1969-05-12

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill S-34, an act respecting Nova Scotia Savings and Loan Company to which the concurrence of this House is desired.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Eighth report of Standing Committee on Health, Welfare, and Social Affairs.
[Note: Text of above report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table in both French and English the report of the Task Force on Sports for Canadians, and I might take the liberty to make a short comment in respect of it. I have read this report. I think all members of the house will find it very provocative. It questions the attitude of all Canadians in both the public and private sector toward efforts made in this regard. It questions what it calls the intellectual arrogance of many of Canada's opinion leaders and refers to what it terms the great potential for mass involvement and mass participation and what they can contribute to national unity.
Many of its recommendations flow from this type of approach throughout the report. I think I can assure the house that the government will take into very serious consideration many of its recommendations, and is aware of what is involved in this respect.
I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the chairman of the task force. Dr.
Harold Rea, who is in the Speaker's gallery, Dr. Paul DesRuisseaux, also of the task force. Nancy Greene, the other member, unfortunately could not be with us today. I would like to compliment them on behalf of all hon. members for what I consider the very excellent job they have done. They worked hard in a very compressed period of time trying to adhere-and they did so-to the time limit involved. Because of their efforts in this area we have their report, and it has given us something very constructive to work on in the near future. I wish to thank them again, Mr. Speaker.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-iings):: Mr. Speaker, as the minister just said, the task force has just completed its work and presented its report. Unfortunately, we in the opposition have not had the opportunity to examine it and therefore I am not in a position to comment on it. I hope that the task force has done a constructive piece of work, as I am sure they have, and I look forward with great interest to studying the report in detail, now that it has been made available to us.


Mr. Barry Maiher (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that everyone in the house and many people in the country will be very interested to read the report of the task force on sport. This is partly because Canadians are a sport minded people and also partly because we do not think that we have done well enough in world tournaments. We find the findings and recommendations of the task force to be excellent. We note with approval one finding which is to the effect that the government is going to be asked to take a greater interest in the matter of national hockey league contracts. We are all in favour of that, if this is the case.
Without wishing to prejudge the report, I think that it is important to keep in mind that no matter what good recommendations may have come from this task force, money is still the name of the game, ironic as that may seem with regard to amateur fitness. For example, it is a fact that the track and field people of Canada and their associations are so hard up for money that they are reported to be currently running a national draw,

May 12, 1969
Questions
offering trips to Europe, give-away cars and other inducements for the purpose of raising $75,000.
We wish the task force report well and we hope the government will take action on the undoubtedly good sections of it. I should like to make a suggestion with regard to the raising of money. We approve the holding of a national lottery. If such a lottery is ever held we might consider gearing it to the production of extra funds for the promotion and training of Canadian athletes.


Mr. Real Caouelie (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, regardless of the value of the report submitted by the task force, I believe that, as the previous speaker just pointed out, the whole question is of a financial nature, since it is actually a levy of funds. At a time when restrictions and all such things are being announced, the task force should make a special effort to find the shortcomings of our financial system and to submit to the government more concrete proposals than those submitted now.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Foriin: 1.	Is repeal of the Canada Temperance Act being considered by the government?
2.	Have any provincial governments requested the repeal of the Canada Temperance Act and, if so, which governments and on what occasions?
3.	In the Province of Quebec, which are the municipal governments taking advantage of the provisions of the Temperance Act?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: 1.	No.
2.	No.
3.	The Canada Temperance Act is not in force in any locality in the province of Quebec.


SUBSIDIES TO COAL PRODUCERS
Mr. Anderson: 1.	What is the total amount of the federal subsidies paid to British Columbia and Alberta coal producers to assist them in competing on the Japanese market?
2.	What companies received these subsidies and how much did each receive?
3.	Are all of these companies Canadian owned?
4.	If not, what percentage of the ownership is non-Canadian?
5.	What is the per-ton subsidy at present?

Mr. Yves Forest (Parliameniary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: I am informed by the Dominion Coal Board and the Dominion Bureau of Statistics as follows:
1.	Increased subventions or subsidies, specifically designed to assist in the development of an export market in Japan for British Columbia and Alberta coals, began on August 1, 1957. Over the eleven fiscal years, 1957-58 to 1967-68 inclusive, the total amount expended on export subventions for this purpose was $24,935,963.05.
2.	Alberta Coal Limited, Luscar, Alta., $2,724.00; The Canmore Mines Limited, Can-more, Alta., $5,191,976.80; Coleman Collieries Limited, Coleman, Alta., $8,523,815.31; West Canadian Collieries Limited, Blairmore, Alta., $637,473.00; Crow's Nest Pass Coal Company Limited, Fernie, B.C., $7,389,532.86; Crows Nest Industries Limited, Fernie, B.C., $3,061,877.20; Kaiser Coal Limited, Fernie, B.C., $128,563.88.
(N.B. The name of Crow's Nest Pass Coal Company Limited was changed in 1965 to Crows Nest Industries Limited and coal interests of the latter were acquired by Kaiser Coal Limited in 1968.)
3.	All are Canadian companies incorporated under federal or provincial statutes but details of shareholder ownership and nationality have not been required by the Dominion Coal Board as matters of record.
4.	The information filed by these companies under the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act indicates that the legal ownership of these corporations, as maintained in their respective share registers, varies from wholly Canadian to wholly foreign-owned.
5.	$2.73 per net ton for much of the tonnage and $2.55 for the balance. The range is largely a reflection of differences in mining, transportation and other cost factors for different mines in Canada and differences in the competitive position of different types of coal in Japan.


FOREIGN STUDENTS IN CANADIAN UNIVERSITIES
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	How many foreign students In receipt of either allowances or free tuition are in the universities of Canada during the current college year?
2.	How much does each of said students receive?
3.	What is the total expenditure by the Government of Canada under the student plan?
4.	How many Canadian students are studying abroad under exchange or other student plans?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. Students sponsored by
May 12, 1969

Canadian International Development Agency under various assistance programmes: 1214; Students under Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan: 239; Total: 1453.
2.	Regulations concerning living allowance are at present under review. However, for the past two years the average stipend has been $165 a month for an undergraduate student and $180 a month for a graduate student. In addition to the monthly living allowance granted, CIDA also pays all tuition fees and certain allowances for clothing, books, etc., as well as providing for essential dental and medical care.
3.	In fiscal year 1967/68 CIDA spent $8,396,000.00 on its training programs which includes expenditures for all students or trainees administered by CIDA and NOT only those at Universities in Canada as shown in Answer No. 1.
4.	There are approximately 1800 Canadian students studying abroad under various programs. This includes 1200 under the auspices of the Canada Council, 347 under the auspices of the National Research Council, 93 under the auspices of the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Program and 74 who have received scholarships from foreign governments. These figures do not include Canadian students abroad which have received scholarships from provincial governments.


QUESTIONING OF APPLICANTS AT MANPOWER CENTRES
Mr. Muir (Cape Brelon-: The Sydneys):
1.	What official of what department is responsible for drawing up questions to be put to applicants appearing before examining boards at various Manpower Centres in regard to positions on ships operated by the Department of Fisheries in the Atlantic region?
2.	Do these questions remain the same for all applicants?
3.	If not, is there one or more of these questions that remains the same for all applicants?
4.	What questions were required to be asked applicants for the position of cook on the Patrol Boat "Sabella" at examining boards at the Manpower Centre, Sydney, Nova Scotia, on February 17, 1969 and at Port Hawkesbury, Nova Scotia, on February 18, 1969?


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Parliamenlary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: 1. Regional Marine Supervisor of the Department of Fisheries and Forestry, after consultation with the Regional Personnel Office.
2.	Yes.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	These cannot be made available as they are confidential.
29180-542J
Questions


STRENGTHENING OF FRENCH LANGUAGE IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES
Mr. Mazankowski: Is the Government of Canada committed to contributing to the strengthening and advancement of the French language and French culture in any foreign country and, if so, in what countries and in what measure in each case?


Mitchell William Sharp: The Government of Canada has undertaken many initiatives with foreign countries which, broadly, if only indirectly in many cases, have contributed to strengthening and advancing the French language and French culture. The Government is highly interested in the progress and advancement of both. Indeed it has sought for instance to expand the use of the French language in the United Nations and it has collaborated in improving it as a working language by its interest in the "Conseil international de la langue franqaise". The French language and culture are also the bases of exchange programs conducted under Canadian cultural agreements with France and Belgium. The Government also conducts many developmental programs with the French countries of Africa. It is clear however that the assistance provided under this heading is intended primarily for social and economic development although it may have significant and welcome effects on the progress and development of the French language and culture.


BEAUSOLEIL ISLAND NATIONAL PARK
Mr. Rynard: 1.	How many organized summer camps are now located in Beausoleil Island National Park?
2.	Does the government propose to expropriate the lands occupied by any of these summer camps?
3.	What are the reasons for expropriation and when is the expropriation to commence?


Hon. Jean Chrelien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. 5.
2.	No.
3.	Not applicable.


C.B.C. COSTUMES
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Is it the policy of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to refuse to loan or rent costumes to performing groups or individuals for performances other than those being televised or broadcast for the C.B.C.?
2.	Were costumes in the wardrobe of C.B.C. Winnipeg worn by the Jimmy King Orchestra at the Winnipeg Auto Show, March 5 to 8, 1969 and, if so, was there a rent charged?
3.	Was an employee of C.B.C. Winnipeg Wardrobe Department attending an opening night of that show for fitting purposes and, if so, was there a fee charged for his services, and what fee?

May 12, 1969
Questions
4.	Have costumes in the wardrobe of the C.B.C. Winnipeg been rented or loaned to the "Cercle Moliere", The Manitoba Theatre Centre or other organizations and individuals and, if so, what organizations and individuals and what rent or other remuneration was involved in each case?
5.	If costumes from the wardrobe department of C.B.C. Winnipeg were rented or loaned to any groups or individuals, in exception of general policy, what were the reasons in each case?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the C.B.C. as follows:
1.	Yes. However, on very rare occasions costumes may be loaned, e.g. when C.B.C. performers have contributed their services to an organization for charitable purposes, or when a private function is involved and the general public is not in attendance.
2.	Jackets were loaned to the orchestra through a misunderstanding on the part of C.B.C. personnel. The circumstances have since been reviewed and C.B.C. policy has been reemphasized to prevent recurrence of any similar situation. No rent was charged.
3.	No.
4.	Costumes have not been loaned or rented to the Cercle Moliere or the Manitoba Theatre Centre. However, on occasion the C.B.C. costume department in Winnipeg has loaned a costume to other organizations, notably the Winnipeg Press Club and Rainbow Stage. No rent or other remuneration was involved.
5.	Costumes have never been rented. The loans to the Winnipeg Press Club were authorized since a private club function was involved which was not attended by the general public. In the case of the Rainbow Stage group, the costume loaned was not obtainable from any other source in Canada.


*GASPE SCHOOL BOARD-C.B.C. COVERAGE
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Was a C.B.C. crew sent to the Gaspe Area recently to investigate a financial crisis in the Regional School Board?
2.	If so (a) how many were in the crew (b) how did they travel?
3.	What were the expenses for (a) the crew (b) accommodation (c) transportation?
4.	Was it necessary to dispatch a private plane from Rimouski to pick up the television tapes (a) if so, for what reason were the films not returned with the crew (b) what was the cost of the chartered flight?


Mr. Roberf Sianbury (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: 
EASTERN HALIFAX COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Forresfall: 1.	How many public wharfs, breakwaters, skid-ways and other such facilities are there in Eastern Halifax County?
2.	Where is each located?
3.	In each of the last three years, how much money was spent on each facility for general maintenance?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: 1, 2 and 3, listed below:
Location	Structure
Baker's Point (E. Jeddore)	Wharf
Carter's Point	Wharf
Chezzetcook East	Wharf
Cooper's Point	Breakwater
Clam Bay	Breakwater
Eastern Passage	Breakwater
Eastern Passage	Retaining Wall
Eastern Passage Ecum Secum West	Berthing
Bayport 	Wharf
1966	1967	1968$	$	$220	3,000	3,595495	1,100	-4,400	4,700	1,20050	-	2,738
May 12, 1969

Location	Structure	1966 $	Questions 1967 $	1968 $
Ecum Secum West	Breakwater			
Ecum Secum West	Freight Shed	-	-	-Factory Cove	Wharf	-	-	300Fox Island	Breakwater	-	-	650Fox Island	Beach Protection	-	-	-Grand Desert	Shore Protection	50	4,500	4,500Grand Desert	Breakwater	-	-	-Harrigan Cove	Breakwater	50	-	-John Vogler's	Shore Protection	-	-	-John Vogler's Shore	Breakwater	90	-	5,706Little Harbour	Wharf	Little Harbour	Freight Shed	-	200	Lower West Ship Harbour	Wharf	Lower West Ship Harbour	Freight Shed	Macdonald's Cove	Breakwater	240	Maugher's Beach	Breakwater	-	650	30,000Mushaboom	Wharf	1,119	Ostrea Lake	Wharf	-Owl's Head	Wharf	-	-	Owl's Head	Freight Shed	-	-	-Petpeswick	East Wharf	-	100	4,657Petpeswick	East Freight Shed	-	-	-Sheet Harbour (East)	Wharf	34	2,424	-Sheet Harbour (West)	Wharf	-	-	Sheet Harbour (West)	Wharf	-	-	Ship Harbour	East Wharf	-	-	-Ship Harbour	Freight Shed	-	-	-Sober Island	Wharf	-	-	-Sober Island	Freight Shed	-	-	-Sober Island	Breakwater	-	-	-(Mosher's Cove) Spry Bay	Wharf	185	Spry Harbour	Breakwater	-	-	-Tangier	Wharf	5,800	400	-Three Fathom Harbour	Breakwater	Three Fathom Harbour	Wharf	200	Three Fathom Harbour	Causeway	75,000	Three Fathom Harbour	Groyne	___	_	Three Fathom Harbour	Shore Protection (Talus)	8,000	Turner's Island	Wharf	5,830	-	-
May 12, 1969
Questions


ATOMIC ENERGY WAGE CONTRACT
Mr. Schreyer: 1.	Does Atomic Energy of Canada Limited have a wage contract with its employees that is based on regional or zone divisions?
2.	If so, what are the rates paid by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to the various classifications of employees in the different zones?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Atomic Energy of Canada Limited reports as follows: 1. No. However, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited has collective agreements with unions representing prevailing rate employees at Ottawa, Ont., Chalk River, Ont., and Pinawa, Man.
2.	Following are the rates of pay under current collective agreements for a representative selection of occupations common to the three locations:
	Hourly Rate		
	Ottawa	Chalk River Pinawa	
Tool Maker	$3.65	$3.74	$3.74Electrician	3.55	3.58	3.57Spray Painter	3.32	3.25	3.22Stationary Engineer Cl. 3 3.14	3.14	3.10Truck Driver	2.66	2.65	2.58Labourer	2.37	2.35	2.27


COLLECTION OF MOTOR VEHICLE TAXES
Mr. Saltsman: 1.	Is the Department of National Revenue considering adopting the recommendation of the Auditor General in his 1968 Annual Report, page 87, paragraph 148, that all duties and taxes related to motor vehicle manufacturers be collected at the time of importation and that benefits or incentives provided be made available to the manufacturer only when evidence is produced that the required conditions have been met?
2.	If not, what alternatives is the Department considering regarding improving the procedures in administering concessions made to motor vehicle manufacturers, in order to adequately protect Canadian Government revenue?


Hon. Jean-Pierre  Coie@Minister of National Revenue: 1. The practice of permitting duty free importation of vehicles by qualied manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle components under the Motor Vehicles Tariff Order 1965, was questioned by the Auditor General in previous reports. As a consequence, the matter was referred to the Department of Justice. In the opinion of legal authorities, if the goods were entered under tariff items imposing a duty, there would be no basis for permitting re-entry of the goods under the Motor Vehicles Tariff Order 1965, and, consequently, no importer would be able to obtain the advantage thereof.

2. The procedures in administering the program were considered to be adequate for the protection of the revenues. The records of motor vehicle manufacturers are audited on an annual basis. Failures to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Tariff Order 1965, are reported to Government for appropriate action. Importers are required to amend entries and pay duties on goods imported under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Tariff Order 1965, and subsequently diverted. Customs officers have been instructed to ensure that such amending entries are presented at regular intervals. In addition, the Investigation Service of the Department checks for diversions at premises of both vehicle manufacturers and parts suppliers.


AIRCRAFT TO EXTERNAL AID OFFICE
Mr. Salisman: What is the name of the Canadian aircraft manufacturer referred to in the Auditor General's 1968 Report that sold one of its aircraft to the External Aid Office for $120,000 and repurchased it shortly thereafter for $100,000?


Mitchell William Sharp: The DeHavilland Aircraft of Canada Ltd.


STUDENT MILITIA PROGRAM
Mr. Robinson: Will the federal government consider the feasibility of providing summer employment through implementing a broader and more extended plan of student militia and, if so, will the government consider the program for both male and female students and, if so, will the government consider the ages from 15 to 21 inclusive?


Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: The Student Militia Program was terminated in 1966 as it was found that there were distinct disadvantages to enrolling these special groups and that many left the service on completion of courses. The conducting of further special courses for students in the Reserves is not contemplated due to the shortage of funds and Regular Force instructors.


DON MESSER SHOW-COMMENTS BY MR. STANLEY BURKE
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Were the words of farewell used by Stanley Burke at the end of the National News of Wednesday, April 16, with reference to the Don Messer show, part of the script or ad libbed?
2.	What were the words?
3.	How long has the Don Messer Show been telecast nationally?
May 12, 1969

4.	Has the C.B.C. received written or oral complaints about lack of taste by Mr. Burke with reference to the words spoken and, if so, is an apology contemplated?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the C.B.C. as follows: 1. The words were scripted.
2.	The words were "And now to Marg Osborne, Charlie Chamberlain and the rest, a very good night and as the song says, 'May the good Lord bless and keep you' ".
3.	Eleven years.
4.	The C.B.C. has no record of audience complaints about the words quoted in 2 above.


FIRST TELECAST OF DON MESSER SHOW
Mr. McCleave: 1.	On what date was the Don Messer show first telecast nationally?
2.	What has been its highest position in the ratings used by the C.B.C. on television, among the C.B.C. programs?
3.	What has been its lowest position in each case and how many programs were included?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the C.B.C. as follows: 1. Summer, 1958.
2.	Seventh, out of an average of about 20 C.B.C. network programs all broadcast in prime time and aimed primarily at adult-plus teenage audiences.
3.	Fourteenth, out of an average of about 20 C.B.C. network programs in prime time.


TAX CONCESSIONS FOR OIL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Harding: 1.	Is it the policy of the government to offer financial or tax concessions to companies exploring for and developing oil reserves in Canada's north and, if so, what are these concessions?
2.	Have any additional concessions been offered to companies contacted during the recent European tour of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and, if so, what are these concessions?
3.	Has the government made a commitment of any kind to the aforementioned companies regarding retention of present depletion allowances?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Departments of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Finance as follows:	1. The Income Tax Act allows
companies exploring for and developing oil reserves anywhere in Canada to deduct drilling and exploration expenses as defined in the Act. It does not provide any special concessions in respect of northern operations.
The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development provides three basic
Questions
forms of financial assistance to the northern mining community. Under the Northern Resource Roads Program, federal financial contributions may be made under prescribed circumstances, up to an amount of two-thirds of the construction cost of a permanent access road. The Northern Resource Airports Program provides for federal financial contributions up to 50 per cent of the cost of an approved airstrip or airport construction project associated with mining, exploration or production operations. Roads and airports so assisted are available for public use. The Northern Mineral Exploration Assistance Program provides for a federal financial contribution of up to 40 per cent of the cost of an approved exploration project, and any amount paid under this Program becomes repayable with interest should the assisted project result in production for gain on the property on which it was undertaken.
2.	No.
3.	No.


METROPOLITAN TORONTO POSTAL DISTRICTS
Mr. Robinson: Will the Minister of Communications consider the re-zoning and renaming of postal districts in Metropolitan Toronto with a view of conforming to the local municipal boundaries and, if so, when will this be carried out and, if not, for what reasons?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Minister of Communications):: In so far as the Post Office Department is concerned: On May 1, 1969, the Post Office Department introduced a new zoning scheme for the Metropolitan Toronto area which does take into account, as far as possible, local municipal boundaries. This new system is part of a nationwide program designed to facilitate delivery of mail addressed to postal patrons in larger communities.


TEACHERS IN SOEST AND HEMER SCHOOLS
Mr. Marshall: In each calendar year, how many dependents of 4th Canadian Infantry Division personnel have applied for positions to teach in the Senior High Schools at Soest and Hemer (a) of those successful, what were their qualifications and rank of their husbands at the time of appointment (b) of those unsuccessful, what were their qualifications and rank of their husbands at the time they made application?


David Walter Groos: 1967-68 Five; (a) one applicant as a part time substitute teacher at	Soest-Saskatchewan

May 12, 1969
Questions
Professional Senior Certificate with two years' full time experience and six years' supply experience-Major; one applicant taught one day at Hemer-BA in English with limited supply experience and no teaching certificate -Captain; one applicant taught two days at Hemer-graduate of Ryerson Institute with one year's experience in Home Economics- Captain; (b) one applicant-Nova Scotia Teachers' License Class One, no teaching experience-Corporal; one applicant as part time substitute teacher at Soest-Ontario standard grade one certificate, graduate of Ryerson Institute, eight years' teaching experience in Home Economics-Sergeant.
1968-69 Three: (a) one applicant as part time substitute teacher at Soest-Ontario standard grade one certificate, graduate of Ryerson Institute, eight years' teaching experience in Home Economics-Sergeant (this applicant was unsuccessful in 1967-68); (b) one applicant with B Ed., BA (French, BA (Hon. Classics) with two years' experience at university level-Corporal; one applicant with BA and Ontario Interim High School Assistance Certificate, type B, three years' teaching experience-Captain.


LEGISLATION ON ROYAL AND NATIONAL ANTHEMS
Mr. Forreslall: Is it the intention of the government to introduce legislation, dealing with our Royal and National Anthems before the summer recess and, if so, when?
Mr. Yves Fores! (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council): Due to the
pressure on the legislative program, the answer is no.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES STRENGTH
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What was the authorized strength of the Canadian Armed Forces as of March 31, 1969?
2. Is there to be any change in this figure prior to March 31, 1970 and, if so, to what numerical level?
3.	Is any change being considered for the following year?


David Walter Groos: 1. 98,241.
2.	The 1969-70 estimates are based on a strength of 98,238 being in the Canadian Forces on March 31, 1970.
3.	This will not be known until phase II of the defence review has been completed.


PRIVY COUNCIL PUBLIC RELATIONS STAFF
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Privy Council have a public relations staff and, if so, how many?
2.	What is the total cost of public relations for the Privy Council for each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: 1. The Privy Council Office has no public relations staff.
2. Not applicable.


&quot;THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY&quot;
Mr. Howard (Skeena): 1.	Has the firm of Berger, Tisdall, Clark and Lesly Ltd and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development reached an agreement on directions and priorities to be followed in presenting information to the public about "The other side of the story" as referred to in a letter from the said firm to a William J. Fox of the said Department dated January 13, 1969?
2.	What in detail are those directions and priorities?
3.	What was meant by the said statement "The other side of the story"?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. Yes.
2.	1) To improve communications and understanding between the three groups: The Indian community in Ontario; The General public and The Department of Indian Affairs. 2) To project the accomplishments of the Indian people in Ontario through all available public information media. 3) To assist the Regional Director and his executive staff in communications, press and press relations. 4) To provide advice to the Regional Director and also to the various superintendents on all matters affecting public opinion of the Indian community and the department as required.
3.	There are popular and damaging misconceptions about the Indian people. "The other side of the story" referred to telling the story of the many successful Indian businessmen, agriculturists, farmers, fishermen, lumbermen, carpenters, etc.


INDIAN AFFAIRS-PUBLIC RELATIONS MEETING
Mr. Howard (Skeena): 1.	What are the names, addresses and positions held by each person who attended a public relations Contractors meeting held at the Indian Affairs and Northern Development Headquarters in Ottawa from November 27 to 29, 1968 inclusive?
2.	Was any money paid for other than Departmental personnel to attend and, if so, what amount?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. Mr. David Gamble of Berger, Tisdall, Clark and
May 12, 1969

Lesly Ltd., Toronto Dominion Centre, Box 61, Toronto 1, Ontario. Mr. Frank Crockett, Crockett Writers, 109 Bruce St., St. James, Winnipeg, Manitoba; Robert Williams, Williams and Wilson, 1161 Melville, Vancouver 5, B.C.; Robert Russell, Williams and Wilson, 101 St. and Jasper Ave., Edmonton, Alberta; Jacques Guay, Jacques Guay and Associates, 1010 St. Catherine St., West, Montreal, P.Q.; Mr. W. J. Fox, Information Officer, Indian Affairs and Northern Development; Mr. J. Shelton, Information Officer, Indian Affairs and Northern Development; Mrs. Marion Smythe, Information Officer, Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Various other officials from the Department also attended but for very short periods of time during the three-day meeting.
2. Yes. $950.


DEUTERIUM OF CANADA HEAVY WATER PLANT
Mr. Corbin: 1.	Has the heavy water plant of Deuterium of Canada Limited been completed and, if so (a) is it presently in operation (b) did operations commence on the date stated in answer to Question 758?
2.	Have the owners of Deuterium of Canada Limited provided any explanation of the delay in deliveries to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and, if so, what is the explanation?
3.	Have officers of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited inspected the plant owned by Deuterium of Canada Limited?
4.	Has Atomic Energy of Canada Limited made any arrangement for acquiring a supply of heavy water from Canadian sources to replace what was to have been delivered by Deuterium of Canada Limited if the Deuterium plant never begins production and, if not, when does Atomic Energy of Canada Limited expect Deuterium to begin deliveries?


Otto Emil Lang: Atomic Energy of Canada Limited reports as follows: 1. (a) The plant has not been brought into operation; (b) No.
2.	The explanation by the owners indicates that the delay has been occasioned by a number of factors acting in combination, including late delivery of equipment, labour difficulties during construction, equipment failures, and design and engineering problems revealed on start-up.
3.	Yes.
4.	Atomic Energy of Canada Limited has arranged to acquire supplies of heavy water from the United States to replace what was to have been delivered by Deuterium of Canada Limited. A second heavy water plant is nearing completion at Port Hawkesbury, N.S. and construction has just started on a third one near Kincardine, Ontario. AECL hopes for
Questions
deliveries from the Deuterium of Canada plant in 1970.


SWEDEN-C.B.C. WORLD HOCKEY COVERAGE
Mr. Maiher: How many C.B.C. employees were sent to Sweden to cover the world hockey championships (a) how long were the employees in Sweden (b) what was the total cost of the operation?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the C.B.C. as follows: Six C.B.C. employees were sent to Sweden to cover the world hockey championships- three for the English network and three for the French network, (a) They were in Sweden for various periods individually, ranging from six days to 21 days; (b) Approximate total cost was $7,000.


PUNISHMENT FOR EXCEEDING WORK QUOTA
Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West): With reference to Question No. 1,942, does there exist in Canada (a) any federal statute referred to therein, or (b) any provincial statute referred to therein, whether by statutory provision or any regulations made thereunder specifically prohibit any labour union or any local thereof to set up any quota system of production whereby a worker may be disciplined or punished for exceeding any such quotas whether quantitative or fixed in monetary terms?


Mr. Jim McNulty (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: (a) There is no federal statute specifically prohibiting the provisions stated in the question; (b) The Minister of Labour is not aware of any provincial statute specifically prohibiting the provisions stated in the question.


KOOTENAY WEST, B.C., CUSTOMS EMPLOYEES
Mr. Harding: 1.	(a) How many employees are there in the Customs and Excise Branch of the Department of National Revenue in the constituency of Kootenay West, and (b) how many are there in each centre?
2.	(a) How many ports of entry are there in the constituency of Kootenay West, and (b) what are the hours of operation of each port of entry?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister of National Revenue):: 1. (a) Twenty-two; (b) Paterson, B.C., 6; Trail, B.C., 5; Waneta, B.C., 1; Nelson, B.C., 2; Nelway, B.C., 3; Rykerts, B.C., 5.
2. (a) Two, namely the port of Nelson, B.C., and the port of Trail, B.C., including air facilities, as follows: Nelson Seaplane Base; Trail Columbia Gardens Airport; and in addition four other places of entry: the out-port of Rykerts, B.C., including Rykerts Air-

May 12, 1969
Questions
port; the outport of Waneta, B.C., including Waneta Airport; the outport of Nelway, B.C.; the outport of Paterson, B.C.
2. (b) Hours of operation: Nelson, B.C.: 8:45 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday; Nelson Seaplane Base: as required; Trail, B.C.: 8:45 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday; Trail Columbia Gardens Airport: as required; Rykerts, B.C.: 8:00 a.m. to 12 midnight, daily; Rykerts Airport: as required; Waneta, B.C.: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., daily; Waneta Airport: as required; Nelway, B.C.: 8:00 a.m. to 12 midnight, daily; Paterson, B.C.: 8:00 a.m. to 12 midnight, daily.


P.F.R.A. EXPENDITURES
Mr. Corbin: 1.	Since its passage in 1935, how much money has the federal government spent under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act?
2.	What programs are administered under this Act at this time?


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1. $404,186,000.00.
2. Programs for land use and water conservation and development, including dam and irrigation construction works, farm dugouts and community pastures.


TREE FARMS
Mr. Corbin: 1.	How many tree farms are operated in Canada by the (a) Department of Agriculture (b) Department of Fisheries and Forestry, where are these farms located, in what provinces, and what is the size of each?
2.	What was their individual production in 1967?
3.	What was the cost of operating each farm in 1967?
4.	Are new farms being planned and, if so, on what dates and at what locations?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Fisheries and Forestry as follows: 1. (a) None; (b) None.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	No.


U.N. TRUST FUND FOR SOUTH AFRICA
Mr. Nystrom: 1. What has been the total contribution by the Government of Canada to the United Nations Trust Fund for South Africa and to the United Nations Consolidated Educational and Training Program for South Africans?

2. What is the annual breakdown of these contributions, if applicable?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1 and 2. Canada donated $10,000 to the United Nations Trust Fund for South Africa in 1968. A donation of $25,000 was made in 1969 to the Consolidated Educational Program for Southern Africans. A contribution of $25,000 was also made in 1967 to the United Nations Program for the Education and Training of South Africans which is now a component of the Consolidated Program.


ESKIMO-20TH CENTURY EXHIBITION
Mr. Howard (Skeena): 1.	Was the firm of Desroches Josmin Associes of Montreal chosen to prepare and distribute publicity material regarding the Eskimo-20th Century Exhibition held at Place Bonaventure from November 20, 1968 to December 1, 1968 and, if so, what amount of money was paid to this firm?
2.	Does the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development consider itself not competent enough to have performed this work?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. Yes. $1,515.30.
2. The department called in the contractor to assist in the promotion.


ALLEGED STATEMENT OF MR. ROBERT F. BATTLE
Mr. Howard (Skeena): Did Mr. Robert F. Battle, Assistant Deputy Minister, Social Affairs Branch of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development speak to the Manitoba and North Dakota International Symposium on the Legal Rights of Indians held in Grand Forks, North Dakota on March 7, 1969 and, if so, did he say "There have been too many people attempting to identify the needs of the Indian people for them. This unconscious paternalism is a curse and too often comes from the pen of one who is setting himself up as a sort of Don Quixote charging the windmill of Departmental paternalism" and did he refer to someone in particular, and, if so, what is the name of that person?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: (1) Yes, Mr. Robert F. Battle spoke to the Manitoba and North Dakota International Symposium on the Legal Rights of Indians held in Grand Forks, North Dakota on March 7, 1969. (2) No, he did not refer to anyone in particular.


CORDAGE INDUSTRY REPORT
Mr. Saltsman: 1.	Has the report on the cordage industry in Canada been completed?
2.	If so, on what date was it completed?
May 12, 1969

3. Is it the intention of the government to make this Report public?
4 What action does the government intend to take on the recommendations of this Report?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: 1. The Tariff Board Report on binder twine and twine for baling farm produce has not yet been completed.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.
4.	Answered by No. 1.


SOUTHERN RHODESIAN PATENT APPLICATIONS
Mr. Nyslrom: What is the present status of the two applications for patents from Southern Rhodesia filed in 1967-68 as reported at page 39 of the first Annual Report of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: The Patent Office, while keeping track of the country of origin of inventors for statistical purposes, does not keep a record of the serial numbers of applications filed according to different countries. A lengthy search through approximately 30,000 applications would be required to locate the two applications from Southern Rhodesia.
As the processing of applications takes much longer than one year in nearly all instances we can only assume that these two applications have "pending" status.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Fortin: 1.	How many departments presently employ departmental advisers on bilingualism, and what departments?
2.	Of the departments referred to in part 1, which have a departmental adviser on bilingualism whose (a) mother tongue is French (b) mother tongue is English (c) other (d) who are bilingual?
3.	What is the age and education level of the departmental advisers in each of the departments?
4.	What is the job level in the structure of each department and at what level was the incumbent appointed in each of the departments?
Return tabled.


BILINGUALISM-GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS HAVING ADVISERS
Mr. Foriin: 1. Which of the following currently has an adviser on bilingualism on his staff: the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, the Insurance Department, the National Gallery, the National Research Council,
Orders for Returns
the Public Archives and National Library, the Privy Council, the Public Service Commission, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the Public Printing and Stationery Department?
2.	Of those in part 1, which have departmental advisers on bilingualism (a) who have French as their mother tongue (b) who have English as their mother tongue (c) who have another language as their mother tongue (d) who are bilingual?
3.	What are the ages and educational levels of the advisers on bilingualism of each of these bodies?
4.	What is the administrative level of the position of adviser on bilingualism in each of these bodies, and in each case, at what level have such appointments been made?
Return tabled.


BILINGUALISM-CROWN CORPORATIONS HAVING ADVISERS
Mr. Foriin: 1.	What proprietary Crown corporations currently have advisers on bilingualism on their staffs?
2.	Which of the corporations named in the reply to part 1 have advisers on bilingualism who (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) have another language as their mother tongue (d) are bilingual?
3.	What are the ages and educational levels of the advisers on bilingualism of each of these corporations?
4.	What is the administrative level of the position of adviser on bilingualism in each of these corporations and, in each case, at what level have such appointments been made?
Return tabled.


PESTICIDES-USE IN CANADA
Mr. Haidasz: 1.	Which pesticides have been approved for use in Canada by any federal government agency or department?
2.	Has the use of any pesticides been discontinued or banned by any federal government agency or department?
3.	Has any federal government agency or department produced any publications, programs or films on the harmful effects of pesticides?
4.	Which of these publications, programs or films have been released for information?
5.	Which, if any, of these publications, programs or films have been withheld from the public?
Return tabled.


ALCOHOL ADDICTION-MENTAL PATIENTS
Mr. Mather: 1.	What is the estimated percentage of mental patients in hospitals, psychiatric wards and medical and surgical wards whose presence there is related to drinking alcoholic beverages?
2.	What is the estimated percentage of arrests caused by drinking?
3.	Does the Department of National Health and Welfare provide any money directly or through the provinces to persons or to families adversely

May 12, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry
affected by addiction to alcohol and, il so, how much?
4.	What was the 1968 federal revenue from the sale of spirits?
5.	What was the 1968 federal expenditure on promotion of temperance?
Return tabled.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: wish to direct this question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister given any instruction, or does he intend to give any instruction, to the Director of Investigation and Research under the Combines Investigation Act to examine and look into the possibility of conglomerates developing a monopoly or monopolies prejudicial to Canadian interests, in view of the fact that certain multi-million dollar United States tobacco corporations have offered to purchase a controlling interest in one of Canada's largest brewery companies?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I take it the hon. member is referring to the offer by Phillip Morris to acquire shares in Canadian Breweries Limited.
This would appear, as we now understand it, to be an offer by one foreign-owned multinational company to acquire control from another, namely, Rothmans of Canada. The director of Investigation and Research under the Combines Investigation Act is aware of these reports but no violation of the Combines Investigation Act would appear at this time to be indicated. The offer would appear to be in the nature of a step toward a conglomerate merger, which is not an offence, or would appear not to be an offence under the Combines Investigation Act.
The whole question of conglomerates is of course one which is very much on our minds and the Director of Investigation and Research is presently in Europe as chairman of a working group of the O.E.C.D. which is concerning itself with the control of multinational corporations.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: May I ask the minister whether he and his department are preparing any legislation to deal with the problem of conglomerates, mergers and combines?


Stanley Ronald Basford: As is well known, the government referred the whole question of competition policy, monopolies and mergers and restraint of trade to the Economic Council of Canada some time ago, and I am expecting a report from the council on this whole question in June of this year, at which time a complete revision of the combines legislation will be undertaken.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Will the minister take an early opportunity to make a statement on motions clarifying the attitude of government toward the displacement of existing Canadian ownership by conglomerates, involving either Canadian or foreign capital?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I should be happy to make a statement at any time relative to the Combines Investigation Act or its revision. However the larger question of foreign ownership and investment in Canada is the ministerial responsibility of my colleague the Minister of Finance, and any such statement should I think come from him.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I believe the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands has a supplementary.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question that I will direct to the Prime Minister. In view of the recommendations contained in the Watkins report to the effect that a government agency should be set up to carry on continued surveillance of foreign takeovers, has the government in mind setting up such an agency in the near future?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, we have not reached such a conclusion yet, but the subject is under consideration.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the widespread interest in this matter and the threat that it poses to Canada's sovereignty, on the minister's own admission in his answer to the last question when he said this matter covers more departments than his own, would he give consideration to having this matter referred to a standing committee of this house?
May 12, 1969


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I do not quite see how that would be appropriate at this time. Of course, any revision of the combines act would go to a committee of this house, at which time there could be a full discussion of the larger issue. However, with reference to the first part of the hon. member's question, I did point out in my first answer that it would appear that this is an offer to purchase shares of a Canadian company, an offer made by one foreign-held, multi-national corporation to another.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: 1
take it from the minister's answer that he must have obtained advice from legal officers either in his department or in the Department of Justice to the effect that there has been no violation of the combines act, if this deal has been consummated as suggested. Is this correct; did the minister get an opinion?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is proper for me to give a legal opinion-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I did not ask for one.


Stanley Ronald Basford: -but I have naturally been in consultation with my officers this morning, and as I pointed out it does appear that the offer to purchase these shares, according to the way the offer is worded, is not a breach of the Combines Investigation Act. Naturally the director is aware of this sort of report because he follows all activities of this kind, as he has made clear in his previous annual report; and should it appear that there is or that there may be a breach of the combines act, the director can be expected to take action.



AIR CANADA


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. May I ask the minister whether he has received any communications from the International Association of Machinists and/or from Air Canada requesting assistance in resuming negotiations, in the hope of reaching a settlement of the present strike?


Hon. Bryce S. Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have received telegrams over the weekend from both parties, I believe one yesterday and one this morning, requesting assistance from the Department of Labour. If I may, I would like to expand my answer a
Inquiries of the Ministry little and take the house into my full confidence in emphasizing that no one in this country would be more happy than the Minister of Labour to see this strike brought to an end.
Having said that, I must point out that the strike can be settled only through the free collective bargaining process and not through passage of emergency legislation in the House of Commons-at least, not until the strike does become a national emergency. Both parties have reached the present impasse because they have failed to reach agreement after six months of negotiations. Prior to the strike we did place at the disposal of the parties the services of Mr. Kelly, and subsequently those of Mr. Wilson. However the parties have not materially settled their differences.
So in answer to the question, may I say that although I have received these telegrams it is not my intention at this moment to place the Department of Labour at the disposal of both sides until I have had an opportunity to have formal discussions with both parties in order to determine whether these telegrams are anything more than an effort to convey the impression to the members of the union and the Canadian public that meaningful talks are going on, when in reality they are not.


David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I assure the minister that I am not thinking and would not think of suggesting any legislation. But since he has received these telegrams, and assuming they were sent sincerely and not for the publicity for which he fears they may have been sent, could I ask him whether the time has not arrived for him to consider seriously the appointment of some outside mediator with instructions for him to sit with the parties day and night for the next number of days in order to seek a settlement. I ask that because parties in a strike do not usually ask for assistance if they do not wish to arrive at a settlement.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, this of course is under consideration. If I can ascertain from my informal discussions that both parties in reality are willing and anxious to come to a settlement, this will be one of the avenues available to the Minister of Labour. In the meantime I recommend to both parties that they take advantage of the next couple of days and resume direct negotiations.


Mr. Ed Schreyer (Selkirk):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. According to Canadian Press wire photographs from Mont-

May 12, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry real, birds are building nests on the wings of some grounded D-C8's. Has the minister reason to think the strike will be over before the eggs hatch?



AGRICULTURE


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Last week, representatives of the C.F.U. came to Parliament and asked the federal government to improve the dairy policy.
Did the Minister meet these representatives and did he receive representations asking that the dairy policy be improved instead of being allowed to deteriorate?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I did not meet the representatives of the U.C.C. directly, although according to my information a number of members of parliament and one or two cabinet ministers met them. I have had however a number of representations from the U.C.C. and their affiliated organization, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, with respect to matters raised by the hon. member. I think these meetings were useful in explaining the reasons for the government's regulations for the 1969-70 dairy year.



CONTINUATION OF FEED GRAIN SUBSIDIES

Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Could the Minister of Agriculture give us the assurance that the subsidies granted for the transportation of feed grain will be continued in Eastern Canada?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Well, Mr. Speaker, the question as asked would indicate these people wish the Minister of Agriculture to say that these subsidies will be paid in perpetuity. I cannot give that assurance. Certainly governments have to adjust, amend or improve policies from time to time. However there is no intention of withdrawing the subsidy immediately.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Justice a question. Considering the doubt expressed by Hon. J. T. Thorson, who at one time was a member of the Mackenzie King government and who occupied at another time the second highest judicial position in Canada, concerning the constitutionality of certain sections in the languages bill, and that doubt having been expressed by others as well, is the minister prepared, as was done on one occasion within my recollection, to place before the house before the debate on the bill begins the opinion of the law officers of the Crown as to the constitutionality of certain clauses of the bill. Also would he say whether any law professors across Canada were consulted on this matter and asked to give an opinion. Would the minister be prepared to table the opinion of such persons outside his own department?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, we take the position on the basis of advice tendered to us by the law officers of the Crown-which advice has been unofficially supported in other quarters-that the bill is constitutional as it stands and that it is within the competence of parliament to enact. It is not the intention of the government to initiate a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: My question did not have to do with that. Would the minister produce the views of the law officers or those outside who he now says actually were approached, so that the house will have the fullest information on this matter as there are grave doubts being expressed?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the right hon. member will appreciate that if despite our best efforts there is a challenge made as to the constitutionality of this bill, any opinions we have received will be privileged. If they were public it might well prejudice the case of the government of Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of prejudice of the case. Is there the possibility that the government might be prejudiced?
May 12, 1969



HOUSING


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the great concern expressed during the weekend, which received considerable publicity and which I feet the Prime Minister is aware of, by the former deputy prime minister, and the Prime Minister's statement on page 5525 of Hansard that "governments are to a large degree powerless" to deal with urban renewal, housing, urban transportation and pollution-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


George Harris Hees: Here is the question: Is it the intention of the government to withdraw the National Housing Act for redrafting, disband the urban transportation unit of the Department of Transport and cancel consideration of a Canada water act or a clean air act?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Obviously not, Mr. Speaker. To say that governments are to a large degree powerless is to say that the constitution does impose certain limitations on both levels of government, but within their jurisdiction things can be done. Some of the examples quoted by the hon. member are things that have been done in these years. It means we cannot cover the area in its entirety without changing the constitution. Under the constitution as it now stands we have done these things. We are doing more in a bill now before the house. I am surprised the hon. member wishes us to withdraw these very progressive pieces of legislation.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has put in my mouth words I did not use. I would like to ask him a supplementary question. If the government intends to go forward with matters of this kind which are of great importance, would the Prime Minister then stop using the constitution as an excuse for inaction, as described by the former deputy prime minister?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Prime Minister may not want to reply to a question which is out of order.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to
Inquiries of the Ministry the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Does the government have any intention of introducing legislation to eliminate or cut back either the family allowance or old age security pensions?


John Carr Munro: There is no government decision one way or another in respect to this matter. If there should be any intention on the part of the government in this regard, it will be announced as a matter of government policy.


Stanley Howard Knowles: supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister not in a position to assure us that, whatever else will be done in the field of social legislation, the means test will not be put back on either of these two pieces of legislation?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems the hon. member is asking in different words the question he asked in the first instance.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten
o'clock.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister? I wonder if he was just throwing up trial balloons when in his speech he talked about doing away with the baby bonus, or was he contradicting his Minister of National Health and Welfare?


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: My question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Could he tell the house whether the reduction or the increase of family allowances is being considered by the government?


Mr. Speaker:: Again it appears to me that the hon. member is just asking a question that has already been raised.



DISCUSSION WITH ALBERTA PREMIER ON NATIONAL POLICY

Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton Wesl):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Will he please tell the house the nature of the discussions he held with Premier Strom of Alberta on Friday? Was the Prime Minister able to indicate any progress in updating Canada's national oil policy, and specifically did he indicate to Premier Strom
8564	COMMONS DEBATES	May 12, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry which shared-cost programs he meant when on Friday morning last he adumbrated on the nature of vested interests in federal expenditures?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we had talks on a number of matters including oil policy, wheat, federal-provincial relations and various aspects of the constitution.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: And the weather.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: And the weather. It was not intended that these meetings between Premier Strom and myself would be other than of a confidential nature. I do not feel it proper, therefore, to report on the substance of the meeting.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. R. L. Whiting (Halion):: My question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Is it the intention of the government to amend the Criminal Code to prohibit the operation of off-track betting establishments?


John Napier Turner: Any policy in that regard in the normal course will be announced in the usual way.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. About ten days ago in this house I asked the minister if he had any emergency plans for employment of students during the summer months. The minister replied in the affirmative, but did not give details. Is the minister now in a position to give details of his plan for employment of students during the coming summer months? Thousands of students are without employment at the present time.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: There will be a large number of students applying for jobs this summer because of the heavy increase in the student population. I believe however that the efforts of the department, other levels of government and private employers will improve the situation in the labour market and offer a great number of opportunities to students this summer. There may be a shortfall. I am sure all hon. members realize that the solution to this problem requires not only leadership from the federal government, but 
assistance from other governments and individuals in this country.
One step we as a federal government have taken, in order to provide some indication of our concern, is to authorize and direct all departments to increase their student hirings by at least 10 per cent over last summer, in accordance with the growth of the student population. That is one measure.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: In view of the minister's reply to my question, is it a fact that some tentative plans referred to by the minister ten days ago in this house have now been scrapped?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker. What I stated was that the discussion of this whole question cannot be undertaken on orders of the day. Last week I made a very extensive statement on this problem to the standing committee examining my estimates. I will be happy to provide the hon. member with a copy.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and ask him if the government has received an invitation from the government of Finland to attend a conference of NATO pact and Warsaw pact countries on the subject of a European security arrangement to replace the present military alliance?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I received the ambassador of Finland some days ago who conveyed to me the views of his government. I want to make it clear however that the government of Finland has not issued an invitation. Finnish representatives have approached Canada, the United States and all European countries to take soundings of their attitudes toward the eventual holding of a conference on European security under suitable conditions. The government of Finland has intimated that if other countries were agreed, if all governments concerned could take part, if the conference were thoroughly prepared and if there seemed to be reasonable prospects of success, it would be ready to act as host to a preparatory meeting to deal with questions of procedure.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Could the minister say whether the Canadian government's attitude to the various conditions is also favourable?
May 12. 1969


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I assured the Finnish ambassador that we were very interested and that we would carefully and seriously explore the suggestions. It is the Canadian view that questions of European settlement are very urgent. Our only concern is that any proposed conference should succeed, because an abortive meeting would be worse than useless.


Mr. J. Edward Broadbenl (Oshawa-Whitby):: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, could the Secretary of State for External Affairs inform the house whether the Canadian government has encouraged other members of NATO to respond in a way similar to that of the Canadian government?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think I did say to the house, when I was asked originally about the NATO meetings, that that was the position taken by Canada and was responded to very constructively by the NATO powers.



INHIBITING EFFECT OF CANADA-U.S. TRANSPORT POLICY

Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Private Planning Association of Canada has reported that Canada-U.S. transport policy is inhibiting trade between the two countries would the right hon. gentleman state whether this problem is being actively studied at the present time to ensure that this is not the case?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would have to take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker. I am not aware of the representations which the hon. member just mentioned.



NATIONAL CAPITAL


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Col-chester North):: Mr. Speaker, I too have a question for the Prime Minister. Will he inform the house why the government has taken the extraordinary step of appointing the chairman of the National Capital Commission for a period of one month?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps this question might be debated at the time of adjournment. I have the impression that this is the type of question which normally ought to be put on the order paper or discussed at the time of adjournment.
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Roland Godin (Porlneuf):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Since the symposium held recently by the Quebec Liberal party proves that that party has a bank of ideas, could the Prime Minister tell us whether he intends to apply to that bank?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think the question is acceptable.



SHIPPING


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question could be directed jointly to the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Labour, but in the absence of the Minister of Transport I will direct it to the Minister of Labour. Is the minister aware that Upper Lakes Shipping Limited is presently making application to change to foreign registry the registry of the vessel Cape Breton Miner, construction of which was subsidized by the Canadian taxpayer? Further, is the minister in a position to advise whether this change can be prevented in order to save the jobs of 39 Canadians who will be replaced by cheap labour-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether the hon. member would agree with me that that question might well be considered at the time of adjournment. I realize there might be some urgency, and if there is the question might be given priority for the adjournment debate.



TRAIL, B.C.-STATEMENT BY MINISTER RESPECTING FINANCIAL AID

Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the urgent need for the Trail committee to know what finances are available to them for rehabilitation after the recent disastrous flood, could the minister indicate to the house when he could make a definite statement on the federal government's contribution to the disaster fund?



'8566 COMMONS DEBATES

[Stage Direction]
May 12, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Speaker: I wonder whether the hon. member is not restating a question he asked last Thursday or Friday. If not, the minister might wish to reply.
Randolph Harding: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it was not the same question. It was along similar lines, but the information given at the time was that the department was considering it. I am just wondering whether they have considered it to the point where they can indicate when an answer can be given.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is very tenacious. I think he is aware that the government has already advised the City of Trail that we will repair the wall which protects the city from the Columbia River, which wall had been breached. As to the other application made by the Mayor of Trail, and I think by Premier Bennett of British Columbia to the Prime Minister, I have advised the hon. member that it is being studied in conjunction with damage claims from the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and we would expect a decision will be taken shortly.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Mr. Heath Macquaxrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the laconic Postmaster General. It concerns the increasing number of trade union and other non-profit publications going out of business on account of increased postal rates. Can he advise if he is prepared yet to take another look at this serious matter, with a view to forestalling further shrinkage in the publishing industry?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, I think I have replied on many occasions that the labour journals and indeed many other non-profit publications could recover all of the increases in the postage rates by a very nominal increase in their subscription rates, sometimes as low as something in the order of 17 cents or 25 cents a year. I reiterate my belief that I do not think these journals can expect the postmen, the whole 48,000 of them, to continue to subsidize these journals.



AGRICULTURE


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of

Agriculture. It arises from a communication sent by the Manitoba Dairy Association calling on the minister to give urgent consideration to a rethinking of national dairy policy so that western Canadian dairy producers will no longer be discriminated against in terms of quota allocations. Is the minister giving consideration to this request?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, we have had a number of discussions about this and I am of the same opinion that I expressed to the hon. member several days ago, that the Canadian dairy policy does not discriminate against western producers.


Edward Richard Schreyer: As a supplementary question, can the minister say whether it is true that 8 million pounds of quota allocations have been removed from western Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as asked by the hon. member is clearly argumentative and out of order.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I believe Your Honour would want to give a dispassionate and fair ruling on what I submit is a point of privilege. When the Minister of Agriculture states repeatedly in this house that national dairy policy is not discriminatory in its effect-we are not talking about intent-upon dairy producers in western Canada, and when I say to him that we have proof that in two years 8 million pounds in quotas have been removed from western Canada, I believe Your Honour should want to regard this as a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I certainly cannot regard that as a question of privilege but rather as a question of debate. The hon. member says there is discrimination and the minister says there is no discrimination. We could go on in that way for a long time. This is clearly a point for debate and on that basis I have to rule that the hon. member's question as asked cannot be posed at this time.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. As the executive of the Canadian Medical Association have for four months been asking pretty steadily for an
May 12, 1969

appointment with the Prime Minister to discuss the very important matter of medical insurance, and have specified that they do not wish to meet the Minister of National Health and Welfare but rather the Prime Minister, has the Prime Minister found it possible to include them in his agenda in the near future?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression they had given up asking me for such an appointment. I know of no recent request. I believe the request was made during the time of the recent federal-provincial conference and obviously I could not meet them then, but I have at all times suggested that they see the ministers responsible for this act and others. I believe that representatives of the Association have seen the Minister of National Health and Welfare twice and are going to see him again tomorrow, and I believe they have met as well with the Minister of Finance. The opposition will have to get used to the idea that we are not running a one-man show.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I think the reason for the renewal of the request was that this body was impressed by the Prime Minister's continuing statements that he is anxious for more dialogue with the Canadian public.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



CRIMINAL CODE


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Justice.
Following the 69th murder committed in Montreal in 1969, does the minister intend to propose that the death penalty be re-enforced in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that the question put by the member has already been asked in the house a few days ago.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


Mr. Ambrose Huberi Peddle (Grand Falls-While Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Prime Minister's statement that serious
Inquiries of the Ministry cutbacks in expenditures are necessary to make possible the government's programs of bilingualism and regional development, will the government consider postponement of the bilingual program until such time as this program becomes reasonably and economically feasible without the serious curtailment of other government programs?



POSSIBILITY OF EXPANSION OF GOVERNMENT PROGRAM

Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the parliamentary assistant to the Secretary of State.
I gave him notice of it some months ago and I am sure he is anxious to get it off his books. It concerns new Canadians taking courses in English and French. Is the government considering increasing aid in respect of these language courses for all new Canadians to the level awarded in support of the Czech refugees when they came here after the invasion last August?


Mr. Speaker:: I would suggest to the hon. member that his question should be placed on the order paper.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the programs announced by the Minister of Veterans Affairs to be held in conjunction with the anniversary of D-day, will he consider making the commemoration of this event more meaningful by tabling the white paper dealing with recommendations of the Woods report by that date?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I answered this question very recently.


John Stratford Burton: May we expect to have this report before the house rises for the summer recess?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I did answer that question in full last week.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, would the minister intervene with the Postmaster General on behalf of various veterans organizations which publish magazines and are now having difficulty in this regard, or are about to drop them, so that the members of these organizations will know what is going on in the veterans' world?

May 12, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the concern of many veterans organizations over the fact that their appearance before the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs is being delayed, will the government reconsider its position and refer the Woods report to the standing committee even before the white paper is produced?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Here again, Mr. Speaker, I did answer that question very recently when I said it would be much preferable for veterans associations to appear before the committee, once they have had the white paper in hand.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They don't think so.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he will lend his very able administrative talents to the passport office for a day or so to do what he can to take additional steps to clean up the indescribable mess in that office?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I can assure hon. members that these inconveniences have been caused by the enormous workload that has been put on the passport office. In the next day or two I intend to give a description of the enormous volume of passports that have been issued. We have witnessed far and away the best work done by the passport office in its history. This problem arises because of the enormous increase in the volume of travel, which I am very happy to see, but which is something we could not have anticipated.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweafher@Fundy-Roy-al: Mr. Speaker, what arrangements is the Secretary of State for External Affairs making to see, first of all, that passport forms are simplified, and secondly to ensure that an adequate supply of the new forms is provided in those parts of the country which are still using the old forms, thus adding to the confusion of this overworked and harassed branch?


Mitchell William Sharp: These forms are now in the course of being printed.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, since the departure of the hon. member for Trinity as Acting Prime Minister,

and in view of the mess the Secretary of State for External Affairs has made in respect of passports, can we assume that he will not be getting-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Postmaster General would consider re-instating Saturday mail delivery in order to bring the Post Office Department back into the 20th century?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the impression that this question also has been recently asked.


REQUEST FOR SYSTEM OF GUARANTEED PRICES
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the acting government house leader, or the acting house leader of the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You
were right the first time.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Will he say whether he can advise the house that the Minister of Agriculture on behalf of the government will be bringing forward any proposal regarding the two price system or a guaranteed price system in respect of western grains?


Mr. Speaker:: This question was asked toward the end of last week of the Minister of Agriculture. I believe he was the proper minister to direct the question to at that time.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, May 9, 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. 44, Mr. Winch.
May 12, 1969
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver Easi):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last I had the opportunity of speaking for some 11 minutes in introducing and explaining the motion which is again before the house. As I said then, I want it clearly understood that clause 110, which creates new section 37A, does not deal with inmates within the penitentiary system. It has reference only to inmates in provincial reformatories and jails whose sentences are less than two years.
As I said on Friday, on reading the clause I was completely amazed at the restriction found in this clause and completely stumped as to the reason for its inclusion. I took the opportunity over the weekend of re-reading all the preceding clauses dealing with parole in an endeavour to ascertain whether there was anything that would explain the reasoning behind this wording, which I hope will now be amended. Perhaps it is because I am not a member of the legal profession that in all this terminology I could not find any explanation.
I can understand the wording of proposed section 37A in clause 110 when it suggests that the Lieutenant Governor of the province should have the power to appoint an official with the authority to let an inmate out of a reformatory or jail, with or without an escort, for an unlimited period of time for medical reasons. However, I cannot understand why there should be a limit of 15 days on the period for which a provincial inmate may be let out by the same official for humanitarian reasons. I presume that humanitarian reasons would include the serious illness or death of a parent or other member of the family, and that 15 days is considered to be a satisfactory period for release for humanitarian reasons. But I cannot understand the limitation of 15 days on release for rehabilitation purposes.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
As I started to say when it was time to stop last Friday, I fully understand the position, power and jurisdiction of the Parole Board. I feel most strongly that if we are truly interested in rehabilitation, and I hope we are, in our provincial reformatories and jails, we must realize that the officer in the institution is the one who knows the inmate best. He is the one in daily touch with the inmate. He is the one in daily or at least weekly touch with the foreman of the workshop in which the inmate may be employed, or with the teacher if the inmate is in a class. He is the one in touch with the priest or padre if
Criminal Code
the inmate is attending services, or with the psychiatrist or psychologist if the inmate is receiving such treatment.
The officer in the institution is the one who under this section would have the power vested in him by the Lieutenant Governor to let a person out for medical or humanitarian reasons, but the same responsible official has the power to let the man out for only 15 days if the release is for rehabilitative purposes. I cannot conceive of an official letting a person out for even 15 days unless he is certain the man has made such progress that he should be released. Moreover, if the official made a mistake the same provision would apply under this section with regard to temporary leave as applies to one who breaks parole; in other words, he would be picked up and put back in jail. So there is no danger there.
To my mind this provision is absolutely unreasonable. It is not understandable that an official should have the power to let an inmate out for rehabilitative purposes but that the period should be limited to 15 days. Right then and there the very purpose and goal of rehabilitation is crucified. A person who has won this reprieve and is making a success outside must return to prison within 15 days. Right there you destroy absolutely the attitude, social responsibility and progress of the one who is being let out. I could go on and on in this regard, Mr. Speaker, but I know that if I did I would only be repeating myself,, and I do not want to do that.
I sincerely hope that the minister believes in rehabilitation, that he believes that a boy, girl, young woman, young man, or adult man or woman serving a sentence of less than two years should, if they have proved to the satisfaction of the official responsible to the Lieutenant Governor that they can be rehabilitated, be rehabilitated and everything should be done to aid their rehabilitation and not to stultify it. If there is a reasonable explanation of why this wording is in the clause, I sincerely hope the minister will rise and make it clear because it is not clear to a great many of us at the moment.
I assure the minister that I am a reasonable member of this House of Commons. If he has a satisfactory answer than can clarify the situation and make sense of what appears to be a nonsensical provision, I am prepared to listen and accept it. But unless there is a clear explanation and a good reason for it I say that the present wording will stultify the very purpose of rehabilitation; it will kill the motivation of somebody who is trying to

May 12, 1969
Criminal Code
become socially acceptable and has succeeded to the point that he can get out of prison for 15 days. If there is not a clear explanation and if it is not certain that the present wording constitutes good legislation, I hope the minister will accept my amendment. I sincerely hope that if there is not good reasoning behind these words in new section 37A the minister will be the first, in the interests of rehabilitation and good legislation, to recommend to all hon. members the adoption of the amendment I have put forward.


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Soliciior General):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to attempt to clear up the matter because I believe the hon. gentleman is under a complete misapprehension as to the proposed clause, what it means and its interpretation. Clause 110 of the bill now before us seeks to add to the Prisons and Reformatories Act a provision dealing with temporary absences of less than 15 days duration and the granting of such absences by an officer given the power to exercise that authority by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
As the hon. member knows, there is in section 26 of the Penitentiary Act a provision which is almost identical in wording. With regard to a prisoner in one of the institutions covered by the Prisons and Reformatories Act, by virtue of having received a sentence of less than two years, there is no such provision. In both types of institutions there is authority for the National Parole Board to deal with parole for federal offences. Parole is dealt with in that way. The hon. member's remarks relating to parole were applicable to that legislation and were not applicable to this clause. In the case of inmates in prisons and reformatories who are in the custody of the provincial authorities, no authority has been granted by the federal government, in respect of a breach of the Criminal Code and like statutes, to deal with temporary situations which may arise.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
For example, it is not infrequent for an inmate to be released, because of a serious illness in the family or the funeral of someone in the immediate family, for a period of one or two days, or as the case may be. Such cases of penitentiary inmates are dealt with under section 26 of the Penitentiary Act. Cases of inmates who, at the end of a sentence-I will give some examples in a few minutes-have secured a suitable job or employment and whom it is desirable to release say two days ahead of the date fixed

in the parole board order, are also dealt with under that section.
Perhaps I could illustrate the situation by describing a case I had to consider just before lunch today. An inmate in a provincial institution who is eligible for release on the 19th or 20th day of this month-I have forgotten the precise date-had made arrangements for his employment starting six days before the date of his release. Without this proposed clause, what was required in that case was an act of clemency, an Order in Council signed in the regular way by the Governor General. It is neither practicable nor possible to get that kind of order quickly enough in most such cases.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Why did you put a limitation on it?


George James McIlraith: Just a moment. That is the purpose of this clause. It has nothing at all to do with parole. It has to do with the humanitarian cases or humanitarian reasons I spoke about and cases such as the one with which I dealt this morning it has to do with the rehabilitation of the inmate and with enabling him not to lose the good job he secured. This happens periodically. In our experience with inmates in these institutions where such authority now exists there has been no request whatever that I could find where officers have been asked for a longer period than 15 days. The usual type of case covered by this clause is a request for one or two days, and it is not anticipated that there will be any request in provincial institutions for more than 15 days, and if there were it could be processed under the regular machinery having to do with parole.
Let me give another example to illustrate the point more clearly. It will be remembered that last December there was a church service of a special nature held in Ottawa. A large number of inmates were brought from one of the federal institutions, undoubtedly in the belief that it would assist in their rehabilitation. This was for one day. Surely there should be some authority vested in the provincial institutions, who deal only with inmates who have been sentenced to a period of less than two years, similar to that used in the federal institutions where inmates have longer sentences.
That is the only purpose of this clause. What is done is an attempt to assist the reorientation and rehabilitation of an inmate into the community. In the case of a person with whom the Parole Board has not been
May 12, 1969

involved, who is coming to the end of his sentence and for whom there is a demand from people wishing to hire him and interview him, surely it is desirable that he be released for a day for this purpose, and surely that decision should be made by the custodial authority at the time without having to apply to the Parole Board.


Harold Edward Winch: Why limit it to 15 days?


George James McIlraith: Because there is no demand for more than 15 days. The demand is usually for one day, for part of a day, or for two days. There is no need for the period to be more than 15 days. If it were for more than 15 days we would then be setting up another authority to deal with what is more comprehensively dealt with by the parole board authority. Admittedly, 15 days is arbitrary. It might just as well have been 10 days, according to what I found out by checking. There is no reason to suggest there would be any need for more than 15 days. There is nothing in our experience that would indicate a need for more than 15 days. If one were going on experience only, it could be argued that a period shorter than 15 days would be sufficient.
I trust that explains the purpose of the clause. I can assure the hon. member that I am very concerned and just as anxious as he is to ensure that the work of training and rehabilitation of these inmates is speeded up so they can be released at the earliest possible date to take part fully in society. I can assure hon. members that they should have no fear on that score whatever. I have firm views on the subject and I believe those firm views can be substantiated by the action taken in the last few months.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested to hear the minister's explanation and I hope I am right in my interpretation that what he is trying to say is that except for the situation dealt with here the Parole Board will deal with such cases for humanitarian reasons and for the purpose of rehabilitation, whether the request for release is for two months or six months. New section 37A reads:
Where, in the opinion of an official designated by the Lieutenant Governor of the province in which a prisoner is confined in a place other than a penitentiary, it is necessary or desirable that the prisoner should be absent-
I suppose that means absent from where he is incarcerated.
-with or without escort, for medical or humanitarian reasons or to assist in the rehabilitation of
Criminal Code
the prisoner at any time during his period of imprisonment, the absence of the prisoner may be authorized from time to time-
But he cannot be away for more than 15 days. I am at a loss to understand the section. If it is what the minister says it is, I do not know why he put a limitation on it because if the Parole Board has any control surely it can say he can be away 16 days, 6 days or 6 hours. So I think there is something to be said for the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch).
Let us take a look at the humanitarian reasons. According to the dictionary the definition of "humanitarian" is an adherent of humanism or the religion of humanity, a visionary philanthropist. I think we all know what humanitarian reasons are and what it means to rehabilitate a prisoner. What the minister said is not clear, and this provision seems to be completely superfluous. Someone may interpret it as meaning that the Parole Board can only release an inmate for 15 days if it receives a request for the release of a prisoner for rehabilitation purposes.
Perhaps the minister would wish to answer me and I hope the house will consent inasmuch as we are not in committee of the whole. This section is not at all clear to me. I should like to ask the minister the following question. Surely this section might be interpreted to mean that a prisoner could only be released for 15 days under any conditions. It could be interpreted as limiting the Parole Board in making a decision. If it does, it is bad law. If it does not, then why put the 15 days in here? I cannot see why the minister cannot accept the amendment. If a person is going to be away for only four or five days, then why make the period 15 days? Why not make it 20 days or shorten it to five days? If the minister would like to answer me before I become critical-
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: -I would be glad to give him the opportunity to do so. I should like him to make his position clearer than he has done up to now.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This could, of course, be done by leave of the house. As the hon. member for Calgary North has pointed out, we are not in committee. At the same time, if the house consents to the minister answering the question-


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

May 12, 1969
Criminal Code


George James McIlraith: I am sorry I did not make my earlier statement clearer on this point. I would be glad to answer the question asked by the hon. member. There is no difficulty about the granting of parole in respect of periods longer than 15 days. The Parole Board can make an order for any length of time it wishes. There are, however, situations in which requests suddenly arise, and no process I know of is capable of dealing with these requests quickly enough. This proposal is intended to deal with such situations. For instance, it must be clear that the need for speedy parole for humanitarian reasons often arises quickly, and at present there is simply no way of getting the necessary order made in time for those who are inmates of provincial institutions. Authority is now being provided to enable someone on the ground to take action.
As to the granting of parole for periods longer than 15 days, this is a responsibility which Parole Boards can handle quite easily. It is not the intention to set up an authority with jurisdiction concurrent to that of the Parole Boards. The intention is only to deal with cases of temporary emergency. Let me give an example which arose the other day in connection with a group of inmates being given a special course in data processing- computer training, as it is often called. At a certain point in their training it was thought desirable to take them to Montreal to show them some pretty sophisticated pieces of equipment in actual use. Their absence was a matter of hours. Surely, Mr. Speaker, this is not the kind of a case which should go before the Parole Board authorities for the issuance of an order, and that sort of thing, bearing in mind that the person having custody of this special class knows exactly what the situation is and has all the arrangements in hand. Surely, if an arrangement of this kind has been so helpful and so successful in the case of inmates who are incarcerated in the penitentiaries, its benefits should also be granted to those who are confined in provincial institutions. What is suggested here is a stop-gap procedure giving local officers who have primarily custodial responsibility an emergency type of authority in order to avoid the necessity of formal application being made to a Parole Board, whether for the granting of parole or for the exercise of clemency.
As to the time element, there is no experience which would indicate that 15 days is not sufficient. As a matter of fact, it could be argued that a much shorter time would be sufficient-six days, for example.

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands}: Might I ask a question with the permission of the hon. member for Calgary North? I assure the minister we are not trying to be obstructive; we are trying, rather, to be helpful and to understand his point of view. I take it the minister is telling us that the reason for this provision is to enable the authorities to deal with cases of emergency where it would take too long to place these circumstances before a Parole Board-cases where action must be taken quickly as when, for example, an inmate has an opportunity to get remunerative employment provided he can be released soon. Someone has to be given authority to act quickly. I think we are all sympathetic in cases of this kind. My question is: has the minister any assurance that 15 days will be sufficient in all these cases of emergency? Suppose an inmate had to get out 21 days earlier instead of a few days earlier in order to take advantage of a job offered to him. According to the minister's argument, a case of this kind could not be dealt with under the legislation now before us; an application would have to be made to the Parole Board, and the job might be lost in consequence.
What the hon. member for Calgary North is saying is that surely the decision could be left to the person who is appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council of the province. Surely he could be allowed to use his own good judgment whether the period should be 15 days, 18 days, or whatever he thought fit.


George James McIlraith: To answer that question specifically, let me say this: if a remission of sentence of 21 days is involved, surely that is a matter for the Parole Board and not for the local officer administering the jail. That is the effective answer to the hon. member's question. I assure the house there is no suggestion on the part of any of the authorities dealing with this question that there is need for any longer term than the one which is proposed. On the contrary, all the experience is the other way. The Parole Boards are still able to deal with applications for parole in the ordinary manner. I repeat, it is not the intention here to set up a duplicate parole authority, nor is there any need for a duplicate authority. If this were contemplated, authority would not be assigned to an individual custodial official; it would be given to some kind of board which would examine these cases thoroughly from the point of view of rehabilitation and so on. The provision we are discussing is intended to cover only stop-gap,
May 12, 1969

emergency situations. As I say, this arrangement has worked so satisfactorily when applied to inmates of our penitentiaries that it was thought desirable to make it applicable to those serving sentences of less than two years duration, namely, those affected by prisons and reformatories legislation.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I agree with the leader of the New Democratic party and with the hon. member for Vancouver East. I understand what the minister is trying to say. He is telling us that someone should be designated by the provincial cabinet as having power to make an order allowing temporary probation, as it were, for some humanitarian reason. But it seems to me that if the law is to authorize such authority, the person designated should be allowed to exercise the proper kind of discretion in determining the period. In my opinion this limitation should be removed. The clause would still satisfy the purpose the minister has in mind.
I hope the minister will not take the position that it cannot be altered under any circumstances. I have found, over a number of years, that once a bill becomes hard and fast, drafted by persons behind the minister, it is very hard to get any of these things changed. I submit this is a case in which the minister should consent to the amendment. If the person designated by the provincial cabinet had the confidence of the cabinet to make such a decision, he would also have the confidence of the cabinet to determine what is a reasonable length of time in cases of this kind. I can find no objection to the insertion of the words "a reasonable time" or some such words, or the deletion of the words suggested by the amendment.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I am not going to delay the matter further. I am going to support the amendment, and I know others will too. I think the minister has taken too hard a look at it. For instance, one does come across humanitarian cases to which this provision would apply. I myself had a case where an accused awaiting trial did not have enough money for bail, and while waiting for trial one of his children was burnt and as a result passed away. I obtained an order from a Supreme Court judge for the release of this accused without bail in order that he could attend the funeral of the child and be with the family for a few days. This is why we should give somebody other than the Parole Board the power to make such decisions, in accordance with the conditions mentioned by the minister.
Criminal Code
Surely a body designated with this sort of power would act responsibly throughout. The leader of the New Democratic party has suggested a period of 16 or 18 days would be appropriate, but as far as I am concerned you could pick a figure out of the air-10 days, 12 days or even 20 days. The draftsman of the bill provided for a period of 15 days, and the minister is sticking to that. I would ask him to reconsider it.


George James McIlraith: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Certainly.


George James McIlraith: Did the hon. member hear me say that I had checked all the authorities having to do with this subject which were available in order to see what was the actual experience in regard to this type of request, and that I had found the period was generally very much shorter than 15 days, that 15 days was not really required in order to achieve the purpose of the legislation?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to answer that question. Yes, I did hear the minister say that. I have heard ministers say before that they have checked every source and come to an opinion. That is how one bolsters one's argument. I am not implying that this is wrong. Ministers do bolster their arguments by saying they have searched the records, that they have talked to the Attorney General, that they have talked to legal officers, and so on. That is how they get legislation through and there is nothing bad about that. However, it is an argument that does not really impress me.
Perhaps experience does lead him to think that 15 days will be sufficient, but surely if some body is given the power to exercise this sort of discretion it should be exercised responsibly and within a reasonable period. That is all I am going to say; I support the amendment.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 44 (Mr. Winch):
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 110 the words ''and for a limited period not exceeding fifteen days" in lines 10 and 11 on page 120.

May 12, 1969
Criminal Code
Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion? All those in favour 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 view the nays have it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion negatived on division.
Motion No. 44 (Mr. Winch) negatived.
Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (for the Minister of
Justice) moved:
That Bill C-150, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, be concurred in.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Réal Caouette: On division.
Motion (for concurrence) agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Pursuant to special order made Friday, May 9, 1969.


John Napier Turner: that 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, be read the third time and do pass.
He said: Mr. Speaker, if I might introduce this motion in a very few words, I gather that all the amendments have been disposed of, that the report stage has been concluded and that we are now on third reading. I also gath-

er that under the rules I will have an opportunity to close the debate as well.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
minister had better be careful. I do not think that provision applies to third reading.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would point out that the minister has that right on second reading but not on third reading. There may be a disposition of the house in this regard, but I will not prejudge that matter.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He would not want to filibuster his own bill.


John Napier Turner: In answering that remark may I say what ministers often say, namely, that we have had a full and searching debate-and I think I can say that with some justification.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Full, anyway.


John Napier Turner: Yes, it was certainly full. There have been serious and deep differences of opinion on certain aspects of this proposed legislation. I listened to those opinions with great feeling because I know how sincere and profound are the convictions of members in some quarters of the house, particularly those opinions that related to measures that affect private morals and the concept of life and death.
Despite this, Mr. Speaker, I am satisfied, as I stated previously on behalf of the government, that we have placed before hon. members a bill that is sound and useful, and one that has the support of a significant majority of the people of Canada whether within or without the House of Commons.
May I just review for the record the history of this bill. Members will recall that it was preceded by Bill C-195 which was introduced by my predecessor as minister of justice, the present Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau). That bill was introduced on December 21, 1967, and it lapsed with the general election. When the new parliament was constituted I had the opportunity to review the bill, to meet with members of all parties of the house, to receive delegations from every quarter of the country and to listen to many representations. The bill was then reintroduced under the present appellation, C-150, and it contains significant changes from the earlier bill.
The present bill was introduced on December 19, 1968. Debate on second reading took place on eight different days. Second reading
May 12, 1969

and reference to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs was moved on January 23, 1969 and, as I have said, debate on the second reading stage took place on eight separate days.
On February 26, 1969, the bill received second reading and was referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. The bill was discussed in committee on nine different days, comprising a total of 15 sittings of half a day each, or seven and a half days in all. In the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs 42 motions to amend the bill were made, of which 30 were carried and 12 were negatived. They include motions made to that part of the bill for which my colleague the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith) is responsible. Six motions were made with respect to that part of the bill, of which five were carried and one negatived. Thirty-six motions were made to those parts of the bill for which I as Minister of Justice was responsible. Twenty-five of those motions were carried and 11 negatived.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I have drawn these matters to the attention of hon. members to emphasize the fact that, despite what has been said, where the amendments proposed before the standing committee that gave this bill detailed scrutiny were constructive and were improvements they were accepted by the government. As a matter of fact, one of the more significant amendments was to make the failure to take a compulsory breathalyzer test, where the statutory limit on the blood-alcohol ratio was set at 0.08 per cent, an offence punishable by way of summary conviction only. I did not approve of this amendment personally and opposed it in committee. The government was beaten in committee by a majority of committee members consisting of members from both sides of the house. I accepted the decision.
I took the position in committee and I take the position in the house now that the committee system as it is being extended and developed will improve our parliamentary process. I took the position that if members of parliament were able to cross-examine the minister and his officials and were able to bring independent, outside witnesses, as well as develop their own research in order to arrive at their own independent assessments, this was an improvement of our parliamentary procedure. If the member of parliament can benefit from independent advice, if he has the opportunity to cross-examine officials
Criminal Code
and outside witnesses, if he can oppose the minister's position on the basis of facts he has assembled, and if there is a certain relaxing of rules of party discipline, the role of the member of parliament will be enhanced. For those reasons we accepted the committee report and the government stood behind the committee report in parliament.
As I said, 25 amendments were carried with respect to that part of the bill affecting the Minister of Justice and five amendments were carried with respect to that part affecting the Solicitor General. And, of course, we stood behind the bill at the report stage.
During the course of discussion, entreaties were made to the government inside and outside parliament to split the bill. When I first assumed responsibility for the justice portfolio I said that my prime concern was not to split the bill but to ensure that the will of parliament could be assessed on every part of the bill, no matter whether it related to lotteries, gross indecency, abortion, firearm control, cruelty to animals or what have you. There are 120 clauses in the bill. I am satisfied that under the new rules, both at the report stage which we have just concluded and more particularly at the committee stage, any member of parliament or any group of members, whether they represented a party or not, has been able to move amendments in the standing committee and, pursuant to the 24-hour rule, to move amendments at the report stage in the house. Those hon. members have had the right to have those amendments debated and discussed thoroughly. The amendments have been canvassed by parliament and thoroughly scrutinized by the public opinion of Canada. Finally they have been voted on in parliament.
Once this bill becomes law I hope the country will reunite behind this legislation and accept it as part of the law of the land. On every issue in the bill that divided this house, whether it related to lotteries, gross indecency or anything else, there was no attempt to curtail debate and restrict discussion. Every part of the bill that commanded either the loyalty or hostility of hon. members, every part of the bill that divided the house, has been given full scrutiny. I believe parliament has expressed itself on those areas of the bill that divided members of this house and, presumably, that divided opinion in the country. Hon. members on both sides of the house, holding deep convictions on aspects of the bill relating to private morals and life and death, will at least be able to say to their constituents, "We did our best; we put our views to

May 12, 1969
Criminal Code
the people of Canada but parliament has decided. The bill was voted on in the house, and it may be said that the people through their parliamentary representatives have spoken. Now let us move on to other things."


An hon. Member:: How do you know it will pass?


John Napier Turner: I am in no
way anticipating.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Napier Turner: I am in no
way anticipating the results of this debate. But since this is the last time I shall have the opportunity under the rules to speak in this debate I say to the hon. member that I hope the results of this debate will heal whatever divisions there are in the country and in parliament with relation to the subject matter now before us.
Many hon. members were disturbed because this was a government bill. We said on second reading that we took the position, and we still do, that the government should take the responsibility before the people of Canada and before parliament for the reform measures being recommended in this bill. We want to make perfectly clear to the people of Canada that we accept responsibility for the bill, both before the people who do not like it and before those who approve of it. I am under no illusion, if we look at the full panoply of the omnibus bill, in thinking that all in this country approve of everything in the bill. In fact, there are few people in the country and probably very few in this house who approve equally strongly of every one of the items included in this bill. Unfortunately we have only one woman in the house. May I say to her through you, Mr. Speaker, that I commend her for the vigorous and convincing speech she made on behalf of the feminine point of view in this house. The feminine point of view has been inadequately represented here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Napier Turner: We took the responsibility for this measure of criminal law reform. We are identified with it. We will take whatever credit there is in it and bear whatever blame there is in it as well. At the same time, I repeat that I do not think there is one member of this house-and I hope there is not one member of the party I represent-who can accuse me or accuse the government of trespassing one whit on the
IMr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton).]
private rights of any hon. member. No matter whether he disagreed or agreed with any of the clauses of the bill, we did not trespass on his rights to take an independent or contrary position. We said we were not going to trespass on the conscience of any individual member of the House of Commons and we were not going to trample on the private morality of any member of the house where such hon. member expressed either his own view of the bill or the view of his constituents.
I think that we can well point to the vigorous debate promoted by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand), who disagreed with the wording of clause 18 relating to abortion. I think we can also point to the amendment submitted by the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Clermont). It is clear that the government did not carry all its own members on all amendments. That does not reflect upon individual hon. members in any way whatsoever. I understand and respect their convictions and do not think one whit less of them. Situations like this force a member to weigh his responsibility as a member of the government party and his own private conscience and convictions. It is the most difficult decision any member of parliament has to make.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Finally, I want to speak on the question of law and morals. I will reserve reviewing the whole relationship for another time. The matter of law and morals has been mentioned. I want to emphasize that anything I have said should not be taken as a belief on my part or on the part of the government, that there is no relationship between morality and the criminal law. It is self-evident that historically the principles of morality have significantly influenced the development of our criminal law. No doubt they will continue to affect the nature and scope of those laws.
On the other hand, I want to repeat what I said on second reading: all that is immoral has not been and is not now criminal. I agree with and support the view that in the field of sexual behaviour the basic function of the criminal law is to preserve public order and decency. It is to protect the citizen from what is offensive and injurious and to provide sufficient safeguards against the exploitation and corruption of others, particularly those who are especially vulnerable because they are young, weak in body or mind, inexperienced or in a state of special physical, official or economic dependence. Where poten-
May 12, 1969

tial violence, corruption, public order or the total integrity of society are involved, or where the general consensus of what is right and wrong is involved, then there is a connection between law and morals. In those certain areas of private behaviour which are more properly left to the conscience, which are in private and do not involve public order or the corruption of others, particularly the young, we are of the view that this is no place for the criminal law.
The opposition has expressed itself with great force and on occasion with great eloquence during this debate. Without in any way presuming on the good temper of the house, with almost everything having already been said, with public opinion having been generously alerted and with the position of hon. members having been very forcibly set forth to their constituents and the people of Canada, I hope we can move on to what is before us in the way of a legislative program. Parliament must operate in the balance between being a theatre-the forum of the nation-and a workshop. I want to thank hon. members for their repeated courtesies to me, despite some of the strong language throughout the debate, and call upon them to give the best conclusion to what has been a most energetic debate.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to follow the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner). I was one of the first members on this side to congratulate him when he was made Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs; therefore it is not in any spirit of affectation that I say that I have enjoyed working with him and members of his department. When we are all working for reform, we as members of parliament feel that we have achieved something so far as our dedication is concerned.
I do not want to appear to be throwing cold water on the speech the minister just made, but I want to come to grips with this great committee of which he speaks. What kind of a bill do we have before the house? It is not the kind of bill wherein an average man who is charged with an offence and does not have the money to get bail can find any solution. It does not help people of that kind. In the application of our law there is still a law for the rich and a law for the poor.
Through public relations a group behind the minister and his party painted great pictures with large brushes, for example, in Maclean's Magazine, before the bill was presented to the house. There was a beautiful
Criminal Code
portrait of the minister, and this bill was to be one of great reform. It is not. The minister will be the first to admit that nothing has been done by parliament in this lengthy debate to change the fact that people without means who are arrested for the same offences as others with means, will appear before magistrates and judges who will set bail and they will remain in jail because they have no means while the affluent person will be able to walk out of jail. Nothing in this bill solves that problem.
When we speak of the average man we do not really mean a man with an average income. As a lawyer who worked his way through university, I have seen young boys and girls charged with joyriding in an automobile or stealing an automobile, which are indictable offences. Every boy likes to put a key in a car and drive it. Boys love to drive sports cars. When appearing before a judge or magistrate he pleads guilty without the benefit of counsel, and he then finds himself at the age of 16 or 17 years with a criminal record.
There is nothing in this great bill of reform to expunge the criminal records of such boys as I have mentioned. After completing school a boy with a criminal record walks into a bank to apply for a job. He is well dressed and the manager says he would like to hire him. When the bank starts to check on the boy it is found that he cannot be bonded. There is no job for that boy because his record bounces up all the time. He may have committed two or three small offences when a young boy. What happens if he gets into something that is rather serious? Crown counsel stands up in court and says that this man is applying for bail. He was found guilty of minor offences when he was young and a rebel, but he is now at the stage of life where he has matured. Crown counsel lists all the offences of which the boy was found guilty.
I would like to see something done to expunge such records and help the youth of this nation. The human resource is the greatest resource. If this bill did something to expunge the records of young people, they would then have a chance to hold good jobs and even be able to join bar associations. Lawyers acts in all provinces contain the same prohibition. If a person has been charged with an indictable offence it is difficult for him to try and join a bar, and I do not mean the kind of bar one finds in the Chateau Laurier. If something had been done in this regard I would have said it was a great

May 12, 1969
Criminal Code
reform. It would have been something for the average man.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
What about the provision of counsel? This is covered by liaison between the federal government and the provinces. When a young boy is faced with a charge of manslaughter, it having been his bad luck to hit someone with an automobile, what kind of mouthpiece does he hire, especially if he comes from the class of people of below average income? According to statistics quoted the other day by the Leader of the N.D.P. 60 per cent of the population is in that category. That young boy cannot hire a good, experienced lawyer. In the past he would have gone before the bar of justice without counsel. Now counsel is appointed for him. Young counsel gain their experience through these appointments. That is not good enough. If this bill had come to grips with some of these subjects it would have done something to make sure that the law of Canada is applied equally to the rich and the poor.
I read in the newspapers the other day that the minister is trying to reclaim the former status of the Department of Justice and of his portfolio. Apparently it had fallen into some disrepute and its functions had been divided among other ministries. If this bill had done something about bail, expunging records, guaranteeing counsel and making appeals less costly it would have raised the status of the department.
Appealing a conviction for an indictable offence is a costly business. An appeal book costs $1 or $2 a page and may run to 500 pages. If a lawyer says to the father or mother of a young defendant who has been convicted. "I think this is a case where the judge did not instruct the jury properly and you should appeal," the first expense may be $1,000 for the appeal book. Legal aid is provided in some provinces, but really nothing is done in this great bill.
What is this bill all about? It is not that beautiful painting outlined by the great brush used by the minister. What a great painter he is, and what oratory he can exercise in this chamber when he wishes. This is a bill through which the government wants to change the law on homosexuality and abortion, questions which affect the consciences of all Canadians, but the government knew that if it wrapped up these amendments in one great cornflakes package it could put it through parliament. It is a bill tied up with 
great big bows and ribbons, but it contains no reform so far as the average man is concerned except in relation to the morals of the nation.
The minister says that no influence was exerted on the members of his party. I can just hear every little heart over there throb and members saying, "I wasn't influenced; I love my Minister of Justice." If there was no influence and if the minister was not afraid of the pie, why did he not carve it up as he promised his constituency president and the nation as a whole? I know what goes on in the workings of government and parties. Anybody who has sat in this house as long as I have cannot be so naive as to believe there is no influence through party discipline on the Liberal ranks. If there is no such influence, then it is the strangest coincidence since the first conception. I say that the bill should have been divided so that all members of parliament could have spoken according to their consciences.
I now come back to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I said I did not want to pour cold water on it. There were many amendments proposed. I managed to get several through, one of them changing the age from 17 to 16. But I defy the minister to stand in his place and say that the meat of the bill was not homosexuality and abortion. Very few amendments were permitted on those clauses without influence from the Liberal members of the committee. Those amendments that did pass did not centre on the core of the bill.


John Napier Turner: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Always from you, sir.


John Napier Turner: The hon. member was an assiduous member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. Does he recall the amendment introduced by his colleague, the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave), affecting gross indecency, where he had the word "force" added to make it perfectly clear that consent could not be obtained by force? Does he recall as well the amendment to the abortion section where the word "approved" was added to the word "accredited" so as to enlarge the range of hospitals?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I said material amendments, and through you, Mr. Speaker, I say again to the minister that there were no material amendments. I will deal with both of those
May 12, 1969

right now. Here is what a professor of the Faculty of Law of the University of Toronto had to say about homosexuality when he claimed that the government had legalized bestiality in certain circumstances:
There is only one point I would like to raise, and it is a legal point. It is factually impossible for two consenting adults to commit bestiality and clause 7 purports to say that Section 147-that is, everyone who commits bestiality-does not apply to any act committed in private between a husband and wife or any two persons. I am not quite sure what that means but in my opinion, Mr. Chairman, it does not mean anything. As it stands I think it would mean that if one person committed a sexual act with his dog he would be guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for 14 years. If two people did it they would not be guilty of any offence.
When we brought that forward Liberal members said we misunderstood it. Only one word needed to be changed in section 147 of the Code to achieve the same result as proposed in the long amendments submitted by the minister. That word was "unlawful".
Section 209 of the Criminal Code dealing with the killing of an unborn child, says:
Every one who causes the death of a child that has not become a human being, in such manner that, if the child were a human being, he would be guilty of murder, is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for life.
There was a saving section in the Criminal Code to protect a doctor who killed an unborn child in order to save the life of a mother. The minister says that that section would not apply to abortions. I say to hon. members that they should go back and read the Criminal Code. I ask hon. members to read section 209. I say that if the words "act of birth" were removed from the Code and the word "unlawful" inserted the result would be the same as proposed by the minister, except that he proposes the setting up of a committee of doctors.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Most communities do not have enough doctors to form such a committee. In any event this is a lot of nonsense, but that is what is proposed. Every accredited hospital, and most of them are, has set up a committee of doctors to analyse every operation. When such a committee finds that a doctor is taking out too many appendixes the members want to know what is taking place. So every doctor's operations are controlled by a committee in that way. To suggest that a great change is being made now in the field of abortion is complete hogwash, and even the minister must blush inwardly. This is not a great bill of reform.
Criminal Code
Pregnant young girls who think they can go to a doctor and get an abortion will find this not to be the case as a result of this law, although that is the impression they may have as a result of what they have read about it. They will first have to prove that if they have the baby it will or is likely to kill them, or that something will happen to their health. We all know that in the world today the mortality rate in respect of pregnancy is dropping lower and lower.
To illustrate what I have said in this regard, let me refer to a case I learned to of today which occurred in a city in Ontario. A young girl was charged with attempting to abort herself rather than tell her parents she was pregnant. She will not be any better off after the passage of this bill than she was before so far as obtaining an abortion from a doctor is concerned. She has been charged and she would be charged when this measure comes into effect.
There are one or two other things I should like to mention before I sit down of which I am sure the Canadian public is not aware and which have not been discussed to a great extent in the house. The first is the matter of drinking and driving. I have gone along with the proposal in the bill because one has the feeling that drinking and driving are related to population growth and an increase in the number and use of automobiles. But I wonder whether the Canadian people realize that when this bill passes there will be three offences.
It has been my experience personally and the experience of my clients that when a police officer stops an automobile he always has reasonable grounds for doing so. As a result of this measure the police officer will ask the individual to take a breathalyzer test by blowing into a bag. If the individual says he does not intend to blow into the bag, that he is driving all right and everything is fine, and he does not blow into the bag, he will be guilty of an offence.
It is my opinion and the opinion of a number of my friends that there are many people who drive with .08 per cent alcohol in their blood. I suggest that not many people leaving a cocktail party would have less. It would be interesting to stop every car coming and going tonight to determine how many drivers would be guilty of this offence. I suggest we do not have enough jails to hold them all. In any event, if you do not take the test and do not blow into the little old bag, that is prima facie evidence against you in respect of an

May 12, 1969
Criminal Code
impaired driving charge. As a result of my experience it would be pretty hard to refute or defend against such a charge.
If you do blow into the bag and it is found that you have .08 per cent alcohol in your blood you are guilty of an offence. There are three offences involved. If you refuse to take the test you are guilty of an offence; if you do take the test and you hit that .08 per cent jackpot you are guilty of an offence, and in respect of impaired driving this is prima facie evidence that you were not driving properly or that you were impaired in charge of an automobile. That will be the law, and it will be very hard for a defence lawyer to digest.
It does seem to me that at times this new law will infringe upon civil rights, but I agree with the minister and I intend to support the provision because we must come to grips with the situation. The public should know what it will have to face with the adoption of this new measure. I am not one of those lawyers who suggest that there is an infringement of civil rights every time a law is changed to deal with situations created by increases in population and increases in the use of automobiles in our urban centres. Very often these changes are necessary, and in that way I think this is a good change.
Let me conclude by saying that Canadians should not consider that this is a bill of reform. The minister must be on the same wavelength as the Prime Minister who continues day after day to promise jam for tomorrow but never jam today. He has suggested we will have a new mini-omnibus bill to cover those things I have mentioned. Why were they not covered in this bill? This is not a bill of reform. It is a bill which changes the language of the abortion law but does nothing really in that field. It does legalize homosexuality under certain circumstances. In my opinion these people should not come under the Criminal Code but should be treated in hospitals in an attempt to rehabilitate them. I am not impressed with these reforms on which we have spent 18 days.
On the other hand, I enjoyed working with the minister and other members of parliament on the Criminal Code. Many of us reviewed much of the law that we had probably forgotten. If the minister wishes to maintain his image in the future I hope he will bring in amendments in respect of the matters I have described. When this bill becomes law it will be applied in such a way we will still have one law for the rich and another for the poor. As a result of the financial environ-

ment in which I grew up I will never be happy until people in all walks of society have the law applied equally.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in the debate on third reading of this bill mainly for the purpose of dealing with one specific subject, indeed, one particular aspect of a specific subject. In reference thereto I shall be presenting an amendment.
Before dealing with the particular matter I have in mind I should like to say a few words in support of the position taken by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) when he declared that in his view parliament has done a good job on this piece of legislation. I hope I do not sound at the moment as though I am trying to win friends on both sides of the house when I say I also agree with the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) that there are a number of subjects which ought to have been included in this bill but which the government failed to lay before parliament at this time. I think particularly of our bail system, the expunging of records, the right to counsel, the abolition of corporal punishment and matters of that kind. The statement by the minister that these matters will be dealt with at a later date is too much like statements we get all the time from the government. Things are always coming soon, they are always under review and always under consideration.


John Napier Turner: Stick around.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
minister invites me to stick around and that is an invitation I intend to continue to accept.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
It seems to me that in an omnibus bill of 120 clauses dealing with many aspects of criminal law the government ought to have included these other items. However, I think the hon. member for Calgary North should be reminded that though there are things this bill did not cover, and we complained about this fact as much as he did, it is unfair to say that it deals only with sexual behaviour and sexual offences. After all, he himself has referred to the new law that has been written regarding breathalyzer tests and drunken driving, and there are also new laws regarding firearms, and so on. There are many changes in the law respecting court procedures.


John Napier Turner: Insanity.
May 12, 1969


Stanley Howard Knowles: Insanity, and so on. In other words, in 120 clauses there are only a few that have dealt with the subjects which have been the cause of most of the debate we have had.
Having paid my respects to the hon. member for Calgary North, I come back to the position the Minister of Justice took when he spoke earlier this afternoon, namely, that given the bill that was presented to parliament, parliament has done a good job on it. This is in part because parliament is a good institution most of the time, but it is also due to the fact that we have made some improvements in our rules that really first came into play, so far as legislation is concerned, in the handling of this bill. I think it has to be admitted that we had a good debate in the house on second reading. Reports from our members on the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, as well as my own observations, indicated that it did a very thorough job, and there was some surprise that it was able to do that job in less time than it had been thought would be taken.
When the bill came back to the house we had an experience at the report stage which I think the hon. member for Calgary North ought to recognize. Despite all he says about the fact that the government was unwilling to divide the bill, despite all his attempts to embarrass the Minister of Justice with statements he made on a particular occasion, the fact of the matter is that the members of the House of Commons have had the right, and have exercised that right, to express their views both in speeches and by their votes on the contentious issues.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Whatever views people may have had about changing the law with regard to homosexuality, whatever views members may have had about changing the law with regard to abortion or with regard to lotteries and other things that have been brought before us, hon. members not only had the right to put down their amendments but they were put down, we have had debate for days on end, and we have had recorded votes. Parliament has made its decision on each contentious issue standing by itself.
When we voted on abortion we were not voting on something that was in a cornflakes package; we were voting on abortion by itself. When we voted on the question of state lotteries, an instance where in my view par-
Criminal Code
liament voted the wrong way, we were nevertheless voting on that issue by itself. I am not claiming that we lost that amendment because it was in some sort of package; neither can hon. members on the government side say in defence of their vote that it was because something else was tied up with it. They voted for the principle of allowing state lotteries so far as the Criminal Code is concerned. I would be stretching the rules a bit if I were to try to rehash those debates, particularly by referring to the votes, but I think it is appropriate to say that under the rules, parliament being the kind of pretty good institution it is, we have made our decision on all these contentious issues.
When the vote is finally taken-it is really a formality-on third reading and the passing of the bill, it will be a bill on which parliament has spoken individually on each of the contentious issues. I think this is good. I think parliament deserves credit for the job it has done. I still think it is a bit of nonsense to argue that the bill should have been divided and to say that we have been asked to take a cornflakes package.
There is one point about the votes, however, that I should like to emphasize. We had a good many of them at the report stage. They came on all the various days of the week. That is quite in order because parliament sits five days a week and Standing Order 5 says that members are supposed to be here at all times and votes can come on any day. But some of the votes on Mondays and Fridays were pretty light. As a matter of fact, the number of people who voted on Friday on certain amendments having to do with abortion represented much less than a majority of the House of Commons itself. I think the votes on Friday were of the order of 108 to 35, which is a pretty overwhelming majority of those who were present. But 108 is not a very large number of members out of a house of 264. I hope, therefore-and I address myself to the acting house leader on the government side, to other house leaders and to myself-that when the vote comes on third reading there will be enough members here so that those who vote for this bill will represent not just a majority of those present but a majority of the membership of the House of Commons. I suggest not only to the house leaders but to the whips that it is rather important, with a major piece of legislation like this, that the vote be a clear and convincing one by having on the affirmative side a number that represents a clear majori-

May 12, 1989
Criminal Code
ty not just of those present of the total membership of the House of Commons.
Having said those preliminary words which were prompted, of course, by the remarks of the Minister of Justice and those of the hon. member for Calgary North, I should like to turn to the narrow point with which I would still like the house to deal. On April 21 at the report stage I moved an amendment which sought to delete from clause 13 of the bill the two subparagraphs which would make it legal for the federal or provincial governments of this country to hold state lotteries. My amendment, as I say, was moved on April 21 and is recorded in Hansard for that date at page 7774. The vote was taken the next day, April 22, and is recorded in Hansard at pages 7838 and 7839. My amendment was in fact defeated by a vote of 118 to 54. I believe that under our new rules there is one thing about which there is no question; once we have made a decision in the house, with Mr. Speaker in the chair, on an issue at the report stage, it would not be appropriate to try to revive precisely the same issue at the third reading stage. Therefore I do not intend to make that effort. I still think the house was wrong in approving of state lotteries, federal or provincial, but that decision has been made and I have to accept it, just as the minister has to accept some other decisions that were made.


John Napier Turner: The house is never wrong. You just regret the decision.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is a euphemistic way of putting it. If you want me to say I regret the decision, I will; but I also say the house was wrong. However, I want to make it clear that I feel just as strongly now as I did on April 21 and on other occasions when I spoke on this matter, that whatever views we may be willing to agree to regarding private lotteries, games of chance, bingo and all that kind of thing, I thoroughly disapprove of federal, provincial or municipal governments being put in a position where they can resort to the holding of lotteries for the raising of public revenue. I think this is a backward step of the most regressive kind. As I have said on other occasions, we get some pretty regressive taxation proposals from the present government, but this is even worse in its potentialities than some of those put forward by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson).
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
My position is not one that is held by only a few of us. I will not take the time of the

house to read it all, but on those occasions when the Winnipeg Free Press supports me editorially I think it is time to get it framed or, as my friend says, to watch out.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Watch that you are not framed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My
colleague thinks that I might be framed. I think not,, for this editorial is a very serious one. At any rate, I invite the minister to read the editorial which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press on Thursday, April 24, the heading of which is "Invitation To Folly". The Free Press editors, without qualification, expressed their regret, to use the minister's language, that the government did not see fit to accept the amendment that I moved on April 21. I say without going into it at length, because I have done so on previous occasions and because there is nothing we can do about it anyway, that I think permitting state lotteries as a means of raising public funds is a regressive step that we should not take. However, that decision has been made. But there is a detail in that decision which has not been discussed, has not been argued at any of our stages, at second reading, in the standing committee or at the report stage, namely, that clause 13 in Bill C-150 not only permits state lotteries but in the case of the federal government permits those lotteries to be held in accordance with regulations made by the Governor in Council.
It is on this point that I wish to move an amendment in a few minutes. When the minister was arguing for these subparagraphs in his bill he spoke about symmetry. He said he wanted to provide for the federal government to have the same position that was accorded to provincial governments. Again I point out that subparagraph (b) of the legislation in question says that provincial governments may conduct lotteries only in accordance with any law enacted by the legislature of the province concerned. But in the case of the federal government, the government has drawn up this bill so that once it is passed the federal government may organize any kind of lottery it wishes, and it can do so entirely by Order in Council. It can make any conditions or terms it wants. It can give away its own shirt and the country's shirt too, and it does not have to come back to parliament to get approval for the terms and conditions of any of those lotteries. It can all be done by Order in Council.
It is on this point that I am registering this lastditch objection. Despite my objection to
May 12, 1969

state lotteries in principle, I cannot do anything about that. I have to accept the fact that parliament has voted for state lotteries in principle, federal and provincial. But I do contend that I have the right to ask for this one thing to be done, for the minister's symmetry to be carried out, for the law to be changed by only a few words so that the same provision applies to the federal government as would apply to the provinces, namely, that any such lottery should be held only in accordance with a law enacted by parliament itself.
I speak of this with a fair amount of feeling so far as the subject of state lotteries is concerned. I think that if we start on this path we are responding to what the Free Press calls an invitation to folly. I think we are on a slippery slope. But I appeal even to members of parliament who favour state lotteries, particularly members on this side of the house and, I think, a few over there, to face up to the fact that one of the things that we in parliament should guard most jealously is the question of how much authority we give to the executive to act by Order in Council. If there is anything that has happened in modern times that is derogatory to the strength and the importance of parliament it is the extent to which the executive has been strengthened because it has asked for Order in Council powers and parliament has been willing to give the government those powers.
I think, for example, of a situation to which I will refer in passing. We did a pretty good job in this parliament on the National Transportation Act but we are discovering now that we gave a great deal of power to the government. We went even further; we gave a great deal of power to the Canadian Transport Commission. As a matter of fact, we gave a great deal of power to one man whose name is well known all over this house. There are other examples, but this is what we are doing here and I plead with members, even members like the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade) if he were here, to realize that this issue goes beyond the question of lotteries. It goes to the whole question of the relation between parliament and the government. We should not lightly and without serious thought and concern pass a law in which we give another wide power to the executive to act by Order in Council without having to come back to parliament for any kind of endorsation or approval whatsoever.
29180-544i
Criminal Code
Incidentally, the one paragraph in the editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press of April 24 that I would like to read zeros in on this point. It reads as follows:
The federal government pleads not merely symmetry but also virtue, since it does not now plan to set up an all-Canada lottery scheme. Mr. Turner, however, cautiously inserts two qualifying phrases, "as far as I know" and "at present". The important point is that the government, regardless of its intentions, is obtaining authority to introduce lotteries, as and when it chooses, by Order in Council. Obviously, it cannot bind its successors and it is not even clear from the minister's language, that it has bound itself for any length of time. This is a great and unwelcome change-
This is the Winnipeg Free Press talking.
-which could and should have been averted by acceptance of the Knowles amendment.
That is the amendment I moved on April 21, and since the government was not wise enough to accept that amendment I am going to give the government a chance at another one today. I am giving the government a chance to make restitution.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: They do not often get a second chance.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We
are full of compassion over here and we would like to give the government a chance to do something about its sins. As the minister knows-and I am sure he will not mind . my saying this-I spoke to him about this a few days ago, and today I sent him a copy of the amendment I propose to move because I am quite serious in what I am asking the house to do.
There are times, of course, when we move amendments knowing that there is not a chance of their being accepted, but we go through the motions anyway; we go through the ritual of making a motion, of having a vote and of being defeated, after which we can at least tell the country we tried. If one springs something like this on the government one realizes, of course, that the government has some excuse. I am not springing this on the Minister of Justice. As I said, I spoke to him about it last week, and earlier today I sent him a copy of the amendment in the hope that he will give it favourable consideration. If my amendment is accepted, it will not be an acceptance of the basic position I took on April 21 that there should not be state lotteries at all, but at least it will protect the government against the charge that it wants a blank cheque, that it wants one more Order in Council power, and that it wants to be able to bring in at any time any kind of

May 12, 1969
Criminal Code
lottery it wants without any reference to the parliament of Canada.
That is why 1 ask the house to take this matter seriously. I do not deny that it revolves around the question of state lotteries, but the question is much larger than that. It involves the whole relationship between parliament and the government, and I believe even hon. members who favour state lotteries should be on the side of my amendment. Indeed, the government itself, rather than have this voted on, should do what the Free Press said it should have done, that is, it should accept the amendment in order that this very minor change could be made.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Having indicated the nature of the amendment, perhaps I should move it at this time, seconded by my hon. friend, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis). After the tremendous accolade accorded her by the Minister of Justice I thought that having her second it might help my chances, although I might have asked any of my other hon. friends to do so.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: What about me?


Mrs. Maclnnis:: Why not the Minister of Justice himself?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
member for Vancouver-Kingsway has said that the Minister of Justice might second my amendment. That would be fine. Despite the byplay which is going on, it is an extremely serious matter, and that is the reason I now move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway:
That Bill C-150 be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, with instruction that the said committee has power to amend clause 13 of the said bill, at lines 33 and 34 on page 31, by deleting the words "in accordance with regulations made by the Governor in Council" and by substituting therefor the following words: "in accordance with any law enacted by parliament".
Clause 13 as it now reads contains in it a new section 179A of the Criminal Code, a lengthy one which I shall therefore not read. Paragraphs (a) and (b) near the beginning of that new section are the paragraphs which take state lotteries, federal and provincial, out of the realm of the Criminal Code. The language in (a), goes further and provides that federal lotteries can be held in accordance with regulations made by the Governor in Council. The language in (b) provides that as far as the provinces are concerned lotteries can be held in accordance with any law

enacted by the legislature of the province in question. I have taken the exact words the minister uses in paragraph (b) and asked him to put them in paragraph (a). In other words, I have asked him to go along with the procedure which he himself has advocated in connection with this legislation; I have asked him to provide that as far as federal state lotteries are concerned it should be recognized that the law would remove them from any criminality, but that any law providing for the holding of a lottery should come before parliament itself.
I thank the house for its attention to this matter. I do not try to hide my concern with regard to the economic and social effects of such lotteries. I think they are wrong. But parliament has made its decision on that point. Over and above that issue is the question of the authority of parliament over the executive, and I call upon every member of this house who believes parliament should be supreme to support my amendment and, by doing so, to declare that lotteries which, we say, may be held by the federal government, may be held only when the government comes to parliament for the necessary authority.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before putting the amendment, may I say I have had an opportunity to consider it. It would seem to me that the most fundamental objection to it was discussed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, namely, whether it raises a matter which has been previously disposed of at the report stage.
I see that the Minister of Justice is anxious to rise. I must say that having considered the amendment I do not see that an objection on this ground can be held in the present case. However, I am open to argument and if the minister is anxious to rise I will hear from him.


John Napier Turner: With the greatest respect, Your Honour, I was hoping you might have held that point open until I had been given an opportunity to argue it. However, in case you are open to second thought or, if I may say so with respect, to more mature thought on this subject, I would be glad to address myself to what I believe to be the fundamental objection to the admissibility of this amendment, reserving my comments as to the substance of the proposal; at this stage I do not wish to engage in a debate on the substance, though I shall be prepared to do so later if necessary.
May 12, 1969

Parliament has long been guided by the principle that once the view of the house has been obtained on a matter it cannot be expressed again on the same subject. I wish to refer Your Honour to citation 200(1) to be found at page 167 of Beauchesne, fourth edition:
An old rule of parliament reads: "That a question being once made and carried in the affirmative or negative, cannot be questioned again but must stand as the judgment of the house." Unless such a rule were in existence, the time of the house might be used in the discussion of motions of the same nature, and contradictory decisions would be sometimes arrived at in the course of the same session.
May I now refer Your Honour to citation 415 (4) of Beauchesne to be found at page 287:
On the third reading of a bill, an amendment to refer back to the committee of the whole must not tend to change the principle approved on the second reading.
I think you can read parenthetically here, "back to the standing committee" because the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would agree, I am sure, that under the new rules the standing committee replaces the committee of the whole.
Let us come now to the amendment. The amendment suggests substituting for the words "in accordance with regulations made by the Governor in Council" the words "in accordance with any law enacted by parliament". I submit to Your Honour that in effect this amendment really does nothing except to eliminate paragraph (a) of section 179AC1). It deletes the words "in accordance with regulations made by the Governor in Council" and in doing so strikes at the very essence of the paragraph relating to a lottery scheme conducted or managed by the government of Canada.
The words "in accordance with any law enacted by parliament" do not, in substance, mean anything. If parliament is supreme it can always enact a law. No statute passed by this house need last forever; it can be repealed in a subsequent session or by a subsequent parliament. So when the hon. member says we should substitute the word "law" for the word "regulation" what he is really saying is: let us make it necessary for a law to be passed in future to bring this into effect.
Mr. Speaker, laws can always be enacted by parliaments of the future. Parliament being supreme, this amendment is redundant. It is what logicians call tautological. It is
Criminal Code
redundant. In terms of the constitutional practice of this country, the effect of the amendment is really to strike out the words "in accordance with regulations made by the Governor in Council" and, by extension, the clause as a whole.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
The attention of Your Honour should also be directed to amendment No. 10 moved at the report stage and to be found in Routine Proceedings for Wednesday, April 16 on page ii. This was the amendment put by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre at the report stage. It sought to strike paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) from the first subsection of section 179A. In other words, what the hon. member attempted to do at the report stage was to strike the provisions relating to a possible federal lottery scheme and relating to a possible provincial lottery scheme from the bill.
This time the hon. member is saying: "I will leave the provincial law alone but I will try to get at the federal aspect again under paragraph (a). The way I will try to get at it is by eliminating the power to make regulations and inserting the power to make a law. I submit to Your Honour that parliament always has the power to make a law, and therefore the effect of this amendment is to eliminate paragraph (a). The effect of the amendment is to fall back on a decision that the house made with respect to amendment No. 10 at the report stage.
I submit that what the hon. member failed to do at the report stage because he lost the decision of the house he is now trying to do under the guise of substituting the word "law" for "regulation". The word "law" in relation to the supremacy of parliament does not mean anything. He is really trying to do indirectly what he failed to do directly some weeks ago.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the efforts of the Minister of Justice to assert that this amendment is out of order, and if I may I should like to deal with his points seriatim.
First, the minister relies on citation 200, paragraph (1), of Beauchesne's fourth edition, to be found at page 167, which says that a question once being made and carried either one way or the other cannot be question again but must stand as the judgment of the house. I could not agree more. That is why I not only agree but assert that decisions that we have made at the report stage cannot be


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain briefly the motives for which the Ralliement Creditiste deems acceptable the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
I feel I have to participate in this debate on procedure after hearing the hon. minister say that this amendment is useless, first because it raised again a matter already settled by the house, and second because it is useless for the house to make sure that the matter will come under an act passed by parliament and not under regulations established by the governor in council.
Mi*. Speaker, we find those two arguments unacceptable. We refuse the first one, namely, that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is a repetition and would bring again into question a previous decision of the house.
Indeed, as was said by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has already introduced an amendment to remove completely from the Criminal Code clause 13 which provided for
May 12, 1969

Criminal Code
the addition of section 179A, which would authorize the legalization of lottery systems in Canada.
The motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre reads in part as follows:
-be amended by deleting from clause 13 thereof, paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of the proposed new section 179a of the Criminal Code.
Later on in the day, we voted with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in favour of that amendment while other members voted against it. At that time, it was a matter of deciding whether or not we should legalize lotteries and, therefore, it was a question of principle.
Now, the amendment under study obviously proposes the rejection or acceptance of lotteries, just as the amendment did which was then proposed and appears in the Proceedings for April 22, 1969.
In fact, this amendment means, to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that the house has decided by a majority vote to legalize lotteries.
The amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre proposes the deletion of the words "in accordance with regulations made by the governor in council" and the substitution therefor of the following words "in accordance with any law enacted by parliament".
To my mind, the amendment does not repeat the one that was rejected on April 22, 1969; instead, it proposes the referral of the bill to the committee with the instruction that it is authorized to substitute for the expression "governor in council" the expression "parliament".
Mr. Speaker, I believe the argument put forward a moment ago by the Minister of Justice is not valid since the amendment concerned is not being brought before the house.
The minister said that a decision made by the governor in council was always equivalent, for practical purposes, to a decision made by parliament, which is not true. A legislation has a much wider scope and parliament is much more responsible for a law it has enacted than for a cabinet decision. In fact, the cabinet, if it is responsible, may make a decision which goes against the will of parliament, as has happened in the past.
Mr. Speaker, we admit that this amendment is in order, and we would be glad if Your Honour would also accept it so that we may deal with it.

[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I thank hon. members for their contributions. In the light of their contributions I think it would be advisable for the Chair to take the amendment under advisement and give a ruling at eight o'clock tonight. The latter point the Minister of Justice raised regarding the effect of the amendment on the sense of the clause is important. I have not considered it enough.
I should like to discuss it with Mr. Speaker and the officers at the table and give a ruling at eight o'clock.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have one thought, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to delay debate by argument. I am happy you took the position you did. If one looks at the amendment the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre moved on April 21 I think it will be seen, as the Minister of Justice has said, that the amendment sought to delete from clause 13 of the bill paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) of proposed new section 179A. Basically, the effect of the present amendment would be very similar to that of his previous amendment.
The Minister of Justice referred to Beau-chesne, saying that one cannot move substantially the same amendment affecting a specific subject matter twice in any one session of parliament. I ask Your Honour to examine what took place with respect to the Crowsnest Pass freight rates which were considered in a bill piloted through the house by a previous minister of transport, Mr. Pickersgill. On the occasion in question, when the Crowsnest Pass freight rates were being considered in committee of the whole, the opposition had more members in the house than the government and defeated that part of the bill. Mr. Pickersgill is not in the house so I can call him by name. He retaliated by introducing an amendment to try to correct the defeat. In that amendment the Crowsnest freight rates were called "statutory rates". At the time we argued that those statutory rates were still the Crowsnest Pass freight rates, and no matter whether you were considering one rhubarb pie or another, you were still considering rhubarb pie. The chairman on that occasion, who is not now a member of the house, ruled against us. The very wise Speaker of the house, who still occupies the chair, overruled the chairman and agreed that one cannot introduce the same matter twice in one session of parliament.
Actually the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is attempting to move an

May 12, 1989
Criminal Code
amendment here which would have the same effect as his previous amendment if it had been passed.


An hon. Member:: Hogwash.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I hear an hon. member saying "hogwash". When we say things others disagree with, they retaliate by shouting hogwash. At any rate, the Crowsnest Pass decision is too recent to be included in Beau-chesne. Nevertheless I ask Your Honour to look at Hansard to see what happened. In my opinion the Minister of Justice is right. Your Honour's ruling ought to be made after careful consideration; otherwise we may see at this stage a duplication of all the previous amendments moved, and even I could not stand that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am very glad, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you are proposing to consider this matter before making a final ruling and are going to confer with Mr. Speaker. The comments made by the hon. member for Calgary North really are not germane. He contended, as did the Minister of Justice, that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has an effect exactly similar to that of the amendment of April 21. On that occasion the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre sought to delete from clause 13 of the bill paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) of the proposed new section 179A. Let us examine paragraph (a). It seeks to do two things, the first being to remove a state lottery operated by the federal government from the strictures of the Criminal Code. Section 179 of the Code says that you cannot have a state lottery and that to have a state lottery would be a criminal offence. Paragraph (a) of new section 179A says that the federal government may operate a state lottery. The removal of that paragraph was the primary reason for the amendment which he moved on April 21.
But paragraph (a) also says that such a lottery can be set up by the federal government without their being any reference to parliament. In this instance my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre is not asking that the provision stating that the federal government may set up lotteries be struck out; he has accepted the expression of opinion of parliament on this matter. All he is asking in his amendment is that the second provision of paragraph (a), namely, that the federal government may set up such a lottery by Order in Council, be removed.

One must remember that paragraph (a) has two parts and that the hon. member is submitting that only the second part having to do with the setting up of lotteries by Order in Council should be removed. He agrees that the whole question of whether lotteries shall be permitted has been considered by the house. We are not debating that part and the amendment does not seek to change that. It merely seeks to remove from the legislation a power that would enable the cabinet by Order in Council to set up lotteries without reference to parliament. I hope this distinction will be kept in mind when Your Honour is taking this matter under advisement.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, may I draw your attention to what I consider the central point here. No one, including the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, will disagree that any amendment which by its nature is repetitious or which revives something that has already been decided by the house is clearly out of order. Citations 200 and 415 of Beauchesne were referred to, as well as several others. The arguments seemed to be directed to the point of having the house reconsider something or revive something after it has made a decision.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister permit a question? I do not wish to deflect him. Would be not agree those citations do not really apply? We are in a new field. None of those citations was written after the introduction of the report stage. It does not change the hon. member's argument, but should not the point be noted?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I agree. I am sure the hon. member will also agree that the Speaker's rulings on a number of occasions since the new rules came into effect have been that no amendment is in order if it revives any subject matter upon which a decision has been made. This is still a fact whether one uses Beauchesne's fourth edition, the Standing Orders or any other authority.
I wish to deal with the other point briefly. When the house at the report stage made a decision to reject the amendment, specifically to reject the deletion of paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection 1 of new section 179A, clause 13, that decision did in fact reinstate, if that is the right word, that law respecting lotteries in the Criminal Code. It will be part of the law of Canada. What the hon. member is now doing is attempting to prevent the operation
May 12, 1969

or use of that law through the making of regulations by the Governor in Council, which is a normal procedure following passage of legislation by the house. In my view the effect, if we were to accept his amendment, would be to negate the power the house obviously wanted to confer on the Governor in Council to make regulations so that this part of the law could be operative. The effect would be to take away the power that this house wished to grant to the Governor in Council to make regulations. This, of course, was rejected by the house when it voted on that amendment at the report stage.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If there are no further contributions, the Chair once again thanks hon. members for their contributions. Before reverting to the debate on the motion for third reading of Bill C-150, I might advise the house as to the business to be dealt with at the time of adjournment.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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 as follows: the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Stafford)-Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-ban on tobacco advertising; the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart)-Transport-Chapleau, Ont.- closing of part of C.P.R. shops.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner that 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, be read the third time and do pass.
André-Gilles Fortin: We are now
on third reading of the omnibus bill intended to legalize unrestricted abortion and homosexuality and quite a number of other practices, since it contains over 120 clauses.
Criminal Code
When the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) rose to move third reading, and when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre took the floor after him, both claimed to be the champions of democratic parliamentary rights, emphasizing the fact that hon. members had been free to talk and to vote on the various clauses of the bill.
I do not share the opinions of these two hon. members for the simple reason that they are not consistent with the facts.
The Minister of Justice and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre stated essentially that members had had the opportunity to express their views separately on every part of the bill. That is not correct.
On second reading and at the committee report stage, more than 44 amendments came before the house. They were combined in order to facilitate the discussion of this legislation and the voting procedure.
Now, Mr. Speaker, every time we voted on the amendments, the members did not vote necessarily for or against such or such clause of the bill, but rather for or against each amendment. To say that the members had the opportunity of voting freely on every one of the clauses in the bill does not tally with the facts, since the members did not really have to vote for or against such or such a clause of the bill, but for or against the various amendments.
And the same could be said about the committee stage, the second reading and the committee's report stage.
We did not have any opportunity yet to vote for or against such or such a clause of the bill.
The members have not have the chance yet to say whether they approved or rejected abortion.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
They could only vote for or against such and such an amendment moved by such and such a member and, therefore, what the Minister of Justice and the member for Winnipeg North Centre said, and I want to stress this point, is not correct.
As for us, as far as this disputable bill is concerned-because we are not at all sure that the bill meets the wishes of most Canadians and that the majority of Canadians have asked for it-we are inclined to think that it was not even asked or wanted by the people, but that it was forced upon us by a strong-minded prime minister and by officials who do not always carry out the wishes of the people.

May 12, 1969
Criminal Code
It is unfortunate to realize that those officials are not responsible to the people, that they are not answerable to the people. Members of the house, the cabinet and the government are answerable to the people. That is why we must enact laws that people want, that meet their needs because we are answerable to the people for our actions, our statements and our attitude in the house.
In view of those principles, we urge for the umptieth time the minister and the government to allow a vote on third reading on each and every clause of the bill. To vote on 120 different clauses is unthinkable. It is unthinkable and inconceivable. A member cannot be asked to vote on the bill as a whole on third reading. It is impossible to do so, unless one is irresponsible.
We would like to ask once again the Minister of Justice to seriously consider our request. We do not want to defeat the government. Such is not our intention.
We would like to pass a proper legislation that meets the wishes and the needs of the Canadian people, but we cannot imagine how members could vote for or against questions as different as the control of firearms, parimutuel systems, lotteries, breathalizer tests, abortion, homosexuality and what not, included in the omnibus bill.
Mr. Speaker, who is so intelligent as to imagine that a responsible member of parliament can vote on a bill that contains so many various subjects which have nothing in common except that the Criminal Code deals with them?
The fact that capital punishment, flogging, homosexuallity and lotteries are regulated by the Criminal Code is not enough to have us vote on those various subjects lumped together. It is antiparliamentary, Mr. Speaker. Hon. members should not be obliged to vote on this bill.
If the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) denies the freedom of expression and of vote within the Liberal party, it is his right, and he will be judged by his followers. The Prime Minister has no right to force opposition members, over whom he has no authority, to vote for or against the bill as a whole.
We appeal to the Minister of Justice who, in our opinion, is a responsible man-at least we hope he is, and we are inclined to think so-to allow a vote on every subject dealt with in the bill.
Let us divide the bill by subjects. Lotteries, abortion, homosexuality have nothing to do 
with each other. Firearms control and breathalizer have nothing to do with homosexuality and the other matters the bill is dealing with. We sincerely would like to be able to decide freely on each aspect of the bill.
It could easily be done. The dignity of Parliament would be preserved. Parliament is the ideal place where the rights of democracy can be enforced and where members can make a decision on various clauses of legislation, freely and with a clear conscience. The procedure pertaining to the vote must conform with the tradition of the house and the rights of members. Let us vote separately on each of the various matters of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, we feel this is fundamental. The most important stage of a bill according to the new rules and procedure, is third reading, because it is going to end a debate that in this case may have been hard and long, but that was surely dynamic.
As far as we are concerned, we have defended the rights of democracy in the house. We have also been able to express the views of the majority of Canadians, whether the minister thinks so or not.
The government is proving its dishonesty in compelling us to vote for or against the bill as a whole. If the Prime Minister wishes to rule the roost and to compel Liberal members to vote on the bill as a package that is his right. He will be judged accordingly.
But he does not have the right to impose upon us a procedure that conflicts with our interests and with the basic rights of democracy which have always been acknowledged in this house.
We demand once more to be able to vote- and the right

an elementary, fundamental right-to vote on each section of the bill separately.
A vote on the breathalyzer issue will mean a vote on the breathalyzer issue. This vote will not bear the same consequences, from a social and economic standpoint, as will the vote on abortion and homosexuality.
I would like to put forward another argument. As for myself, I am in favour of the provisions on the breathalizer, since it would protect drivers.
I am entirely against the proposal aimed at legalizing abortion. The Prime Minister, with the procedure which he is enforcing in this house, places me in the following situation; If I vote conscientiously and responsibly in favour of the breathalizer, in accordance with the wish of the constituents of Lotbiniere
May 12, 1969

whom I represent, the procedure imposed by the government would make me vote at the same time in favour of abortion.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this would be flagrantly inconsistent with all statements which I have made in this house. I cannot, with a clear conscience, vote on the bill as a whole, if it is not subdivided. Why? Because we of the opposition have had nothing to say regarding the planning of this procedure and particularly because the bill, as everybody knows, has much more serious implications than one might think at the social, family, economic, human and, finally, moral levels.
We must consider these implications before voting, and we should have the possibility of making a separate decision on each of the various aspects of the bill. We have not had the chance to do it yet, since, to date, the house has only managed to reach a decision on the amendments to the bill and not on the bill itself.
At the third reading stage, I had decided to speak to the house quite objectively.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
First of all, we are rejecting abortion. Nobody, not even the minister, has no longer any doubts about this, for approving abortion, in my opinion, is no answer. Those who favour abortion are much more concerned with its social, psychological and economic aspects than with its therapeutic implications as the minister would have it. Even in the therapeutic field the bill is supposed to cover, it goes further still then what the minister suggests: for it has social, psychological and economic implications. The case of the unmarried mother, for instance, of rape, of incest, of alcoholism, of backward couples, of those who are unaware of birth control means or for whom these means have not worked, of couples whose income is too low to allow them the burden of another child, of the problem couples, of the pregnant, discouraged mother overwhelmed by the burden of a large family, of the woman who simply refuses to have another child because it will jeopardize her future career or her present job. And we have also the case of people simply refusing to accept a child because they want more social amenities. These are so many cases, overlooked by this bill, these are so many problems to which it gives no answer.
But let us ask ourselves whether the passage of this legislation will settle the problem in all the cases I just mentioned or if it is not going to make it worse.
Criminal Code
It is a known fact-and statistics prove it- that from 50,000 to 80,000 illegal abortions are performed each year in Canada. Now, we must ask ourselves if passing this legislation will solve the problem of clandestine abortions or at least reduce it. One must admit that there is much cause for perplexity, as far as the effects of this bill are concerned, since it does not suggest any effective solution to the clandestine abortion problem nor to the other cases I mentioned earlier.
If the legislator sincerely wishes to reduce the number of clandestine abortions, and ensure respect for life and the human being, he will not achieve the respect for life through the passage of obscure half-measures such as these, left to everybody's free interpretation. The solution lies in going to the root of the problems. We must discourage abortion by getting down efficiently and with determination to the real problems.
Abortion is not a solution in itself. What is regrettable, in my opinion, is that with this bill the Canadian people are under the impression that abortion is a solution, while to me, it would likely increase the problem.
There is only one way to deal with the problem in all the cases I have mentioned. It is not abortion, as the minister would have us believe, and I shall try to explain why quickly.
First, we should see to it that the education of our society is ensured and we should pass legislation intended to protect the family and the child to be born. Instead of putting in people's head the idea that their problem could be settled simply by getting rid of a child who would be a drag on them, let us participate in their education in order to build a better society based on sound values. Let us teach them that a child is not a charge nor a calamity but rather a desirable thing upon which we must build our society.
It is important first to instill into them a sense of well-balanced sexuality and a sense of love but not as it is presented in the movies, in novels and in advertising. I have noticed that for several members abortion represents a very weak aspect of a poorly-balanced sexuality while in fact abortion is rather a problem which is added to the others facing the Canadian family.
Love must not be considered as a series of short-lived adventures as the abortion proposal seems to infer: Let us enjoy life, let us play today without any respect for the human person and tomorrow let us kill. It is not on such a concept of morality that we shall build

May 12, 1969
Criminal Code
a country and promote a healthy and worthwhile education. But we must force upon the people and the government the necessity of having a balanced and controlled sexuality and of fostering a conscious and responsible love.
Nobody can maintain in this house that to be in favour of abortions on request is a responsible act, because it means escaping our responsibilities. Let us build but let us build on firm ground.
Sexuality must be controlled love must be conscious of what it must offer and of what it receives. Thus, it will not be necessary to perform abortions on unmarried mothers, because every effort will have been made to reduce their number. That is the great difference between those who favour this legislation and those who oppose it.
Those who favour it do not ask themselves whether it will decrease the number of unmarried mothers or solve their problems.
On the other hand, those who oppose it would like to see, instead of this measure to legalize abortion, some legislation that really stands a chance of solving the problem.
We must stir in everyone a sense of respect for life, and this parliament must set the example.
If people understood all that abortion entails, a great number would already be willing to oppose it. We must abhor everything that can destroy the human being, for instance, war, murder, crime, and abortion on a large scale, rather than those cases where it is a question of saving the life of the mother when this can almost certainly be established by the doctor.
Another solution might be to instil in couples an awareness of their role as procreators, as responsible fathers and mothers, conscious of their role, instead of being the toys of their uncontrolled sex urge and of trying to destroy today the life they transmitted themselves yesterday.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
That is a concept of life that the legislators should endeavour to translate into laws and to establish as a guiding principle in order to encourage the Canadian people to build the country on a solid foundation. To this end, one must be prepared to give financial aid if necessary and to establish the required organizations.
In my opinion, it is only at that level that the State should interfere. Is it not the State's duty to protect the welfare of Society instead
I Mr. Fortin.]
of destroying the sense of family responsibility? Married couples should be helped to fulfill their roles as parents and educators. The State must supply the necessary machinery for this form of education, including all guidance and protection services at all levels of society.
Many organizations strive, by every means available, to make people understand that love is a great thing that must be cultivated, that it involves give and take, that it is not simply a pleasure but that it also entails duties and responsibilities. If on the one hand, private organizations do their utmost unstintingly to help the Canadian family achieve its noble purposes and if, on the other hand, the federal government destroys this voluntary work, we shall get nowhere.
Let us then work together in an effort to enhance the status of Canadian life, of family life, and of the human being. Let such an education materialize in educational courses for young people, in order to prepare them gradually for their role of married people, of responsible parents. We must make available to our young people a more immediate preparation for married life through appropriate courses, with subsidies if need be. The government should co-operate with private organizations in order to help young couples build their home on a sound basis. Those are the reasons why we are opposing the provisions on abortion.
At the same time, we have to suggest effective measures to help our families. For example, we should recommend the establishment of family courts, of advisory centres for the benefit of couples who experience difficulties. Today instead, couples in trouble either for social, family or marital reasons are left on their own, without any help. The government stays out of those problems, not through lack of a sense of responsibility, but because it has never been made aware of the question, and that it does not provide in its legislation anything in that respect.
The government should provide in its legislation a real assistance to homes, families and young people experiencing difficulties.
The Minister of Justice already had an investigation made on juvenile delinquency in Canada. The report has been on the shelves since I do not know when, and it will never be used. However, in order to make the people believe that we were looking after those juvenile delinquents, who might have had no opportunities, a very well thought-out report has been published; the authors laid their
May 12, 1969

finger on the problem and came up with clear-cut solutions to matters that we have been discussing here tor more than three weeks, but that report has been shelved. And, at the same time, the minister tell us that the findings of surveys conducted in other countries have been studied and that he and the government reached the conclusion that abortion should be legalized. As for our own surveys, the reports are shelved. They deal with that very problem, but we disregard them.
Those reports should at least be read, because the problem of juvenile deliquency is a serious one and it is not to be settled by such legislation; the sense of responsibility and respect for others should be instilled in people.
We must lead man to his genuine development rather than pushing him back and only with laws respectful of the human being will we help man to progress.
Instead of trying to copy what the British parliament and others are doing, why do we not try to devise systems that would be truly Canadian. Let us lead the way with new ideas. Let us not make any mistake about that. Those methods, which I think are true, will be much more expensive than the ones proposed by the government, but they will surely bring better results. There lies the whole difference.
I should like to be brief. But I wish to come back to what I was talking about at the beginning of my remarks and tell the minister that we cannot accept to vote on the whole undivided bill at the third reading stage. In my opinion, this goes without saying and he will admit it.
In all fairness, no member, whether from the government party, the Progressive Conservative party, the New Democratic Party or ours, can vote on so many varied questions as breathalizer tests, lotteries, etc. We must, as members, vote sensibly for or against breathalizer tests, lotteries and abortion, with all due respect for individual freedom.
If the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or the Minister of Justice refuse to recognize that it rests with parliament to vote honestly, let them give instructions to government members, if they wish, but they should not compel the opposition to vote for or against the bill. They have no right to do so. The government has no right to impose such a procedure on us.
I urge the minister once again to respect our rights. We insist a great deal on that, because in our opinion, it is essential that the
Criminal Code
right of each member to vote freely be respected in the house, if not, our only conclusion will be that government wanted at any cost to have this bill passed and that it is a dictatorial and undemocratic government.
I challenge any hon. member, especially government members who are in the same predicament as we are, to prove that I am wrong. They are faced exactly with the same problem as we are, Mr. Speaker. Let them explain whether it is really possible for them to vote for or against the whole bill? Let just one of them rise and tell us whether he can do it or not. If they are honest with themselves, they will admit that there is no connection whatever between abortion, the breathalizer and so on.
We can at least ask the hon. Minister of Justice that on third reading hon. members be allowed to vote on the various parts of the bill. I keep on about it, because in my opinion, from the procedural standpoint, Parliament has been cheated from the word go. They wanted us to believe that Parliament had been able to exercise its rights, that we were able to vote on each of the various sections of the bill.
The minister said earlier that hon. members could have taken a decision on the various clauses of the bill. This is quite untrue, and once more I protest against such falsehood; because actually, members of Parliament have not yet voted in the house or in committee on any of the sections of the bill. We have only had the opportunity to vote on the various amendments.
Let us be honest once and for all, and admit that members were not free to express themselves on that matter. Could the hon. members, those on the government side especially, tell us if they are really free to vote sincerely and honestly on the bill as a whole.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
The minister is looking at me and listening to me right now. I thank him. It seems to me that such a request is in fact acceptable and in order. As for the procedure he has in mind, it is not in order. We cannot, because of its very serious consequences, vote on the bill as a whole.
At the stage of the third reading, the minister should subdivide the bill according to subject-matters and let us vote separately on the various sections.
That should allow the Liberals, Progressive Conservatives and New Democrats to decide in favour of abortion. We shall vote against

May 12, 1969
Criminal Code
but that should not prevent us from taking a stand on the breathalyser since we support the clause dealing with the breathalyser.
The minister puts us in an awkward position; we will have to vote against the breathalyser and against firearm control, simply because the bill contains some clauses which encroach on the hon. members' freedom.
Hon. members as conscientious and as able as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, an expert in procedure, who asserts himself every day, since he was elected to this house, as the champion of the rights of Parliament, and also the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), and all the other supporters of democracy, will recognize that we cannot, if we wish to be honest, vote on the bill as a whole. We should be permitted to vote separately on the various subjects dealt with in the bill.
If however the minister rejects our suggestion, let him tell us what link there is between the breathalyser and abortion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: wonder if the hon. member would allow me to ask a procedural question? Would he not agree that on Friday of last week we had a clear opportunity to vote on the government's proposals on abortion when we voted for or against the amendment moved by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau)?


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I support the comments of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. However, I do not necessarily think that the hon. members can really vote separately and freely on the divided bill. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will see that the sections relating to abortion form a complete entity. They could make up a bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: thank the hon. member for permitting me to ask a supplementary question. Did not the amendment of the hon. member for Shefford specifically deal with the abortion package, namely clause 18, and have we not therefore had a clear vote on that, which was not mixed up with anything else?


André-Gilles Fortin: As I have said, since the beginning of this debate, we have introduced only amendments. The house has had to vote on these amendments, but it has not yet had the 
opportunity to vote on the substance itself of the amendment.
When the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has introduced an amendment at the report stage regarding lotteries, it has been briefly discussed. As concerns his amendment regarding lotteries, which I consider complete, it tended to delete:
-from clause 13 thereof paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) of sub-section (1) of the proposed new section 179a of the Criminal Code.
When the house voted on April 22nd on his amendment regarding lotteries, we voted in favour of the amendment which aimed to delete from the bill the sections regarding lotteries. Therefore his amendment dealt with the whole section.
As to the majority of amendments brought forward, they were limited, inasmuch as they did not aim to delete a whole section, but a word or two only. In brief, the house did not have to make a decision on the subject matter of the bill, but rather on the amendment aiming to a slight amendment of the bill.
In my opinion-and the member for Winnipeg North Centre is aware of it-we did not have the opportunity to make a decision on abortion. We voted on the amendment, and the same goes for the other clauses. Actually, we could make up a complete act with the clauses relating to abortion only.
All the clauses concerning lotteries, firearms control and pari mutuel could make up a bill as well.
The minister, with the assistance of his advisors could split the bill so that it might be possible to vote subsequently on the various clauses, and the minister will agree with me on that point.
I would ask the minister to tell us if this is possible, and if hon. members really had the opportunity to express freely their opinion on the various parts of this bill. We did not, and there is no relation at all between abortion, homosexuality, breathalizer, etc. The minister should not try to make us believe that voting on amendments means approving the bill.


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


Mr. Ray Perrault (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, this has been a long and important debate. I am not one of those who have been critical of those who have spoken at great length in the debate of the past few days nor
May 12, 1969

have I been critical of the longevity of the discussion of this bill. I have not participated in this debate until now. I have listened with interest to members of all parties. I think some very fine speeches have been made by government members, by members of the official opposition, by members of the New Democratic Party and by some of the members of the Creditiste party. I think that members of this house respect the persuasions represented here and we have listened with interest and respect to those opinions. We are legislating in an area of great sensitivity,-this has been said many times in the past-an area involving deeply held philosophical and religious beliefs.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before recognizing the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault), I might perhaps be allowed to make a statement in respect of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) this afternoon.
I have now had an opportunity to reflect on the amendment proposed by the hon. member and, in particular, to study it in the context of the bill itself. Having done so, I must confess that it gives rise to certain difficulties. Let me read the bill as it would stand if amended by the proposal of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Section 179(A)(1) would read as follows-
-for the government of Canada to conduct and manage a lottery scheme in accordance with any law enacted by parliament and for that purpose for any person in accordance with such regulations or anything described in paragraphs-*
And so on.
There are certain difficulties as to meaning and consistency; I shall not go into them now, but would refer hon. members to May, 17th edition, page 550, paragraph six.
My most serious objections are on the grounds raised by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner). The purpose of this bill is to authorize the government of Canada to conduct and manage a lottery scheme in accord-
Criminal Code
ance with regulations made by the Governor in Council. The effect of the amendment, I submit, would be to strike at the essence of that proposal and would restore the law to the state it was prior to the legislation now before us. In other words it amounts, in my opinion, to an expanded negative. For this reason, and with regret, the Chair cannot put the amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: you had called on me, Mr. Speaker, I would have said that I regret it, too.


Raymond J. Perrault: As I stated before the house rose at six o'clock, this has been a prolonged debate but no one will deny that it has been a worthwhile and important debate. I am not among those who have been critical of the protracted nature of the discussion of this measure. Members of all parties, many of whom have spoken extremely well, have expressed strong personal opinions. The depth of their feeling is reflected in the number of days and hours the debate has taken. There have been few occasions in the history of the Canadian parliament on which such a great range of emotions has been so deeply involved.
The subject of abortion, perhaps deservedly so, has been accorded most of the attention of hon. members. I am convinced-and I believe this conviction is shared by the large majority of members of this house-that the overwhelming number of Canadian mothers will continue to accept the responsibility of parenthood in good conscience as they have in the past, regardless of some of the statement we have heard during this debate. I am equally convinced that the amendments contained in this bill, within the framework of the various safeguards, qualifications and conditions, will not lead to the wide range of serious abuses predicted by some members, particularly by those to my far left.
Most of us here have great confidence in Canadian mothers and in Canadian parents, as well as in the Canadian medical profession. Indeed, our confidence may be greater than that demonstrated by our friends to the far left in the course of this debate.


Mr. Peters:: Geographically, you mean.


Raymond J. Perrault: Geographically, I mean. Having said all this, however, I feel in conscience impelled to ask the government, indeed, to urge the government, as we give third reading to this bill, to see that careful and complete records are compiled over the next five

May 12. 1969
Criminal Code
years so that we may measure the effect and impact, both direct and indirect, of the amendments contained in this bill. This should be done in co-operation with the appropriate authorities across Canada at all levels. Should unsatisfactory trends be indicated as stemming from any of these amendments to the Criminal Code, then let the government move courageously and immediately to introduce further amendments to strengthen the code to the end that the quality of Canadian life and the quality of Canadian society may continue to be improved. This, surely, should be the reason for legislation in this house, to strengthen the family and to strengthen society in order that we may build a better nation.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
Having suggested that a five-year test be established, let me point out that the British did not hesitate to establish a five-year test in connection with the proposal to abolish capital punishment. While I suggest this test, let us never hesitate to amend the legislation if necessary to correct weaknesses or to remove sources of possible abuse which may become apparent before the five year interval has expired.
I must tell hon. members of this house that on two or three occasions I have discussed with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) this proposal carefully to review and survey the effects of the bill in the most intensive way over the course of the next few months and years to make sure there are no abuses. For example, in the area of abortions, there should be a review to ensure that we do not see in Canada the establishment of an abortion mill of the kind that is plaguing some nations of the world at the present time.
This afternoon the minister gave the assurance that, following passage of this bill, he would closely review and survey the effect it is having on the people of Canada. I feel sure the minister will take appropriate steps to bring in further amendments to make certain that the quality of Canadian life is protected.
I am pleased to have this assurance, and I think all of us should welcome it. I have known the Minister of Justice for some considerable period of time. He has spent a great deal of time in my native province, and I know him to be a man of considerable conscience. He is known as that type of man to many of those who occupy the opposition benches. He is a good Minister of Justice.
Anybody who assumes that the last few weeks or months have been easy for the Minister of Justice do not know the minister

very well. This period has involved a great deal of personal hard work. Many problems have troubled his conscience, as they have troubled all members of the house. The past few months have been a heavy burden for him, just as they would have been a heavy burden on some members of the official opposition had they occupied positions of government responsibility. As anybody in public life knows, it takes courage to introduce the type of controversial amendments that have been discussed during the debate on this bill. It takes courage to bring in measures relating, for example, to the post office-and I see my hon. friend in the house this evening.
A weaker or less dedicated Minister of Justice could well have chosen an easier political course, one which would have preserved the status quo,, with all of the anachronisms and hypocrisies that have plagued this nation for too long. It would have been easy to find all sorts of excuses to delay action. This government, Mr. Speaker, has followed the harder road, and I think most members of the house appreciate the nature of the decision made by the government in this controversial area of the Criminal Code.
As a backbencher I have confidence that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of Justice and their colleagues earnestly seek reform in the best interest of a pluralistic Canadian society. I am convinced that they want to see a more satisfactory and meaningful Criminal Code. I submit that they deserve our support.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, in spite of all that has been said on Bill C-150 and of the amendments that have been proposed in the house, we have reached third reading.
This afternoon, I was listening to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) who explained that, first, the bill had been drafted-everyone knows that-introduced in the house for first reading and printed, debated on second reading and referred to the committee.
The committee examined each clause of the bill and amendments were proposed. Today, we have reached the third reading stage.
The minister said this afternoon that parliament had every opportunity to consider this bill and that finally the majority of parliament would decide on it.
Now, everybody knows that when the bill was read for the first time, my colleagues and I strongly objected to it.
May 12. 1969

When it was deferred to the committee, some of my colleagues attended the sittings and brought forward two pediatrists. But the committee members were mostly government members and the instruction was that the government assumed the responsibility for that bill. The minister was therefore frank on that point this afternoon, when he stated that the government supports this bill, and if the people do not like it they will have the opportunity to let it be known in due time.
Mr. Speaker, at the committee report stage we brought in amendments to the various clauses of the bill. Not a single amendment- not even the two moved by government members-was accepted, because once again, all Liberals without exception had been instructed to take position in favour of the bill, or in other words, to see to it, as government members, that it would pass all the stages and be adopted.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, we have now reached third reading and the same thing is happening. This afternoon, the minister told us that the government assumed full responsibility for the bill, which deals with all kind of things, namely arms, lotteries, homosexuality, abortion, penitentiaries, tariffs, parole, etc. Everything was put in the same package, to get members of parliament to swallow whole what they would not have accepted separately, had the bill been split. Bill C-150 was imposed upon parliament, and I am convinced it will remain memorable in Canadian parliamentary history and Canadian history.
Our stand has been a firm one; we have been criticized, but much less than the government has been for introducing a bill that mixes all kinds of things together.
We asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when he was Minister of Justice, to divide the bill, to group those clauses that deal with a specific or a common subject matter. Both he and the Minister of Justice refused stubbornly to hear of it. The constructive work of my colleagues of the Ralliement creditiste stems from that. And that work, as I said last week, was not performed lightly. My colleagues sought out information, called on doctors and others to testify; when they spoke in the house, their speeches were serious and logical. This, the Minister of Justice recognized himself.
Mr. Speaker, we have been accused of wanting to impose the wishes of the minority upon the majority. We should not be pilloried for wanting to force upon the minority the
Criminal Code
views of the majority. It is the minority which is now forcing its will upon the majority of Canadians. I was reading last week in Le Droit, from Ottawa, an editorial by Marcel Gingras, who is, I believe, the editor in chief of this newspaper. He wrote this:
The Creditistes are very much aware of what is going on and their opposition seems to us more political than really virtuous-[DOT]
I do not think we are making a show of our virtue. We are trying to prove that morality should be respected. The morality of a human person is not just that of any animal, it is that of a reasonable being, a being with a right to life at its Creator's will. It befits no man, whether he is a minister or not, whether he is a member of the Liberal, Progressive Conservative, Creditiste, or NDP party to take away the life of any human being. This is obvious.
People who want to dabble politics about this are more often found among petty, insignificant people, like Mr. Marcel Gingras of Le Droit, than among members of the Ralliement creditiste, for Mr. Gingras is a guy who is always on the side of the government whether it is right or wrong. Such an attitude serves his purpose.
There is another newspaperman, who is worth at least as much as the whipper-snapper from Le Droit, Mr. Marcel Gingras. At any rate, the other one is not a member of the Ralliement creditiste; he is an acknowledged supporter of the Progressive Conservative party, and well known all over the place.
He is Mr. Clemont Brown, of the newspaper Montreal-Matin-which does not give its allegiance to the Ralliement creditiste. He said, and I quote:
There is a good amount of Pharisaism in the vituperations of some newspapers against the filibuster conducted by the Ralliement creditiste against bill C-150, better known as the omnibus bill. The government's sycophants loudly clamor for the old Standing Order 16A, which limits the time of debates.
"Sycophant" means slanderer or informer. These slanders originate in government quarters.
Let us say right away that even without Standing Order 16A, the business of the house has progressed quite smoothly and that the new Rules and Regulation are quite satisfactory.
Parties agreed normally, without too much difficulty, on the length of time allotted for the discussion of various government measures. The Prime Minister abused his power. He even did violence to the conscience of his own members.
The Liberals, we know that.
Creditistes make no bones about naming in private conversation those government members who gave them their support against abortion.

May 12, 1969
Criminal Code
Mr. Speaker, I could name Liberal members who were against abortion, but I shall be discreet and kind, and refrain from doing so.
They even mentioned in public the hon. member for Matane, Mr. Pierre De Bane.
He rose in the house to say he was against the bill, but that he had to vote for it, because he had to toe the party line.
We have no reason to question their good faith. As far as we are concerned, two Liberal members told us privately they were opposed to the bill. There is not a single member of parliament who is not in this case.
Abuse begets abuse. The Creditistes' battle has been a long one. It is nearing its end now. Members of the Ralliement have proved loyal to the mandate conferred on them by their constituents.
Mr. Speaker, the following words of Mr. Brown are very significant:
One cannot say as much for the Liberals, considering the ambiguous promise made by the Prime Minister and in particular by Mr. John Turner, to amend the Criminal Code, since those amendments did not materialize.
The filibuster on Bill C-150 is teaching us a lesson. We hope it will teach the Prime Minister that his own views on legislation cannot always prevail, when they go against the beliefs of a large part of the Canadian population.
Mr. Speaker, that is the testimony of a journalist who is not a Creditiste, but who states his opinion. Members of the Conservative party have supported the bill as such, while others who did not, especially the section on abortion.
The clauses which improve legislation concerning parole, the penitentiaries, customs tariff, we would have accepted straight away without the slightest debate, save maybe for a few suggestions here and there.
Regarding lotteries, we were in favour of an almost complete liberty. After all, people, men, are bom gamblers. We love races, games of chance, risks of all kinds, we love to play the horses or the dogs. Those are just so many different forms of lotteries.
We probably would have allowed the passage of these clauses.
As for homosexuality, we objected for the same reasons that we opposed abortion. When the clause on homosexuality was voted by the house, one could read the following report in Montreal-Matin of Tuesday, April 22, 1969:
Three Cheers for the Omnibus Bill!
First social club-
-in Montreal.
The first private social club for homosexuals in Montreal opened quietly Saturday night, for the
[Mr. Caouette.l
"purpose of giving a better understanding of the homosexual's condition within today's society."
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
The club is called Gemini I and is located at 1285-
This is for those who would like to know the address.
-Maisonneuve Boulevard West. Deep pile has been used in large quantities for the interior decoration-
They say it is beautiful plush. Apparently, those who would like to go in have been advised to bring their snowshoes because it is a realiy a good deep plush pile.
I continue the quotation:
Besides, one can see a large oil portrait-
An Oil painting, not a water colour.
-of Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau and the Twins (Castor and Pollux).
An oil-painting of the Prime Minister, for inspiration purposes no doubt.
This is a newspaper add which gives the name of the owner. It is explained that he wants to educate homosexuals. All told, it is now public knowledge.
Eventually we shall see no doubt in our newspaper stands magazines showing men with lipstick on and wearing earrings.
Mr. Speaker, we opposed this clause of the bill and then we fought tremendously against abortion. This afternoon, I read an article under the byline of Muriel Bowen, in the Toronto Telegram of May 10, about the abortion legislation passed in England a little over a year ago:

The Abortion Act makes abortion legal on the three counts:
If pregnancy involves risk to the mother's life, if it involves risk to her physical or mental health (or to the well being of her existing children) if there is a substantial risk that the expected child would be physically or mentally abnormal.

It deals with the three essentials of the legislation on abortion in England.
After the legislation had been in effect for one year-

After a year there is still bitter disagreement in the medical profession over what is a proper interpretation of the third point, the so-called social clause. Some doctors, and politicians and many people who have studied the statistics say that it is resulting in abortion on demand, for those who can afford to go to private clinics.
May 12, 1969

In the first year, almost half the women who have had legal abortions have been single. Divorcees, widows, and women separated from their husbands account for a further eight per cent of abortions.

Which means that 58 per cent of all abortions in England were performed on young girls, divorcees, widows and women separated from their husbands.
Such is the result of the enforcement of the abortion law in England.

A large number of Canadians who value the scriptural and moral foundations of both our democratic society and nation will gratefully applaud your courageous opposition to the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code that would remove the illegality of homosexuality and abortion. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice are being informed of the contents of this message with added protest included.

Last Friday, I heard the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) say the following words:
For far too long the minority in this country has held back the majority in this matter. Certainly during past weeks we have seen a demonstration of how the minority in this house has held back the majority. Now it is time that the majority be allowed the right to act according to the conscience-
If they acted according to their conscience, well and good. But it is not according to the government members' conscience, that they act; on the contrary, they act in accordance with the party line. As I said last week: To hell with the country, as long as we save the party. And it is still very much the same.
I know some of the government members whose constituents are clearly against this bill on abortion. Those members have even not the right to rise in the house to express the opinion of their constituents.
Mr. Speaker, I am not talking through my hat, but with full knowledge of the facts because I have been informed by the people of these constituencies.
And the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway said also, and I quote:
-while respecting the right of the minority to continue in their own way according to their own conscience. The other night I heard the Creditiste leader say on television in loud and clear tones, "They must respect us as we respect them." We intend to respect them and we have proven that respect. This legislation will show respect for people who do not believe in abortions. On the other hand, those of us who believe in the modernization
Criminal Code
of abortion laws are not going to allow any minority in this country to hold back measures which are needed by the citizens of Canada.
It is obvious that abortion will neither improve nor help to preserve the health of any mother. I will say this to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway: To avoid abortion, she tells us that anybody can avoid it, anybody can pass it by, there is another way. Nothing compels a woman to go to bed with a man. This would solve the situation. A bit of fun and games is all very well, but it is completely irresponsible to try and shirk the consequences. If we want to do as we please, fine, but we must accept the results in any field whatsoever.
Mr. Speaker, this is why I quoted last week so much evidence. We are indicted, because we are Catholics, but Catholics are not the only ones to oppose abortion. I have a few telegrams here. This one is from Montreal and I quote:
Re Montreal Matin omnibus bill May 3rd I approve you hundred per cent and not alone.
Montreal May 5th.

Free Methodist Church
West Ontario Conference
E. A. Cooper, conference supt.

Mr. Speaker, surely that is not a Roman Catholic, he is a Methodist.
Here is another telegram from Toronto, that congratulates us on the good job we are doing against the legislation on abortion.
In this case, an organization:

The National Council of Jewish Women of Canada, in convention today unanimously adopted a resolution recommending the deletion of sections dealing with abortion from the Criminal Code without exception. This is a private matter between a woman and her physician.


John Napier Turner: That is not what you meant to say.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, that is right. A telegram from-

This is not what we want, it is the opposite. I am reading a telegram which I received from a Jewish organization in Montreal which says it is their business and none of our business.


Some hon. Members:: Right.


David Réal Caouette: Why is it in the bill?
Criminal Code
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)

I have here another telegram.

It is from Reverend James Montgomery, Conference Liaison office:
The Western Ontario District Conference of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada meeting in Kitchener, Ontario, May first, 1969 reaffirmed the motion passed by the general conference of the Pentecostal assemblies of Canada at Windsor, Ontario-

-against the adoption of a measure of abortion-

-tlie district conference most strongly objects to the reprehensible features of the omnibus bill legalizing abortion that in our judgment give unqualified right to kill the human foetus and further objects to legalizing and sanctioning homosexuality between consenting adults.

Mr. Speaker, this was another telegram from a church which is not a Catholic church.
Now we have here testimonies of protest such as this one from Rideau Garden Drive, in Ottawa.
I have another one from Saskatchewan and one from Edmonton in Alberta which I quote: Keep on fighting the murderers who believe that God is going to change the law because Ottawa changes it.
Fight against vice. We are praying for you and for your good members.
From a Quebec City priest who dearly loves you.
Here is another testimony.
Mr. Speaker, I have received another one from Saskatchewan which says exactly the same thing, and opposes the adoption of the omnibus bill.

I would like to congratulate you on your stand against the Criminal Code bill. I support your party stand wholeheartedly on this issue, and I hope that you and party will be successful in blocking passing of this bill-*
John F. Peters

-and it is signed John F. Peters. I do not suppose he is a relative of my hon. friend from Timiskaming (Mr. Peters). This is the evidence we are receiving.
I have another testimony from Westport, in Ontario-
[Mr. Caouette.l
May 12, 1969

C. J. McEwen, Westport, Ontario.
Your stand in opposition to the proposed changes in the Criminal Code relative to abortion and homosexuality is most commendable. Sacred and secular history testifies to the rightness of what you are contending for-
I am not of your persuasion, politically, religiously or nationally. However, I would deem it a privilege to support a member of parliament of your principles.
As I say, this is from Westport, Ontario. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I am not making up these letters. Here is another one from Haileybury, Ontario, which is located in the riding of my hon. friend for Timiskaming. I quote:
This evening, on the C.B.C. news broadcast, a commentator clearly indicated that the members of the Ralliement creditiste are filibustering in parliament to assert their personal views and partisan ideas. Since when is it moral to practise abortion and homosexuality, even for a non-Credi-tiste? It is one of two things: people who advocate such practices are either ignorant scoundrels or, which is worse, diabolically mischievous!
I am not a "puritan" but, good grief, do you know of anything more disgusting than a government that wants to pass a law allowing "fairies" to shack up.
(Signed) Lionel Courchesne,
P.O. Box 896, Haileybury, Ont.
Mr. Speaker, here is another letter from a Mr. Dignard, of Ottawa.
I wish to congratulate you and all the Creditiste members for opposing those clauses of the omnibus bill that deal with abortion and homosexuality.
Keep up the good work; fight for the Christian point of view, for the majority (which is still Christian in Canada) have only you to represent them in this debate.
Mr. Speaker, here is another letter from the "Foyers Notre-Dame". You may tell me that this is a Catholic organization. Of course, but it is not afraid of taking a stand.
We congratulate you for standing firm in the face of the bill on abortion, specifically for insisting that human life be respected from the start.
This one comes from Hull, and is signed:
Bernard and Marie-Therese Robert, couple-incharge, Foyers Notre-Dame, Hull Diocese.
Mr. Speaker, this is not evidence of a political nature, but protests against the immorality of abortion. It is also what we are against.
Now, we do not want to thrust our views upon others, but rather to make the Canadian people's views respected, and to be sure that they will have the right to make them known and that they think as we do.

May 12, 1969

Criminal Code
Mr. Speaker, I wish to move, seconded by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin), the following amendment:
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 not read a third time but that it be referred back to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs with instruction to add a clause providing that clause 18 will come into force after the same has been approved by the Canadian people by means of a referendum.


John Napier Turner: You mean a plebiscite.


David Réal Caouette: A referendum.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, such is the amendment we wish to move, not in order to-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
Chair having some doubts as to the acceptability of the amendment request permission to consider the question.
The hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette).


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before the hon. member proceeds, Mr. Speaker, there is a minor point. I wonder if he should not name another seconder. I believe the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) has already spoken on the main motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). If this is so I would ask the hon. member for Temiscamingue, Quebec, (Mr. Caouette) to name another seconder.


David Réal Caouette: Allow me to suggest that the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe) second my amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The seconder of the amendment of the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) is then the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe).


John Napier Turner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, are we going to be given an opportunity to challenge the admissibility of this amendment?


William Arnold Peters: No.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Since we live in a democracy, I would ask the hon. members who have a few remarks to make on the acceptability of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) to kindly bring them to the attention of the Chair.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is the
hon. member for Temiscamingue rising on a point of order?


David Réal Caouette: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not rising on a point of order, but I simply want to proceed with my remarks, since the Chair has informed us that it will take the amendment under consideration. Therefore, we shall not discuss it now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. May I ask the hon. member to resume his seat. The hon. member has just moved an amendment and, according to the rules, he should resume his seat and only rise thereafter on a point of order.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member for Lotbiniere is rising on a point of order.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, with all due deference, I should like to ask you to which standing order you are referring to prevent the member for Temiscamingue from pursuing his speech.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: To the
standing order which provides that a member may take the floor only once. As the hon. member was completing his speech, and moved an amendment, I ask him, if he wants to rise on a point of order, to kindly state his reasons for doing so.


John Napier Turner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I submit with respect that it would be quite in order to allow the hon. member to finish his speech as long as


Stanley Howard Knowles: As
long as he has not spoken for 40 minutes.


John Napier Turner: -as long as he has not spoken for 40 minutes. Sometimes we lose track of time when we are

May 12, 1969
Criminal Code
listening to the hon. member. At the conclusion of his speech, however, I want to reserve the right, as I think other members do, to challenge the admissibility of his amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member has resumed his seat and does not have the right, according to the Standing Orders, to speak a second time, except on a point of order.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I had not resumed my seat, but simply sat down to hear the reading of the amendment. But once the amendment has been read, I believe I still have 10 to 15 minutes.
You would surely have thought me rude had I remained standing while you read my amendment. And now, I want to know if I have the permission to continue.


John Napier Turner: As long as it is not prejudicial to our right to wonder-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order!


John Napier Turner: -whether the amendment is in order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I would ask hon. members to wait a minute until the Chair has taken a decision.

Order. When the hon. member resumed his seat, the Chair presumed that he had just completed his speech. Otherwise, the hon. member will be allowed to speak until 8.58, when the Chair will put the question.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I always had the impression that once an amendment is moved and read by the Chair, we were entitled to ten more minutes. But you are only allowing me four minutes.
Now, let me-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member has the floor for at least four minutes before the time allotted to him under the rules is up. Then, the remarks of the hon. member are in no way restricted at this time.


David Réal Caouette: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I also thank the Minister of Justice for coming to my rescue and explaining he was so delighted to hear the members of the Rallie-ment creditiste. I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, 
that we have been enlightening the minister for the past two weeks and a half.
However, I shall not take more of the time of the house, but before concluding, I would like to quote the evidence of doctors opposed to abortion without for all that introducing religious matters.
"I believe that the refusal to accept abortion on strictly moral grounds in good medicine"
(Samuel A. Cosgrove, M.D., who is not a Roman Catholic).
"To perform a therapeutic abortion is either to be ignorant of modern methods of treating pregnancy complications or not to take the trouble of using them",
(Roy J. Hefferman, M.D.)
At a symposium held in San Francisco in November 1951, three doctors out of four (Drs. Cosgrove, Hefferman and Bernard J. Hanley) stated that there were no indications for therapeutic abortion; the fourth (John H. Morton) refused to support such an absolute statement, but recognized that there are far too many such abortions.
Now, it was strictly on moral grounds that the members of the Ralliement creditiste objected and carried on such a fierce fight for over two weeks. All Canada will know about the fight we put up right here in parliament. It was not a political fight, but a fight for principles. We did our duty as representatives of the people. I want at this point to congratulate my colleagues of the Ralliement creditiste on the fine work they have done in the house, based on statistics and extensive studies, with the co-operation of medical practitioners. I believe we have also been of some help to all hon. members as a whole, and we are proud of the work we have accomplished.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I wish to point out to the house that the amendment submitted by the hon. member for Temis-camingue is not relevant to the nature of the bill, since it proposes that a referendum be held.
Secondly, this referendum implies that there will be an expenditure of public funds, which can be proposed only by a minister of the Crown.
For these reasons, I cannot accept-


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I recall that before the hon. member for Temiscamingue was interrupted, you had given the hon. members the right to express their opinions, when you said that we lived in a democratic country. Then, the Minister of Justice tried to show that the amendment was
May 12, 1969

out of order. We would like to have the privilege of refuting his argument before you give your ruling.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I thank the hon. member for Lotbiniere.
It is precisely because nobody gave any explanation that I thought I should make my ruling. I am ready to hear the comments of hon. members on this amendment.


André-Gilles Fortin: The amendment brought forward by the hon. member for Temiscamingue refers to clause 18 of the said omnibus bill, which, as everybody knows, deals with abortion.
I recognize that an amendment which goes beyond the scope of a bill under consideration would not be in order because according to standing orders, to procedure and to jurisprudence, we cannot go beyond the bill itself. And Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what you have been saying.
I imagine the proposal of the hon. member for Temiscamingue is perfectly in order, for the simple reason that it relates to clause 18 which itself is part of the bill. And this clause deals with abortion. The hon. member for Temiscamingue proposes to seek in some way or other the opinion of the population on that clause. But as you said, Mr. Speaker, we are unable to estimate the expenses involved since we are not here to determine what means the government could use in order to hold this plebiscite or referendum. Therefore we cannot at this stage ask ourselves whether or not this will involve any expenses.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that the two arguments put forward by the Chair could be dropped and, as a consequence, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Temiscamingue could be declared in order and acceptable, since there is no expense involved. On the other hand, such things cannot be anticipated. Moreover, this clause is related to the subject matter of the bill. It concerns only clause 18 which, from our point of view, is disputable.

[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I want to attack, if I may, the admissibility of this amendment on three grounds. In the first place, the amendment calls for a deferral of the decision on abortion until there is approval by the Canadian people by means of a plebiscite or a referendum. I think the difficulty facing the hon. member is that it has been decided by the house on previous occasions that an amendment or
Criminal Code
resolution for a plebiscite involves the expenditure of money; it involves the imbalance of ways and means, and therefore it is not open, under our practice, to a private member to introduce such an amendment.
I want to refer Your Honour to the Journals of this house, Volume LXXXII, 1942-43, at page 48. This citation is in relation to the plebiscite in 1942 relating to conscription.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Necessary, but not necessarily!


John Napier Turner: Well, I am not going to go into that. Mr. McLarty, who was then minister of labour, moved:
That the house do go into committee of the whole, at the next sitting of the house, to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting the taking of the votes of the qualified voters on any question submitted by way of plebiscite and for such purposes to make provision for the printing and publication of a Plebiscite Act and instructions issued thereunder, the preparation of voters' lists and other plebiscite documents, including forms and ballot papers, to provide for the fees, allowances, expenses or other remuneration of certain officials and employees.
In other words, a plebiscite involves the expenditure of public money for the printing and publication of the statute, for the preparation of voters' lists and other plebiscite documents, including forms, ballot papers and so on. Since the cost of all this would be a charge on the public revenue, a motion to hold a plebiscite it has to be introduced by a member of Her Majesty's government. If I may refer Your Honour to the index of the same volume of the Journals of the House of Commons, at page 816, you will find there was a special statute to provide for expenditures relating to conscription. In other words, this matter was within the responsibility of Her Majesty's government.
The second reason which I would submit to Your Honour for the amendment being out of order is the one I submitted earlier in respect of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Citation 200, paragraph 1 of Beau-chesne's fourth edition reads as follows:
An old rule of parliament reads: "That a question being once made and carried in the affirmative or negative, cannot be questioned again but must stand as the judgment of the house."
In other words, the judgment of the house once taken on an issue cannot again be called into question by a second vote of the house. If Your Honour would refer to amendment No. 19 proposed earlier at the report stage by the

May 12, 1969
Criminal Code
hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau), you will observe that clause 18 was called into question. The amendment was to delete that clause from the Criminal Code bill. The hon. member is attempting to defeat clause 18 by postponing it indefinitely until the taking of the plebiscite. What the hon. member and the Creditiste party have failed to do directly, they are now attempting to do indirectly. I would submit to Your Honour that the decision on clause 18 has already been taken by this house.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that no amendment, under the new rules or the old, and certainly not under Standing Order 75, subsections 5 and 8, can be admitted by Your Honour and put before the house if it goes beyond the scope of the original clause 18 or beyond the scope of the bill. I submit that calling for a plebiscite on the matter of abortion goes well beyond the clause as presently drafted, and goes well beyond the purpose of the Criminal Code bill itself.
For all three reasons, first of all that a plebiscite involves a financial obligation of the Crown; second, that the principle has already been decided by this house on the vote relating to amendment 19 at the report stage of the bill; and third, that the amendment goes beyond the scope of the clause and of the bill, I respectfully submit that the amendment should not be admitted for discussion by the house.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, in addition to the arguments advanced by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) I would like to draw to Your Honour's attention one or two other authorities and citations you may wish to take into account when considering the admissibility of this amendment. Citation 406 of Beauchesne's fourth edition reads:
Amendments are out of order if they are (b) inconsistent with or contradictory to the bill as agreed to by the committee;
I would also draw Your Honour's attention to May's 17th edition, page 549. There, you will see a number of conditions which make amendments inadmissible. On the next page, under paragraph 6 May says:
Furthermore, an amendment may not be moved to insert words at the beginning of a clause with a view to bringing forward an alternative scheme to that contained in the clause, or to leave out the whole substance of a clause in order to insert different provisions-
I suggest that the hon. member for Temis-camingue (Mr. Caouette) is attempting to set

up a whole new set of conditions in respect of the application of the clause to which he has referred. Therefore, he is trying to bring forward an alternative scheme to the one contained in the clause, and clearly that is out of order. Furthermore, I draw Your Honour's attention to paragraph 11 on page 551 of May's 17th edition, which reads:
Amendments to a bill proposing that an address or a resolution of one house of parliament should effect the repeal of the bill, or that the provisions of a bill should be subject to a referendum, have been ruled out of order-*
Therefore, I submit that this amendment is quite clearly out of order. I think it is extremely clear that the amendment is out of order and I simply wanted to draw this to Four Honour's attention when you were considering whether to accept the amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have been hesitating about rising on this point of order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Don't spoil your reputation, Stan.


Stanley Howard Knowles: beg your pardon? Anyway, Mr. Speaker, perhaps my hesitation has been set aside by listening to the way in which the government has brought in its heavy artillery. When I first heard this amendment I, too, thought it was out of order. Perhaps I thought that because I just did not like the amendment; it seemed to me to call for something that is utterly ridiculous. But I am not sure that the arguments advanced by the other side of the house are water tight. I thought that this afternoon, of course, and lost; but perhaps if I now have some doubts I may get along a little better. I am not sure that this amendment is completely foreign to the provisions of the bill.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
There is already in the bill clause 120 which reads:
This Act or any of the provisions of this Act shall come into force on a day or days to be fixed by proclamation.
We do not know when this bill or its various clauses will be brought into effect, and there is nothing to suggest that the bill will be brought into effect all at once. In fact, I am pretty sure this will not happen. It is possible there is some sense to the idea of saying to the Governor in Council that the abortion clause should not come into effect until after there has been a referendum or a
May 12, 196S

plebiscite. I admit quite freely that I find it difficult to make this argument because I have no liking for the amendment itself and I would vote against it, but I like to see minorities get their rights. So I suggest that after we have heard from these big guns on the other side trying to smash this mosquito over here in the corner at least something might be said in defence of the admissibility of the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. members for their comments in connection with the motion which is now before the house. I may say at the outset that after listening to the arguments from the wings, I was very much impressed not only by the arguments advanced by the hon. members and by the Minister of Justice but by the position expressed by my associate in the Chair, the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Bechard). I have a feeling that in spite of the arguments advanced, after he had expressed an opinion I would be prepared to go along with the very learned ruling which he was prepared to give to the house. In fact, I find very little fault with what was said by the hon. member who was in the Chair a moment ago.
It seems to me hon. members must remember that what is before us at the present time is not the bill itself, not the Criminal Code, but rather a motion for third reading. What hon. members should do at this time is to propose amendments which will modify this particular motion. We should not entertain at this point motions to amend clauses 18 or 19 of the bill to amend the Criminal Code.

I am sure the hon. member for Temis-camingue (Mr. Caouette) who is listening closely to the ruling I am making agrees with me. At this stage we can only submit to the house amendments to amend the motion for third reading of this bill.
The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) suggests that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) is in order because it is relevant to clause 18. I say to him that it is not in order, precisely because it is relevant to clause 18 when it should be relevant to the motion for third reading of the bill.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said that we might listen to the big guns. I have listened to him and he is the biggest of all the guns, but not even he
Criminal Code
has been able to convince me this motion might be accepted.
What I should like to suggest to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-and I am sure he knows it much better than I do-is that this motion can be amended in many possible ways. It can be amended by a reasoned amendment, provided the reasoned amendment is strictly relevant to the motion before the house. If hon. members will propose to this house a reasoned amendment which would not attempt to modify the clauses of the bill itself, then it will be acceptable and hon. members eventually will be called upon to vote on it. But if a reasoned amendment is phrased in such a way that it goes beyond the terms of the very limited motion which we have before us, by virtue of many precedents, including some quoted in Beauchesne, in May and in Bourinot, I do not see how the amendment can be accepted. This is the sum and substance of what was said to the house by the hon. member for Bonaventure, and I concur in his judgment.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolielle):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add a few remarks on third reading even if many things have already been said concerning the bill.
I had an opportunity to speak on the motion for second reading and I must admit that since then, I had been hoping that the government and the minister would reconsider their position, agree to the splitting up of the bill and allow parliament to vote freely on that legislation which I consider extremely important.
I remember that during the electoral campaign, the minister had suggested that he would recommend a free vote, that he was in favour of splitting up the bill and recognized that some of its clauses contained quite specific details. I do not know whether the fact of being in office could change a man to that extent, but we have to admit that after three or four weeks of debate and all the arguments that were put forward, he should be convinced by now.
In fact, we have advanced arguments which justified the splitting up of the bill as well as a free vote, because whether we want it or not, it is clear that many hon. members are perplexed by that bill. However, it is understood that many must toe the party line; they will do so, as usual, while recognizing that it contains some clauses that within themselves they consider unacceptable.

May 12, 1969
Criminal Code
I have decided to say a few words. I believe that I never took up the time of the house unduly. On the other hand, I think that the role of the opposition is nevertheless necessary to bring the government to recognize what is good, and force it to act accordingly, and to question what is wrong. I believe that the government should be responsible enough also to admit the arguments that have been advanced during the past few weeks and, as far as I am concerned, I have no hesitation in acknowledging that some clauses in that bill urgently are required and acceptable. But I should add that it is not honest, in any case, to put in the same package such ill-assorted measures.
In view of the government's behaviour regarding this bill I am forced to vote against certain measures, and to reject, as a matter of principle and of conviction, some provisions therein contained.
It is dishonest to put us in such a position and I think that people and newspapers have brought up this fact many times.
Once again, I would like to ask the hon. minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) to prove that he is acting in good faith. Yet I thought and I still think that he is sufficiently imbued with goodwill and justice to recognize that the clauses, mostly those on abortion and homosexuality, are not acceptable.
In my opinion that bill favours homosexuality unduly. I have already made my views known on this clause and I do not think, in view of the small number of people who could benefit from such a bill, that it is the duty of the government to legalize homosexuality.
In view of the arguments brought in for many months now, I appeal again to the hon. minister's sense of fair play, so that these two clauses as advocated by the leader of the Ralliement creditiste (Mr. Caouette) may be decided upon through a referendum.
Anyhow, it would be unfair not to recognize the disparity of subjects contained in this bill and to force us to vote on it as a whole.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
If I decided to speak this evening it is probably to appeal for the last time to the good faith and the understanding of the government.
I am not given to criticizing what is acceptable, far from it, and I think that we must support the government when it is willing to pass good legislation. I think that it is the role of the opposition and I would much rath-
(Mr. La Salle.]
er cooperate than fight the decisions of members of this house.
When the legislation under consideration is as important and controversial as this one, I think that it is our duty to rise and ask the government to review its positions, because I am under the distinct impression that the government is making a huge mistake.
I know also that some hon. members are greatly embarrassed when they have to comply with the party policy. But I think that owing to their commitments towards their constituents, they are as justified as I am in adopting a definite position this evening and in asking the minister once again to reverse the governmental position and bring in a divided bill.
I know that the government will maintain that most clauses are acceptable and this is surely true. But it is a thing of shreds of patches, and I do not feel that we should pass it as a whole.
Some people say that the support the government received in June meant that the population wished the bill would pass, although it contained very controversial clauses. It is untrue to say that people voted Liberal because they wished and asked for the legalization of abortion and homosexuality.
I think that is an easy rationalization, which shows up the weakness of those who lack the courage to take a firm stand on those clauses in the house.
In my opinion, even though we have reached the final stage of the bill, to approve a much too blatant legalization of abortion and homosexuality remains out of the question.
I think that legislation will be big with consequences, and the onus of it will lie upon this government. I hope nevertheless that there are enough members of good faith for us to try to bring the government to reason while supporting a lot of arguments that opposition parties wanted to have acknowledged and accepted.
It is a weak point on the part of the government to state that homosexuality is none of our business, since those acts are performed in bedrooms.
Homosexuality is perhaps a sickness in some people, perhaps a vice or a defect in others, but the fact remains that it is possible to rehabilitate those people and to build hospitals that would help them a great deal. This would be much more profitable and much more serious than the legalization of that
May 12, 1969

practice, which would surely downgrade society. The government which will adopt such a measure cannot but be held responsible for its consequences.
I hope that there are still hon. members to recognize that the section on homosexuality is not acceptable for the time being, when we think of all the ways whereby we could help those people, treat them and reassure society.
Mr. Speaker, I should like, before concluding, to extend my congratulations to those who had the courage to defend their opinions and the commitments they undertook during the election campaign. Members must have the courage of their convictions and duly express the wishes and aspirations of their constituents. We must pay tribute to them and congratulate them on having objected to certain clauses, since they did so in good faith, even though some people may not think so.
Many things have been said and I would not like to be accused of wasting the house's time, but I believe that those who are free to express their views will do so. I do not think that all hon. members were loyally and sincerely for all the clauses contained in this bill.
Some will say that the majority of the clauses are acceptable; nevertheless, some will vote for clauses which inwardly they do not think acceptable. I want the minister to know that I shall have to vote against certain clauses which I would have preferred to approve. But as I am not free to vote as I wish on each clause, I shall vote against some measures which are good, but which my principles, my convictions and my commitments compel me to fight. This bill, in my opinion, is unacceptable to society and I shall honour my commitments as a certain group has done in a very impressive way.
Dishonour lies not in losing a battle, but in refusing to fight.


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary-Secretary to the Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, we are coming to the end of a long debate during which varied and sometimes extreme opinions have been expressed.
In my opinion, the bill submitted to the house is far from being extreme in its implications; it reflects considered and reasonable opinions and this I shall endeavour to demonstrate. We have been asked where the bill comes from. Not so long ago, a man who today is the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) was appointed Minister of Justice
Criminal Code
and undertook the recasting of the Criminal Code which reflects the laws of present-day society.
The outcome of that recasting was 126 amendments to the Criminal Code, all of which are important. All of them are not equally far-reaching I imagine, but the bill deals inter alia with the breathalizer, cruelty towards animals, firearms, homosexuality, abortion and I submit that those are all important subjects.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
True, certain matters affect the conscience of individuals, and that is why we heard in the house some remarks which go beyond the ambit of the bill.
How did those amendments come to be moved and how was the general consensus of the Liberal caucus arrived at? Most of us, like the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) and myself, when I accepted to be parliamentary secretary to the minister, were convinced of the soundness of the proposed amendments. In my conscience, I believe that I can vote on each and all of the amendments relating to this bill, because I think the general interest of the population and of all Canadians is at stake.
The philosophy of this bill is simply this; in a society which, because of the social order which controls more and more the individual, interferes with his liberty, our legislation must be redrafted in order to respect to a greater extent individual freedom.
Only public interest must check that freedom. This is how one can explain why amendments have been made to clauses as controversial as those concerning homosexuality, abortion or lotteries.
As to homosexuality, what does the bill say? Two consenting adults indulging in homosexual acts are no longer committing a criminal act. However, corruption and scandal will remain criminal acts. On the one hand, there is the freedom of the individual, and on the other, respect for the common good.
On the matter of abortion, we have heard virtually all the theories. I believe that in this connection, the bill is sensible and reasonable. Some have claimed that it is a clarification of the law. I think they are right.
It has been said in some quarters: But it was assumed that abortion was not permitted.
The Code presently stipulates that an abortion can be practised if in good faith, it is thought, that the life of the mother is endan-

May 12. 1969
Criminal Code
gered. One thing is to be noted, however: under the Code as it now stands, anybody can perform an abortion. The present government wanted to hand back the practice of medicine to physicians, surely a sounder proposition than to rely on our Creditistes friends who, under the present provisions of the Code, could procure an abortion.
As far as I am concerned, I have much more confidence in physicians. Let each practise his own profession. So we have here a clarification of the law.
Others have said that it allowed all kinds of abortions.
I do not see it that way at all. Therapeutic abortion alone is at stake. The new legislation is less strict than the former one in that the present law authorizes an abortion only if the life of the mother is endangered, while the new law will authorize therapeutic abortion when her health might be endangered.
In that respect I think, the new law is more permissive. On the other hand, only physicians will be entitled to decide, and to treat the patient.
Some people have said that we were more rigorous. They may be right at that. To sum up there exists a restriction. Who is going to decide that there will be a therapeutic abortion? An independent medical panel, i.e., independent from the patient's doctor. Thus, I think the new legislation is somewhat stricter than the existing law.
To sum up, these amendments are a compromise, a question that is both reasoned and reasonable. I do not think that you can hold up such an amendment to ridicule.
During the last electoral campaign, I must say that in my own constituency, I held about fifteen meetings mostly with representatives of religious communities.
I held in my area a meeting which was attended by 15.0 or 200 priests and nuns. During a seminar, the whole question of the bill as presented today, was studied, and I think that the result of the elections, in my constituency, has proved that I was also supported by these people.
It is said that representations were addressed to the government members. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that there was no pressure whatsoever. The present Minister of Justice as well as the then minister of Justice the present Prime Minister, merely resorted to information as regards members.
Both of them made it their duty in caucus to provide information to all who wished to
[Mr. Cantin.l
be informed. I must say I had the opportunity, with the present Minister of Justice, to convene several meetings to which we had invited all the party members who wanted explanations on all the amendments.
At no point was any moral pressure brought to bear on anyone, of course, in public life mutual influence has to be exercised; we must try and influence people if we believe that a given change to a legislation may be useful. It behoves us to spread the idea. That is a part of public life.
But there were no pressures. Besides, the attitude of certain Liberal members proves it. Unable for conscience's sake to vote otherwise, they chose to express themselves freely in this house. And as the Minister of Justice pointed out this afternoon, none of them will be subject to reprisals because they took a stand they believed to be in accordance with their conscience.
I do not want to extend this debate unduly. In this jet age, laws should be streamlined to suit the society in which we live.
We sit here as legislators to protect the rights of society and the rights of the individual. And the individual will feel an ever-increasing need for a private shelter, so as to be better prepared to meet with the self-denials that social order calls for nowadays.
[English}


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate those who have taken part in this debate, particularly those who have raised arguments based on moral and ethical grounds. This is all very nice, but this debate has really not taken place in a true atmosphere, and more has been left to the consciences of individuals than has been dealt with in this legislation. I also congratulate the hon. member for Temis-camingue (Mr. Caouette) on the opposition that he has put up, which I believe was sincere, and which has helped the cause of social justice in that it has brought about the discussion of a very important matter.
I was in my riding for several days recently, and while it contains a large Roman Catholic population, nobody came to ask me where I stood on abortion. What these people were worried about were much more mundane things, such as whether the post office was going to close or how many jobs on the highway were going to be discontinued or what works were going to take place in my riding. They were not really interested either in homosexuality or abortion.
May 12, 1969

In fact, the only sections of the Criminal Code that affected them were the gun provisions. I told them that these had been modified so no one would be adversely affected. My son will still be able to have his 32 rifles and 10 revolvers. I pointed out that the provisions were not going to hurt the rod and gun clubs, so no one was very much concerned.
However, Mr. Speaker, I think we should be concerned, particularly about the press of this country which has given a totally wrong impression of the meaning of the abortion provisions of the bill to the Canadian people. We are facing a very important social problem in this country. I believe the minister will admit that therapeutic abortions are not going to change anything. True, the doctor will now have some protection. Previously, even though he carried out a therapeutic abortion in a hospital and had ten people supporting his decision that it was necessary, in effect he was still performing an illegal abortion. Now, the proper machinery is established, abortions can be performed legally within the narrow confines of the law.
Hundreds of thousands of abortions are being performed illegally in this country, to the extent that the situation has now reached major proportions. In this regard, members of parliament should forget some of their parochial reasoning and decide what is for the public good.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
The attitude of some hon. members reminds me of something I saw when I visited a southern Ontario township in which they were having a plebiscite. In this area there were hotels and many people did quite a bit of drinking. They did not drink legally, however, by having their drinks in the hotels. I saw a minister preaching to those people from the back of some truck. He was telling them how terrible it would be if they voted to have beer in Hanover. And who paid for the truck, Mr. Speaker? The bootlegger did, and everyone knew it. And who paid for the band? Why, the bootlegger did, and everyone knew it. You could go into almost every private house in the area and have a drink with the inhabitants; but you could not have two drinks because the people did not want their neighbours to know they were drinking. I cite this example to show how hypocritical everyone there was. Similarly, members of parliament and members of the press are equally hypocritical and stupid if they maintain that in this country
Criminal Code
there are two schools of thought on abortion; that one faction wants it and the other faction does not. That really is quite inaccurate, because when we talk of abortion we are talking of something that affects society.
Should there ever be one or two serious accidents in the abortion mills in this country as a result of which women die, we shall see a great hue and cry for changes to be made in the legislation so that women may have some protection. No matter why a woman wants an abortion, she thinks she has a good reason. She may be emotionally upset, or physically concerned; if she seeks an abortion she should have the protection of the law. The matter is of social concern.
Many hon. members here have talked about conscience. Very recently I listened to members in my household discussing the Pope's decision to change the list of saints. One of my sons is married to a Roman Catholic girl, and my other son shortly will marry a Roman Catholic. These are mixed marriages. I raised a family of nephews who were strong Roman Catholics; I tell hon. members this to show them that the discussion was serious and interesting. The members of my household were joking about the saints. They said you might get rid of St. Christopher, but you might have trouble in England getting rid of St. George, even though they got rid of dragons over there. They were most concerned about St. Nicholas, though. I think that even if our ecclesiastics dropped St. Nicholas from the calendar of saints the Protestants, and especially the shopkeepers, would make sure he would be revered at Christmas for a long time to come.


An hon. Member:: But your party believes in Santa Claus.


William Arnold Peters: If the Pope had decided to authorize birth control, no one would have argued with him. It is surprising that the consciences of many hon. members are not troubled by this decision; I say this because I have no doubt that some members of parliament of a Roman Catholic persuasion are practising birth control. Therefore, they accept the concept of birth control. Many of the laws of this country are, so to speak, ecclesiastically oriented. In many cases the ecclesiastical underpinning has disappeared, but the law remains. As ecumenical councils meet and consider many social problems, we shall consider many of our social problems in a changed light.

May 12, 1969
Criminal Code
The newspapers carried articles supporting abortion and condemning it, just as in the capital punishment debate some supported the idea of capital punishment and some were against it. In this house we tried to hang together so that we would not be hanged individually. But with this legislation we ought to try to cure a social ill that seems to beset most of the world. Actually we have been blowing up a tempest in a teapot and arguing about something that is not before parliament. The point is that we shall have to bring about social changes.
This bill was not originated by the Minister of Justice. He inherited it from the previous minister of justice. Actually, it has been kicking around for a long time. I hope the minster will be examining the legislation to see how it can be brought into line with current thinking on social issues. You know, there is a saying that if the law is bad, enforce it and it will be changed. Well, certain acts that are not performed in public are hard to control. The laws relating to homosexuality have not been enforced severely. Although these laws lend themselves to many abuses they have not been pressed because homosexual acts are conducted in private, and therefore remain a private matter. It is, therefore, true to say that we must speculate to some extent about the area in which social change must be brought about. As members of parliament we are dishonest if we do not face social problems squarely and try to solve them. I predict that within two or three weeks after this limited legislation has been passed a young lady in one of the large cities will die in one of the abortion mills of the country. You can argue all you like about life and the taking of life, and there are some very nice arguments from the point of view of conscience. There are nice arguments ecclesiastically; they are great arguments in theory. But the practical fact will be that women will be dying in abortion mills that are openly run in this country. I say that because even social workers are sending women every day to these abortion mills. If we do not correct the situation by adequate legislation, then each and every one of us will be responsible for the deaths of these women.
I suggest it might be a good exercise if once in a while we held a referendum in this country on simple questions such as the constitutional responsibility for education, or something like that. I think members of parliament would find that the average Joe does not care a hoot about who has jurisdiction in 
that field. It might surprise many here to see the results of referendums.
In closing, may I remind hon. members of what happened when two or three of us in this house carried on a campaign to broaden divorce laws. Many hon. members opposed that broadening. They said they could not support the concept in all conscience. Yet, looking around me now, I see there are hon. members who, while first saying they disagreed with the concept of broadened divorce laws, later voted for the measure. Why do some hon. members not take the position of some of our churches, the representatives of which have said to us, "Our people cannot take advantage of broadened abortion legislation, even if the legislation is broadened to a ridiculous degree, because their consciences will not permit them to do so. On the other hand, we do not wish to stop others who are not so inhibited by their consciences from taking advantage of the change."
Some hon. members who have not felt too strongly on these matters will, I hope, nevertheless make representations to the Minister of Justice. We need changes not only in the field of abortion but in other fields also in order to enchance Canada's reputation and in order that social problems may be corrected by legislation instead of being ignored. I think we will be surprised, as every hon. member from the province of Quebec was surprised, to find that when we finally make the change, there is absolutely no reaction from the people from whom we expected the most reaction.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Mr. D. R. Tolmie (Welland):: As Chairman of the Justice Committee which studied Bill C-150, I would like to make some observations of a general nature. I congratulate the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner). He attended before our committee and in my opinion did a most admirable job. He was courteous and most knowledgeable. I also commend the officials who attended before the committee. They made a real contribution. I should not miss the opportunity of also congratulating the members of the committee.
When we first had this bill placed before us, many of us felt we would be faced with a long and tedious chore. I can assure the house that the members of this committee worked diligently, were most knowledgeable and worked in the interests of the Canadian people. I feel the committee system at this particular time was on trial. I know the test was passed superbly. The members worked
May 12. 1969

independently. There was no question of harassing members and trying to support the government. In most cases members of the government took opposite positions to government policy. I think this is a real tribute to the committee system.
I would also like to pay tribute to the members of the steering committee, the member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) and the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Wahn). In no little way were they responsible for the expeditious passage of this bill through the committee. It should be made very clear this bill was not given a perfunctory examination by the committee. We held exhaustive hearings. When considering abortions and homosexual behaviour, we had before us the reports of the Health and Welfare Committee, the Wolfenden report and the report of the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee on the breathalyzer test. There were four witnesses who gave evidence on the administrative and technical aspects of the bill. In my opinion this was sufficient and made it possible to have this bill passed effectively through the committee.
The committee realized this legislation was going to affect the lives and welfare of many Canadians. We had to strike a delicate balance. We had to make an exhaustive survey and at the same time get the bill through with dispatch so that it could be translated into legislation for the benefit of Canadians.
As a member of the government and as Chairman of the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee, I was wholeheartedly behind this bill. I felt the government had at last taken subjects such as homosexuality and abortion out of the past and asserted that there should be change. In my opinion, these changes were long overdue. These changes were consonant with the feelings of the great majority of the people in Canada.
Naturally, a great portion of the debate centred around the question of homosexual behaviour and abortion. These are emotional matters. All members have certain definite opinions concerning these matters. The point should not be obscured that this bill also brings forth many other social changes. This is one of the things which has been missed.
I do not intend to go into all the ramifications of the bill. I do wish to point out, however, that there are many desirable changes made by this bill. If you vote for this bill you will be supporting the concept of the compulsory breathalyzer test. We all know that literally thousands of Canadians are
Criminal Code
killed on our highways, and millions of dollars in property damage result from accidents involving drinking drivers. Compulsory breathalyzer tests have worked in other countries.
By voting for this bill you are passing firearm legislation in the interest of public safety; you are passing legislation to prevent pain and suffering to animals; you are passing legislation which would eliminate or reduce harassing telephone calls. You will be supporting enlightened legislation which will enlarge the rights of the accused unfit to stand trial because of insanity and you will be making provision for greater use of suspended sentences and probation. In addition there are many technical amendments to this bill, especially with regard to the procedure relating to appeals. While still maintaining due process of law for the protection of society, these changes will give the accused individual every possible protection against the authority and might of the state.
In case you are led by my remarks to believe that this bill is comprehensive as it relates to social reform, let me say this is just a start. We must get into the field of bail, electronic eavesdropping and wire-tapping.
The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) in my opinion brought forward a most important amendment relating to the sealing or expunging of criminal records. This amendment was rightly ruled out of order, but it had one good result. It brought to the attention of this house the real need for such legislation. I introduced a private member's bill in June of 1966 to expunge Criminal record, but it has yet to be approved. I feel such an amendment will make the government realize the people want and need this type of legislation. I exhort the government to show the same initiative in introducing a bill which will expunge criminal records.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: 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.

Mr. H. E. Stafford (Elgin):: On May 7, the
Board of Directors of the C.B.C. announced
May 12, 1969
8612	COMMONS DEBATES
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
that it will halt all tobacco advertising on its radio and television networks when current advertising contracts with the tobacco companies expire.
I do not have to be reminded that the board has the power to adopt the course it has taken. I stand here to remind the board that such licence is not in itself justification and that such power must be exercised equitably. In view of the circumstances surrounding this decision, the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) owes the large number of Canadians who have a vital interest in the tobacco industry something more than the stock answer that he only reports to parliament for the C.B.C. It is not enough to give them the threadbare assurance that he will bring the matter to the attention of the Board of Directors. In his position as the mouthpiece of the C.B.C. in parliament, I submit he has a very special duty in this case to add a personal postscript, namely that corrective action is to be expected.
By orders of reference dated November 29, 1968, the subject matter of six private member's bills dealing with tobacco and cigarettes was referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Services. The committee commenced its hearings on December 19, 1968 and the first witness called was the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) who said, as recorded on page 130 of the evidence:
This committee should look at all possible ways that cigarette advertising can be strongly controlled.
Dozens of witnesses have been heard, hundreds of pages of evidence have been transcribed and the proceedings are expected to continue for some time. The President of the C.B.C. told the members of the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts on May 8, that the directors reached their decision to ban all tobacco advertising on radio and television without calling any witnesses, since they had the evidence of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. The president failed to mention how and when the matter was placed on the agenda or the measures he took to ensure that each of the directors was sufficiently informed of the evidence to make such an important decision. I would be reluctant to think that the directors were guided to their conclusion.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
None the less, a conclusion based on such evidence is almost incomprehensible, since 
the proceedings of the standing committee are still in progress and the committee, until this evening, has heard only those witnesses who strongly oppose the use of tobacco. At the time of the board's decision the witnesses for the other side, including the tobacco industry, had not been called. Even in the imagination it would be difficult to envisage a more arbitrary and irresponsible decision. It contravenes all the canons of common courtesy and good faith. The Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) should point out to the directors of the C.B.C. that Canadians will not for long tolerate bureaucrats who are insensible to the interests of all parties.
But as impossible as it may seem at this moment there is an even more serious aspect to this decision. The decision was made in the midst of the hearings of the standing committee whose task it is to decide this very point. It was an affront to parliament. It was a demonstration of bureaucratic power at its very worst.
The decision is even more difficult to comprehend when one considers the evidence of Marcel Ouimet, Vice-Chairman of Programming for the C.B.C., on February 6, as set out at page 425 of the committee proceedings:
The corporation has in the past given consideration to the effects of withdrawing completely from cigarette advertising, but has come to the conclusion that the isolation of the C.B.C. in this field would do little actually to modify the attitudes to cigarette smoking.
While the decision will do little actually to modify the attitudes of people to cigarette smoking, it will certainly modify the revenues of the C.B.C. by a drop of $700,000. It may be that the vice-chairman was reflecting on the situation in England where cigarette sales have had a steady increase each year since cigarette advertising on radio and television was banned in 1965.
Among government departments, there is considerable variation in policy regarding tobacco. One department provides films for anti-smoking commercials; another provides advice and guidance to growers; another helps promote its sale. Now, the C.B.C., a subsidized-perhaps I might add a generously subsidized-crown corporation, has banned all tobacco advertising on radio and television.
The Delhi Tobacco Research Station carries out research work on flue-cured tobacco and recommends cultural practices to help farmers improve the yield and quality of their tobacco crops. The Harrow Experimental Farm works on cultural aspects and improvements in curing burly tobacco.
May 12. 1969	COMMONS
The Department of Trade and Commerce trade commissioners make efforts to facilitate the sale of Canadian tobacco abroad. They make special arrangements for growers of Canadian tobacco to meet buyers of other countries. The trade commissioners are very helpful and share the cost with the growers. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), at the recent Japanese Trade Fair in Tokyo, apparently urged the Japanese to buy Canadian cigars when he had his picture taken with the president of General Cigar Company at the company's exhibit.
More Canadians, and in particular the young, watch "Hockey Night in Canada" than any other C.B.C. program. This program, exhibiting Canada's national sport, is intermittently interrupted by rhythmic beer commercials which exude such fun, laughter, song and dance that the listener is almost lulled into feeling that its consumption is linked to some patriotic embrace of our big land. It is interesting to compare the free wheeling beer commercials, which offer every conceivable inducement to viewers, with the restricted cigarette commercials which so limit the scope of tobacco advertising.
Approximately 5,500 people were killed on our highways last year and statistics show that alcohol was a factor in half of these deaths. There is one thing about smoking-if you hurt anyone you hurt yourself. But if you drink you may hurt or even kill innocent people.
Cigarettes now-but what next? Any industry whose machines or giant smokestacks pollute our atmosphere, or whose organic wastes pollute our waters, may be banned from advertising on the C.B.C. Those great killers, the cholesterol bearing foods, may soon be lost to our television screens. There is no end to the protective role the C.B.C. could assume.
This censorship of advertising smacks of the regulation of human order in George Orwell's allegorical satire "1984". There is no place in Canadian society for the benevolent dictatorship of Big Brother or the Ministry of Truth's dreaded "Thought Police" who suppressed "thought crime." Perhaps I might quote from the diary of Winston Smith, the hero of Orwell's novel, who was himself an employee of the Ministry of Truth-"Down with Big Brother."
Before resuming my seat, may I say that the Canadian taxpayer and parliament have the right to expect the board of directors of the C.B.C. to exercise their authority in the right
DEBATES	8613
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion way and not merely to exercise it. In this case common courtesy would surely indicate that the board should have waited for the parliamentary committee to complete its report. The president did not reveal whether or not the decision received the unanimous approval of the board. If I were prone to conjecture, I would say that it did not.
Yesterday morning the president of the C.B.C. said on "Newsmagazine":
We took action on our own Initiative rather than have government action push us as reluctant dragons into it.
From these words one logical inference emerges to the surface, that the board beat the government to it. This may not be contempt of parliament, but it is certainly contemptuous of it.


Mr. Robert Slanbury (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I want first of all to congratulate the hon. member for his stirring defence of his tobacco growing constituents. I appreciate his words of praise for the government's efforts to assist them in selling their product. However, it seems clear that, under present and past broadcasting acts, parliament has delegated responsibility in matters of programming, including broadcast advertising, to the board of directors of the corporation, subject only to the general laws of the land and such conditions of licence and regulations as may be prescribed by the Canadian Radio-Television Commission.
I am informed by the C.B.C. that the question of tobacco advertising has been under periodic review for many years and, like many other products, its acceptance or rejection by the C.B.C. is a matter of the corporation's internal commercial acceptance policy.
The C.B.C. has expressed the opinion that it would be gross impertinence on its part to believe that its actions would or could in any way prejudice the findings of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. As for the suggestion that the corporation's action constitutes an insult to the committee, the members of that committee will undoubtedly speak for themselves. It is doubtful that many will share the view that the committee has been insulted. I am sure they will make their own decision.
Obviously the committee is free to make its own comments or recommendations, unimpaired by the corporation's action which has been taken on the authority and responsibility delegated to it by parliament. The corporation has advised me that it is its practice to follow
8614	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion closely the proceedings of parliamentary committees when they are in any way germane to the work of the corporation, and I am sure that the corporation will continue to do so.



TRAN SPORT-CHAPLEAU. ONTARIO-CLOSING OF PART OF C.P.R. SHOPS

Mr. Ralph Siewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I do not relish the thought of speaking tonight on this subject because the story I must tell is one of tragedy. It is a story about the Canadian Pacific railway which has chosen once more to reduce its employees at Chapleau, Ontario. This time it is reducing to the extent of 66 the number of its staff working in the shops. This means that 66 families will have to move from Chapleau.
What will this mean to this small town? It will mean, first of all, a tragedy for these employees and their families, many of whom were born and brought up in that town. Many of them have married there and built homes there. This decision will also mean a tragedy for the town itself because the economy of such a small town is directly related to the inhabitants who live there.
When one thinks of 66 families moving out of this small area, one get some idea of how the overall economy of Chapleau will be affected. The decision is more serious than its effect on a few families or on this one town in northern Ontario. It indicates a continuation of this chipping away at the development of northern Ontario which has been going on for years, particularly in respect of the transportation industry. Both the C.N.R. and the C.P.R. seem to have little or no regard for development in northern Ontario. What is it that develops an area if it is not communication?
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
What was it that opened up Canada from sea to sea, if it was not the railroads that went from sea to sea? Chapleau finds itself in the midst of northern Ontario, closed off from everywhere except for a C.P.R. line which links it with the rest of Canada. It was a division point, an important link in the C.P.R. Chapleau has been slowly reduced in importance until now the C.P.R. is deciding to close the shops almost completely. To my mind this means only one thing, that within a short time there will probably be no railroad centre in Chapleau.
I know the C.P.R. is not a direct responsibility of the federal government. But if we cannot rely on the railroads to help open up those parts of the country which are not

DEBATES	May 12, 1969
developed, upon what else can we rely? Who can we rely upon if not the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson), and through him the transportation commission which might be able to influence such decisions by the railroads? If we cannot turn to the minister, I do not know where else we can turn. I know that today certain services of the railroads are being shut down and passenger services are being discontinued because they are not economically feasible. But to suddenly, with the stroke of a pen, decide the fate of 66 people in a place like Chapleau seems to me a bit much.
I will now relate something that is very unpleasant, Mr. Speaker, but it needs to be said. The news of the C.P.R. decision came out in Chapleau on Thursday night. I raised the question in the house on Friday. There happened to be one man in Chapleau who was quite senior on the railroad, and who perhaps was troubled in the past. He had three sons working in the shops in Chapleau who were affected by this decision. Whether or not the man was well is one question, but certainly this decision was- the trigger that set things off. The man committed suicide over the week end and was buried in Chapleau today.
Perhaps we could say that this is not the railroad's responsibility. At the same time there is a question of human values that enters into the matter. It seems to me that we talk about human values when thinking of other parts of the world. Are we thinking about that same humanity when considering the less developed areas of our country? In the past there has not been enough said about northern Ontario. We always hear about the traditional areas that require development, such as the maritimes. We have heard so much in this house about some parts of the country and some parts of the economy that we are sick to death of hearing about them. I refer to wet wheat and fish. It seems to me it is time we started paying some attention to the development of northern Ontario, where industries would give us returns and revenue from the richness to be found in that part of the country.


Mr. Hopkins:: And eastern Ontario.


Ralph Wesley Stewart: Yes. The hon. member mentions eastern Ontario. This is quite true. We find ourselves in a very similar situation. The eastern part of Ontario and the northern part of the province are cast aside by the barons of Bay Street; they are thrown aside by the great, developing indus-
May 12, 1969	COMMONS
tries. It seems to me it is time, and past time, that we started to give a little more consideration to the courageous people who have gone to the north in order to develop it. This part of the country is not too far away: Northern Ontario is only a few hundred miles from here; it is not like the Arctic. However, many people, when they think of northern Ontario, think it is away in the hinterland. It is not. It is an area that is rich, that needs to be developed. All we need are a few people of good will to help develop it. We are not asking for hand-outs. All we ask is for the opportunity to develop. A situation has developed in Chapleau over the past few weeks because an arbitrary decision was made to cut off something that is vital to the area. This decision should be fought by the government. Certainly, I think that by mentioning this decision in the house we can at least bring it to the attention of the people of Canada and perhaps influence the C.P.R. to change their decision.
DEBATES	8615
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Mr. Jim McNulty (Parliamentary Secretary
to Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the requests of the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) and to his very fine address to the house. I am certainly convinced he has a point. I am sure the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) is very sympathetic toward the hon. member's problem. I was assured by the minister that he made representations to the president of the C.P.R. concerning the closing of the shops in Chapleau. The minister assured me also that he will personally investigate the matter immediately, in fact the first thing tomorrow morning.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. It being after ten o'clock this house stands adjourned until tomorrow afternoon at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.20 p.m.
29180-546J

Tuesday, May 13, 1969