the bank to which their loans are owed, before agreement can be reached on appropriate repayment terms.
2. As the number of graduates entering the labour force has increased, a proportionate increase of effort to assist their placement has been made by the Department of Manpower and Immigration. Through 57 Canada Manpower Centres on various university campuses and in community colleges, students are being supplied with pertinent information on job opportunities and the labour market generally. A clearing system covering all 350 Canada

Manpower Centres assures that student applications for employment can, when required, receive a wide exposure to potential employers. A Directory of Canadian Employers who have expressed interest in hiring graduates has been published by the department and made available to students through the campus centres. Additional information regarding job vacancies is fed back from the Canada Manpower Centre network to the centres on campus. Officers at all centres are maintaining, and as needed, increasing their efforts to seek out every possible job vacancy through their employer contacts.
So that students will receive as much assistance as possible in choosing university courses with a better knowledge of labour market demands and job opportunities, Canada Manpower Centre staff are intensifying their efforts to supply career and labour market information through the school guidance system.


GRANTS TO OIL REFINERIES
Mr. Mahoney: 1.	What grant or subsidy has been paid or agreed to be paid by the Government of Canada in respect of the construction or expansion of each of the following oil refineries (a) Newfoundland Refining, Come-by-Chance, Nfld. (b) Gulf Oil, Point Tupper, N.S. (c) Irving Oil, Saint John, N.B. (d) Golden Eagle, Quebec City, Que. (e) Nepco Refining, Quebec City, Que. (f) Irving Oil, Quebec City, Que. (g) Petrofina, Montreal, Que. (h) Shell, Montreal, Que.?
2.	Are there any other refineries located east of the Ottawa Valley presently being constructed or expanded in respect of which a grant or subsidy has been paid or agreed to be paid and, if so, what is the location, owner, capacity, year of completion and amount of grant or subsidy in each case?


Russell Clayton Honey: 1. In the cases of (b), (c), (d) and (f), it has been agreed that the projects will receive grants under the Area Development Incentives Act provided they meet the conditions of the legislation. The amounts of the grants under this legislation are determined when the projects come into commercial production.
2. No.


SAINTE-JUSTINE HOSPITAL, MONTREAL
Mr. Laprise: During the last five years, has the federal government granted subsidies to Sainte-Justine Hospital, in Montreal, to cover maintenance, administrative or other costs?
May 5, 1969


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Based on projects submitted by the province of Quebec, the federal government, through the national health grants program, provided assistance to the Ste. Justine Hospital, Montreal, during the past five years as follows: (a) Hospital construction grant, $15,839; (b) General health grants, $921,862.
During the last five years, Ste. Justine Hospital has been listed in the Agreement with the province of Quebec under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act and has been benefitted from this shared cost program to the extent of approximately 50 per cent of maintenance, administrative and general operating expenses approved by the province of Quebec.


COST TO POST OFFICE OF &quot;TIME&quot;, &quot;NEWSWEEK&quot; AND &quot;READER'S DIGEST&quot;
Mr. Mather: What, in dollars, is the cost of the Post Office in carrying "Time", "Newsweek" and "Reader's Digest" at 1968 and 1969 rates?
Questions
in the United States that U.S. quota restrictions on Canadians entering the U.S. as landed immigrants are seriously hindering the normal movement and promotion of Canadian personnel in Canadian firms while U.S. citizens may enter or leave Canada for similar purposes without restrictions?
3.	Is the Canadian government planning any action with regard to these related problems?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. Yes, informal discussions with the appropriate United States authorities are now underway.
As indicated in reply to a previous question on this subject (.Hansard p. 5314 February 10, 1969), the Canadian Government has already made formal representations to the U.S.A. authorities regarding the introduction of a numerical limitation on the movement of people between our two countries by the imposition of the ceiling on Western Hemisphere Immigration, which went into effect on July 1, 1968.
2.	Yes, the Government recently received complaints along these lines.
3.	See answer to part 1.



KINGSTON-CORNWALL WATER STUDIES

Eric William Kierans: In so far as the Post Office Department is concerned: Based on 1967-68 volumes and costs, the deficit incurred by the Post Office Department in the handling of Reader's Digest and Time at the postage rates in effect before and as of 1st April 1969 is estimated as follows:
Before 1st Effective 1st April 1969 April 1969
Time	$864,362	$735,153
Reader's Digest $982,388	$851,636
Newsweek is mailed in the United States, consequently, comparable data is not available.



APPLICATION OF QUOTA TO CANADIANS ENTERING U.S.

Mr. Lambert (Edmonton: West):
1.	Has the government either formally or informally held discussions with the Government of the United States regarding the effects on Canadians employed by U.S. firms or their subsidiaries operating in Canada of the quota restrictions now applicable to Canadians seeking entry into the U.S. as landed immigrants in order to continue their employment?
2.	Has the government received protests from Canadian firms operating subsidiaries or branches
29189-526i

Question No. 1,959-Mr. Godin:
Did the studies of the quality of the water in the St. Lawrence River between Kingston and Cornwall, since 1965, reveal any danger to swimmers?


John Carr Munro: The studies carried out in the international section of the St. Lawrence river under the aegis of the International Joint Commission, since 1965, have been designed specifically to examine whether or not there is pollution being discharged on one side of the international boundary which is causing or is likely to cause a threat to health or property on the other side of the boundary. The studies were not conducted to assess the water quality in local areas near the points of discharge. The findings of the studies are currently being reviewed by one of the International Joint Commission's Advisory Boards on Water Pollution, with a final report to the Commission expected later this year.
A review of data collected by the Department of National Health and Welfare in these international waters indicates a water quality acceptable for swimming purposes and other water contact sports. These data cannot however be considered as representative

May 5, 1969
Questions
of local conditions, though this may well be so. The control of water quality in the Canadian portion of these waters is under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Water Resources Commission, and the determination of whether or not waters in specific areas are suitable for water contact sports is the responsibility of local health authorities.



QUEBEC-ADULT TRAINING PROGRAM

Mr. Godin: How many agricultural workers were accepted under adult training programmes for the 1967-68 and 1968-69 sessions in each of the following constituencies (a) Champlain (b) Portneuf (c) Montmorency (d) Charlevoix (e) Bellechasse (f) Levis (g) Beauce (h) Lotbiniere?
{Eng lish]



TRANSLATION OF &quot;HANSARD&quot;

Mr. Godin: Who is the Minister responsible for the translation of Hansard?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: I regret that in replying to an oral question on March 17, I included the responsibility for translation of parliamentary reports with that for printing. The Hansard Debates are translated by the Debates Division of the Translations Bureau which is under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State. The printing of the translated version is the responsibility of the Queen's Printer.



A.B.M. SYSTEM-POLICY OF GOVERNMENT

Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: (a)	1967-68 Nil
(b)	120
(c)	Nil
(d)	Nil
(e)	8
(f)	12
<g>
37
(h)	64
12
Nil
36 and 58 part time 33 and 62 part time 67 166



INSURANCE PLAN FOR FLUE-CURED TOBACCO

Mr. Robinson: Question No. 1,965-Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-
Cowichan-The Islands):
1.	Has the federal government decided whether it will support or condemn the United States Government's proposed ABM system as expressed by the Prime Minister in Hansard, Wednesday, March 19, 1969?
2.	Is it the intention of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to attempt to obtain contracts for Canadian industry related to the development and construction of the United States Government's ABM system, as expressed by Mr. A. Mundy, Assistant Deputy Minister of the Industry, Trade and Commerce Department to the Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs Committee on April 1, 1969?


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the Prime Minister's office and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce as follows: 1. No.
2. Under the Canada-U.S. Production Sharing Program Canadian industry is free to participate in most U.S. defence programs and to seek, actively, subcontracts from U.S. companies. The department has the responsibility to assist Canadian industry in these efforts. However, no such assistance has been provided relating to the A.B.M. program.

In view of the present Health and Welfare Committee's concern about the harmful effects of the use of tobacco, will the government reconsider its program to provide support for a special insurance plan for flue-cured tobacco?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: In so far as the Department of Agriculture is concerned: It is not proposed at this time to exclude tobacco crops from support under provincial crop insurance programs.



FARM MACHINERY-ADDITIONAL REPORT BY DR. BARBER

Mr. Schreyer: 1.	Will the Minister of Agriculture table the additional report on farm machinery prepared by Dr. Barber, referred to by the Minister in Hansard of April 1, 1969, page 7370?
2.	What action is the Minister planning regarding the results of the above study and the study paper on farm machinery presented to the Congress on Agriculture?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: 1. No, since this is only an interim report.
2. Consideration as to what action may be taken will be made after receipt of the final report.
May 5, 1969



UNPAID INCOME TAX

Mr. Salisman: For the taxation years 1955, 1960, 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968, what is the distribution of the total amount of income tax unpaid for the following income levels (a) under $10,000 (b) $10,000 to $20,000 (C) $20,000 to $50,000 (d) over $50,000?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister of National Revenue):: The information is not available in the form requested.



EXTENSION OF TAX EXEMPTION TO PENSIONERS UNDER 70

Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to extending the $500 income tax exemption to old age pensioners under 70 years of age?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: This is a matter of government policy. If the government proposes an amendment to the Income Tax Act to change any exemptions, it #vill be announced at the appropriate time.



FAMILY ALLOWANCES PAYMENTS

Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to changing (a) the amount or (b) the type of payment of Family Allowances?


John Carr Munro: The government is presently conducting a review of all federal social development programs. In the course of this review the Family Allowance Program will be examined to ascertain how and to what extent this program is meeting its original and changed social and economic objectives.



FOREIGN MINING COMPANIES IN N.W.T. AND YUKON

Mr. Harding: 1.	Which three foreign mining companies were granted licences to carry on mining operations in the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon Territory in the fiscal year 1967/68, as stated on page 18 of the 1968 Annual Report of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?
2.	What criteria are used to determine whether a foreign mining company will be granted a licence or not?
3.	What rights are granted to the companies by the granting of licences?
4.	Is there a fee charged for these licences and, if so (a) on what basis is it levied, and (b) what was the fee for each of the above three companies?
Questions
5.	Are oil and natural gas companies included in the definition of "mining" companies and, if not, for what reason?


Stanley Ronald Basford: 1. Shenandoah Oil Corporation; Gage Canadian Oil and Gas Corporation; Global Marine Drilling Company.
2.	Subject to what is said in paragraph 5 of this reply, there are no criteria to determine whether foreign mining companies should be granted a licence other than those outlined in Part IV of the Canada Corporations Act, Sections 203 to 207, inclusive.
3.	The rights granted were to carry on mining operations in the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories in accordance with the provisions of Part IV of the Canada Corporations Act.
4.	(a) The fees were based upon the Tariff of Fees in force prior to August 1, 1968; (b) $100.00.
5.	The answer is in the affirmative. It must be pointed out, however, that Part IV of the Canada Corporations Act was repealed by Section 49(1) of Chapter 52 of the Statutes of Canada 1964-65, the repeal to come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation of the Governor in Council. The repeal came into force by Order in Council P.C. 1968-1337 dated August 1st, 1968.
The repealing of this section took place at the time when both the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories had adequate legislation to assume this responsibility.
The Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has not issued any further licences in this respect because of the repealing of that section of the Act.



CANADIAN PARTICIPATION IN CONFERENCE AT THE HAGUE

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 2,041
André-Gilles Fortin: 1.	How long has Canada been taking part in the conference at The Hague and if Canada has only been taking part for two years, for what reason?
2.	What agreements has Canada signed at these conferences, have they been ratified and, if not, for what reason?
3.	Does the government intend to enter into discussions with the provinces concerning implementation of the agreements, in so far as such implementation lies within the legislative jurisdiction of the provinces?
4.	Who were the members of the Canadian delegation to the last conference at The Hague?
Questions

May 5, 1989


John Napier Turner: 1. Canada has taken part in the Eleventh Session of The Hague Conference on Private International Law which was held at The Hague from October 7 to 26, 1968. The Hague Conference normally meets every fourth year. On September 4, 1968, Canada was admitted as a member and its instrument of acceptance was transmitted on the 7th day of October. Due to its form of government, Canada has found it difficult up to that time to seek membership in the Conference.
2.	No agreements binding on the participating government are signed at these sessions but delegates agree to submit to the appreciation of their governments draft conventions. At the conclusion of the 1968 session the following draft conventions were thus signed: (1) Convention on the recognition of divorces and legal separations; (2) Convention on the law applicable to traffic accidents; and (3) Convention on the taking of evidence abroad in civil or commercial matters. These conventions have not yet been ratified. Decision as to their ratification must await the conclusion of studies now being made of their import.
3.	A decision as to the entering into discussion with the provinces concerning the implementation of the conventions, must await decision as to their ratification and as to the best procedure to engage into such discussion; these questions are currently under study.
4.	The Canadian delegation at the Eleventh Session of The Hague Conference was composed as follows: Rodrigue Bedard, Q.C., Associate Deputy Minister of Justice, head of the delegation; Dr. Horace E. Read, VicePresident of Dalhousie University; Professor Paul-A. Crepeau, of McGill University; H. Allan Leal, Q.C., Chairman of the Ontario Law Reform Commission; L. R. McTavish, Q.C., member of the Conference of Commissioners on Uniformity of Legislation in Canada; The Honourable Sterling R. Lyon, Attorney General of Manitoba.



U.S.-CANADA CIVIL DEFENCE AGREEMENT

Mr. MacDonald (Egmonl): 1.	Is a civil defence agreement in effect between Canada and the United States?
2.	On what date was it signed and where and by whom?
3.	What is the basis of such an agreement?
4.	What public or private discussions occurred prior to the decision to sign this agreement?

5.	Does this agreement provide for a joint emergency board and who would be designated to serve on such a board?


Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 1. There is in effect an agreement on co-operation between the United States and Canada on civil emergency planning.
2.	August 8, 1967, at Ottawa by the Ambassador of the United States for the United States and the Secretary of State for External Affairs for Canada.
3.	The agreement provides for consultation and co-operation in civil emergency planning between the two countries. The purpose of this consultation is to ensure that national plans formulated independently by each country are as compatible as is considered desirable and possible by both countries. The agreement does not provide for integrated planning, and the two countries retain national control over their own civil emergency plans.
4.	On the Canadian side the principle participants in the discussion on this matter were officials of the Canada Emergency Measures Organization and the Department of External Affairs. Other Canadian departments concerned with civil emergency planning were associated with these discussions. On the United States side the principle participants were officials of the Office of Emergency Planning, the Office of Civil Defense and the Department of State. The draft agreement was concurred in by the U.S.-Canada Civil Emergency Planning Committee, and subsequently approved by the Canadian Cabinet.
5.	The agreement does not provide for a joint emergency board, but rather provides for a joint committee designated the United States-Canada Civil Emergency Planning Committee. Its membership comprises, for Canada: the Director General, Canada Emergency Measures Organization; a representative of the Department of External Affairs; and for the United States: the Director, Office of Emergency Planning; the Director, Office of Civil Defense; a representative of the Department of State.



SANDFORD, N.S.-CONTRACTS TO L. E. SHAW

Mr. Comeau: How many of the 111 contracts awarded to Mr. L. E. Shaw of Sandford, Nova Scotia were open to public tender (a) how many were invited tenders, and (b) how many did this contractor bid upon?
May 5, 1969


Arthur Laing: Public tender, 19. (a) Invited tender, 41; (b) 60.



ECONOMIC COUNCIL STUDY OF COMBINES

Mr. Gilbert: 1.	What are the terms of reference given to the Economic Council of Canada and its study of combines activity in Canada?
2.	When is it expected that this study will be completed?


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: 1. I am informed by the Economic Council of Canada as follows: In July, 1966, the government requested the Economic Council of Canada to undertake a study of certain important aspects of the responsibilities of the Registrar General of Canada and his department under the Government Organization Act which was awaiting proclamation at that time. The terms of reference are as follows: In the light of the Government's long-term economic objectives, to study and advise regarding: (a) the interests of the consumer particularly as they relate to the functions of the Department of the Registrar General; (b) combines, mergers, monopolies and restraint of trade; (c) patents, trade marks, copyrights and registered industrial designs.
2.	It is anticipated that the report on combines, mergers, monopolies and restraint of trade will be completed by mid-year, with the total reference to be completed by the end of the present fiscal year.



EFFECT OF U.S. ANTI-TRUST LEGISLATION

Mr. Gilbert: Has the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs undertaken a study to examine the effects on Canada of United States anti-trust legislation and, if so, are any changes in legislation anticipated and, if not, for what reason has such study not been undertaken?


Stanley Ronald Basford: The Director of Investigation and Research under the Combines Investigation Act considers the effect of United States antitrust laws in particular cases. This matter was given special study and consideration in connection with the Canadian Radio Patents Limited case in 1959. Arising out of that case and talks between the Attorneys General of Canada and the United States, enforcement of antitrust laws in the United States which may affect Canadian interests and vice versa are now considered under what is known as the Fulton-Rogers understanding, providing for a policy
Questions
of notification and consultation in such circumstances between Canada and the United States as described by the then Minister of Justice in Hansard for February 3, 1959, at pages 617-19, and in accordance with the recommendation adopted on October 5, 1967, by the Council of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development as set out at pages 25-27 of the Annual Report of the Director of Investigation and Research, Combines Investigation Act, for the year ended March 31, 1968.
In accordance with publicly announced Government policy, no amendments to the Combines Investigation Act are contemplated pending receipt of the report of the Economic Council of Canada on Competition Policy.



PRODUCTION OF BACTERIOLOGICAL WEAPONS

Mr. Mather: Does any federal department, agency or Armed Service participate in the study or production of chemical or bacteriological weapons and, if so
(a)	what department, service or agency does so
(b)	what is the purpose of such study or production, and (c) what is the cost of this effort?


David Walter Groos: Yes, (a) the Department of National Defence studies all types of weapons that may be encountered by the Canadian Armed Forces, including chemical and bacteriological weapons. There is no Canadian production of chemical or bacteriological weapons; (b) to assess requirements for defence against such weapons; (c) data is not maintained in a manner that would permit the costs of such studies to be readily isolated.



AMHERST, N.S., POST OFFICE

Mr. Coates: Does the government intend to enlarge the space available to patrons of the Post Office at Amherst, Nova Scotia and, if so, when will tenders be called for the enlargement of the facilities?


Arthur Laing: Yes. It is hoped to call tenders late this summer.



FORT QU'APPELLE, SASK.-PUBLIC BUILDING

Mr. Burton: 1.	With respect to alterations to the public building in Fort Qu'Appelle as set out on page 318 of 1969-70 Estimates, is it the intention of the government that the Fort Qu'Appelle Post Office will remain in this building?

May 5. 1969
Questions
2.	II not, what arrangements are proposed for accommodation for the post office and what arrangements have been completed to date in this regard?


Arthur Laing: 1. No decision has yet been made. The Department is studying the most economical and feasible means of providing increased accommodation for the Post Office and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
2. No arrangements have been completed to date.



DARTMOUTH, N.S.-FEDERAL BUILDING CLOCK

Mr. Forreslall: 1.	How long has it been since the clock in the Dartmouth Federal Building ceased to work?
2.	What is wrong with it and how much would it cost to have it repaired?
3.	Will it be repaired and, if so, when?


Arthur Laing: 1. 1965.
2.	The clock is worn out. Extensive repairs would be required costing an estimated $3,000.
3.	No.



MADAWASKA-VICTORIA REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

Mr. Corbin: 1.	How many companies in the federal constituency of Madawaska-Victoria have received financial aid under the Regional Development Agency's subsidy program since the inauguration of this program and what amount did each company receive?
2.	What is the number and the amount for the whole of New Brunswick?


Russell Clayton Honey: 1. (a) To March 31, 1969, four companies have received industrial development grants.
(b) Name of Firm	Amount Received

51,527.89 20,000.00 52,141.60 26,288.00
a total of

[Mr. Burton.)

ASSISTANCE TO Ph.D. STUDENTS


Mr. Anderson: Are exceptions made to the National Research Council policy of granting assistance to Ph.D. students over the age of thirty and, if so, on what occasions?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: No.



SCIENCE COUNCIL STUDY ON COMMUNICATIONS

Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Which government department or agency is analysing the results of the Science Council of Canada study on technological communications?
2.	When is it anticipated that the review of the above study will be completed?


James Edgar Walker: I am informed by
the Science Council of Canada as follows: 1. Special Study No. 8, entitled Scientific and Technical Information in Canada-Part 1, was prepared by a study group headed by Mr. J. P. I. Tyas of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce for the Science Council of Canada. It is not a report of the Science Council itself.
2. The Science Council of Canada is presently considering this report and will be issuing its own report to the government in about October of this year.



ADULT TRAINING PROGRAM EXPENDITURES

Mr. Rodrigue: What are the estimated amounts placed at the disposal of the department for the adult training program (a) do the provinces participate, one way or the other, in this program (b) if so, what is the participation of the Province of Quebec?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The estimated amounts placed at the disposal of the Department of Manpower and Immigration for the occupational training of adults program in the fiscal year 1969-70 are $116 million to purchase training services and $134 million to provide training allowances, (a) The provinces provide training services required by the program; the cost of these services is fully borne by the Department of Manpower and Immigration; (b) See (a) above.
Nadeau Poultry Farms Ltd. Long Fertilizer Ltd.
Highland Hardwood Ltd.
Raoul Coutourier Lumber Ltd.
2. 33 firms have received
May 5, 1969



REDUCTION OF SUPPORT FOR E.M.O.

Mr. Dinsdale: Has the government received complaints during the recent floods on the Prairies that the Emergency Measures Organization has been rendered ineffective by reason of the recent reduction in federal government support for the program and, if so, from what points have the complaints originated?


David Walter Groos: No such complaints have been received by the Canada Emergency Measures Organization or the Department of National Defence.



ORTONA BARRACKS, EDMONTON, ROAD RELOCATION

Mr. Lambert (Edmonton: West):
1.	Has the Department of National Defence received any notice from the City of Edmonton of any requirement for road relocation purposes of any or all of the D.N.D. property known as Ortona Barracks in the City of Edmonton?
2.	If so, when was such notice given, for what date and to what extent of the property?
3.	Are any of the reserve units presently using Ortona Barracks to be affected to the extent of losing their training facilities?
4.	If so, where are they to be relocated and when?


David Walter Groos: 1. No.
2, 3 and 4. Not applicable.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 933
Mr. Skoberg:: 
CANADIAN EMBASSIES
Mr. Robinson: 1. How many Embassies does Canada have?
2 Where is each Embassy located?
3.	What is the total number of personnel attached to each Embassy?
4.	What is the total cost of each Embassy during each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?
Return tabled.


CANADIAN HIGH COMMISSIONERS
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many High Commissioners does Canada have?
2.	Where is each High Commissioner located?
3.	What is the total number of personnel attached to each High Commissioner's office?
4.	What is the total cost of each High Commissioner's office during each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?
Return tabled.


BANK OF CANADA DIRECTORS
Mr. Burton: What is the name, address, occupation and principal known business associations of each Director of the Bank of Canada?
Return tabled.


YUKON-HOUSES AND SCHOOLS FOR INDIANS
Mr. Nielsen: 1.	For each of the years 1958 to 1968 inclusive, how many houses were built in the Yukon by the government for occupation by Indian people (a) in what location was each of the houses built (b) what was the total amount spent in each such location in new construction of such houses for each of such year (c) how many of such houses have been wired for electricity (i) by the government (ii) by others and in what locations (d) how many of such houses and in what locations have plumbing and how many have an indoor water supply?
2.	How much money has been paid out by the government in welfare grants to Indian people in the Yukon for each of the years 1958 to 1968 inclusive and to how many families in what locations were such payments made for each such year?
COMMONS DEBATES	May 5. 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry
3.	How many school age children of Indian parents are there now in the Yukon (a) how many were there in 1958 (b) how many of these are now attending school (c) how many attended school in 1958?
4.	Are the residential schools at Lower Post, B.C. and Carcross, Yukon being phased out and, if so, when is it contemplated that these schools will no longer be operated as such?
5.	What was the total student population in the Yukon for 1958 and what is it now?
6.	What is the amount of the per capita grant paid by the Government of Canada to the Government of the Yukon on behalf of students of Indian parents attending Yukon schools and what was the amount of such grant in 1958?
7.	For each of the years since the opening of the Yukon Vocational Training Centre, how many Indian students have been trained at that centre to graduation and in what trade classifications (a) how many such students for each of the years since the implementation of the program have been vocationally trained to graduation at centres or educational institutions outside the Yukon (b) what was the cost to the Government of Canada for each of the years aforesaid for the training of such students (i) in the Yukon, and (ii) outside the Yukon?
8.	How many Indian student graduates trained as aforesaid now have full-time employment (a) in the Yukon, and (b) elsewhere?
Return tabled.


ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasi-ings):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence from the house, for very necessary reasons, of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, I direct this question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that it is vitally important for Canada to sell its surplus wheat, and as France is reported to have just received an order for 800,000 tons from Mainland China at the China Spring Fair in Canton, at which fair it is reported that no member of the Canadian Wheat Board has been present as yet, would the Prime Minister take the opportunity on motions tomorrow to report to the house first of all on how it was that Canada let this very important order for wheat slip through its fingers and, secondly, why there has been no member of the Wheat Board at this very important fair, where obviously deals of this kind are made?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the minister answering for Industry, Trade and Commerce to reply to this tomorrow.
[Mr. Nielsen.)


WHEAT-SALE BY FRANCE TO MAINLAND CHINA BELOW I.G.A. PRICE
Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Has he, as the leader of this country's government, made a strong protest to the French government for selling this grain to China at what is substantially below the International Grains Arrangement price, the price toward which we are trying to reach agreement?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will ask the minister to consider this at the same time, Mr. Speaker.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister, the leader of this country's government, if he has made an official protest to the French government for substantially cutting the International Grains Arrangement price at the very time we are trying to reach agreement on that price.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I heard the question the first time.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Well, I want-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Vancouver East.


AGENCY TO PROMOTE SALES ABROAD OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary or related question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that the United States government has set up a new export marketing service to sell agricultural products in the various countries of the world, and in view of the fact, as has been pointed out, that we have lost a very valuable customer in Mainland China at the Canton fair, is the Department of Agriculture considering the setting up of an export sales agency in order to promote the sale of Canadian farm products abroad?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I could not agree with that part of the question in which the hon. member says that we lost a sale. There have been other sales of wheat, and indeed of other grains, made by France to China. But if the hon. member is asking if we are prepared to take action to strengthen our selling agency for agricultural products, I think that that has been under consideration. Indeed some positive action has already been taken, although we do not claim that all that could be used usefully in promoting export sales of agricultural products has been used.
May S. 1969	COMMONS


WHEAT-STEPS TO RENEW AGREEMENT WITH MAINLAND CHINA
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that our wheat agreement with China expired in July of this year may I ask the minister whether his department or the government generally is taking any steps to have that agreement renewed or extended, and if so what those steps are.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes. The Wheat Board of course is involved in this, that is the extension or renewal of an agreement; but I should like to remind the hon. member and members of the house generally that the actual sales and contracts to Mainland China have I believe exceeded the agreement signed three years ago.


REQUEST THAT HANDLING BE TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER MINISTRY
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the deplorable situation that has developed with regard to the handling of grain under the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce will the Prime Minister now consider taking that responsibility away from the minister and placing it under some minister who will give us action, perhaps the Minister of Transport.


VANCOUVER-REPORTED SHORTAGE OF WHEAT FOR SHIPMENT
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question dealing with wheat, and I hope that perhaps tomorrow I too can have an answer on it. In view of the fact that the port of Vancouver does not want to see a recurrence of the grain ship tie-up that we experienced a few weeks ago, will the Prime Minister see to it that tomorrow the house is informed on what action is being taken to correct the situation in Vancouver where, we are informed, eight ships could well be tied up in the next few days because that port is short four and a half million bushels of No. 2 Northern Wheat?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am sure the minister will note the question, Mr. Speaker.
DEBATES	8303
Inquiries of the Ministry


APPEAL TO RAILWAYS TO MOVE WHEAT
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Transport. Will he assure the house that he will make it his first official duty to see that both railroads make every possible effort to move to Vancouver as quickly as. possible the required 4J million bushels of grain.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, may I with your indulgence express a word of thanks to hon. members for their good wishes. I assure my hon. friend I will be more than pleased to look into this matter. I am sure he and other members will extend to me the usual courtesy of allowing me time to find my way in the new department-not too much time I expect.


WHEAT-FAILURE BY CANADA TO SEND REPRESENTATIVE TO CANTON FAIR
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he would tell the house and the country why Canada is not represented at the Canton fair, in view of the fact that prospective sales of wheat could be anticipated? Would he also say whether the government will make a statement setting out the sales that have been made by the Wheat Board internationally in the last two months? I realize the Prime Minister has said, "Do you expect me to sell wheat", but I suggest that the western people have a right to an answer to this question.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I should like
to thank the right hon. member for Prince Albert for indirectly giving support to the efforts being made-


John George Diefenbaker: You have no success.


Mitchell William Sharp: -to establish diplomatic relations, which are being carried on between Peking and Ottawa. Sometimes, to judge from his questions, I am not quite sure on what side he is. I always assumed he would concede that this operation has some beneficial result in terms of trade.


John George Diefenbaker: Now I ask the minister, whose government has been in authority and the ministers of which government have been
May 5, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry on opposite sides of almost every question, whether there is any difference among members of the cabinet on the question of ensuring western markets for wheat.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of his continued reference to the guidelines issued by his department to immigration officers at the Canadian-United States border and in view of his citation from those guidelines on a television program last night, will the minister now reconsider his decision and undertake to table the guidelines and make a statement on motions on this whole matter at the earliest opportunity?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I understand my friend has a motion on the order paper requesting the production of these guidelines. When that motion comes before the house it will be possible to state the attitude of the government on this point.


David Lewis: I rise on a question of privilege in respect of this entire matter. For some months now requests have been made of the minister by members that he make a statement on motions on the question of the admission of military deserters to Canada.
We have asked him on numerous occasions to table the directive of July 29, or whatever is the date, and he has now on at least two occasions outside this house-one in his reply to the moderator of the United Church, and the other last night on a television show- referred to guidelines and told the people of Canada some of the things which they contain. I did not see the show last night but I am informed that he actually quoted from the guidelines.
I respectfully submit that this is either a disregard of the rights of the members of this House of Commons to know about these policies, especially when they have asked for that information or it is a determined and deliberate attempt by the minister to make statements outside the House of Commons so that we on this side of the house cannot say anything about those statements.
If in press statements and on television shows the minister is going to refer to directives that we have asked him to tell us about
[Mr. Diefenbaker.I
in this house, then I say he has a duty to rise on motions and tell us what is in these directives, so that members of the opposition may make comments on them.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the
minister wish to speak to the question of privilege?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: I would be inclined to rule that there is no question of privilege. There may be a serious grievance. This is also an argument which I assume the hon. member would want to advance when the matter is considered, or when the motion to which the minister has referred is put to the house but I doubt very much whether anything can be achieved by pursuing the matter further at this time.


David Lewis: With respect, Mr. Speaker, if I may take one more minute, I suggest we have had a number of examples of this sort of thing. One of these days we have to decide whether ministers are going to treat us with respect in this house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: On the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The hon. member, in his customary way with synthetic indignation, has made a series of charges that the house has had no opportunity to discuss the substance of these guidelines. If he had been present when the estimates of this department were before the house he might have listened to one of his colleagues ask for a clarification of this policy, and he might have listened to a reply in clarification, and then might have listened to the total silence of himself and his colleagues. I am not impressed by the synthetic manner in which the hon. member has attempted to abuse the rules of this house.
There is a motion before the house in the regular way asking for the production of these guidelines. The hon. member knows that by long tradition it has not been possible for any government to produce directions to staff. That has been stated in this house by ministers pre-dating anybody sitting in the house.


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the fact we have had a debate on the motion, perhaps the hon..
May 5. 1969

member lor York South will want to withdraw the motion when it comes before the house.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether these guidelines are used when immigration officers are interviewing prospective immigrants to Canada from countries other than the United States?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the guidelines are in general application to applicants from all countries.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: How do we know?


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, will the minister give a firm date as to when parliament may expect a statement describing either present policy or proposed changes?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As I have stated, Mr. Speaker, the estimates of the department will be before the committee this week. There will be a full opportunity to discuss every aspect of the policy, the practice, how it developed and any charges that have been made against the administration.


Mr. Fairweather:: By your own backbenchers, too.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I hope that members of the committee will take advantage of that opportunity to clarify this issue, which has been distorted beyond measure in many quarters of this country.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, I shall direct my question to the Prime Minister.
Could he tell the house whether the hon. Gabriel Loubier, Quebec Minister of Tourism, Fish and Game, has accepted the conditions set by the federal government for the development of a national park in the Gaspe peninsula?
The Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime
Minister): As the hon. member knows, Mr. Speaker, the minister concerned is supposed to answer questions tomorrow in the house.
Inquiries of the Ministry



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Justice. As the first conviction of capital murder since the new act was passed has been upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada, is it now the policy of the government to apply the royal prerogative and commute that sentence? Is this policy still to apply under the law as it stands?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think that question had better be left for the minister directly responsible for recommending any action to cabinet, namely the Solicitor General.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Then may I refer my question to the appropriate and wise Solicitor General, Mr. Speaker?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the exercise of the prerogative of mercy is not a matter of policy that is announced in advance, but is something that has to be dealt with in each individual case as it arises.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that this is the first such conviction which has been upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada since the new act set out that one can be convicted of capital murder only in the case of the death of a policeman, which was the case here, is it the policy of the government to still apply the royal prerogative of commutation of the death sentence to a sentence of life imprisonment?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy is not a matter of policy of this or any other government.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is still the law.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of reports that a number of top civil servants are to receive, pay increases of up to 29 per cent, can the Prime Minister say whether it will now be in order for unions representing public servants

May 5, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry at lower levels to seek pay increases at the bargaining table higher than the 6 per cent or 7 per cent that has been set down by the government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not expect the hon. member wants me to give guidelines to the unions bargaining for employees.


Stanley Howard Knowles: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Prime Minister explain how it is that with government guidelines which limit pay increases to 6 per cent or 7 per cent, 300 who are a favoured few can get increases of up to 29 per cent?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The supplementary question is argumentative and cannot be received.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Is he in a position to say when the amendments to the official languages bill will be placed before the house? Furthermore, in view of the view expressed somewhat widely that one section in particular which would appear to amend section 133 of the British North America Act should be referred to the Supreme Court for its opinion before the bill comes before the house for consideration, has the government given any consideration to making such reference in order to determine the constitutionality of the bill or any part thereof?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we have taken the position that the bill is constitutional and is within the power of parliament to enact, and we would not of our own initiative refer the bill to the Supreme Court. As for when the house will again debate the matter, I should think that would be very soon indeed.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister say whether the amendments of which he spoke when in western Canada are now ready, have received the approval of the cabinet and are available for early introduction to the bill as originally placed before the house?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the way in which the right hon. member

has put that question would force me to break an oath if I were to answer it directly. I cannot tell him.


John George Diefenbaker: I would not ask the government to break its word on anything, although it does it regularly.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. James A. McGrath (SI. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the new Minister of Transport. In so doing I would like to compliment the Prime Minister on his choice of a Minister of Transport.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Aloysius McGrath: My question is this: Will the minister use his considerable influence with the house leader to bring forward debate on the fifth and sixth reports of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, so that the new minister can have the views of the house on the very serious problems of transportation facing the Atlantic provinces?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I was expecting that question and getting ready to rule it out of order.



GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the attention of the Prime Minister and ask if he can say when the report of the task force on government information services is expected to be completed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I at no time stated that the report of this task force would be made available to 'the house, so I do not understand the import of the question.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Henry Laiulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
May 5, 1969
Would the minister tell the house whether Canada is disregarding its political role in the Pacific by turning to Communist China? Would he also tell the house what progress has been made in the steps taken towards the recognition of Communist China?


Mr. Speaker:: The first part of the question is probably out of order, but the minister may wish to answer the second part.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker,, I think I have told the house already that we are expecting this month to begin substantive discussions in Stockholm between the representatives of the People's Republic of China and the Canadian government.



HOUSING


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Which minister will be responsible for informing the public regularly and periodically of the average interest rate for housing, coming under the National Housing Act?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the house can always ask the newly appointed minister or the Minister of Finance.



AVAILABILITY OF HOMES TO PERSONS OF MODERATE INCOME

George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the great interest the Prime Minister has recently taken in housing, I know he will be familiar with the situation described yesterday in Edmonton by the president of the Canadian Real Estate Board, when he said that two thirds of those who needed housing in Canada could not afford it-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: I was just getting to my question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope so.


George Harris Hees: I figured that just about then Your Honour would want me to do so, so I shall. In view of this very serious situation, is the government planning to introduce any new initiatives in the near future to bring the
Inquiries of the Ministry cost of housing down to a point where people on moderate income can afford it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That will depend on the level of the debate the opposition sets when it discusses the bill now before the house.



HARBOURS


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question of an urgent nature to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that he has just taken over his new position, perhaps he would take the question as notice and let us have an answer as soon as possible, because of its urgency. In view of the decision of the National Harbours Board in Vancouver to appoint a special force to police the port of Vancouver, consisting of 15 or 20 trained peace officers under a retired Mountie as chief, replacing the existing National Harbours Board force of non-professional security guards, will the minister inform the house as to the position of employment of the present security guards, most of whom are war veterans of 17 years service?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would think this question could be placed on the order paper, or if the hon. member prefers he could debate it at the time of adjournment. If there is urgency, it will be given preference for discussion at the earliest possible moment.


Harold Edward Winch: There is certainly urgency, Mr. Speaker, so I will bring it up at ten o'clock.



THE MINISTRY


Gerald William Baldwin: I have a question for the Prime Minister which arises out of his announcement about ministerial changes. First of all I wish to congratulate all those who have been the recipients of honours. Can the Prime Minister indicate whether the Minister without Portfolio from Port Arthur will be relinquishing his responsibilities in connection with his special duties with regard to Indian affairs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Gerald William Baldwin: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of all the changes which have been announced-and I hope a

May 5, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry new day may dawn-will the Prime Minister not consider reviewing the iniquitous roster system, so that on matters which, like running sores, afflict this country continually, such as agriculture, housing and Indian affairs, we will always have a back-up minister in the house to answer questions?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps this is just a technical question, Mr. Speaker, but may I ask the Prime Minister whether it is proper for us to address the hon. member for Port Arthur as minister of housing or just as Minister Without Portfolio?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Perhaps we should seek the advice of the legal counsellor of the house, but if I were asked for my opinion I would say the proper title would be Minister Without Portfolio from Port Arthur.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a supplementary question for the right hon. Prime Minister. Has he appointed any parliamentary secretaries in recent days?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. Now that the Prime Minister knows what Devco is-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: And now that he has forgotten.


Donald MacInnis: -will the Prime Minister make representations to that corporation to see that they carry out their obligations to their former employees and their dependants, as laid down in the legislation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Perhaps I will be better advised to see what the employees think rather than to listen to the representations of the hon. member.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Is that ever arrogant!


George Harris Hees: The boiling point is nearly reached.


Donald MacInnis: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, so as to clear up the matter for the Prime Minister. I should like to call his attention to the fact that my question was not about employees, but about former employees with regard to whom this corporation has an


obligation under the legislation laid down by the government. There was no question whatsoever about the employees, and if the Prime Minister wishes to be up to date on what the employees think he should catch up on the press reports.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Max Sallsman (Waterloo):: I should like to direct my question to the new Minister of Transport, and may I add my congratulations to the other new ministers. Although I might normally hesitate to ask this question, in view of the minister's own suggestion that we go easy on him at first, I should like to put this perhaps minor but serious and certainly urgent request-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon.
member ask the question.


Max Saltsman: I have just received a call from Halifax indicating that the washrooms are not functioning-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question is out of order.



WATER RESOURCES


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-Sl. George's-Sl. Barbe):: I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will the minister advise whether his department is conducting investigations regarding evidence of pollution reaching the Bay St. George's area in western Newfoundland, with characteristics common to those found in Placentia Bay, causing danger to the fishing industry there?


John Carr Munro: Officials of the department are in the area now examining the matter, and I expect a report momentarily.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingaie):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that the minister will receive representations on the investigations momentarily, will he give an undertaking to make a statement on motions tomorrow indicating the results of the investigation so that he will clear up this business once and for all and eliminate any unnecessary concern?


John Carr Munro: I do not know when the full information will be at my disposal. I am hoping it will be perhaps this afternoon or sometime tomorrow. I imagine I may be able to
May 5. 1969	COMMONS
give that information to the house in some way other than through a statement on motions. If the situation is more serious than indicated, I will consider making a statement on motions later on.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, most hon. members realize the urgency of the matter and the threat posed to a very important industry. Based on that, my supplementary question to the minister is as follows: Will he perhaps take a number of hon. members who are concerned and directly involved into his confidence, rather than making a statement on motions?


John Carr Munro: I would be pleased to do so.



PLACENTIA BAY, NFLD.-COMPENSATION TO FISHERMEN FOR LOSS THROUGH POLLUTION

Mr. Waller C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the fact that the waters of Placentia Bay and St. Marys Bay have been placed off limits to the fishermen of that area, could the minister inform the house whether the government will assist the fishermen, and when we can expect an announcement in this respect?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The waters of Placentia and St. Marys have not been excluded totally. Only a portion of Placentia Bay has been barred so far, and we hope that this is the maximum action that will have to be taken in that regard.
On the question of tending to the financial needs of the fishermen who are affected, may I say that this is a matter of cabinet decision and will be brought to the attention of the cabinet at the earliest possible moment, in view of the extreme urgency of the problem.


Walter C. Carter: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that this problem could very well reach international proportions, and in view of the fact that it has taken this government and the Department of Fisheries and Forestry six months to study the matter, and the cause of pollution has not yet been determined-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member ask his question.


Walter C. Carter: -is the government considering seeking outside assistance to find the cause and the solution to this pollution problem?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: We will take advantage of any form of assistance open to us. As the hon.
DEBATES	8309
Inquiries of the Ministry member knows, it is an extremely difficult matter to pin down the cause of pollution. As for its becoming a matter of international importance, I should like to suggest that it may well depend upon the action of some of my friends in dealing with this matter.



POLLUTION-REPRESENTATIONS BY U.S. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

John Howard Lundrigan: I have a further supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Could the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicate whether in fact representations have been made by the United States food and drug administration regarding the extent of pollution and the concomitant results on the fishing industry on the east coast?


Mitchell William Sharp: I will make inquiries, Mr. Speaker. These representations have not come to me personally, but they may have come through the embassy to various departments, and I will make inquiries.



TRAIL, B.C.-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON FINANCIAL AID

Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: would like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works in regard to the recent disastrous flood situation in Trail, British Columbia. In view of the urgent need of the disaster committee to have information as to the funds available for the victims of the flood, is the minister in a position to inform the house about the financial assistance which the federal government will contribute to the rehabilitation of the area? If the information is not available today, when may we expect to receive it?


Arthur Laing: I am fully aware of the urgency of the situation in this area, as expressed by Mayor DeVito of Trail. It is our hope to have the report, not only on the flood damage there but on that in Manitoba and other provinces as well, at which time a decision will be taken by the government. I must reiterate that there is at present a disaster fund set up by the province of British Columbia for such purposes in the sum of $20 million or $25 million. It would appear to me that the damage in Trail would be within the competence of the province of British Columbia.
COMMONS DEBATES	May 5, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry



ACTION ON PRICING OF DOMESTIC WHEAT

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: wish to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of his earlier statements to the house that a two price system on sales of domestic wheat is one of the policies under review by the government, what action does the government propose to take on the request by the National Farmers Union for a basic price of $2.75 per bushel of domestic wheat?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We received that particular recommendation with a number of other obervations and suggestions from the National Farmers Union this morning. That particular suggestion is also part of the review included in the proposals that we are considering relative to a two-price system.



WHEAT-POWER OF BOARD TO NEGOTIATE IN WORLD MARKETS

Alfred Pullen Gleave: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of our difficult position in regard to wheat sales, will the minister and the government give consideration, as requested by the National Farmers- Union, to their suggestion that the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board be extended to enable it to enter directly into world markets in the negotiation of sales, as does the Australian wheat board?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that the supplementary question is so wide in scope as to require a statement which should, in my view, normally be made on motions.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. It is prompted by the futuristic report tabled today which forecasts rapidly increasing operating costs for the post office. Will the minister advise whether his weekend revelation at Sudbury that 10 cents is the true rate on first class mail is the first phase of a movement toward more increases in postal rates?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairwealher@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. Who will represent Canada at the funeral of the President of India?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, our high commissioner in India will represent Canada. May I call the attention of the house to the fact that that is the reason the flag is at half mast today.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. I too join in the congratulations that have been extended to him. Since the house seems to be making up his agenda for him today, may I ask him to put high on that agenda the question of increasing the pensions of retired employees of the Canadian National Railways?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



TERMS OF REFERENCE OF STUDY OF NON-MEDICAL USES

Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare concerning the proposed committee of inquiry into the non-medical use of drugs. Is it the intention that this committee will examine the relationship between the use of the drugs stated in the minister's announcement, and the use of or addiction to so-called hard drugs, such as heroin and others? If this is the intention, why is it not stated specifically in the terms of reference?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite clear that the terms of reference do not include hard drugs in the sense of drugs such as heroin.


Louis-Roland Comeau: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister advise whether the reports and the hearings of the committee will be public, and when we can expect the names of members to be announced?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is a question that should be considered by the committee itself and should not be asked at this time.
May 5, 1969



SHIPPING


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, in an endeavour to assist the Minister of Transport in getting busy, may I address a question to him. I should like to ask the minister whether, as a result of the sunken tug Emerald Straits, lost off the British Columbia coast, having been located as a result of the employment by his department of a mini-sub research vessel, any attempt is being contemplated to salvage the tug and find the bodies of those who lost their lives? If so, when and under whose auspices will the tug be salvaged?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to look into this question and see that an answer is given as soon as possible.



THE MINISTRY


Mr. Rod Thomson (Baiileford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Did the Prime Minister consult with the Indian brotherhood before he took responsibility for Indian affairs away from the member for Port Arthur?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt that this question is in order.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, May 2, 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. 29, Mr. Laprise.
Mr. Rene  Maite@Champlain: Mr. Speaker, last Friday I was explaining the necessity of taking all necessary steps in order to avoid errors likely to create conflicts between the various parts of the country, as well as to prevent the medical profession from falling into disrepute.
Criminal Code
If ever abortion committees are established in hospitals, it is essential to do so only after a very judicious selection of members, and after due consideration of their personal and professional qualifications.
That is why this amendment provides that the committee includes one gynaecologist. In fact, it is highly irregular that no thought was given to that matter at the outset.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
That provision is fully justified for the committee thus made up will ensure that mistakes are avoided. According to that amendment, the committee will be approved by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of the province. This is a point which, in my opinion, deserves careful consideration, for how can it be hoped that the College of Physicians and Surgeons can ensure that the physicians who sit on the committee will be conscientious enough not to recommend useless abortions, that they will bow to undue pressure which could be somewhat logical from a social point of view, but would not be based on scientific data?
I do not in the least doubt the good faith and the competence of the doctors as a whole, but one is never too cautious.
Is it conceivable that the College of Physicians and Surgeons on which would reflect the errors made will not ensure that the members of the committee are appointed judiciously.
Mr. Speaker, if this amendment on abortion ever comes to a vote, we might support it, but under certain conditions. When we realize that our speeches are not taken seriously, it is discouraging and we are asking the minister why he is not at least trying to give us the real reasons why he is rejecting some very logical amendments.
Even this morning, we received another document on abortion describing what has happened in other countries and pressing the government to avoid the errors that have been committed elsewhere.
The legalization of abortion opens the door to many abuses and could lead to abortion on request and that is why the minister does not accept any amendment liable to restrict further abortion cases.
Before concluding my comments, I would like to say why we are asking for more details. I quote a paragraph of the above-mentioned letter:
In Canada, the leaders of the campaign in favour of abortion started a few years ago to demand

May 5, 1969
Criminal Code
only restricted amendments to the legislation. One of them, Mr. Stanley Knowles, stated before a parliamentary committee in 1967 "that a limit should be set somewhere". Today, however, he is asking that any reference to abortion be striken out of the Criminal Code.
We have there an example where even if the amendment were rejected or even if abortion were not legalized, some hon. members have already changed their mind and are ready to accept a liberalization of the legislation which would lead to abuses-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I feel duty bound to support the amendment moved by the member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise), which reads as follows:
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 paragraph (f) of sub-section 6 of clause 18 on page 44 and substituting therefor:
"(f) "therapeutic abortion committee" for any hospital means a committee, comprised of not less than two qualified medical practitioners and one gynaecologist, appointed by the board of that hospital and approved by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of the province concerned, for the purpose of considering and determining questions relating to terminations of pregnancy within that hospital."
The purpose of the amendment is to define the abortion committee and to have its membership approved by the College of Physicians and Surgeons. The amendment also stipulates that a gynaecologist must sit on the committee. For that reason, we ask that such a specialist be appointed to the therapeutic committee.
I believe the amendment is a very important one, in that it requires medical specialists in this field to be almost infallible, because the question at issue is the right of a foetus or a child in his mother's womb to live or die.
In support of my arguments, I should like to quote the testimony of Dr. Benoit Legare, a gynaecologist at St. Francois d'Assise Hospital in Quebec City, before the parliamentary committee on justice and legal affairs, on March 25, 1969. In the following words, the specialist expresses his concern:
Moreover, even if it were liberal enough, to find that where abortion laws have been liberalized-

Either by creating committees of specialists or others in several countries, according to the Journal of the American Medical Association, of April 1961,
-these laws have not changed the figures relating to criminal abortions at all.
Some years ago, you abolished the death penalty out of humanitarianism and so that fatal miscarriages of justice would be avoided. Physicians also consider with fear this infallibility conferred upon them by allowing them to decide whether or not an innocent and defenceless being has the right to live.
The legislator's prime concern is to protect the citizens through the laws he enacts. Therefore, it is normal for him to show the greatest concern for the most ill-favoured, the weakest, the weakest of us all, namely the foetus, which is already legally accepted in society since according to sections 338 and 608 of the Civil Code it is already entitled to inheritance rights.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
We therefore ask you to humbly strike the clause dealing with abortion from the omnibus bill, though it might be submitted later on, amended after consultation with the different medical circles in the country.
If, per chance, we do not reflect the opinion of the majority, we would request you to consider as essential that the advisory committees set up to that end, be accepted by the College of Physicians of the different provinces or by a national body such as the Canadian Medical Association.
Those words definitely prove that this medical expert was puzzled about the legislative proposal. He added, and I quote:
We do not question the good intentions of the legislators. That is why we wanted to get in touch with the legislators. Perhaps legislators hope, through this bill, to limit the untold number of illegal abortions which are now performed throughout the country. However, they should not have too great expectations since the bill is not sufficiently liberal to hope to achieve this.
For all those reasons, I suggest that it is advisable to support this amendment so that responsible specialists be made members of the committee and be the ones to decide whether or not the foetus should be destroyed.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, a few words only to tell the house that I am in favour of this amendment, although I already know that they will not carry much weight with those who have been instructed to pass the bill.
The responsibility of the therapeutic abortion committee is to protect the mother's life. In fact, all decisions will be taken by that committee. I do not like its name. It sounds like that of a committee of executioners deciding among themselves whether or not the victim should be put to death.
May 5, 1969

When people suffer from illnesses, especially from serious ones, the doctors consult each other on the advisability of operating. Two or three of them talk a person's case over. I have never heard that in serious cases just anybody was consulted.
Abortion is very grave since it means the suppression of life. It is extremely grave and, in my opinion, the advisory committee should be made up of experts, namely gynaecologists.
This is a rather good amendment. If I had been called upon to bring in one, I would have demanded two gynaecologists instead of one on the committee. But as I have said, the amendment is quite broad. It is simply asking that the therapeutic abortion committee of a hospital should comprise at least two qualified doctors and one gynaecologist named by that hospital's council.
If we carry things to the extremes-as they will be in certain circumstances, on account of the love of money-I cannot conceive of a gynaecologist, if two general practitioners make a majority decision, being able to impose his opinions. In such a serious case, which would be the responsibility of specialists, the committee should be made up of gynaecologists. A general practitioner is less qualified as regards abortion.
The paragraph of Bill C-150 that the amendment would change reads as follows:
"therapeutic abortion committee" for any hospital means a committee comprised of not less than three members each of whom is a qualified medical practitioner-
In order to be a qualified medical practitioner, one needs only to have taken a medical course and obtained a general medical science degree. In considering this amendment. We must examine the question thoroughly, so as to avoid the abuses and consequences of the passage of this bill.
As regards the prejudicial consequences of this bill, if the committee is allowed to make extreme decisions, all members received a few comments from the Alliance for Life, that I should like to quote:
To what extent are you ready to "liberalize" the Canadian legislation on abortion?
In the opinion of certain members, the government's present proposals may seem deceptively moderate. In fact, however, it appears that such transformations are only a first step.
To my mind, this paragraph of Bill C-150, in its present form, is only a first step and a
Criminal Code
great one toward excessive liberalization of abortion. I continue quoting the comments:
In Colorado, for example, such a law has done much to increase the number of abortions in hospitals-without reducing the number of clandestine abortions.
They think that will reduce the number of clandestine abortions; yet there is proof to the contrary in the countries where abortion has been legalized. Moreover, it is only the beginning of the stampede. I go on quoting:
Some countries have adopted more permissive laws; they went as far as legalizing abortion at will.
It is what will happen if this paragraph is maintained. Quite naturally, this will lead to abortion at will. I continue quoting:
Most of them however have started by legalizing abortion for so-called reasons of health.
It is precisely what we say and what will be said by the members of this committee. It is likely that the pregnant woman can be sick. Likely, indeed. Let us say that three medical practitioners belong to the therapeutic abortion committee. This will not be the case in every hospital, but it is possible that committees of abortionists will be appointed. I have already spoken of it last week. The committees of abortionists will choose a small hospital where they will establish a committee make up of non-qualified doctors to perform abortions.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
And further on:
So did Sweden In 1921. Later on, in 1938, abortion on social grounds ... and others became possible. In 1946, the law became still more permissive.
In Sweden, now, abortions are performed on request. Within a few months, Canada will be one more country where abortion will be performed on request, because of subclause tf) which allows anybody to sit on the committee.
I go on quoting:
In Poland also, abortion was first legalized on vague "medical" grounds. In 1956, those grounds were extended to cover social reasons. Today, Polish laws on abortion are among the most permissive. in the world.
The permissive British law was enforced last year, following, however, a series of legal decisions which actually resulted, in making abortion legal for health reasons.
The first of those decisions was made in 1938 and since then, more and more pressure is being exerted in favour of abortion on request.
In my opinion, this bill, and especially the appointment of the committee, is paving the way to abortion on request. I am sure the

May 5, 1969
Criminal Code
minister is aware of it. For Canada, this is only a beginning where abortion and homosexuality are concerned. We made a first mistake by agreeing to the introduction of those two measures in the house.
I am entirely against the present wording of subclause (f) and I shall vote in favour of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Abitibi because it provides a means of ensuring the presence of a gynaecologist on this committee. I am sure that if the government accepted this amendment, it would be commended instead of being criticized.
He would at least have understood what kind of amendment to the Criminal Code the people want. He would have understood also that the population is against the massacre of innocents.
Mr. Speaker, I say again that our society is going to pass a legislation which will allow the most shameful acts a people could be guilty of. I am sure that we will have to pay some day for such acts and for this legislation that should never have been introduced.
I shall be brief, because I want to give the government and government members the opportunity to vote for their fine bill they love and cherish so much. However, I repeat that I shall feel duty bound, as a Roman Catholic and a human being, to vote against this bill which will allow every licence in the future.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, it must be stated specifically that the committee should be made up of competent gynaecologists, as stipulates this logical amendment intended to safeguard the life of human beings, to allow them to grow and develop normally.
In Canada, the population is not large enough for the debts we have to pay. Instead of turning to massive immigration, we should protect our population, allow it to increase at the rate Providence would have it. If the hospitals do not have competent committees, we will not reach the goal set by Providence.
Providence placed us in Canada and asked us to grow and multiply. The rules that are about to become law with regard to abortion cannot meet divine requirements. In Canada, the population should increase according to the views of Providence.
That committee should protect any being that is intended to live, that has the right to exist. I believe the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) would certainly be held in higher

esteem if instead of introducing such senseless rules as those on abortion, he suggested that an amount of at least $1,000 be given to every mother of a family who brings a child into the world. In so doing, we would accomplish an eminently human act, while enabling the family to develop.
The committee to be appointed should include a gynaecologist. In fact, such an important committee should include two gynaecologists, as the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) said.
I feel we should consider that logical amendment. I wonder why the minister of Justice does not intervene and approve this highly logical and commendable amendment.
It is time we tackled the amendments to the bill on abortion proposed by the government. Is the government truly concerned with the protection of a woman's life and health? If so, how can we be sure that the proposed amendments would achieve that purpose?
The committee whose establishment we recommend would be quite in a position to safeguard the health and the life of human beings. Never has the health of Canadians been as well protected as today. In Canada, the rate of maternal mortality is one of the lowest in the world, that is approximately three deaths out of 10,000 births. Can we really believe that the proposed amendments would bring an even greater improvement? The debate has failed to prove as yet that such an improvement would be ensured. It is rather surprising that nobody has raised that question yet. It is also significant that no doctor has shown that it would result in some benefit.
The committee we are proposing would take direct action to protect the human being, who-is so great and noble. If the human being did not exist, not much else would in this world.
We need such a committee and we want the assurance that the Minister of Justice supports this amendment. But he did not, and he is content with a status quo which is not good enough because it is beyond all bounds.
In Japan, abortion is legal and is granted: on request. According to the United Nations's statistics, the rate of maternal mortality in Japan is more than three times as high as in Canada.
Yugoslavia, which passed such a legislation, has a rate of maternal mortality more than four times as high as ours.
Can it be inferred that legislation making, abortion easier promotes health?
May 5. 1969



[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Canadians must provide themselves with committees made up of doctors of unquestionable ability.
Canada needs such committees and the services of gynaecologists in order to protect human beings and to ensure that all the requirements of our country are met. We would then thank Providence for protecting us from such acts of cruelty designed to reduce the population.
What we are doing today, every communist country has done before and I think that the legislation we are bringing forward is the most communistic and barbarous we have ever seen.
If various communist countries have committed such barbarous crimes, we do not have to imitate them. Since I do not believe the Minister of Justice is a communist, I am asking why he refuses to listen to our arguments in favour of those amendments.
The amendment now before the house is one of the most logical that has been moved. If we cannot avoid the barbarous acts that we are seeking to prevent through this Committee, the people would feel reassured if skilled men were to make such decisions. Those people, like the Minister of Justice, have been brought into the world to serve the population.
The gynaecologist and the other members of abortion committees must be highly qualified to ensure the protection of our nation. We must make sure that modern technology is made available as much as possible to every matter.
We need such committees and I do not see why the minister would deny society the presence of a gynaecologist on them. We have to sympathize with the Liberal member who lost his wife after refusing an abortion. The Canadian law cannot be blamed for it.
Let us keep in mind also that the tremendous advance of medicine since then has reduced the rate of maternal mortality from 10 to 1 in one generation. Medical authorities recognize that fact which is statistically proved. So it is ironical to claim that the amendments regarding abortion proposed by the government reflect the needs of our modern society.
What is the real purpose of that amendment? What is really going to be protected? Here are the comments of the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle), as reported on page 825 of the proceedings of the committee on
Criminal Code
health, welfare and social affairs, and I quote:
This is exactly what we want; to reduce any cause for perplexity in the legislation, mainly to protect the doctor.
Now, Mr. Speaker, since we had no such legislation in Canada and we were faring rather well, since medicine is more advanced I would say, than in several other countries, and since the number of deaths due to abortion in Canada is about 3 out of 10,000, we do not need a legislation such as the one brought in and I consider once again that the minister should at least be quite frank and tell us: I want the best, I want a committee to be set up. I do not believe the minister should oppose this amendment, which is a social, moral, human, and above all, life-protecting measure.
Then, why does abortion disturb people so much? If only the destruction of tissue, were involved, any objection to the proposed changes in the abortion legislation would seem quite inconsistent and irrational. Do we believe abortion merely destroys tissue? Is that what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Justice think?
Indeed, there are many who believe that abortion consists in getting rid of something similar to a blood clot.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am somewhat reluctant to tell the hon. member he is out of order, but in my opinion, his speech would be more appropriate in a debate on a motion for second or third reading. I would therefore ask him to confine his comments to the amendment moved by his colleague.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, in all respect, I shall submit to your decision.
As the members of the parliamentary committee on health, welfare and social affairs could see, this point of view is generally accepted by the medical profession. A famous Scotch surgeon, Dr. Ian Donald, a professor of gynaecology at Queen Mother's Hospital of the University of Glasgow, expressed the same opinion:
There is no excuse, today, for anybody who has studied this much debated question and surely even less for any member of parliament, to think that a human foetus is only a kind of gelatinous and lifeless mass that can be curetted and thrown away.
As soon as a woman is known to be pregnant and, of course, when the operation is being performed, there is actually a human being, a genetically complete entity and we can even say if it is a boy or a girl, a genius or a retarded child, if she or he is gifted for music, mathematics or sports, since all those qualities already exist.

May 5, 1969
Criminal Code
This unborn child even in the first few weeks is perfectly human, or is there anyone to pretend that it is a rat or a guinea pig?
Mr. Speaker, those reports show once again there is a great need tor the most logical and the most advisable committees. Members of such a committee should be highly respectable and have a wide knowledge of medical matters, since the decision to perform an abortion must be made by the most highly competent committee ever seen in the history of medicine.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
We have those specialists. We only have to find them. We only have to bring them together and set up those committees. We shall then have at least a semblance of justice and be able to give the people related services, proficient services.
I believe that the Canadian people will have confidence in such a committee and I believe also that the mother, who has to go through this, will at least be sure of getting the proper care, thanks to such specialists. The mother surely has a right to life, and the child also. Such things must be protected, because they are the most natural, the most noble


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Mr. Romuald Rodrigue (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I fully support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) designed to specify how the famous committee appointed in every hospital will be set up.
I also support this amendment for several other reasons.
First of all, in places where therapeutic abortions are performed according to official statistics they are performed much more for questionable psychiatric reasons, and also with questionable results, than in order to save the mother's life. In fact, the bill on abortion compels us to ask ourselves whether we are ready to accept certain forms of murder.
According to the conclusions of a survey conducted by the Association of Quebec Hospital Medical Boards, the number of therapeutic abortions performed in the hospitals of the province is now very restricted and nil, in most cases.
Because of the very limited number of medical indications, the passing of the bill before

us would increase very little the number of therapeutic abortions; there would only be an increase in requests for abortion, with their dilemma.
Therapeutic abortion committees mentioned in that bill should only exist in hospitals having an adequate number of specialists and consultants in every branch, so that the decision may be the result of a just and unbiased judgment.
That inquiry-the report of the Association says so-revealed that most medical boards and boards of directors of Quebec hospitals officially and formally objected to the establishment of therapeutic abortion committees in their own hospital.
In view of professional ethics and the constant orientation of their profession, hospital doctors are very reluctant to be part of such committees, and moreover they personally refuse to perform any therapeutic abortion.
What would happen if one or more doctors refused to participate in the work of the abortion committee? Paragraph (f) of subsection 6 does mention "a committee of at least three members".
In view of the decisions taken by the said committee and the implications of such decisions for the committee members as well as for the patient, numerous questions come to mind.
Is it worth taking the risk of upsetting, by legislation, a state of balance arrived at in the status quo? Is it worth setting up a mechanism which could very well go beyond the intentions of the legislator?
Would it not be better to undertake a wider consultation open to all layers of the medical profession, to medical associations, specialists, etc.? Would it not be preferable to learn at this stage all the distinctions capable of improving the legislation even before it is adopted?
Amendment No. 20 of my hon. friend from Abitibi suggests that the said committee be made up of two doctors and one gynaecologist.
In every hospital, there are already research committees whose main aim is to improve medical practice and to allow consultation between specialists. In some hospitals, there are sometimes up to 10 voluntary committees.
However, the committee referred to in paragraph (f) of subsection 6 tends or aims to authorize the medical act. The terms used
May 5. 1969

Criminal Code
leave the door open to problems and to discussion. The main problem with therapeutic abortion committees is that psychiatrists, many of whom will accept any psychiatric indication, will ask gynaecologists to perform an abortion when the latter has refused to do it. This provision will also contribute to bargaining between female patients and their doctors.
Will the doctors and gynaecologists appointed by the hospital to form this abortion committee be working on a voluntary basis? According to a doctor's opinion, these voluntary committees and the work that would be assigned to them would not be considered as seriously as the measure suggests.
At this point, I am taking the liberty of quoting an extract from the proceedings of the committee on justice and legal affairs to show how the problem may be dealt with differently in each hospital.
In New York, an inquiry has been made in two hospitals located a few blocks from one another. It appears from this inquiry that in one of them there is one abortion per twenty deliveries and in the other, one per 6,000. Therefore, I think the proposed amendments would cause rather serious problems.
In the province of Quebec in particular, none of the small hospitals are interested in performing abortions. The doctors firmly believe that such accreditations are useless, a view that is supported by medical science itself. It should not be forgotten, besides, that the majority of Quebec doctors see no need for the proposed legislation or the institution of such committees.
As proposed, the institution of committees opens the door to all kinds of problems.
Psychiatric indications as grounds for abortion are rejected by the majority of doctors and psychiatrists. However, a few psychiatrists admit limited indications. We have to ask ourselves if, while amending the act and allegedly settling one problem, we are not creating another one.
Those are some of the reasons why doctors object to abortion.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
There is also another aspect to be considered. What will be the position of physicians with regard to the committees created in the hospitals? Will they be compelled to comply with the decisions of the committee in the name of social order?
If the bill is passed in its present form, I expect two possible effects.
On the one hand, if the abortion committees strictly interpret the terms "the life or health" very few abortions will be allowed and the problem of illegal abortions will remain the same.
On the other hand, if the definition of the word "health" is somewhat broad, it will always be possible to find a reason to consider the pregnancy as dangerous.
A piece of legislation which lends itself to various interpretations and offers no more guarantees is incomplete.
Those are the reasons why I sincerely support the motion of the hen. member for Abiti-bi, the object of which is to strike out subsection (f) in paragraph 6 of clause 18 of the bill and to have it replaced by the amendment of the hon. member for Abitibi.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is the
house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: those in favour 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 section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred until after consideration of motion No. 30.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris) moved: motion No. 30:
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 paragraph (f) of subsection 6 in clause 18 on page 44 and substituting therefor:
"(f) "therapeutic abortion committee" for any hospital means a committee comprised of not less than four members, two of whom shall be qualified medical practitioners and one a psychiatrist appointed by the board of that hospital, as well as a clergyman, or spiritual adviser where this is requested by the patient for the purpose of considering and determining questions relating to terminations of pregnancy within that hospital."

May 5, 1969
Criminal Code
He said: Mr. Speaker, the amendment I am sponsoring this afternoon is somewhat related to the amendment we have been discussing. It adds what I regard as an important dimension to this discussion in that it broadens the scope of interest and concern of those who will have the responsibility of making the very critical and vital decision when abortion shall take place.
One of the disturbing aspects of this long extended debate on the amendments to the Criminal Code, which has concerned me as well as many other hon. members and, judging from my mail, the majority of the people of Canada, is the direct antagonism expressed in some of the amendments to what has become known down through the centuries of western civilization as the Judaeo-Christian ethic. Up until fairly recent times, this century as a matter of fact, this has been the basis upon which our system of jurisprudence has been established; it has been largely the ethical and value basis upon which we have made moral decisions.
The amendment brings into abortion this vital question: Who will make the decision as to life or death with respect to a human individual? We know that the Judaeo-Christian ethic regards as of fundamental importance the value of an individual human life. My amendment brings into focus the advice of a psychiatrist. I think this is a very necessary and important dimension in a decision of this kind because the science, if I may use that term, of psychiatry has become pretty well established in the practice of the healing arts today. I shall be dealing with this matter later in my remarks.
But most important, where the individual wishes it the amendment makes it possible for the person concerned or, if it is a family problem, the family concerned, to call in a clergyman or spiritual adviser to deal with this vital and broader dimension in a life or death decision. I know that certain churches in this country have become quite concerned that we are moving toward a humanistic, secular, materialistic attitude toward life. Once the dikes are breached, of course, the value of individual life, as has been the experience in other countries where humanism is rampant, becomes constantly reduced until there are episodes, such as we recall within recent memory, of whole nations dedicated to the principle of genocide, the extermination of human life, because individuals or groups of individuals have been regarded as less than human and, like pests, should be
[Mr. Dinsdale.l
eliminated because they are no longer serving any useful function.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) has argued-and I hope I am not unfair in this statement-that legal matters of this kind do not have any moral overtones or moral implications; in other words, the law does not concern itself with questions of morality. If I am wrong in this respect, he can correct me when he enters the debate once again. It is my strong view that law is very firmly based on morality, particularly law as we understand it in western civilization. We used to call it western Christian civilization. Our law stems from the decalogue which, as we know, has strong moral and religious overtones. If the humanists want to say that law has no direct relationship to moral codes, I think even the sociologists would agree that it at least has some relationship to the mores. These patterns for human behaviour have moral overtones even though they are not as firmly based as those which have undergirded the common law and even our criminal law practice.
There is a fundamental shift taking place in this amendment and other amendments in that, instead of the relationship of man in his society being anchored to concepts that derive from our values which stem from our Judaeo-Christian traditions, it is shifting in the direction of humanistic moral relativism. When that happens in a society I think it is fair to conclude that we are entering into a moral morass and a sea of confusion. I believe-and my mail has testified to this fact-that the majority of Canadians are still on the side of a moral basis for our legal system. This is why I think the Minister of Justice should at least accept this attempt to preserve some of the traditions that have been a vital part of our civilization up to the present time. All it is doing is to add a spiritual dimension so that it will not only be medical doctors-after all, they are specialists trained in a very narrow field-who will make this life and death decision.
If we are going to use the law to change and shape the social order, I suggest we are moving in a dangerous direction. I spoke in this vein a week or so ago with reference to gross indecency, and some of the pundits referred to my comments as being social jingoism. This merely underlines the moral and social confusion rampant in our society when the values and traditions of our Judaeo-Christian civilization, with the experience of
May 5, 1969

centuries behind it are referred to as social jingoism.
It might be proper to ask at this stage how our society has become so deeply saturated and penetrated by the moral relativism that is indicated in some of this so-called reform legislation. I suppose that the chief sources of influence have been the academic scribblers of the last century, most of whom were concentrated in the last half of the 19th century. The press has popularized science or pseudoscience, and today the process goes on apace through the tremendous social impact of the mass media which have sometimes been referred to as chromium-plated madhouse generating myths, folklore and a reality of its own, a sort of instantaneous electronic folklore because it has no connection either with the past or with the future.
The chief architects of some of these ideas have been men like Darwin, Marx, Herbert Spencer and Freud. As one who has been through the process of higher education, both on the giving and the receiving line, I freely admit that the ideas which stem from these four gentlemen and many other academic scribblers of the last half of the last century have become the guiding stars and the intellectual illumination for much of contemporary society. Darwin gave us the theory of biological evolution, and Marx gave us the doctrine of political and economic expediency, sometimes called atheistic communism or scientific socialism.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I hear a "hear, hear" from across the way, but these are the terms that apply to these systems. We debate today whether God is dead or alive, but we forget that it was Marx who first explicitly stated in modern pseudo-scientific, social, jingolistic terms that God was quite definitely dead, and he gave us a political and economic system based on this thesis. Herbert Spencer combined biological evolution with humanism to produce his theory of social evolution or social Darwinism which said that in every way and every day we are getting better and better. Of course this was not borne out by the events of the first half of the 20th century.
I have given credit to psychiatrists already so I must not depart from that thesis, but Freudian psychology and the Freudian interpretation of human behaviour have strongly saturated our society. Someone has described a Freudian psychologist as the odd examining 29180-5272
Criminal Code
the id, and there may be some truth in that description.
Science, or perhaps I should say pseudoscience, has become a sacred cow, and belief in progress because of human perfection has been accepted almost universally, at least in institutions of higher learning.
I recall that Harold Innes, who was a great puncturer of academic balloons until recent times at the University of Toronto, called this process the new mysticism. I think that was a very apt description of the system. It is sometimes referred to as Fabianism or the inevitability of the perfect man, man in his natural state breaking through the corruption of his social institutions and achieving a peace and perfection out of the process of change that is going on apace in society. Perhaps I should resort to doggerel to simplify it so that he who runs may read. I came across this little poem which oversimplifies but which I think expresses the thought. It goes as follows:
Man used to be a tadpole learning how to swim, And then he was a frog with his tail tucked in. And then he was a monkey hanging from the tree. And now he is a professor with a Ph.D.
His strength is as the strength of ten because he has taken 600 hours in social science and he knows all there is to be known about everything. He is omniscient and omnipotent and is exercising all the functions that we used to attribute to God.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
To come back to the point I wish to make, which I think is a vital one, these trends marked by the new social jingoism that I have outlined briefly this afternoon inevitably result in social and political action. This is exactly what is happening in this legislation. The ideas of creative individuals in society, the academic scribblers, eventually penetrate down through society to our social institutions and are implemented in the form of social and political action.
Legislation has been brought before this house, as I have already indicated, that is not based on values enshrined within our Judaeo-Christian past but is an attempt to shape our society in terms of the new secularism, humanism and materialism. This is the motivating principle behind the legislation with which we are confronted at the present time.
If we carry this through to its logical conclusion, it results in some of the episodes that are a blot on 20th century civilization. The Nazis, those madmen in authority, without a

May 5, 1969
Criminal Code
doubt twisted the science of eugenics to develop a theory for the establishment of a pure race, a master race. They introduced a "very interesting" dimension into the process of social change, if I may quote a popular television program.
Until this century social change involved man changing his environment for the general benefit of man. We are now moving into a new, more critical and dangerous area of man changing himself in biological terms in order to adjust to his environment. This was first predicted by Aldous Huxley in his "Brave New World", when by means of pseudo-scientific and test tube methods he first satirically conceived of the possibility of biological engineering as contrasted to social engineering.
When the Nazis came to power in that great civilized nation of Germany, they introduced a master race theory that was based on the misapplication of the science of eugenics, hoping thereby to produce a generation of supermen. Some of the overtones of this idea, which involves misuse and abuse by means of pseudo-science, I think are the motivating principle behind this legislation. This legislation is designed-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but being a senior member of this house he will know the rule of relevancy very well. I do not think he is addressing himself to the amendment that he has moved.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am right on the button here, Mr. Speaker. As I said in my opening remarks, I am introducing the new dimension of inviting a clergyman or spiritual adviser to consult on this question of life or death. I am indicating exactly how we have reached the present situation where we are negating what used to be a vital and fundamental part of our western society. With great respect to Your Honour, it is within this background that I think it is necessary to make this particular point. However, I am almost at the end of my remarks.
Our own society is deeply saturated with these new values, and they have a devastating impact on basic social institutions, which we know are the family, institutions of education, the church and the state. Had I time this afternoon I would perhaps have gone into this matter a little more. We all know that social and moral confusion is rampant in our own society as well as in many other parts of the western world, and this confusion is directly related to some of these pseudo-scientific

notions. This social jingoism has so saturated our society that it has become the motivating principle behind our own pattern of life without our hardly being aware of it.
What this amendment is asking, Mr. Speaker, is that at least we nostalgically recognize that there are dimensions other than the purely physical, that the members of the therapeutic abortion committee examine more than the physical and medical problem. Certainly we should make obeisance to the science of psychiatry and bring such a gentleman into consultation on this important matter, because he does add a psychological dimension. More especially, where the patient so desires, she should have the right to request the attendance of a clergyman or a spiritual adviser.
We now recognize the psychosomatic dimension. In the science of medicine, therapy involves the treatment of the whole person. If we are going to avoid some of the harsher aspects of the amendment that is being proposed by the government, we should at least recognize that we are talking not just of a physical and a medical problem. I am sure that those of us who have been involved in social work know from personal knowledge and experience that abortion, concerning as it does human life, leaves deep-rooted psychic and spiritual scars that are often not healed no matter what therapeutic approach is taken later.
Therefore I urge without further words that the minister accept this amendment, that he at least recognize and acknowledge that while we are moving in a dangerous, new direction in our outlook toward the nature of man and society, we are nevertheless looking nostalgically to the past and admitting that what has gone on in the past in terms of our Judaeo-Christian approach to life has not been entirely wrong.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the very sincere presentation of the amendment by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale). Although I will not reply to him in philosophical terms at this stage, if we ever get to third reading I might well discuss again the relationship of law and morals as it affects this bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We
will all be older and wiser by that time.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


John Napier Turner: We are getting older every day, in any event.
May 5, 1969


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: But not much wiser.


John Napier Turner: And acquiring the added virtue of patience. What the amendment of the hon. member strives to do is to make specific provision for the membership of the therapeutic abortion committee. When the bill went through the committee stage before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs the government, and I on behalf of the government, considered over 30 amendments and accepted about 25. What we are dealing with is the committee's report at the report stage of the proceedings. Our position will once again be that we accept the committee report and accept even those parts of it that went against the government's position. Since we accept the report I am afraid I must recommend to the house that we reject the hon. member's amendment. I shall try to explain why.
Under proposed section 237 (6)(f), as contained in clause 18 of the bill, the requirement is that a committee such as is here being considered shall consist of not less than three duly qualified medical practitioners. Subsection 4(c) of section 237 involves purely medical considerations. We argue that the make-up of the therapeutic abortion committee ought to be that of medical practitioners. The therapeutic abortion committee must by certificate in writing state that in its opinion the continuation of the pregnancy of a female person would or would be likely to endanger her life or health. That appears to be a medical decision. It is a medical assessment of whether the life or health of the mother is endangered. The doctors must assess whether her life or health is endangered. That being so, there appears no justification for having persons on the committee who do not have the necessary training and qualification to serve on it. In other words, members of the committee must have medical training and medical qualifications.
The hon. member's motion speaks of a psychiatrist. One can conceive of a great many cases where a woman seeking an abortion is doing so because of a heart or a kidney condition or some other physical ailment. There is no need for psychiatric help in such circumstances. Such matters are best left to hospital boards. It is our position that in establishing these committees hospital boards ought to be given as much flexibility as possible in order that they may make use of all available medical expertise needed to pronounce upon the life or health of the person involved.
Criminal Code
The hon. member also suggested that a clergyman ought to be a member of the therapeutic abortion committee. Here again I say to him that the decision to be made by the committee is a medical decision. That does not stop a woman from seeking spiritual help.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: This is straight humanism.


John Napier Turner: But there is nothing to bar a woman from consulting her own spiritual adviser before she sees the doctors. She can consult her spiritual adviser about the moral decision involved in order to assess her moral position before she approaches any doctor or hospital. So far as I am concerned I would encourage a woman faced with such a problem to obtain whatever spiritual advice and guidance she may to assist her own judgment and conscience. But having done that and having decided she wants an abortion, she then comes under the terms of this proposed section. The judgment whether continuation of the pregnancy will affect the life or health of the mother is a medical judgment, and I say that prior to seeking medical advice the woman is entitled at all times to consult her own spiritual adviser. I encourage her to do so. But, with the greatest respect, a spiritual adviser cannot contribute to the medical judgment contemplated by the clause.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Practitioners of psychosomatic medicine would not agree with that.


John Napier Turner: As to
whether any member of the committee should be a specialist in any field such as psychiatry, that, once again, ought to be left to the judgment of the board of the hospital. There might be circumstances in which no psychiatrist at all is needed. A psychiatrist might be of no assistance whatever on the committee. Boards of individual hospitals have been left with plenty of flexibility to designate the specialists needed on any therapeutic abortion committee. We would prefer to leave the judgment in these matters to the hospitals and to the medical profession.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to enter this debate this afternoon, but I feel compelled to do so because I must answer some of the minister's suggestions. As I said before, the entire bill is window-dressing and the minister knows it. Every hospital has a committee of doctors. Operations, whether for the removal of an appendix or for an abortion, are

May 5, 1969
Criminal Code
reviewed by these hospital committees. Any doctor who does not meet the standards of the committee may be disqualified. The minister knows this.
What the minister has done, and I emphasize this, is to try to please two segments of our population. One segment wishes to see greater flexibility in our abortion laws and the other wishes the law to remain as it is. This particular amendment to the Code is being brought in with a view to pleasing those who want the grounds for abortion to be extended; yet when one scrutinizes the bill closely one sees that it does no such thing.
The provisions setting up therapeutic abortion committees are an insult to the medical profession, and I say this seriously. Doctors practise in good faith. If any doctor thought an abortion was necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother, I am sure he would act in good faith. Adding a committee does nothing. It is utter nonsense.
Sometimes I blame the minister for the length of this debate although, to be fair, one must blame the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). Here the minister is piloting the Prime Minister's ship.


Mr. Gibson:: Here we go. The same old speech.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I think the hon. member says a great deal without making a speech, just like his father.


Colin David Gibson: We have heard it all before.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, I will not answer the hon. member's remark because I know he cannot help himself. He exercises his greatest eloquence when sitting down.
I return to the subject matter about which I was speaking. If the government had amended the Code as we suggested and had added the word "unlawfully" in the requisite section, it could have amended the law very simply and satisfied those who want to see more liberal abortion provisions. As I said, we must assume that doctors act in good faith. But, of course, that has not been done. Except for the provision setting up a therapeutic abortion committee, the basic law affecting abortions has not been changed and the minister knows it. He is trying to bluff the public. He hopes the public will think the government is trying to do something concrete. What makes me sick is that the business of the nation is being unduly delayed because of this piece of nonsense.


An hon. Member:: The opposition is holding it up.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On Friday we moved a motion to adjourn this debate but government supporters voted against it.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Protracted debate on this bill is holding up the business of the nation. We ought to consider the problems of western Canada; we ought to get on with the nation's business. When we consider all the problems facing us, inflation, the high cost of living, no housing and the mounting economic crisis, we realize that parliament's time is being wasted with this nonsense. The government is introducing window-dressing. I will say no more. I hope I have made my position clear.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting for quite some time for the opportunity to speak on the motion of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale).
I must say, at the outset, that I fail to understand and regret the anti-parliamentary attitude of my colleagues across the way who manage to bellow when a member starts to speak.
This having been said-and I trust they will understand-I should like to say that I regret infinitely, on my behalf and on behalf of my colleagues of the Ralliement creditiste, that the minister should not have deemed it advisable, in his reply to the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, to say at least that he would study seriously the proposal, before stating that he is opposed to it.
The proposal of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris would define the therapeutic abortion committee of any hospital as follows:
[DOT]-"therapeutic abortion committee" for any hospital means a committee comprised of not less than four members, two of whom shall be qualified medical practitioners and one a psychiatrist appointed by the board of that hospital, as well as a clergyman, or spiritual advisor where this is requested by the patient for the purpose of considering and determining questions relating to terminations of pregnancy within that hospital.
Mr. Speaker, we have had the opportunity, on the motion of the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) which preceded this one, of studying its motives or reasons.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask for your co-operation-

May 5, 1969


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please.

I ask the co-operation of hon. members in order that the remarks of the hon. member for Lotbiniere may be heard.


André-Gilles Fortin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Now, where was I? It does not matter. I will continue my speech.
We had the opportunity when considering the amendment of the hon. member for Abitibi to study the motives that induced hon. members, particularly those of the opposition, to examine another definition and another composition of the therapeutic abortion committee of a hospital. Why, Mr. Speaker?
Quite simply because we believe that the definition in the omnibus bill states very vaguely that this therapeutic abortion committee will be composed of three doctors. Nothing more.
That is all the bill says concerning the therapeutic abortion committee. It says that it will be a committee accredited by the accreditation committee but it does not say what will be the competence, the specialization and the scientific affiliation of the members of this committee.
The government's proposal does not give any definition of competence and does not give any indication of the competence of the members of this committee. It says simply: appointment of a therapeutic abortion committee accredited by the accreditation committee. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, I am of the opinion that we are going far with these vague definitions-I could even say "woolly" but I will hold my tongue-which really do not represent a safeguard for the patient, the family, the hospital and particularly the doctors who will be on that committee.
Mr. Speaker, we, of the opposition, are making several attempts to define more clearly, more comprehensively and more safely this famous expression: therapeutic abortion committee.
Let us not forget, Mr. Speaker, that the expression therapeutic abortion committee and the creation of such a committee is the basis of this legislation on abortion, in short, the cornerstone which supports all the legislation on abortion.
We must remember that this therapeutic abortion committee will have the responsibility of applying this legislation, of studying the
Criminal Code
interests of the patient, the interests of this committee as well as those of the common and individual good.
One should not forget, Mr. Speaker, that if the therapeutic abortion committee, in a hospital, is not competent, does not work well or cannot perform its work adequately, scientifically and in the safest possible way, this definition of a therapeutic abortion committee is no longer a definition but almost a condemnation of the efficiency of this committee.
As for us, we are most concerned about this definition suggested in the legislation, especially by the words: and made up of three qualified medical practitioners. I certainly agree that doctors are all qualified practitioners, as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) said. Besides, it does not necessarily mean that we are meeting the needs.
Having said this, we should also remember that the patient who comes to see the doctor or the therapeutic abortion committee comes there for several reasons. I would be out of order if I elaborated on that, but may I be permitted to say, very briefly, a few words about the various reasons that bring a patient to a doctor.
Among those reasons, the first one that comes to our mind is reluctance to have children. One can well realize that this reason requires the presence of a psychiatrist or a psychologist who will be able to help the woman understand that maternity is a good thing for her, that it would be against the law of nature to reject maternity on the ground that she does not want a child, that maternity is a natural need and that, all in all, it is a good thing for her.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, it is not every qualified medical practioner who could participate in this discussion, in this extremely important and fundamental dialogue, or bring about this atmosphere of confidence that should unite a patient and her doctor. We should act immediately upon this reasoning, which seems to me most logical and justified, and see to it that on this therapeutic committee also sit a qualified person, able to consider with the patient this specific subject, that is, rejection of maternity. Of course, there are other reasons that also demand the presence of the same qualified medical practitioner, for psychiatric or psychological matters.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased with the proposal of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), who says that

May 5, 1969
Criminal Code
there should be two qualified medical practitioners and a psychiatrist, appointed by the board of the hospital. And, I find it marvelous that the hon. member for Brandon-Souris has not only defined in his amendment the expression "therapeutic committee", but has also asked that a psychiatrist sit on this famous therapeutic abortion committee; I find this necessary and most desirable.
As such a committee undergirds this legislation on abortion, as it is the corner-stone of therapeutic abortion, this safeguard clearly becomes imperative; all potential patients who could appear before the therapeutic committee, should rest assured that they will be understood, and helped, that they will find friendly and competent people to help them. This does not necessarily mean that the committee will accept every application for abortion.
But, if we do not appoint to this committee on therapeutic abortion a psychiatrist chosen by the board of this hospital, there could quite clearly where a patient will appear before the therapeutic committee and apply officially for a therapeutic abortion. And as the committee would comprise qualified medical practitioners-not necessarily a psychiatric, not necessarily a specialist in another branch, but qualified medical practitioners, for instance-we can see at once what could happen if that patient came before the committee, asked for an abortion and has to deal with three qualified practitioners that might not have the required competence to study the motives-not to pass judgment, for who has the right in this house to pass judgment-and the reasons prompting her to procure her miscarriage.
If her request, Mr. Speaker, comes from the fact that her pregnancy may endanger her physical health or her life, then, I say that the qualified medical practitioners or others are competent. But should those motives impair her mental health, will a qualified medical practitioner be able to give that patient the same co-operation, help, understanding, as a psychologist or a psychiatrist?
Mr. Speaker, I say that if the minister cannot understand that-something which is so clear, in my opinion, that common sense shows through in every way-then he is a blind man who yields only to socialist forces, whose aim is to reduce human beings to mere numbers, with the result that nobody can or tries to understand them. Instead, they are all to be tarred with the same brush, put in the 
same basket without anyone seeking the reasons or the circumstances concerning those particular persons.
Mr. Speaker, it is of vital importance, I think, that a psychiatrist be on a therapeutic abortion committee. We must urge the minister and this irresponsible government to make at least one intelligent move before refusing to study this amendment or its effects.
A psychiatrist will easily understand the reasons for an abortion. I was talking earlier of a mother's wish, for instance, to refuse maternity.
There are many other cases. Let us take for example that of an unwed mother.
Let us consider the woman who has three children and who does not want a fourth one for the simple reason that she has already too many with three, that her time is already too much taken up. Would that be a serious reason, Mr. Speaker? The therapeutic abortion committee hasi not the psychological or psychiatrical skill to co-operate with the patient in order to get to know her reasons-not to judge but to help her-and maybe to avoid then certain useless abortions.
In short, basically, this is the real issue, to avoid useless abortions, especially when we know that abortion is the rejection of a human being and, indirectly the death of a human being. Consequently, this constitutes an infanticide or an homicide, depending upon one's point of view.
Mr. Speaker, if we cannot prevent this general butchery, let us at least make sure that useless abortions, those requested for no serious or justified reasons, will be prevented.
This is why we, in this corner of the house, are particularly happy to support this part of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris which tends to ensure on the therapeutic abortion committee the presence of a psychiatrist appointed by the board of the hospital in order to give a better service to the woman who will appear before it.
According to the hon. member's proposal, the committee will comprise a "clergyman"- whatever his faith-or "a spiritual advisor where this is requested by the patient".
It should be noted that the hon. member respects the freedom of the individual, and this cannot always be said of the members opposite. And the amendment says:
-for the purpose of considering and determining questions relating to terminations of pregnancy within that hospital.
May 5, 1969

Mr. Speaker, this means clearly that two things have to be borne in mind, quite different although connected, when the therapeutic abortion committee is set up:
On the one hand, the psychological aspect has to be considered, or the reasons why abortion would be granted or rejected, and, on the other hand we must think of the moral problems possibly deriving therefrom.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest the hon. member for Brandon-Souris is right when he asks for the therapeutic abortion committee to be comprised, on an optional basis, of a clergyman or a priest, but only where this is requested by the patient. A clergyman or a priest should be permitted to come to the committee and study the case of the patient.
Mr. Speaker, everybody agrees that the abortion bill may have serious moral implications. We do our best however to avoid any comments on that point, for we did not come here to preachify.
However, it is an awful thought that we may pass a legislation knowing full well that it may raise serious moral problems for some people.
Then, we must be sincere enough to provide a way out in the legislation which would give the patient-and, in that, she will be protected by the law-the additional guarantee of being able to consult a priest or a clergyman officially, if she feels a moral problem is involved.
Besides, if the therapeutic abortion committee feels that the case of a given patient raises a moral problem rather than a psychiatric or a medical problem, then it could officially on its own call in a clergyman or a priest in order again-and we now come back to the subject-matter of the amendment-to provide the patient with an adequate and complete service, in short, to show her more understanding and give her greater assistance. I think this is essential.
To sum up, Mr. Speaker, the government would certainly be unwise to reject the amendment without giving it serious consideration and going to the root of the matter, as one general would put it.
Mr. Speaker, there are in this committee, in brief, two qualified medical practitioners, a psychiatrist, plus-if it is the wish of the committee and if the patient finds it advisable-a clergyman or priest, for a maximum of four persons or a minimum of three.
Such a membership guarantees adequate service and understanding from the point of
Criminal Code
view of science and professional ethics-with the two qualified medical practitioners-also moral and mental intelligence of the problem and causes, and a study of the deeper motives of a patient, and in addition, with the presence of a clergyman or a spiritual advisor-at the request of the patient-comprehension and, perhaps, an encouraging dialogue for the patient.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I say that in most cases of abortion, rejection of motherhood or quite unnatural reasons can be noticed. Quite often, such people have failed unfortunately to understand the meaning and the great importance of motherhood, they did not wish a pregnancy which may have been accidental, and consequently


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him is expired.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: 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 Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale)-National Parks- Alteration of land tenure principle; the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster)-National Defence-A.B.M.	system-Missile site in
Michigan area; the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch)-Security Guards- National Harbours Board-Vancouver.



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. 30, Mr. Dinsdale.
8326
Criminal Code
[Stage Direction]
May 5, 1969
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is the
house ready for the question?


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to speak on this amendment, but in view of the eloquence and the common sense shown in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), I feel duty bound to give it my wholehearted support as I think it is the only amendment, or almost the only one, which is directly related to morality.
The amendment now under consideration reads in part as follows:
-be amended by deleting paragraph (f) of subsection 6 in clause 18 on page 44 and substituting therefor:
"(f) "therapeutic abortion committee" for any hospital means a committee comprised of not less than four members, two of whom shall be qualified medical practitioners and one a psychiatrist appointed by the board of that hospital, as well as a clergyman, or spiritual advisor where this is requested by the patient for the purpose of considering and determining questions relating to terminations of pregnancy within that hospital."
In that amendment I note a reference to a clergyman or spiritual advisor. Moreover, in his short intervention following the explanation given by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, the Minister of Justice said that in the bill there is nothing to bar a woman from consulting her spiritual adviser or requiring his advice or guidance He even went further and said that he would encourage a woman faced with such a problem as abortion to see her spiritual adviser, a clergyman or anyone of her own faith, an expert in moral or religious matters, who could be of assistance to her in the decision to be made.
I extend warm congratulations to the Minister of Justice whom I recognize, through his remarks, as a believer and a Christian. But if the minister is a believer, why does he not show it in the bill?
In my view, that would eliminate once and for all-it is not very much trouble, only a few sentences to change-all suspicions or all that is going counter to morals, in such an important decision.
It would not be such a difficult problem to amend this clause. That would prove the minister is sincere about this bill and that he feels a moral responsibility in this regard. In fact, the government would take upon its shoulders the moral responsibility for this bill
At this stage, I would like to say that if we, the Creditiste members, have been speaking
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard).]
as often as we have on the proposed amendments, it is because we love our country very dearly, as I think we have proved it. We have set our heart on keeping intact our inheritance. The population of Canada does not exceed 21 million. The situation would be entirely different if our country was overpopulated as in the case of India.
I think that what we are now trying to prove-like some other members who have also spoken, for instance the hon. member for Brandon-Souris whom I congratulate-is that our heart is set on preserving our cultural and moral inheritance; which accounts for the fact that we are a responsible people.
I also believe that we love our children including those yet to be born.
I say here that it was extremely important, because if, for more or less trivial conditions or reasons, a girl or a woman requests an abortion on psychiatric grounds, for a matter of mental health, I think that a psychiatrist will have to decide the question.
That is why I find well-founded and called for this amendment. It asks or requests the Minister of Justice, as well as the present government, to accept that a psychiatrist and also a clergyman be included in the therapeutic abortion committee for the purpose of safeguarding morality.
I believe our sense of responsibility impels us almost to heroism at this time. Today, it is very distasteful to me to speak, in this house, about the morality of abortion because, when one defends true morality, the morality which is practised by the majority of Canadians, we are called mentally retarded.
As for me, it does not bother me at all; indeed, I do not care in the least. When someone or other calls me what he wants, it does not bother me at all, but I know that the future always belonged, in Canada to the people who could stand up-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I would ask the hon. member to kindly restrict his remarks, as he did at the outset, to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris.


Léonel Beaudoin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I said that we, Canadians, have always shown a sense of responsibility.
About the minister's remarks or about the amendment to the bill, namely, that those therapeutic abortion committees would be more complete, more just and better assured of avoiding mistakes, I fully support this
May 5, 1969

measure designed to amend Bill C-150 by providing that such committees include a third member, that is a psychiatrist and a third spiritual advisor or a clergyman.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words to congratulate the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) who introduced an amendment, which is the contribution of the members of the Progressive Conservative party in order to make this bill more acceptable.
Mr. Speaker, I think the argument put forward by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris is serious. He did not elaborate very much but I think the outline he gave us while presenting his amendment to paragraph (f), concerning the composition of this therapeutic committee, deserves some consideration.
I think he has presented us with a picture of the Canadian society based on the accomplishments of the State and the Church, but I am most surprised at the answer and observations of the minister who, as usual, defends the pluralist society that I would rather call the socialist and communist oriented society. We are presented with a legislation that protects one or two per cent of the population at the expense of the 98 per cent others who as I said, represent the society based on the State and the Church.
I simply wanted to congratulate the man who has had the courage to introduce this amendment.
As for the observations of the minister, who told us that we are simply accepting the report of the committee which says that the only requirement should be the appointment of three doctors, they bewilder me.
Then, Mr. Speaker, if we consider the minister's remarks and if the house finally agrees to accept nothing but the report of the committee, what is the purpose of this fight? What is the purpose of all these amendments accepted by the Chair? The whole thing is a farce.
The minister informs us that only the committee's report will be accepted. What does it contain? I really wonder, what we are trying to do and why does the Chair accept amendments such as the one before us. The minister should have been consulted to find out whether it was really worth being discussed. That may help explain the attitude of the hon. members; I believe they were clever 29180-5281
Criminal Code
enough to accept the information of the committee and to disregard all those amendments which are being submitted and which the Chair sees fit to accept. Does it mean that the Chair accepts amendments which it knows beforehand to be unacceptable to the government? In that case, our efforts are futile. In my opinion-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I would like to remind the hon. member that the Chair is the servant of the house and not of any party. Moreover, I would like to ask him to limit his comments to the amendment before the house and not to discuss all the other amendments which have been disposed of.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: I am talking on that very amendment, on paragraph (f). I am quoting the minister's words and saying that the amendment submitted by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), according to the words of the minister, no longer has any meaning.
Why are we discussing this amendment? That is what I am wondering about. We are indulging in a child's play, according to the minister, who made that statement forty-five minutes ago. In that case, let the department be firm and put an end to it once and for all. Let us proceed with the vote. To put it very simply, it is quite useless to submit an amendment of that kind, for instance, which is meant to do justice to the whole population, to all Christians in Canada, and not only to communists and socialists.
I asked earlier that there be two gynacolo-gists. This amendment reads partly as follows:
"therapeutic abortion committee" tor any hospital means a committee comprised of not less than four members-
I agree with the hon. member. If the medical group must be represented, very well. But man is not only an animal; he is entitled to have representatives, he has the right to resort also to spiritual doctors. That is why I find this amendment wonderful, because it meets a need in our society, a need which a certain group of Liberals may dispense from today, probably because their leader's favourite authors are Karl Marx and Mao Tse-tung.
But we are not in that case and we must try to meet the needs of the people by means of an amendment, and I think this amendment is consistent with the wish of the majority of Canadians. I dare say a "majority" because I wonder whether, when discussing

May 5, 1969
Criminal Code
in this parliament, we are still in a democracy. But I hope the government will come back to democracy and will think a little more of complying with the majority's wish, instead of 1 or 2 per cent of the population.
This is why I feel we should adopt those amendments without the slightest hesitation. Speaking about the clergyman, the hon. minister adds quite ingenuously that he would encourage women to consult clergymen; but the point is that there will be no clergymen on the committee. This is what our argument is all about.
There will be no counsel on the committee. A member may recommend to the future mother to confer with a clergyman, but I can assure you that, under the circumstances, and considering the way the measure is drafted, the pregnant woman will find it rather difficult to consult the clergyman who sits on the committee, because there will not be a clergyman. Perhaps there will be some socialists, but there will be no Christian representative.
Mr. Speaker, these are the two main arguments which struck me in the remarks of the minister. When he says that it is to dispel widespread fears, it does not make any sense; people are justified in fearing the present bill because we are heading for a society of absolute licence where socialism and communism will prevail. That is where we are heading.
The socialists are happy. They laugh. They triumph.
The minister said earlier that he learned a great many things since the beginning of this debate, to be patient for one. I think that tomorrow he may learn something else. He will learn that society is angry at him. Let him be careful. It would be a good thing for him-though I do not wish it-if he were a little jostled, because the amendment we are discussing has been well thought. It has been proposed by a capable man, an old hand at politics. Moreover, I believe we should adopt it even though all the amendments, like the bill, should never have been brought at the political level. However, such is the case. We are not those who have brought it up and this is why we are strongly opposed to the bill being carried on for the benefits and particularly for the glory of socialists, since tomorrow we shall be shedding tears of blood for having let this happen.
Once more, I say that I shall vote in favour of this amendment, which requires that at least four members be appointed on the

therapeutic abortion committee, to allow the greatest majority of our people to have access to legislations we are supposed to vote in their name, not only at the medical level but at the moral and social levels as well.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Mr. Roland Godin (Porlneuf):: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, the amendment now before us which deals with Bill C-150 and more especially paragraph (f) of clause 18, ranks among the most important we have seen up to now.
If we consider that the role of an elected and responsible government is to provide the people with the results that they wish to obtain in the management of public affairs and as long as it is normally and morally advisable, it is necessary to establish and maintain a democratic formula promoting life in society based on equitable laws through which each individual would enjoy social, political and religious freedom as far as the unprejudiced application of the laws is concerned. An individual and collective effort is necessary to ensure prosperity, security and cultural progress.
The amendment under consideration today proves however that we have a long way to go before attaining a high degree of civilization. The family, on which society, is founded is nowadays forgotten, neglected, humiliated and scorned. Whether it is pleasant or not to be reminded of this, nevertheless it is a fact. Today, we are studying an amendment dealing with the status of woman in our society.
On April 15 last, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) put motion No. 30 which is simply meant to protect the mother, the main member of the family. This amendment will probably have opponents, especially men who claim to be the liberators of women, but who speak of their liberation through abortion. This is simply to slight them.
The 70,000 Canadian women who took the trouble to write to the Prime Minister last week did not do so to demand abortion. On the contrary, they objected to that legislation about which most of them have never been consulted. With a few exceptions, Canadian women have never demanded abortion. Regarding those exceptions, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote from an article published in he Soleil, on Friday December 6, 1968, under the title: "Une femme qui desire avor-ter n'a pas a se justifier devant un comite".
May 5, 1969


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I remind the hon. member that the article he wants to read, in order to be accepted, must have some connection with the amendment of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale). Otherwise, I shall be obliged to call him to order.


Roland Godin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We are talking about an amendment that provides for the setting up of a four-member committee. Now, the article I want to quote deals with the exceptions, those Canadian women who are against such a committee and in favour of abortion. I want to prove, Mr. Speaker, that they are very few and I hope you will allow me to quote one of their statements. So far, only the statements of those who are against have been submitted. Today, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read the statement of a lady who is for abortion and I hope that will be agreeable to you.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order.
I told the hon. member he has to deal with the amendment before us and from the information he has just given, his comments are not related to it. Very kindly, I would ask him to restrict his remarks to the amendment.


Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, I thank you once again for your observations, but I have not yet started to read the article. I find your ruling rather premature. Finally, who knows what I have here?
It concerns a former secretary of state who is still invited to address university students. She is not a criminal woman, but a former minister and former cabinet member who once said about this problem:
Miss Judy LaMarsh, former secretary of State, said Wednesday night that if she ever became pregnant, she would prefer illegal abortion rather than an appearance before a committee to claim that she should be procured legal miscarriage.
Miss LaMarsh, who was speaking at the University of Toronto at a students' debate on abortions stated that she was personally against the proposal requiring a pregnant woman to appear before a board of psychiatrists, doctors, barristers and priests, if she wanted abortion.
"If I were pregnant I would prefer miscarriage with a spoon and a knife in a dirty kitchen," said Miss LaMarsh.
Mr. Speaker, you know that a pretty and desirable woman has much more chances than Miss LaMarsh of becoming pregnant.
I go on with the quotation:
She added that restrictions on abortion should be removed from the Criminal Code and that
Criminal Code
women should have the right to discuss only with their attending doctor the possibility of an abortion.
This supports what has just said the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier), namely that clause 18 should not have been included in the Code. I go on:
When a student suggested that women wanted abortions merely for the sake of decency, Miss LaMarsh replied: "I wonder if he would think in this way if his girl friend or his sister were in that .position-at 17 years old, maybe, without any money and without a husband."
Miss LaMarsh said that it should be "easier" to have an abortion than to give birth to a child.
She has also stated that the amendments to Criminal Code permitting therapeutic abortions, as introduced by Prime Minister Trudeau, were not going far enough.
This is terrific, Mr. Speaker. I continue the quotation:
In fact, these amendments would allow therapeutic abortions where pregnancy would endanger the life or the health of the mother, but would require the written consent of a special committee in an approved hospital.
Miss LaMarsh said later during the interview that, although she does not believe that a woman can really do anything she likes with her own body, she Heels a woman has the right, if her doctor agrees, to procure herself an abortion, and the state has no business limiting her freedom by legislation.
During her 20 minute speech, she stated that the proposed amendment to the Criminal Code "makes very little account of the social problems of the great number of married and unmarried persons involved".
"A stirring error".
Miss LaMarsh added that she was not interested in knowing if the "stirring mistake" in the pregnant woman was a human being or not.
"What I am concerned about, are the parents of that mistake. I am worried about the young men who become the fathers of those mistakes, and the young women whose lives may be destroyed".
When one of the panelists suggested that abortions should be covered by medicare and by the health insurance scheme in Ontario, Miss LaMarsh struck the seat beside her, saying-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. It is quite clear that the article referred to has nothing to do with the amendment under consideration.


Roland Godin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In conclusion, I should like to express my gratitude to you for allowing me to read that much of it all the same.

May 5. 1969
Criminal Code
At any rate, Miss LaMarsh points out again that it should be easier to have an abortion than to give birth to a child.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if I were pregnant- again a conjecture-what would I do? Before whom did Miss LaMarsh express her opinion? Before doctors, heads of families, experienced people? Indeed not. The only person in favour of abortion in the country who dared come out and speak out, chose to do so before inexperienced students.
This is what such people think.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Since the human being is the most valuable creature in any organized society, it has undeniable rights to the spiritual as well as the temporal good, and these should be fully respected and safeguarded.
If natural law confers rights, at the same time it imposes corresponding duties. In fact, the right to life, for instance, involves the duty to preserve life. The right to a decent life involves the duty to behave with dignity moreover, if the right to have a family derives from man's natural right to freedom in the choice of a state in life, it is incumbent on a member of parliament to take social, cultural and moral measures of such a nature as to increase stability and assist man in fulfilling his particular role.
The abortion legislation as proposed would allow abortion in cases where the health of the mother would be endangered. This is given a wide interpretation. As will often be the case, women will now have a legal means to get aborted at the slightest excuse. Indeed, we will have abortions at will and this may come in direct relationship with the decline in the birth rate which is due to the pill. It will more or less amount to self-extermination for the human race.
Mr. Speaker, we know that reproduction does not stand as the No. 1 problem for the Canadian people. So, I wonder why we deal with abortion since there is no problem there. Why do we talk about abortion, when the main problem has to do with distribution, and this has been proved?
The government sends ambassadors and workers throughout the world in order to find customers, to find consumers for our products. So, why do we talk about abortion, why do we try to pass this piece of legislation which will as a result destroy the next generation, the generation of tomorrow, that could have taken advantage of our surpluses and thereby become our best consumers?

Using charity and goodwill as a pretext, we have entered into special arrangements with the bad Russians who were against us in the last war.
In the past few years, we have entered into contracts, we have granted subsidies and advantageous loans for purchases of Canadian wheat by the Chinese who are getting ready to wage war on us. To what nation must we give way?
At this point, may I be permitted to quote an excerpt from a speech delivered in Prague in 1869. I quote:
Let us not prevent marriages between our men and Christian girls; because, through the latter, we break into the most inclusive circles.
But, mainly, let us invade the teaching field. In this way we shall spread the ideas that are useful to our cause and we shall mold the minds as we see fit.
Let us spread the idea of common-law marriage, in order to destroy in Christian women their devotion to the principles and the practices of their faith.
It is obvious that, if the idea of common-law marriage has been advocated for a hundred years, abortion would be rather helpful to those people, who have practised it more freely than within marriage.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I ask the hon. member to let us know, after those comments, in what way he intends to deal with the amendment now before us. Otherwise he shall have to be called to order again and the hon. member is well aware of the rules in this regard.


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace on a point of order.


William Warren Allmand: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the course of the speech being made by the hon. member you have risen four times to bring him to order on the point of relevancy. I fully support you in this respect and I want to cite to you Standing Order 34 (2) which reads as follows:
Mr. Speaker or the Chairman, after having called the attention of the House, or of the committee, to the conduct of a member who persists in irrelevance, or repetition, may direct him to discontinue his speech, and if then the member still continues to speak, Mr. Speaker shall name him or, if in committee, the Chairman shall report him to the House.
May 5. 1969



We in the house have had enough of irrelevance and waste of time, and I would ask you to enforce this rule if the hon. member continues to be irrelevant. I ask you to direct him to discontinue his speech if he continues to be irrelevant. You have interrupted him four times already and have asked him to be relevant but he has flagrantly disregarded your remarks'. I ask you to enforce the rule, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order.
I thank the hon. member, that is exactly why I made certain comments on the last call to order.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand), I refer to the same standing order which reads:
Mr. Speaker or the Chairman, after having called the attention of the house, or of the committee, to the conduct of a member who persists in irrelevance-
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I should like to emphasize another side of the question, as the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace has not done so. When the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin) rose to speak, he asked the Chair's permission to make a quotation. You called him to order without knowing what the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin) wanted to say or quote. I believe it is one of the first calls to order that could not come under standing order 34(2).
This call to order may have caused the hon. member for Portneuf to lose the thread of his ideas, of the matter in hand, since psychologically speaking, it is more or less what usually happens.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask you to kindly allow the hon. member for Portneuf to pursue his very interesting and brilliant remarks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. Both hon. members made their remarks very clear to the Chair. I thank them most sincerely and ask the hon. member for Portneuf who still has a few observations to make, to kindly limit his remarks, this time, to the amendment.


Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for having thanked my colleagues and I am coming back to the amendment through a last quotation, which is the most important of all, and I am still quoting from a speech delivered
Criminal Code
in Prague in 1869. There are only three lines,
I quote:
At the appointed and predetermined time, we shall unleash the revolution which through the ruin of all classes of Christendom, will enable us to enslave all Christians once and for all.
That is why, I asked a while ago for the benefit of what nation shall we have to yield? Are modern wars, with the modern weapons we know, putting the authors of that speech in fear of a revolution in Canada? Is it to be feared that Canada will be actually destroyed before being taken over? Would that be the means they have found-abortion-to prevent us from reproducing ourselves, so as to be able to seize the country without any trouble? Is Canadian parliament the tool of those people?
Those are the questions that come to my mind in the face of the statements of the minister who again opposes a very simple amendment which reads:
"therapeutic abortion committee" for any hospital means a committee comprised of not less than four members, two of whom shall be qualified medical practitioners and one a psychiatrist appointed by the board of that hospital, as well as a clergyman, or spiritual advisor.
The minister told us that he actually urged people, women, to see a psychiatrist or their clergyman.
Now, if the minister agrees, we do too, and we want to make even surer. Promises and unwritten commitments! are not good enough. That is why the hon. member for Brandon-Souris moved this amendment, merely because he wanted the wishes of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) to be spelled out in the act. It is nothing else. That is why I still support the amendment in question.
Now-as I repeated a while ago-is. there anything more drastic than abortion to complete the infamous work of the pill? Since it is related and precedes abortion, I feel that it is closely related to the amendment in question, and considering the fact that the pills are not entirely satisfactory, might the bill not be designed to help pharmacists?
When we know that a woman can conceive only 60 days a year, why all the publicity, for instance, about the famous pill and why speak about abortion? Why speak about abortion for a period of 60 days per year? And considering that a woman-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.

Maj 5, 1969
Criminal Code


Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, I need only one more minute.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Roland Godin: It is very brief, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The time of the hon. member is over.
The hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte).


Mr. Matte:: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be called to order too often, because we realize that on the other side of the house, even if they do not want to listen to our speeches carefully, seriously, they watch us closely in an effort to catch us up.
And your role, Mr. Speaker, becomes extremely difficult, I agree. You cannot possibly know every thing. You are not a walking encyclopedia and consequently how can you judge every technical, medical, scientific or other question, while saying at the same time that we are within the subject or not? That is far from easy.
It is quite understandable, Mr. Chairman, that we should sometimes get away from the subject, at this stage of the debate that has been lasting for weeks. We are so deeply involved in the subject that even for a simple amendment we have at the tips of our fingers all the relevant arguments.
While considering the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), we are still in the realm of the subject I believe, when we bring forth all possible arguments to prove that it is very important that the advisory committee, in an accredited hospital, should prove that it has all the required qualifications to perform abortion. We want this committee to make decisions but only when we are reasonably sure-I do not say absolutely sure, but reasonably sure-that it will be able to avoid making mistakes and yielding to sentimental pressures and blackmail.
The purpose of the amendment now before us and which is closely related to the amendment discussed earlier is just to avoid that.
I want here to congratulate and thank the hon. member for Brandon-Souris for having considered the question of abortion from a point of view which is very much the same as ours. He certainly deserves to be congratulated for his amendment goes, at least in some [The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard).]
ways, a little further still than the previous one and I quote:
"Therapeutic abortion committee" for any hospital means a committee comprised of not less than four members, two whom shall be qualified medical practitioners and one a psychiatrist appointed by the board of that hospital, as well as a clergyman, or spiritual advisor where this is requested by the patient for the purpose of considering and determining questions relating to terminations of pregnancy within that hospital."
Mr. Speaker, we realize, in reading this amendment, the continuing concern of those who, in this house, radically oppose abortion as such. They want to protect people, to the best of their ability, so that if, unfortunately, abortion were accepted as such, we would know at least that every care has been taken to avoid every kind of abuse.
We understand very well the recommendations made a moment ago by the minister when he said that, personally, he was quite in favour of the suggestion, but that there was no need of including it in the bill since it would be done through a simple advisory board without it being indicated in the law.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the minister thinks he is smarter than the law but it is unfortunately common knowledge that i's should be dotted and that t's should be crossed-and more particularly so here, taking into account the experiences undergone elsewhere. It is essential to dot the i's, rather than rely on the fact that there will be advisors, people who will have to think things over, to sound their conscience and to ponder upon a possible abortion. Will qualified physicians then go and take the advice of clergymen and psychiatrists? Are we to expect such a thing? This is not good enough, not by a long shot. That is why the amendment becomes important, if not essential, for who will agree to abortion?
It has been said ever so often-and I will say it again-that according to duly qualified medical practitioners, cases where the mother's life must be weighed against the life of the foetus she bears in her womb, are extremely rare; there may be three cases out of ten thousand. Consequently in 20 cases of abortion, consideration and advice will not be sought for purely medical and scientific reasons. Therefore, the committee that will have to decide must be apprised of all the factors, in order not to be tricked by those who would try by every possible means to procure a legal abortion.
May 5, 1969

Out of a hundred cases submitted to a physician to secure abortion, at least 95 per cent will be unwarranted. Yet since people will go and see their physicians for that purpose, they will naturally do their utmost to succeed.
That is why, with pressures brought to bear upon him from all sides even though he is well qualified, the poor physician will be in an extremely complex situation and most of the times, his decision will be contrary to his own conception of his patient's condition. If he is alone, it will be extremely difficult for him to arrive at a decision. On the other hand, by adding two members to the committee, we would partly relieve him of the responsibility.
Once he is able to consult a psychiatrist the latter becomes perhaps the most important person, more than the clergyman, because according to the representations we received from the various Churches, namely from the Roman Catholic Church, we know they are opposed to abortion. Moreover, I do not think the woman requesting an abortion would be disposed to consult her parish priest or a spiritual advisor.
Now the fact remains that even a clergyman or a spiritual adviser can give sensible advice which would surely not be prejudicial to the diagnosis which the senior physician will have to make.
I say that the most important individual in that case will be the psychiatrist and I refer again to that famous number which impresses me very much. As there is practically no case when abortion has to be performed to save the life of a woman, the reason of health has been added. Now, the psychiatrist becomes the key man in such a case, because the person who will go before the therapeutic abortion committee is already somewhat mentally affected and ill, since she is ready to accept something which is unnatural. The fact that she started by asking medical advice for an abortion while being comparatively healthy indicates that her mental health is especially affected. This is why I feel that, when he suggests a psychiatrist, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris realizes quite well the disastrous- consequences of the problem which has been before us for some time.
The problem is extremely serious, because a pregnant person is perhaps not in a position, especially on account of her special condition, to judge matters adequately by herself. We only have to remember the peculiar behaviour of a pregnant woman; she is somewhat disturbed-and this applies- to all
Criminal Code
women-and then her reasoning and her judgment are not as logical as they would be in other circumstances.
This pertains to psychology, to the mind and to mental health. Nobody would then be in a better position than a psychiatrist to advise most judiciously and most objectively the attending doctors on the person wanting an abortion.
I find therefore this amendment most appropriate. I find it serious. I find that once again it fully supports us in our fight and we shall keep on fighting until the minister can or will decide to take our comments into account.
A four member committee still better than one comprising only two members, since there will be four persons to look after the interests of the patient. I am also in favour of a committee made up of properly qualified people, that is, who know the human mind because they have made a special study of the subject and who are familiar with all the possible distortions it may present due to various circumstances.	'
I therefore think that by specifying that a psychiatrist will be consulted, we do not repeat what is normally inferred when we refer to qualified doctors. That is what the minister said just now, that it was necessarily inferred. But we take that precaution knowing human nature as it is and knowing also that the easiest way out has many supporters in the world.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
We therefore know that there may be a whole string of reasons, besides the real ones, which can bring someone to ask for an abortion. That is why if ever abortion was accepted, we would want the law to be very specific so as to discourage those who would want to resort to it. As the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin) pointed out, there is no reason why we should be in favour of such a thing.
I do not think that the problem is worse from the population point of view. On the contrary, our country does a lot of publicity to attract immigrants. At this time, I would like to make the distinction-once again, people may think that it is my hobby, but I feel very strongly about it-between the province of Quebec and the other provinces.
It could be that in the other provinces people are not so much opposed to abortion because they depend on immigration.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope that the hon. member will see to it that his remarks are relevant to the amendment.

May 5, 1969
Criminal Code
I believe that he has already indicated for the information of the hon. members the difference between the province of Quebec and the other provinces, as regards this bill, inasmuch as the general principle of the legislation is concerned. I feel however that his remarks, at this time, should bear on the matter before the house, and I know that the hon. member will manage to present his argument in this context.


René Matte: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What I was trying to say is that, to me, the amendment is restrictive. I am in favour of the amendment because it will reduce the number of people resorting to abortion. And if we do not accept the amendment, the result will be that many people, throughout the country, will appeal to the advisory committee to be authorized to get an abortion. I find that extremely unfortunate for Quebec especially because, even though other provinces can rely on immigration, Quebec can rely only on its own progeny, and the problem is now quite alarming: in the last ten years, the Quebec family has dropped to 1.9 children.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member puts forward the very argument I was afraid to hear in the house. He knows that the subject now before us is an amendment to the legislation designed to increase the number of members on a special committee, including the appointment of a psychiatrist and a spiritual advisor. The hon. member should direct his remarks to that.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, this time I will try not to depart from the subject, because being called to order like that is likely to give us a complex and force us to resort to a psychiatrist.
So I simply say, to conclude, that I think the quality of the members of the committee should be specified, and not be indefinite as it is now with the committee having to be comprised of qualified medical practitioners. The term "qualified" seems adequate to the minister but, as far as we are concerned, this amendment specifying the exact quality of those who are called upon to be members of the committee is necessary to limit the scope of this clause of the omnibus bill.
Even if both amendments, Nos. 29 and 30, which are of a similar nature, were lumped together, that would still mean 4 or 5 members. But if, moreover, it was specified that one of the two qualified medical practitioners must be a gynaecologist, there could then be

a gynaecologist, a medical practitioner, a psychiatrist as well as a clergyman and a spiritual advisor.
Then, we would take a much lesser risk, and we would meet the wish of the people who would see that we are really concerned with protecting the life of the mother, and not satisfying a certain group of people who would like to have such freedom that it would become licentiousness.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I wish to avail myself of the few remaining minutes to support the amendment of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale). I think this amendment is logical and goes to the heart of the matter. We are about to pass a bill which will have very serious consequences, as it affects the very basis of human nature. It is as the root of the tree. If we want the tree to be in good condition, in good health, we must take care of its roots. If the roots become sick, the tree will die. If the nation is in danger, if the very basis of the nation is undermined, it will be the fault of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), the fault of the government. This bill might shake them. I believe that we should recognize that this amendment is moral, logical, social and that it must not be rejected on any ground.
This amendment should be accepted because the one who moved it deserves all our congratulations. I am asking the hon. member, once again, if it is possible, to ask his friends to support his amendment because up to now only one member has supported it.
This amendment certainly deserves a lot of support, because it carries a lot of weight. Moreover, it is so logical, so moral, so social, that I think it is impossible not to take it into account.
The Minister of Justice said in his statements, that he was ready to advise mothers to turn to a spiritual advisor, a moralist, a psychiatrist. If the minister is ready to do that, why does he not include it in his bill?
The minister stated publicly that he was ready at least to recognize that this amendment is logical. Why not include it in the bill and have it inserted in the Criminal Code? After a bill has been passed, it comes into force and then that legislation is maintained by the State. If that amendment does not appear in the Criminal Code, those who have to enforce the law will not bother about it. Therefore, the minister implies only that the
May 5, 1969

amendment, though logical and commendable, cannot be accepted.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Henry P. Latulippe: I should like to point out that it is six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but, it being six o'clock, I do now leave the Chair.

At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, before recess we were discussing an amendment which I called just and tremendously great.
That amendment is more complete than any of the preceding ones, because it asks for, and I quote:
-not less than four members, two of whom shall be Qualified medical practitioners and one a psychiatrist appointed by the board of that hospital, as well as a clergyman, or spiritual advisor where this is requested by the patient for the purpose of considering and determining questions relating to terminations of pregnancy-
Mr. Speaker, as this question deals with morals, since it is impossible to appeal to conscience without touching morals, I should like to say a few words and broaden the outlook on the question of morality. Indeed, it is the greatest, the noblest thing, since morality ensures our inner balance and nurtures hope. It is the same thing for the population as a whole.
Since the population is made up of individuals, if we can preserve in each person the sense of morality, on the human and social plane, society itself will be stabilized, thanks to this morality, to this fundamental moral law needed by every man. Without such a law, no person is stable. Therefore, a nation without morality is an unstable nation heading for anarchy and ruin. No morality means no hope.
This is partly why this amendment, tending to allow the patient to request a spiritual advisor seems to me essentially logical, human, and commendable, for I will say it again, moral laws are essential to any nation.
Criminal Code
We must withdraw contemporary societies from the influence of artificial, legalistic rules and bring them into the vivifying world of duty and moral obligation. So we have a moral obligation to protest against this bill, because this is a matter of conscience.
Never before, I believe, has Parliament been faced with such a matter of conscience. Those who have no conscience, who follow like sheep, who let themselves be lead to the slaughterhouse, we cannot blame them, neither can we blame those who have a conscience, who wish to upgrade the nation, who want to ennoble the human being, who wish to protect individuals, to protect the nation, and who are against anarchy.
We are against anarchy and the legislative proposals on which we are to vote will surely and definitely lead us towards anarchy, because nations that have adopted similar legislation, similar positions, have known anarchy, have lived in terrible anarchy.
Every society and every nation should then be ruled by the same basic law: the respect of man. That is what I am driving at. The respect of man for man and of the state for the individual is at the very root of the social and human order.
Now, this amendment leads us directly into such moral considerations. It makes us turn our minds to morality for the protection of our society, for its very survival, and for its development and its future growth. We need such a high moral law.
Order postulates a law which sets a goal and which requires means to attain that goal. In nature, goal and means blend into one, because things and people are subjected to a vigorous determination. Whether it be the physical universe, the vegetable or animal kingdom, the goals and the means are summed up in the universal law of self-conservation and of respect for man.
A society established on the principle of respect of man must not confuse the end and the means. The state must not embody the end as well as the means. It is impossible to be both instrument and purpose and that is precisely what the present government is proposing now. It brings forth the instrument, while the purpose of the bill before us is to make abortion currently and generally obtainable and to remove all scruples about abortion. That is exactly what makes abortion so valuable, because once more it is concerned with the very essence of individuals, of life and of the human beings who

May 5. 1969
Criminal Code
will come after us. We shall not live forever and after we have been replaced things may be better. After our times, new, better, perhaps more sociable and natural things will come up because of our accomplishments, and if we have misbehaved, we will pay for it in the other world.
In our society, the role of the State is to legislate and to administer the law. It is up to the State not to embody at the same time-it must not do so by a strict application of the law-the end and the finality of society, that is to be enclosed in a specific institution. It is therefore necessary for the basic law of the human society to be embodied in a specific institution which would hold the supreme power above the State and out of its reach.
The motion under consideration leads us directly once again to a matter of conscience and ethics. It also shows that it is necessary to put that institution out of the reach of the State. A moral law is powerless in itself. It would be too easy for the State to abolish it or to violate it to its own advantage if it felt like it. Of course, the State always and necessarily has authority since it is in power. Then, having regard to that power, what will the Minister of Justice do?
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
The minister acknowledges that the bill must be based on morals, but he does not want morals to be part of the Criminal Code. He does not want such a written law. Then, what are we to think of the minister? What about that Minister of Justice? Perhaps he should be called the Minister of Injustice, for he advocates or accepts certain reforms or certain moral laws only in principle, whereas he actually refuses to accept them.
So, such a minister reflects supernatural hypocrisy; it is not even natural hypocrisy. The basic law of society must not be violated by anybody and above all by the State. If everything is relative as far as humanity is concerned, in this case this is an absolute imperative. Otherwise, all would be lost.
Mr. Speaker, just as the means must be subordinated to the end, so the State must be subordinated to moral power. This is natural and necessary in the order of things. There is no denying this, Mr. Speaker.
Embodying the supreme law of the nation, the moral power must be a real power. Life is not sufficient. It must have moral power and not material power. The only real immaterial power is justice. Moral power and judiciary power must be one power only.
[Mr. Latulippe.l
However, this becomes a matter of conscience, Mr. Speaker.
The amendment now under study should certainly be accepted by a great many hon. members, by the hon. members on the other side of the house, by those who, up to now, have refused to accept any amendment to this bill.
And yet, the amendment under consideration is one of the most complete, most human, and most social-minded ever seen. So, humanity will be what man makes of it. Man harvests what he sows. Therefore, if he spreads disorder in our society, if he prevents society from multipling itself by immoral laws, like the one we are now considering, we shall be subjected to dreadful calamities.
As far as I am concerned, I shall not take that responsibility. If the minister and members opposite want to accept such a responsibility, they can do so. We are here as conscientious objectors. We want peace and happiness for the nation. We want the nation to progress; we want to be replaced by others who are logically supposed to replace us according to the destiny of creation. And, we have no right to interfere with such things.
The world that is dying under our very eyes is that of ideologies, objections, myths, of right supported by force, of false values or false ideologies; when in contact with reality, these degenerate into material values.
People consider only the material point of view, for they do not care for the spiritual point of view. They do not care about morals. There are no more morals, there is no more conscience on the other side at the present time. However, I feel that all government, members cannot be deprived of a conscience.
Among our friends opposite, some are still conscientious. I ask them to stand up and defend the bill, so that we can at least have that logical, great and ultimate amendment adopted.
That amendment should at least be inserted in our Criminal Code, so as to provide some measure of protection, a little conscience, a little hope, for our nation, today and tomorrow.
The world of quality and of masses, the world of all those who, avid for power or money built their empire on the traffic of men, of their flesh, of their mind, of their conscience or of their faith, the world of the ignored, despised, crushed man, used as an instrument, the world of pride, of violence, of fanatism and of war, is an inhuman world.
May 5, 1969

Therefore, this is what we are in the process of giving the people, the future nation: an inhuman world. Yet we were not elected to indulge in inhuman things. We are human beings and so, we must know what is moral, what is a human being, an individual. We must recognize its greatness, its sublimity.
So, the break of dawn, the new-born world will be the world of reality and of living men, the world of genuine human values, both material and spiritual. That is what we want, that is what we stand for, with this bill and with the amendment proposed in it. The world of quality is the world of the elite, of all those who, on this earth, are the most worthy of our times, in short the world of moral law, of tolerance and of peace. It is the world of the man who is understood, considered, respected, treated as a human being, the world of the happy city, built by free men for free men who are masters of their own destiny.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order. The time allotted to the hon. member has expired. The hon. member for Sheiford.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, we are studying, clause by clause, the amendments which have been introduced in this house concerning bill C-150.
Some similar amendments have been tabled previously, but we must still express our views on each of these amendments which are, I think, very important.
If we have a close look at the amendment No. 30, introduced by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) we notice that it is rather similar to the previous one. We sincerely regret that the minister does not seem willing to accept any of those amendments which were not been moved for fun, or for mere pleasure.
Each of them is important if one takes trouble to study the documents, the briefs, to read the medical books and to learn from the experience of other countries which have already enacted such bills.
The main purpose of this amendment is to clarify in bill C-150 the wording of the provision which compels us to appoint abortion committees where this wording would specify in advance the members who would be appointed to these abortion committees.
Now, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris suggested that a psychiatrist be appointed with two doctors and a clergyman of the religion or the belief of the female person who wants to have an abortion. Well, the main
Criminal Code
purpose of this amendment is to specify in the legislation who within the abortion committee, will have the final say from the psychiatric point of view.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Why should there be a psychiatrist on this committee? Because medical science proves that in the case of abortion a psychiatrist is very important because of the many psychiatric symptoms which induce women to go to certain doctors to get an abortion.
How could a doctor study the reason a woman has to want an abortion if he is not himself a psychiatrist? I have here, in front of me, books written by doctors who give hundreds of psychiatric reasons for which a woman might want to get an abortion.
The legislation does not specify anything; it does not oblige the hospital board to have a psychiatrist on this committee. That is where we find the legislation is not clear enough, it is incomplete, ambiguous, it will open the door to a lot of abuses.
I am shocked to see that the minister is stubborn to the point that he will not accept any of the amendments proposed in the house.
Mr. Speaker, I simply have to mention the books published on the subject by doctors, books sold by the Editions du jour and written by Dr. Serge Mongeau, in collaboration with other doctors. Speaking of psychiatric conditions, he says this, at page 45, about unwanted pregnancies. He emphasizes cases where the psychiatrist alone could tell if such or such a woman is right or wrong to get an abortion.
Unwanted pregnancies
That reluctant approach can appear at the very beginning, for instance in the case of the bachelor girl who cannot foresee any way of keeping her child.
Further he is more specific:
Except in some very rare exceptions, the majority of women appear to be more or less in two minds when pregnant. At times the child is seen as a threat, at times as the object of tender love. The psychological state of the woman, her environment, her health, her relations with her husband, all condition her attitude towards the child she bears.
Those are some psychiatric reasons- and I shall enumerate others-which induce a woman at the start of her pregnancy to either want or reject her child. Statistics prove, however, that a woman who wanted to be aborted because she did not want her child, later on, after one, two or three months,
Criminal Code had changed her mind and from then on wanted to bring her child into the world.
Mr. Speaker, those are psychiatric reasons for which a woman wants to be aborted or not. How are those psychiatric reasons to be judged if there is no psychiatrist on the committee?
Dr. Soddy, another expert in the field of psychiatry, has this to say:
Soddy distinguishes two forms of non-wish, in the face of pregnancy: "the absence of a positive desire for the child for his own sake, as an individual with his own rights; a negative attitude towards the child or even his rejection". Depending on the category, the character of the mother-to-be, the social possibilities and numerous other factors, four alternatives can be considered:
He goes on to explain, for instance, why a woman may finally accept her child, even though she may in the first instance have rejected it and wanted to be aborted, because the psychiatrist convinced her to have the child.
I continue:
Even when the discovery of pregnancy has caused the future mother to be slightly dismayed, it can happen, particularly when she receives adequate help, that the child who was first regarded as undesirable becomes fully accepted. In Yugoslavia, where abortion is legal if approved by a committee created to study the requests, this intervention is refused to 10 to 20 per cent of the women who request it. In 1960-61, an inquiry revealed that out of 762 women who had not been granted an abortion, 52.5 per cent in 1960 and 42 per cent in 1961 carried their pregnancy to its term. Out of that number, 92 per cent accepted their child normally-
And women who had first asked for an abortion, were convinced with advice and help from the psychiatrist on the abortion committee, to carry their pregnancy to its term. However, how can the doctors on the abortion committee judge the psychiatric reasons a woman may invoke for having an abortion, if they are not psychiatrists themselves? Therein lies the illogical and nonsensical attitude of the minister regarding the scientists, medical authorities in Canada who have submitted briefs, who have given us everything we need to draw up legislation which will meet fully the needs of the public, of the pregnant women, and of those desiring abortion.
We believe, he goes on to say, that it is necessary to try everything to motivate women to want maternity and through effective help, to make maternity acceptable to them as soon as possible. Social workers play an increasingly successful role in the special centres established for that kind of work.

May 5, 1968
But how can we convince the women who want an abortion for psychiatric reasons if there are no psychiatrists on the abortion committee? How can doctors who know nothing about psychiatry say: Madam, for such and such a reason, you should continue your pregnancy to term. That shows that our legislation is absolutely senseless and unsuitable for the Canadian people.
I would like to give another reason, a psychiatric one, put forward by a woman who wants an abortion. What can a doctor who is not a psychiatrist decide about that? Here is the case:
I am pregnant. I want an abortion but I can find nobody to do it; the only one who would be ready to do it charges $600, but I do not have that money. I cannot wait any longer; I will do it myself. My mind Is made up.
That is a woman who could surely be psychiatrically treated.
-I will use a knitting needle. It is dangerous,
I know; I risk a lot, I know; but I cannot do otherwise. Why do doctors let a person destroy herself? You help those who want to commit suicide, but you incite people to kill themselves perhaps. Is that human?
Isabelle, 20 years old.
Here is another psychiatric case which shows another reason why someone wants an abortion.
I think that in any case, if a woman wants an abortion, she finds the means to get it. And in what conditions?
Having myself had that experience, I can assure you that the steps you have to take, the refusals you have to suffer, fear and everything, are causing as much traumatism as the abortion itself. If abortion was allowed, with some restrictions, of course, there might be fewer serious consequences, physical as well as mental.
A single woman, 27 years old, Montreal
That is a riding represented by a Liberal member in this house, and not a single Liberal member has spoken for or against this proposed legislation. And the article goes on to say:
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
I have known two "professional" abortionists. The first one: two girls died after abortions; he was acquitted for the first one but for the second one he got eight months in Bordeaux, plus $11,000 costs.
The second one: a girl died and her nude body was found in the alley of Drolet Street about 10 years ago. He was indicted; he got away without a prison sentence, thanks to his money ... He told me that about 50 per cent of the girls who think they are pregnant-

May 5, 1969

And here we come to the psychiatric point.
-50 per cent of the girls who think they are pregnant are not and in those cases he uses some red liquid and chicken liver that, after being dipped in the liquid, looks much like a foetus. When he had a new customer he sent a chauffeur to get her and who would then get him in a hospital lobby, and this patient believed he was a doctor. He aborted 20 girls or women per week. The price varied from $200 to $300. He gave $25 to anybody who brought him a good customer.
That was a long time ago; nowadays it goes much faster.
But, Mr. Speaker, if we look at the statement of this girl and the reason why she wanted an abortion, again we find psychiatric reasons. In the bill introduced by the minister there is no guarantee that a psychiatrist will be appointed. The minister does not want to accept psychiatric indications which would allow a woman, whether she is right or wrong, to decide whether or not she will go to a psychiatrist.
I will add here that there are other reasons, and I have many more:
If I hope that abortion will be allowed, it is because it is an obsolete, hypocritical and irrealis-tic legislation; it is also for the rich and not for the poor.
Wife of an unemployed worker in Mont-Laurier, 36 years old.
Mr. Speaker, further on we are also told that abortions vary according to each hospital. And yet, it is more or less the same people, the same women, the same diseases, the same psychiatry, the same pediatry, the same foetuses that are born.
The proportion of therapeutic abortions varies ... according to each hospital.
And in the United States, Mr. Hall, who has made a survey of those problems in various hospitals, says this:
Hall counted in one hospital one abortion out of 20 deliveries and in another none out of 24,417 deliveries.
It is estimated, generally speaking, that there are about 100 illegal abortions for every therapeutic abortion, and that illegal abortions are the cause of great medical risks for the mother's health or life.
And from the point of view of psychiatry too.
Further, when we are told how the committees are formed, we may wonder who the members are. Here is what is said about the committees.
The woman herself must make an application to secure a legal abortion. A special abortion committee within the Royal College of Medicine, a committee composed of a physician usually an obstetrician-
Criminal Code
-or a gynaecologist. The law does not mention a gynaecologist. Beside that gynaecologist-
-of an ordinary citizen, preferably a woman-
It would be normal that a woman should decide on the fate of another woman, of a person of the female sex, such as the one who wants an abortion, it would be normal that a woman conversant with that matter should be on the committee.
I carry on:
-and of the head of the Social Psychiatry Board, has to determine the value of the indications to decide for mentally retarded women and to appoint doctors who will be able to decide themselves whether they should perform an abortion. Those doctors, officially appointed, will be able to decide whether an abortion should be performed, if their decision is supported by another doctor, the one who usually performs the abortion.
In the present legislation, we are not told that the doctor who is to perform the abortion will be on the committee. A doctor may decide on the abortion and another doctor, who will have no decision to take on the case, will have to perform the abortion or the murder.
Mr. Speaker, in Denmark, where they like to speak about other countries, they say, and I quote:
-the legislation provides . . . "that a woman can obtain a miscarriage in special cases where physical or mental troubles-
Further on, they specify who is to be members of the hospital committees in Denmark, and I quote again:
-three members' appointed by the Department of Social Affairs. Two of them are doctors and one must be a specialist in psychiatry-
A specialist in psychiatry! Denmark requests only a psychiatrist and a general practitioner. In addition, it is said, and I am still quoting:
-the third member of the committee is always the director of an agency . .. called "Assistance to the mother".
The minister proposes a legislation on abortion but he does not intend to set up committees of "Assistance to the mothers". He suggests the establishment of abortion committees, but not committees to assist the mother. Nothing is said in this respect. There is no mention of it in the legislation while in a country like Denmark, committees have been established to help the mother. Why? Because a woman is refused an abortion for psychiatric reasons. At the same time, she is referred to a psychiatric committee to help here reach her term.

May 5, 1969
Criminal Code
I have in hand a very interesting table on this subject, Mr. Speaker. Who knows today, in the world as elsewhere, what are the main reasons why abortions are requested? It is for the same reasons that we, of the Creditiste party, say that to want to allow abortion in Canada for health reasons is a false pretext. Such reasons do not exist.
Here are some figures:
In Yugoslavia, for instance, in 1965, here are the reasons why abortions were requested: 23 per cent of the women who secured an abortion have done so, not for reasons of health but of housing.
The Canadian government is not solving anything now and the minister responsible for housing has been compelled to resign because the government would not accept his views nor his proposals.
In Yugoslavia, Mr. Speaker, 23 per cent of the women who have asked for an abortion have done so because of lack of housing; 30 per cent, for economical and social reasons, because they did not have enough money to live. Moreover, 16 per cent of them have invoked family relationships; 6 per cent, illness in the family, but not their own; 3 per cent, marital relationships; 4 per cent, alcoholism; 9 per cent, various reasons, of a personal nature, and 2 per cent, various other reasons.
Well, this means that in Yugoslavia, 95 per cent of the women have secured an abortion for reasons completely different than those invoked in Canada to legalize abortion.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired. The hon. member can only proceed if he has the unanimous consent of the house. Is there unanimous agreement to allowing the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry, but there is no unanimous consent. Is the house ready for the question?


Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, following the very sensible statements we have just heard from the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) I feel that the house and the people across Canada should read the page of Canadian history that the Ralliement creditiste is

writing just now, showing, with the help of concrete examples, that the experience of some Communist countries among others did not bring the results expected when the legislation or amendments were passed.
Therefore, the page of history now in the process of being written in Canada should be read by the whole population.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) who has moved an amendment to the effect that the bill on abortion
-be amended by deleting paragraph (f) of subsection 6 in clause 18 on page 44 and substituting therefor:
"(f) "therapeutic abortion committee" for any hospital means a committee comprised of not less than four members, two of whom shall be qualified medical practitioners and one a psychiatrist appointed by the board of that hospital, as well as a clergyman, or spiritual advisor where this is requested by the patient for the purpose of considering and determining questions relating to terminations of pregnancy within that hospital."
Now, in support of such a logical amendment, I cannot imagine we could not secure a majority in the house, which should not defeat the government, but could at least prove to the entire population that dictatorship does not exist in this parliament and that government members are ready to vote according to their conscience, if they have one.
Some Conservatives, and we see it now by this amendment, are free to bring in amendments which undoubtedly would relax the omnibus bill, especially if that amendment were accepted since it asks that a clergyman be appointed on a patient's request.
As for myself, being a Catholic, if members of my family with the upbringing they had, either my wife or even my daughters, if they want to have, in addition to a psychiatrist, a clergyman of any religion whatever, I believe that in a Christian Canada first of all, and then because we are Catholics in Quebec and because others belong to other denominations, we must have at least the right to consult a minister in order to enjoy through such an amendment a certain freedom in our country.
Then Catholics in Quebec, especially government members, will have, as of today, to take into account one thing, namely that the amendment which is brought in by the Conservative member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) is also backed up by all the Knights of Columbus of the province of Quebec.
May 5, 1969

Members on the government side will have to keep that in mind.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) must also take into consideration that the amendments brought in up to now, and the one moved today, are supported by the 70,000 Catholic parents who have asked for the withdrawal of the omnibus bill or at least for the acceptance of the amendments moved by the opposition.
With such an abundance of protests, do you know what I was told by my constituents whom I met during the week end. They told me: "There is only one solution left to the Liberals, especially the Quebec Liberals who do not even dare to assert themselves: either to accept the amendments as such or to resign." You have the choice, my good friends, if tomorrow the government members reject that sensible amendment, because I know that in their midst, there is a large number who every day come to tell us in the lobbies or elsewhere:	"Continue to fight,
because we cannot say anything." The coward who hides behind the curtains does not have the courage to rise and to seek justice for his fellow citizens.
We taxpayers are in favour of such sensible amendments, because they would allow us to include in the committee a clergyman whom we represent as the members of any denomination in Canada. The passage of such an amendment would give us a little more freedom in Canada and we are convinced in advance that when the question will be put, the authoritarian vote of a Prime Minister who establishes a dictatorship will compel all members of his party to follow him and come back to the fold. Moreover, when the time comes to close the door of the sheep-fold, those people, instead of listening to the voice of truth, will still object.
I am not an expert in medicine, but I am a legislator who has been elected by his constituents and in that capacity, I maintain that we must rely on competent persons, such as those we met in the committees as well as those who lodged some protests-I have submitted to the Minister of Justice more than 8,000 names-those who gave some explanations and who inspired us as they are now inspiring the hon. member for Brandon-Souris to' put amendments which would tone down the omnibus bill a little.
But no, under a dictatorship, the tables would be turned and still a government who
Criminal Code
would claim a majority, could get a legislation passed as it wanted it, without amendment.
Mr. Speaker, as legislators, with our conscience and the courage of our convictions, we must express aloud what the people think but do not say, and if, in this house, the dictatorial muzzle imposed on government members unfortunately prevents the truth from being known, we of the Ralliement creditiste, shall go on fighting to bring it to light. We support unreservedly the amendment moved by a Conservative member.


Mr. J. A. Mongrain (Trois-Rivieres):: Mr. Speaker, I only rise to ask your permission to read an editorial from a Catholic French-Canadian newspaper which was founded by the Oblates Fathers. I am referring to Le Droit of Monday May 5, 1969, and for the enlightenment of those of our friends who have no opportunity to read this newspaper, I should like to put this article on record. It is entitled: "Le bill omnibus et les creditistes".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I suspect the hon. member if rising for the same reason that I am rising, that is to remind the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) that at this point the debate should be directed to the amendment. If the editorial deals with the amendment specifically, then it is in order. However, I invite the hon. member to confine his remarks to the amendment.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening for two long weeks, and in order to explain my position-


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please. The hon. member for Lotbiniere on a point of order.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, we are very glad that the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) is taking the trouble of reading that stupid editorial. Besides, he will thus show that he is as stupid as the editorial.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.

May 5, 1969
Criminal Code
The hon. member says that I am as stupid as that editorial:. But I do not want to have anything in common with the hon. member.
I go on-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I might point out to the house that we could go on at some length dealing with points of order and points of privilege, but I would caution hon. members against using this type of device to prolong discussion. If I may make an observation, this sort of thing does tend to diminish the importance of a point of order or a point of privilege, both of which are important parts of our procedure. The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Speaker, after listening for two weeks to a lot of things being said by our colleagues in the Creditistes party who have referred to all kinds of reports, books, booklets and editorials, I should like to put forward something in rebuttal. This amendment proposes that there be various types of doctors on these committees which decide who should be aborted and who should not. To prove their point, these hon. members have referred to a lot of things over the last two weeks. I am now trying to prove my point.
I contend this amendment is not justified because its objective is already met in the bill presented to the house. I want to read two paragraphs to help prove my point. Since they are in French, I will read them in French.

Several people will hold the Creditistes' filibuster of Bill C-150, known as the omnibus bill, to be highly virtuous. But we should not make such a mistake when they only pursue political interests-


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I can entertain only one point of order at a time. I recognize the hon. member for Shefford.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that I and my colleagues have stuck to the amendment under consideration which deals especially with the members of the

committee, the psychiatrist in particular. I should then ask the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) to stick to the subject and, more especially, to the psychiatrist whom he should consult more often.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I certainly appreciate having the support of the hon. member for Shefford, in this matter but I point out to the house that under our standing orders we are restricted at this point to a specific amendment. I know the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres is as much aware of this as I am. If the editorial in question relates to this amendment, I would certainly be pleased to hear him; otherwise I caution him against referring to it because not only would the reading of it be a violation of our standing orders, but it likely would precipitate the sort of situation we would want to avoid.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Speaker, I intend to be as calm and objective as I can be. I intend to follow the fatherly advice that you have just given us, that is not to stray from the subject of the amendment.
I have respectfully listened during twenty minutes to the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe). He said we were against morality.
The other day, one of his colleagues said we were murderers and we did not protest too much.
I would simply iike to take a few minutes to read two paragraphs tending to show that if we refuse this amendment, which calls for a psychiatrist, a pediatrician, etc., it is not because we are for vice and against virtue. On the contrary, our attitude is justified, and I want to prove that I am not the only one to say so. If I were, my friends the Creditistes would not believe me. I shall, therefore, be brief. I need only a couple of minutes, Mr. Speaker. I quote:
Those who approve this bill know as well as do the Creditistes that morality condemns and will continue to condemn certain practices opposed by Real Caouette's followers. One needs not be. a theologian to understand that. The legislation under study does not condone vice; it states simply that the State will not longer act as the conscience of the citizens.
The Creditistes know very well what is involved and their filibuster s-eems much more political than virtuous.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
May 5. 1969

Criminal Code


An hon. Member:: The offended virgins. [English]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Shefford on a point of order.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your kindness.
Please note that we shall allow the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres to read any editorial he wishes to read, but we shall read ours and you have not heard the last of them.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I point out to the hon. member for Shefford that the Chair has in the past tried to be as generous as possible within the confines of the rules. I would say that that generosity has been extended in ample measure to the hon. members who represent the Ralliement Creditiste. At the same time, I point out to the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres that the editorial, in so far as I have been able to hear it,, does not really fall within the four corners of the amendment. I wonder therefore, whether it is not in the interest of the house to forgo it at this point. I have not heard very much of the editorial and I do not want to prejudge the issue, but I would caution him along that line.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Speaker, I fully agree that it is your duty to maintain order here. I would be the last one to waste the time of this house. And to show my co-operation, my full co-operation, I will read only five lines and then I will resume my seat. I will not even make any comment. After that, you will be able to decide whether I was out of order.
I quote:
The creditistes know very well what Is involved and their filibuster seems much more political than virtuous. They want to annoy the government and have the closure imposed to them, in the hope of posing as martyrs in the eyes of the public and gain new supporters.
Mr. Speaker, I resume my seat. That is enough.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, I understand your difficulties in applying the rules sometimes, but I will do all that is humanly possible to keep to the amendment now before us.
I do not know if it is through an oversight or through inadvertence but what would normally be likely to make those who will
have to tackle the problems arising out of this legislation, proceed more carefully has been overlooked in this bill.
I realize that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, seems fully justified under the circumstances.
It proposes to replace paragraph (f), clause 6 of the bill now being discussed by the following:
Therapeutic abortion committee for any hospital means a committee comprised of not less than four members, two of whom shall be qualified medical practitioners and one a psychiatrist appointed by the board of that hospital, as well as a clergyman, or spiritual advisor where this is requested by the patient for the purpose of considering and determining questions relating to terminations of pregnancy within that hospital.
The mover of this amendment to the clause of the bill, and all those who approve it are showing their wisdom. It is quite in order and logical that all precautions be taken.
The member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) has also moved an amendment along the same lines which was discussed this afternoon. I do not understand at all why the sponsor of the bill is not more understanding when it is a question of taking precautions which he would be quite ready to recommend in another field. It looks as if the clauses of this famous omnibus bill are dictated by some occult influences which try to achieve their nefarious purpose, to amend and to undermine the natural established order.
I do not want to leave the hon. members under the impression that I consider the bill unacceptable, even with this amendment to clause 6. But we could however perceive in the mind of the supporters of this legislation whose inspiration is doubtful that they are not quite deprived of practical sense when it comes to appointing a therapeutic abortion committee, but that they can at least give as many guarantees as possible about the women who would have to undergo an operation in circumstances that are never desirable, but reluctantly accepted in special cases.
The amendment recommends that the committee be made up at least four members. Among the members of the committee, there should be a clergyman or a spiritual advisor at the patient's request. It is not asking too much except that the promotors of the new morality find in this a drawback to the pursuit of their aims.
In any case, I am not influenced at all by the scientific humanists, and I am of the opinion that every precaution should be taken in

May 5, 1969
Division
order to fully respect the individual freedom of every person.
And since we talked about editorials, I have here one that was published in a Quebec newspaper on April 22, 1969. Here is the last part of it:
Let us think it over carefully before it is too late. Some observers said recently that England has reached the stage where abortion is practised on request and that people are now campaigning in favour of euthanasia. In Yugoslavia, the National Society of Gynaecology estimated last year that the number of abortions was then greater than the number of births in that country, that is 500,000 abortions against 400,000 births yearly.
They did not believe either when they decided to legalize abortion that this would happen.
That article is signed Roger Bruneau. So, under the circumstances, I support the amendment wholeheartedly.
[DOT]	(9:00 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.
[DOT]	(9:20 p.m.)
And the members having been called in:


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The house will now proceed to a deferred division on motion No. 29 and thence to a division on Motion No. 30. Mr. Laprise moved motion No. 29 which reads:
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

paragraph (f) of subsection 6 of clause 18 on page 44 and substituting therefor:
"(f) "therapeutic abortion committee" for any hospital means a committee comprised of not less than two of qualified medical practitioners and one gynaecologist appointed by the board of that hospital and approved by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of the province concerned, for the purpose of considering and determining questions relating to terminations of pregnancy within that hospital."


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The question is on motion No. 30 (Mr. Dinsdale) which reads as follows:
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 paragraph (f) of sub-section 6 in clause 18 on page 44 and substituting therefor:
(f) "therapeutic abortion committee" for any hospital means a committee comprised of not less than four members, two of whom shall be qualified medical practitioners and one a psychiatrist appointed by the board of that hospital, as well as a clergyman, or spiritual advisor where this is requested by the patient for the purpose of considering and determining questions relating to terminations of pregnancy within that hospital.
Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?
All those in favour will please say oui.


Some hon. Members:: Oui.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed please say no.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nos have it.
Is it the wish of the house that we proceed with the vote without the ringing of the bells?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Division
The house divided on motion No. 30 (Mr. Dinsdale) which was negatived on the following division.
++YEAS
Messrs:
Alexander	Latulippe
Beaudoin	MacEwan
Bell	Maclnnis
Bigg	McIntosh
Burton	McKinley
Cadieu (Meadow Lake) Marshall	
Comeau	Matte
Crouse	Monteith
Dinsdale	Nesbitt
Dionne	Paproski
Downey	Peddle
Dumont	Rodrigue
Fortin	Rondeau
Gauthier	Rynard
Godin	S out ham
Grills	Stewart (Marquette)
Gundlock	Woolliams
Horner Howe Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand)	Yewchuk-38.
 NAYS Messrs:
Aiken	Hogarth
Allmand	Howard (Okanagan
Badanai	Boundary)
Barrett	Hymmen
Bastford	Jamieson
Rechard	Jerome
Benjamin	Kierans
Benson	Knowles (Winnipeg
Blair	North Centre)
Blouin	Laing
Boulanger	Lang
Breau	Langlois
Broadbent	Laniel
Brown	Leblanc (Laurier)
Cafik	Lefebvre
Cantin	Legault
Chretien	Lessard (LaSalle)
Clermont	Lewis
Cobbe	Loiselle
Cullen	MacDonald (Egmont)
Cyr	Macdonald (Rosedale)
De Bane	MacEachen
Douglas (Assiniboia)	MacGuigan
Douglas (Nanaimo-	Maclnnis (Mrs.)
Cowichan-The	Mackasey
Islands)	McBride
Dube	Mcllraith
Forest	Marceau
Foster	Marchand (Kamloops-
Gendron	Cariboo)
Gervais	Mather
Gibson	Mongrain
Gilbert	Munro
Givens	Noel
Goode	Nystrom
Goyer	Olson
Gray	Orange
Groos	Osier
Guay	Ouellet
(St. Boniface)	Pelletier
Guay (Levis)	Penner
Guilbault	Perrault
Harding	Pilon

May 5, 1969
Criminal Code
Portelance
Prud'homme
Reid
Ritchie
Rock
Roy (Timmins)
Roy (Laval)
Ryan
Saltsman
Serre
Skoberg
Smith (Saint-Jean) Stafford
Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay)
St. Pierre
Thomas (Maisonneuve)
Thomas (Moncton)
Thomson
Tolmie
Trudeau
Trudel
Turner (London East) Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)
Wahn
Watson
Weatherhead
Whelan
Whichier
Whiting
Winch-110.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Comtois). Had I voted, I would have voted in favour of it.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi) moved: motion No. 33:
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 word "female" on lines 28 and 29 on page 42 and the word "female" on lines 3 and 23 on page 43 and the word "female" on line 39 on page 44.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I should like, at the outset, to express my appreciation for the way in which you announced the recent vote, by asking for the "oui" and the "non" in good French. This pleased us very much. It was a very interesting, very intelligent move, but comparable qualities are not to be found in the bill before us.
We are now considering amendment No. 33, moved by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise), asking among other things to delete from the bill, the word "female" wherever it appears.
It goes without saying that such a useless expression bears out our opinion: section 18 is ridiculous, and I see that the members of NDP are laughing with me. I am happy to see that for once, they support us.
Mr. Speaker, the amendment of the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) proposes to amend paragraphs a), b) and c) of a subclause 4 by deleting the word "female", to find out why we want to delete the expression

"female" from this bill, let us see what it is doing there. I quote paragraph a):
(a)	a qualified medical practitioner, other than a member of the therapeutic abortion committee for any hospital, who in good faith uses in an accredited or approved hospital any means for the purpose of carrying out his intentions to produce the miscarriage of a female person-
Here then, for the first time in this bill, we find the famous, ridiculous and useless expression "female". I cannot possibly imagine how a person of the male sex could be aborted. Nor can I possibly imagine how a person of the third sex, a member of the club Gimini 1st in Montreal, for instance, could be aborted.
It seems to me that when we speak of abortion it goes without saying, it is simply normal, that a female is involved. The least that could be done perhaps is to mention it once at the beginning of the clause then delete it further on. It strikes me as ridiculous. As the whole bill does, to my mind. I resume my quotation, paragraph b)
(b)	a female person who, being pregnant,-
How interesting for a male person to be pregnant. You see how ridiculous this bill is. It seems to me it goes without saying that the expression is pointless. To come back to paragraph b), further on one reads:
-and at a meeting of the committee at which the case of such female person has been reviewed.
Every third line, this redundant word "female" crops up again.
In paragraph (c), we read:
(c)	has by certificate in writing stated that in its opinion the continuation of the pregnancy of such female person

Any pregnancy is necessarily the pregnancy of a female person. I do not understand the wording, but I can venture a guess. Maybe if we search for a reason for the inclusion by the federal government of those words in the bill we will discover that the majority of Liberals in the house do not understand that a male person cannot be pregnant. That may be why it is necessary to dot the i's, especially for the benefit of the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain), and why the expression "female" must be used.
If that is the explanation, we are ready to withdraw the amendment, because we all agree to help enlighten the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres, lest his feeble glimmer of understanding flickers out again.
Under Subsection 5(b), it is said, and I quote:
May 5, 1969


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. For once I hear my hon. friend say sensible things and I am inclined to vote with him. But if he upsets me, I shall vote against him.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, we shall take him at his word and stop teasing him, so he will vote with us. I would ask my hon. colleagues to welcome him with a good hand because for the first time in this debate he has said something intelligent.
Mr. Speaker, there remains the same unnecessary expression in paragraph (b) of subsection 5, and I quote:
(b) require a medical practitioner who, in that province, has procured the miscarriage of any female person named-
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) has said, it is horrible and it reflects the nonsense of the clause.
It seems to me that the matter is selfexplanatory, because one cannot imagine the pregnancy of a male person.
Mr. Speaker, I see several of my colleagues from all parties in the house are laughing. It is precisely because that clause is ridiculous. My colleague from Abitibi has seen fit to clarify the situation and to strike out from clause 18 that term which in our opinion is superfluous.
Mr. Speaker, let us summarize to see why we are using that term.
In subsection (4) of section 18, it is stated:
-any means for the purpose of carrying out his intention to procure the miscarriage of a female person-
In my opinion, there should be a period after the term "to procure the miscarriage."
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
Why? As I was saying, it is ridiculous to repeat that expression. If one asks: What is the meaning of to procure the miscarriage of a female person? The meaning is obvious and, from that point of view, both the French and the English language give the expression a precise meaning. In both languages you can find the expression "female person". Then, why after "the miscarriage of a person" use the expression "female person"? It seems to me that it is useless and ridiculous and that that expression could be avoided. It is merely a repetition. It does not clarify anything.
In paragraph (b) one can read and I quote:
(b) a female person who, being pregnant-
Criminal Code
As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, let us try and imagine that that expression is removed.
There may be another reason why the expression "female person" is used. It may be that the author of the bill did not know exactly what the female sex was, unlike the hon. members who are married, and that it was important for him that it be added.
Mr. Speaker, again it strikes me that the expression female person who, being pregnant, permits a qualified medical practitioner to use. . ." is pure repetition.
One reads further on, and I quote:
-of the committee at which the case of such female person has been reviewed-
However, Mr. Speaker, it is useless to belabour the point. It could be summed up in this way: if the hon. minister wants at all cost to distinguish between the three sexes, that is the male, the female and the other sex, it should be mentioned once at the beginning of the section and, from then on, this useless expressions should be deleted.
The hon. member for Chambly (Mr. Pilon) says that it is against maturity. It may be true; I have the impression that we are simply showing common sense, that we are reasonable. It is ridiculous, it is stupid, and I am almost ashamed to speak of such a thing. It seems to me that that goes without saying.
Mr. Speaker, on that matter of abortion, the bill says: "to procure the miscarriage of a female person" and further, in paragraph (5) (b):
-require a medical practioner who, in that province, has procured the miscarriage of any female person named in a certificate-
We recognize in principle that we cannot logically be in favour of that clause 18, because that is ridiculous, and the word "female" proves it.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to show, that we are not the only ones to think along these lines; we sincerely regret that the previous amendments, aiming to appoint specialists on abortion committees, have not been adopted. We do not see why the government is once more refusing the amendment which is proposed by the hon. member for Abitibi.
It may be my turn to read an editorial; it was published by the newspaper L'Union des Cantons de VEst dated Tuesday April 29, 1969. This is a most interesting leading article. I require the attention of the house and particularly of the cabinet members. They will see into what problems they are pushing us headlong, as well as the Canadian population.

May 5, 1969
Criminal Code
They will see that if some editorialists find the position of the Ralliement creditiste ridiculous, there are other, much more able and talented who believe that our position is not only acceptable, but that it should be accepted.
Why have we moved this amendment about the word "female"? It is to show how ridiculous this legislation is, how superficial it is, and how it has been ill conceived, without taking into account standards which should insure the security of the person, of the patient, who will go before a committee.
The editorial writer, Mr. Marcel Rivard, had this to say in L'Union des Cantons de VEst and I quote:
Mr. Trudeau's majority government was carried away by its own momentum of legal liberalization; it is on the verge of taking a false step in passing Bill C-150, better known as the omnibus bill. First of all, this bill is inadmissible on account of its approach-
And I would point out to you that it is a Liberal newspaper. If you check its Liberal membership cards, you will see. I continue the quotation:
First of all, this bill is inadmissible-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that under the Standing Orders he must confine both his own comments and relevant editorials to the specific amendment before the house. I have had to interject on more than one occasion tonight to point this out, and I would invite the attention of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) to this rule.


André-Gilles Fortin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your kind remarks. Now I should like to come to the aforementioned matter.
Our editorial writer, Mr. Marcel Rivard, had this to say, and I quote:
First of all, that bill is inadmissible by reason of its presentation.
I appreciate that such expressions as "female person" are useless. The bill deals with too many subjects, and here the writer adds-
Mr. Speaker, I would rather continue tomorrow; then we shall be in fine fettle and I should like to show the hon. members on the government side that we, the members of the Ralliement creditiste are indefatigable. Mr. Speaker, I should like to call it ten o'clock.


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



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, the question I wish to discuss tonight arises from an exchange that took place last April 18 when I inquired of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) whether the same leeway would be granted the western parks, particularly the mountain parks, with respect to the application of the rigid terms of reference of the National Parks Act as was now being negotiated with respect to the proposed new park in Gaspe.
I mentioned particularly those national parks areas that had been established before 1930. That point, of course, refers to the fact that prior to 1930 the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta did not have control of their resources. The minister, very facetiously- and this is one of the characteristics of a great deal of ministerial response-said that the code Napoleon did not apply to the province of Manitoba but if Manitoba wished to adopt it he would give consideration to that desire. Of course, the Minister was begging the question completely, because this matter does not apply to the province of Manitoba at all.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
I want to use this occasion to press once again, as I have pressed many times in the house, the urgent need for the expansion of parks of all kinds, including national^ recreational and historical. The present administration has now been in office since 1963. During the six year interval they have repeatedly indicated that they are going to proceed with a crash program to meet the urgent recreational demands which inevitably accompany the growth of leisure time and which particularly arise from the process of urbanization that has created a good many of our social problems. These problems, of course, are also
May 5. 1969
related to our booming and developing tourist industry. There has not been one new national park established during that time. The last national park established was the new park in Nova Scotia called Kejimkujik. I am not sure whether that is the correct pronunciation, and there is no member from Nova Scotia here to guide me in that respect. That park was launched in 1963 under a former administration and it is the last development since that time. A federal-provincial conference on parks was established-and incidentally this arose out of the Resources for Tomorrow conference-so that there might be continuous consultation between the provinces and Ottawa with respect to the jurisdictional problem arising from the provincial control of resources.
This particular group has not been functioning to any great extent. A recreational parks program was set to roll but nothing has happened with respect to recreational parks. We all realize that our national parks are under extreme pressure from a growing demand, and if we are going to preserve our national parks as museums of natural history, we will have to expand. We will have to double the number of parks and supplement park facilities by a very aggressive recreational park program. I will mention here, in particular, the Cyprus Hills park on the Saskatchewan and Alberta border which provides an opportunity to preserve for posterity a typical prairie land area where, as says the old song "Home on the Range", the deer and the antelope play. That land is still available, but urgent action by the federal government is needed.
So far as the mountain parks are concerned, the great difficulty has been the bureaucratic attitude toward the basic rights of the people, particularly in Banff and in Jasper. In 1962 a zoning policy was established and was well accepted by the residents of those two mountain parks as a means of preventing any further encroachment on the wilderness area. Since the new government came into power, there have been repeated attacks on the residents of these mountain parks, describing them as greedy, self-seeking despoilers of nature and resources. That, of course, is hardly designed to win friends and influence people. From my knowledge of these people I can say that they are just as anxious as are Canadians elsewhere to preserve Canada's natural heritage.
We need more parks. We need them in Quebec, where there are no national parks,
8349
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion and we need them in Ontario where there are no national parks worth mentioning. Members on this side of the house are not the only ones to take issue with the government's neglect in this regard, and also with its bureaucratic approach. The Edmonton Journal of April 10 had this to say about national parks:
Edmonton Strathcona MP Dr. Hu Harries returned from Jasper Wednesday "appalled" at the conditions under which Jasper Park residents and businessmen must live and operate.
He said he found townsite businessmen "insecure and fearful of the government bureaucracy", which he termed "quite an unreasonable oppression".
Dr. Harries, a Liberal MP, spoke to a Jasper Chamber of Commerce meeting Tuesday night and told his large audience national park residents "should go to Ottawa to present their case at every possible opportunity".
The hon. member from the Rocky Mountain constituency (Mr. Sulatycky) also made the same accusation about the bureaucratic attitude of the government toward the fundamental rights of these people. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) recently said that the government has taken control of the decision making process from the bureaucrats. Here is an opportunity to demonstrate that fact. I say the government should accept its responsibility in this matter.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised to see that the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) did not actually deal with the problem he raised in the House of Commons, on April 18, 1969, when he made remarks as to the possible establishment of a national park in the Forillon peninsula, in Quebec. I would have liked to have his opinion on this. It would have been very useful for the matter of clarifying the debate, to know how he stands-


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: That was my last statement. I am all for it.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Good.

Then if he agrees with that, I thank him for his support and must give him the assurance we are making progress at this stage.
The Quebec Minister of Tourism will be in Ottawa tomorrow and I hope we come to an agreement as to the establishment of a national park in the province of Quebec,

May 5, 1969
8350	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion which will complete the series of national parks we have created in Canada. Unfortunately the province of Quebec is not in on this.
The hon. member made a remark to the effect that no new national parks have been established in Canada since 1963. It may be true, but I am happy to tell him we are negotiating about the establishment of such parks in many parts of Canada, and particularly in Quebec.
There will be another national park in New Brunswick.
He has heard members of his own party ask me to create another park in Newfoundland.
We are in the process of negotiating with the western provinces, especially with Manitoba, to have another national park.
Negotiations are under way with Saskatchewan and Alberta with a view to creating a truly Prairies park.
There is some controversy, at the present time, with regard to the possibility of having national parks in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
To my mind, it is imperative to have some immediately in those areas, which are extremely vast. The natural sites are absolutely fantastic and we should not miss the opportunity of setting aside, for future generations, sizeable areas for conservation programs.
I know many Canadians are interested in that policy. I can assure the hon. member that we hope, within the next few months, to have three, four or perhaps five new national parks in Canada. A few months ago,
I made a speech in which I said that in the next 25 years we should have the courage and the foresight to create at least 30 to 40 new national parks in Canada.
I thank the hon. member for his remarks.



NATIONAL DEFENCE-A.B.M. SYSTEM-MISSILE SITE IN MICHIGAN AREA

Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question in the House of Commons on Wednesday, April 23, was to the Minister of National Defence and involved an inquiry as to the location of the anti-ballistic missile site for the Michigan-Ohio area of the United States. As you are aware, a large part of northern Ontario is immediately adjacent to the upper peninsula of the state of Michigan.


Indeed, in the past we have become accustomed to large United States defence installations being located immediately adjacent to the Canadian border. This is because the Sault Ste. Marie locks are one of the most important shipping canals in North America, handling more tonnage per year than the Panama or Suez canals.
The strategic importance of Sault Ste. Marie in wartime cannot be over-estimated because of the large quantities of iron ore which are shipped from the Lake Superior area into the blast furnaces of Cleveland and other points in the United States. Historically, Camp Lucas and the U.S. forces located there have protected these locks. This was graphically illustrated in the second world war when large barrage balloons hung over the Sault Ste. Marie valley on both sides of the Canada-United States border. During the past several years there has been located at Raco, a place west of Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan and in the upper peninsula a Bomarc missile site which, I suggest, belongs to the age of nuclear bombers. Its equivalent in the age of intercontinental ballistic missiles is the A.B.M. system.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
Within the past year it was announced that Kincheloe Air Force Base, located 20 miles south of the Canada-U.S. border in Michigan, would be phased out. This base was not only a strategic air command base but served as a base for a fighter squadron also. The economic repercussions of closing this base, on which thousands of men were employed, could constitute a serious economic set-back for Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. It would not surprise me if some pressure were brought to bear to put an A.B.M. site at Kincheloe Air Force Base in order to restore the economic fortunes of Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan.
Having made these few remarks about the history of the area, Mr. Speaker, I submit that unquestionably this area could be very important strategically in time of war. When the decision to establish the A.B.M. system was made by President Nixon two locations, including Malmstrom Air Force Base and Grand Forks Air Force Base, were specified in the mid-west; however, the exact location of the base in the Michigan-Ohio area has not been specified. Considering the past tendency to locate defence bases in the vicinity of Sault Ste. Marie, it is natural to suspect that this site may be chosen as well for the A.B.M. system.
May 5, 1969	COMMONS
Considerable concern has been expressed in western Canada about the effects of radioactive fall out from nuclear warheads of A.B.M. system missiles intercepting in-coming I.C.B.Ms. Naturally, I share this concern with the other people from Ontario, especially if an A.B.M. site is to be located in upper Michigan. I am aware that our defence department has had secret consultations and briefings with the United States department. My question is, where is the A.B.M. site for the Michigan-Ohio area to be located?


David Walter Groos: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), perhaps it might be well to read to him some words President Nixon spoke when he asked Congress on March 14 to deploy a modified ballistic missile defence system. In reviewing the various options open to him he said, in part:
To begin a measured construction of an active defence of our retaliatory forces.
He went on to say:
We will provide for local defence of selected Minuteman missile sites and an area defence designed to protect our bomber bases and our command and control authorities.
So far as the Department of National Defence is aware, the United States authorities intend to proceed with two Safeguard sites: one at Great Falls, Montana and the other at Grand Forks, North Dakota.
In announcing this Safeguard system President Nixon said:
The modified system has been designed so that its defensive intent is unmistakeable. It will be implemented not according to some fixed, theoretical schedule, but in a manner clearly related to our periodic analysis of the threat. The first deployment covers two missile sites: the first of these will not be completed before 1973.



SECURITY GUARDS-NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD-VANCOUVER

Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, my question this evening is based on the question I asked earlier during the oral question period. May I repeat the question? I asked:
-In view of the decision of the National Harbours Board in Vancouver to appoint a special force to police the Port of Vancouver consisting of 15 or 20 trained peace officers under a retired mounties as chief, replacing the existing National Harbours Board force of non-professional security guards, will the minister inform the house as to the position of employment of the present security guards, most of whom are war veterans of 17 years' service?
29180-529J
DEBATES	8351
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
I thought the question was urgent when I asked it and I think it still is. It is for this reason I am raising it now.
May I draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that Captain Johnson, the Manager of the Vancouver Harbour Commission, stated that the Vancouver port has a reputation for a low pilferage and damage rate. This reputation is the result of the security guard system of the Vancouver Harbour Board. Someone has now decided to get rid of the security guard system and establish a special police force to be headed by a recently retired R.C.M.P. officer. There is no need for a special police force because, the security guards have built up a wonderful reputation. However, a policy decision has been made which I understand will involve the employment of between 15 and 20 trained police officers. They will replace an existing N.H.B. force of approximately 14 non-professional security guards. I am interested in knowing why this policy change is necessary in Vancouver. I am particularly concerned with the position of the security guards to be replaced.
It is my understanding that not one of the security guards can meet the age requirement for re-employment on the new police force. The majority of the security guards are war veterans, some having up to 17 years service with the Vancouver N.H.B. security force. I hope there is some degree of sentimentality, in the Liberal government. I insist on having an answer from the minister and may I say how proud I am to see him here personally to answer a question on his first day as Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson). I insist on having an answer concerning the provision being made for the employment or security of those employed as security guards. They have served their country in war and peace and are now being displaced as a result of a change in government policy.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I can well understand and appreciate the concern of the hon. member. I want to assure him at the outset that I will make a thorough investigation. I am sure the hon. member will appreciate that there has not been time since he raised this matter this afternoon for me to get a full briefing. I have had an opportunity to discuss it in a general way with officials of the department.
The information I received is that this is not a change of policy that is confined to the port of Vancouver. It is a part of a national
May 5, 1969

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion plan. Changes with regard to security regulations are being made at a number of ports. In so far as the port of Vancouver is concerned, the information I have received is that recruiting of the new force is not yet completed. Every opportunity will be given to members of the existing force to see if they can qualify. If my hon. friend is correct that the qualifications as laid down are such as to prohibit the former members from engaging in these positions I shall be more than pleased to see if there is some other arrangement we can make, some way we can ensure that their employment is continued is some
form, or perhaps that alternative jobs are found for them.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
I am sufficiently sympathetic, Mr. Speaker, to the needs of war veterans and of men who have punched in a great many years of service to assure my hon. friend that I will dir all I can. I hope I can give him a reasonably satisfactory answer within a comparatively short time.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10:23 p.m.

\ Tuesday, May 6, 1969