1969-05-09

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Third report of Standing Committee on Regional Development-Mr. Morison.


Mr. H. E. Gray (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I propose to lay upon the table of the house draft income tax regulations affecting the taxation of the insurance industry. The regulations set out details of the computations of deductible policy reserves, of the portion of the investment income of companies with international operations which is to be attributed to Canada, and of the portion of the assets of companies with international operations which is to be considered Canadian.
As indicated earlier by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), the regulations are being made public in draft form to facilitate parliamentary and public consideration of Bill C-191.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. In order to clear up any possible ambiguities arising out of the Prime Minister's statement yesterday about further "expenditure cuts", would the right hon. gentleman advise the house whether such cuts are to apply to the current estimates or are they to be for the 1970-71 fiscal year, as suggested by officials of the Department of Finance?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, they will be for 1970-71 and
future years. It is a matter of cutting into expenditures and programs which are now in existence and which will have to be curtailed.
I have alluded to them at other times in discussing with the house the need to discuss with the provinces, for instance, the necessity to curtail spending in shared-cost programs and so on. There will be a definite program of expenditure cuts which will have to be discussed with the provinces in order that they realize that some of the important programs will have to be curtailed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Then we are to take it that the answer given by the Prime Minister is not as to action for immediately dealing with the problem of inflation, which was the question yesterday?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the contrary, Mr. Speaker; it is a very important aspect. One of the reasons for inflation is that in many cases these expenditure programs are rising at a rate faster than the revenue expected by the governments of the provinces and the federal government. It is necessary, in order to curtail inflation, to make sure that expenditures do not exceed the revenues in a consistent way. This is one of the basic tools for hitting at inflation.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Prime Minister could advise the house as to what he means by the phrase "certain vested interests in the country". Do these vested interests include old age pensioners, farmers and others who are beneficiaries under government programs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Perhaps vested interests can define themselves. But I am prepared to indicate that one vested interest I had in my mind was the opposition parties who were constantly asking for greater expenditures in every area.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: I
have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister whether, in his proposal to effect these drastic cuts he can assure us that the very modest assistance given to agriculture will not be reduced and

May 9, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry that the program does not preclude some assistance to western Canada, in view of the very serious situation that exists there?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: When I said that we would have to make cuts in various programs I did not indicate which programs would be affected. Of course I will announce this publicly in due course. However I think we just received an example of what I said previously. If we want to make cuts everywhere except where farmers, fishermen, urban dwellers and old age pensioners are affected, it will be difficult to fight inflation; this is a perfect example of the vested interests in the opposition.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Prime Minister, in his approach to the economy in this respect, to have regard for the fact that there are certain sectors which are not contributing to inflation and which at this time are actually depressed.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-Easl Richmond):: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. I should like to ask him whether these drastic cuts will affect his personal staff, which has recently been increased.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Real Caoueiie (Temiscamingue):: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. I asked him yesterday, as may be seen at page 8466 of Hansard, if he was considering the suggestions made by the Rallie-ment creditiste, and his reply was, and I quote:
-that all those who know about such things agree that the suggestions coming from the creditiste system are, essentially, of an inflationary nature-
In view of the fact that he has just said that we are in an inflationary period, is the Prime Minister suggesting that what we have now in Canada is a creditiste system?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think that this question is in order.


Mr. Barney Danson (York North):: Will the Prime Minister assure the house that no reduction will be proposed in the estimates for the office of the Leader of the Opposition

who, according to news stories, even now is having trouble in retaining his staff?


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: In view of the Prime Minister's announcement of the urgent need for cuts in spending, will consideration be given to the possibility of cutting back the purchase of CF 5's for which the Minister of National Defence has found it difficult to find a useful role in Canada's defence plan?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that perhaps we have reached the moment at which we might go on to another subject. The hon. member for Greenwood must realize, or at least this is my understanding of what we are discussing now, that this is a situation which will apply in 1970-71, so perhaps questions on this could be put by hon. members in the course of the next year.



WATER RESOURCES


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Before doing so, Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to say how delighted we are to see him back in the house and in good health. We trust he will continue to progress and will be with us for a long time.
My question arises from a statement made by an official of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources regarding the deterioration of the pollution situation on the Great Lakes, particularly Lake Erie, and a statement to the effect that more than half the pollutants are coming from firms on the United States side of the line. I want to ask the minister whether his department or any other department of the government is making representations to the United States authorities in an attempt to stop this very great pollution that is taking place, before the situation gets completely out of hand.


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, may I thank the hon. member and all members of the house for their kind welcome back. Now that Canada has a team in the major leagues I think it would behoove me
May 9, 1969

not to emulate the mighty Casey, and take that third strike. I will try not to do this.
With respect to the hon. member's question, there is continuing negotiation by the International Joint Commission at the International Joint Commission level in respect of pollution emanating from either side of the border. Whether or not my own department at the present time is taking special steps in view of the situation in regard to Lake Erie I am unable to say, but I will take note of the question. Certainly we hope to have the new water act before parliament this session, and I think this will take a very considerable step in the direction of controlling pollution, water pollution in particular, and may give us new tools with which to deal with this matter internationally as well as domestically.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that Mr. J. Bruce of the minister's department, speaking in the United States, said that the situation is so serious that it warrants a crash program to deal with it, does the government intend to introduce some crash program in the immediate future or does it intend to wait until the International Joint Commission has dealt further with this matter?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any crash program, so-called, at the international level at the present time, but certainly I do think the new water act will indicate a very positive and strong approach to the question of pollution. I quite concur that the problem is extremely grave and serious, inasmuch as it affects future generations as well as our own. Certainly the government will take every possible step to see to it that the problem is met; and at the international level we will continue the most forceful negotiations possible, I am sure, under the aegis of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, as well as having meetings with the United States cabinet, which I understand will take place a little later this year, at which the international aspects of pollution will be discussed.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can we assume from the minister's presence in the house today that he has now resumed his departmental duties?


John James Greene: To the best of my ability, yes, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry OIL



EXPRESSION OF CANADIAN VIEWS TO U.S. CABINET COMMITTEE

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct this question to the Prime Minister in view of the fact that he recently had talks with the President of the United States on the subject of petroleum. The President of the United States set up a cabinet task force on March 26, 1969 to conduct a comprehensive review of the mandatory oil import program, and the task force was headed by George P. Schultz and composed of Rogers, Hickle et al. Would the Prime Minister assure us today that Canada's views on oil exports will be made known to this special U.S. cabinet committee, that we will be formally represented at the hearings to be held and will present a formal submission at that time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would not go so far as to talk about formal representations; but as to submissions, informal and otherwise, there have already been exchanges of views between officials of both governments and there will be continuing meetings of officials, to be followed up late in June, as the minister has said, by meetings at the ministerial level to discuss important problems, including this one.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the Prime Minister assure us that Canada's views will be made known to the people who are on this special cabinet committee, whose membership includes some of the most important ministers of the United States?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The opposition usually scoffs when we set up task forces; I do not know why the hon. member should attach such significance to a task force in the United States when we can make our representations in other ways.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not wish to get into an argument with the Prime Minister, but I have never scoffed at anything which leads to action.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON CUTBACKS AND TRADE LOSS

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In view of the fact that oil cutbacks now amount to $60,000 a day, will the Prime Minister make a statement soon, taking industry, the house and the country into his

May 9, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry
confidence, with regard to the program in is answering for that department today, so connection with such a serious loss of trade, that we could at least know who will take the restoration of which would lead to the questions as notice? Or are we to continue revenue about which he spoke so eloquently this constipation of thought and diarrhoea of earlier on?	words?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. If a statement is to be made it will be made by the appropriate minister.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I direct a supplementary question to the minister? I wish to join with other hon. members in welcoming him back. When the hon. gentleman gets back to his desk, and in the near future, will he be prepared to make a statement on this serious problem, one which is causing anxiety to the industry in Canada, particularly in western Canada?


John James Greene: We shall be in constant touch with the industry. I believe we are in continuing consultation with Washington with respect to their current review of policy. As the hon. member knows, a good deal of the future well-being of the oil industry in Canada depends on United States policy and the attitude they take toward the present quota system. In these circumstances I believe the best service we can do the Canadian industry is to make sure that our views are made known in Washington as strongly and as effectively as possible, and this we certainly intend to continue to do.



INQUIRY AS TO SUBSIDIZATION OF AMATEUR PROGRAM

Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolietie):: Mr. Speaker, I wished to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare; I trust that, in his absence, the Prime Minister will be happy to answer it.
As in the last few days the minister met with the Quebec Minister of Tourism with regard to financial assistance to amateur sports in the province of Quebec, would the Prime Minister tell us if they agreed on the terms of such assistance, and what the amount of the grant will be?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would respectfully remind the hon. member that today is not one of those when the Minister of National Health and Welfare is required to answer questions.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Could the Prime Minister tell us exactly who



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: That last remark inhibits me somewhat, Mr. Speaker, since I cannot do other than use words in phrasing my question.
I would like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether he would give assurance to the house that the government will not enter into any arrangement with regard to participation in the air warning and control system without first having the matter debated in parliament?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we have taken the position that further progress toward the definition of defence policy will be announced in due course, and of course members of the house will have an occasion to discuss it.
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax
East): Mr. Speaker, in light of the widespread press interpretation of the remarks of the Minister of National Defence and of the Secretary of State for External Affairs last night, may I ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether the government has now concluded in its defence policy review the necessity for some form of continual role in NORAD, and particularly in the U.S. proposals for airborne warning and control through the 1970's?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot comment on the press interpretations that the hon. member refers to, not having been made aware of them and not having read them, but I can say that the policy has not yet been finally decided by the government.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL DEFENCE
David Lewis: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Prime Minister assure the house that the white paper on the conclusions following the
May 9, 1969

review of defence and foreign policy will be presented to the house before the summer adjournment?
Right Kon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe there will necessarily be a white paper on this aspect of it. We have talked about a white paper on our foreign policy, but on the matter of defence it will not necessarily be in the form of a white paper. It might well be by way of a statement by the minister, which he will make as soon as the decision is reached.


David Lewis: As a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the white paper on foreign policy will be presented to the house before the summer adjournment, and whether the statement by the minister on defence policy will be made before the summer adjournment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am afraid we would have to ask the two ministers about the timing they have in mind.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Yesterday the minister stated that the western farmers were contemplating a 12 per cent reduction in their wheat acreage. Is the minister now in a position to assure the farmers that the government is giving consideration to giving them some assistance to achieve this objective?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I answered this question yesterday. I have nothing to add.


George Robson Muir: In his reply yesterday the minister did not give any assurance that the farmers would have any assistance. Since the government apparently does not intend to assist the farmers in reducing the wheat acreage can the minister assure the house that the Canadian Wheat Board and his department are in a position to load and deliver the 135 million bushel balance of wheat sales under the three year sales agreement with Russia which expires July 31?
29180-540J
Inquiries of the Ministry


Jean-Luc Pepin: I cannot give an assurance, for the very simple reason that these problems are studied by the cabinet, and I can only announce policy when policy is formulated by the cabinet. With respect to the sale to Russia, however, we have the quantities of wheat for delivery to Russia and when the contract is signed the Wheat Board will see to it that the quantities are delivered.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. On his recent visit to Japan did he seize the opportunity to discuss with the Japanese government the loss of the Canadian barley market to heavily subsidized barley from France and, if so, with what result?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, Mr. Speaker; we brought up this problem in the conversations. I tried to convince the Japanese buyers, in this instance the Japanese government, that they should also look to the long term. We have protested formally to the E.E.C. and to the French government on the extreme subsidization of these sales.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce whether in his discussions with the representatives of the government of Australia he succeeded in getting any firm commitments to the effect that Australia would adhere to the price levels set out in the International Grains Arrangement?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, every country is full of good intentions. The Australian government has made some offers that would tend to renounce some marketing advantages. These offers were made on April 27 at the prices review committee in London, if my memory is good. The United States representatives also indicated they are willing to make some changes in their present practices. AH exporters are looking at each other to see who will move first. Of course sales like the one made by France to China, at reduced prices, will not induce other exporters to step into line and to return to the pricing schedule of the I.G.A.

May 9, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry
I am being very frank: we have difficulty in getting the unanimous support of exporters and importers. The tendency of importers of course is to take immediate advantages whenever possible of current price levels, and to forget the long-term considerations and their importance. Importers may not realize clearly enough the long-term consequences of their action and the results they will have on the future marketing of the commodity in question in the world.
Although the difficulties are great I hope that importers and exporters alike will realize the importance of the International Grains Arrangement and bring their policies into line with that agreement very soon.


Mr. R. R. Souiham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it true that, as reported in some quarters, a trade mission from Soviet Russia is presently in Ottawa in order to negotiate the remainder of the three year contract for the 135 million bushel balance of Canadian wheat.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, if my information is good, and I think it is, that is unfortunately not true.


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday when I wished to question the minister about discussions he has had regarding wheat sales, so that he could explain to the house why Canada has lost about 33 per cent of her former world market, you refused to allow me to ask the question. Yet when a similar question was directed to the minister today, the minister was permitted to answer without being ruled out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member kindly resume his seat? The hon. member should note that the Chair made the same ruling today as yesterday, when the question referred to was ruled out of order. I am therefore pleased to see that the hon. member has reminded the Chair that I was consistent in rulings today and yesterday. Unfortunately the minister found a way to go beyond the ruling of the Chair, and that is why I interrupted him. I wanted to suggest to him that he was actually ignoring the ruling of the Chair, and that the type of question

being asked ought normally to be placed on the order paper.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I rise on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. The question I asked yesterday was of national importance and urgency. It was not argumentative and I fail to see why it was ruled out of order without any explanation for that having been given.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has no right to ask for an explanation from the Chair as to why a ruling was made. The rules provide that when there is a matter of urgency to be discussed opportunity is given for a discussion to be held at the time of adjournment.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. This question relates to lost Canadian sales. Considering the great value of the potential sale I am about to mention, will the minister explain the reasons for our losing the contract to supply a $75 million nuclear power station to Greece?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether it is in order to ask the minister to give an explanation of this kind. I think this type of question ought to be placed on the order paper.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: May I ask another supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since Canada lost the sale of a $75 million nuclear power station to Greece, did this country make any offer to arrange for credits for such sale through our Export Credits Insurance Corporation?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Well, Mr. Speaker, the opposition speaks very freely these days about "lost sales", but there is nothing in Adam's will to say that Canada will make sales of this or of that to Greece, to Japan or to China. We are competitors, we are bidding for these sales. Sometimes we win and sometimes we lose.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This time we lost.


Jean-Luc Pepin: We made a bid. We made an offer. The offer was backed by our Export Credits Insurance Corporation but the Greek government did not accept our offer, seeming to prefer the British offer because of general trade considerations. It seems that the British government offered to buy Greek tobacco. Apparently the British do
May 9, 1969

not want to smoke Greek tobacco; but that is another subject-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Personally-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



SHIPPING


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday and Tuesday of this week I and others directed questions to the Minister of Transport about a matter of concern to the Pacific coast. It had to do with a certain type of tug, its sinking, and death. I understand the minister promised to reply today. If he is now prepared to reply may I ask him to make the comments that he promised to make on this matter.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, immediately after the sinking of the tug Emerald Straits a preliminary inquiry was undertaken. As a result of the work of the inquiry photographs and observations were taken at the site of the wreck. The vessel was located. No structural damage was found. However it is now felt that there ought to be a formal inquiry under the Canada Shipping Act.
It is my view that the inquiry can only succeed if the vessel is brought to the surface to be examined thoroughly. Consequently, tenders to recover the tug will be called within the next few days and the formal inquiry will have the opportunity to get under way very shortly.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In his absence may I direct it to the Prime Minister, and I do so without making any apology because the question relates to the passports of several hundred people who are trying to get away next week on charter tours. They are having difficulty. My question arises from the difficulties of Canadians born in Britain who need their birth certificates for proof of citizenship with the Department of the Secretary of State, after having filed such birth certificates in support of a passport applica-
Inquiries of the Ministry tion. Will the minister or the Prime Minister issue instructions for the use of temporary passports on the strength of the British birth certificates, in all proper cases.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe this possibility is being looked into by the minister and his department. But I will recall it to his attention immediately, Mr. Speaker.



FARM MACHINERY


Mr. Ed Schreyer (Selkirk):: My question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. On April 1 the minister told the house that within a few days he would receive a recommendation paper from the royal commission on farm machinery prices. Has he now received that policy paper? If so, is he prepared to make a statement about it soon?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I will check into this.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
In view of the fact that the St. Jean Baptiste Society of Montreal and the University of Sherbrooke refuse to receive the Prime Minister on St. Jean Baptiste Day, does the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce intend to commemorate the anniversary of that society, together with that of his election in the constituency of Drummond, where the Prime Minister saved him just in time?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Calgary Centre.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. In view of the recent recommendation of a British parliamentary committee that British international co-operative defence projects should be extended to include countries such as Canada, and that joint efforts should be made on the basis of programs developed by countries with plants

May 9, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry in several countries, has the minister any immediate plans for co-operation with the United Kingdom in defence research?


Mr. Cadieux (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me this question is of a type which normally should be answered by way of a statement on motions.



AIR CANADA


Mr. James A. McGrath (SI. John's Easl):: My question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the continuing Air Canada strike, will the Prime Minister give consideration to providing government aircraft next week so that members of parliament can attend to their constituency problems?
While the Prime Minister is on his feet, perhaps he can tell the house and the country if there is any sign of a settlement in this strike which is causing so much concern and hardship to the people of this country, notwithstanding the good work being done by regional air carriers.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the first point, Mr. Speaker, I first need an opinion as to whether the hon. member is suggesting he act as a strikebreaker.


James Aloysius McGrath: I made no such suggestion, Mr. Speaker. My suggestion was serious. I want the Prime Minister, because this is Friday and the beginning of a weekend, to give some ray of hope to this house and the country that there is perhaps some sign of settlement. If there is no sign of settlement, will he give consideration to making government aircraft available so that members of parliament may enjoy the same privileges that ministers enjoy in getting back to their constituencies?


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: A supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for St. John's East. With regard to the matter of strikebreaking, does the Prime Minister consider the Department of Transport was strikebreaking when they extended privileges to other airlines to service our air traffic?



AGRICULTURE


Mr. H. W. Danforlh (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the

Minister of Agriculture. Because of the time necessary to implement such a policy, may I ask him if the government has any plan under consideration with regard to excessively low priced imports to prevent the collapse of the price of domestic commercial corn, as was experienced in the last two harvest seasons?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, there were a lot of suggestions and considerations discussed between the federal Department of Agriculture and the provincial Department of Agriculture, bearing in mind some of the responsibility as to where jurisdiction lies for providing legislation toward a solution to these problems. We do not have a specific proposal now to deal with this. As I said on a number of occasions, the major part of the problem arises because of the competition for space during the harvest season.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: further question to the Minister of Agriculture. Since much of the problem is storage, would the minister give consideration to the request of the National Farmers Union in their brief that a storage policy be established by the government which would assist farmers in this area?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance announced several months ago there would be accelerated depreciation of additional storage. Therefore there is part of a policy involved there now, with regard to storage.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: If there is part of a policy, Mr. Speaker, could the minister consider establishing a full policy?



TRANSPORT


Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Will the minister consider intervening in a crisis which suddenly developed in Chap-leau, Ontario, where the C.P.R. yesterday announced a decision to close a large portion of the shops, thereby giving notice to 66 families that they will have to move to another area? Could the minister ask the C.P.R. to reconsider this decision?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has made a representation which I must assume has been noticed.
May 9, 1969



BORDEN-TORMENTINE FERRY RATES

Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: My
question is for my fellow Burnsophile, the new and still unspoiled Minister of Transport. Has the minister yet had time to take steps to dissuade the C.N.R. from their deplorable efforts toward infiltrating the rates on the Borden-Tormentine ferry service?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The position is not directly that of the C.N.R. I have been making some inquiries with regard to that matter, and I hope to have some information for the house in a few days.


James Aloysius McGrath: Would the new Minister of Transport make some inquiries of the C.N.R. with regard to saving the "Bullett"?



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Will the government be assisting Canadian Pacific Airlines in their efforts to obtain renewal of their contract between Auckland and Vancouver? If so, in what respect?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I will have to take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker. As far as I am aware, we will do anything we can to maintain our service in the Pacific. I will try to obtain a more specific answer.


Thomas Miller Bell: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Since the New Zealand government is involved in this refusal and since Canadian Pacific Airlines are going to cause another application to go forward, will the minister consider backing them fully in this effort, and report to the house?



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: My
question is for the Solicitor General. Is his department giving consideration to implementing in some of our correctional institutions the new techniques for dealing with prisoners developed by members of the department of psychiatry at McGill University and presently being implemented in the New York prisons?
Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Solicitor General):
Yes, Mr. Speaker. I saw the item in yesterday's paper on which the hon. member has based his question. Parts of that practice are in operation in Canadian penitentiaries now. Perhaps I should not comment more fully on the newspaper story.



PRESENCE OF MINISTERS DURING QUESTION PERIOD

['Order, please.']
John Howard Lundrigan: Before asking my question, I think it is a legitimate point to ask the house leader who is receiving questions for the Department of National Health and Welfare? Who is acting in the capacity of this minister today?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, there is no one acting for the Department of National Health and Welfare today. That is not in the roster for Friday.


John Howard Lundrigan: In that respect, I have no question. This is becoming a real farce. Yesterday I could not ask questions because time would not permit. Today I cannot ask questions because the minister is not here. The situation is hopeless.



Mr. J. Edward Broadbenl (Oshawa-Whit-by):: My question is for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of the Vatican's announcement that a number of saints are to be taken off the official list, will this affect the government's decision to consider establishing diplomatic relations with that body?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



AGRICULTURE


George Robson Muir: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. When giving consideration to the importation of cheap com, will he take some action on the importation of cheap vegetable oil seeds, and oil? He has been considering this for the past year and it is ruining our industries in that regard.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, it is true that we have been giving serious and active consideration to this for a very long time. We hope to be able to find some basis for preventing this problem. I

May 9, 1969
Business of the House
have to advise the hon. member that the considerations involved in these two commodities are not the same.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: At the
invitation of the Prime Minister, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. It is supplementary to earlier questions regarding the statement on defence policy and/or the white paper on foreign policy. Is the minister in a position to say if that statement is going to be made before the summer recess?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I am sure I will not be able to resist the invitation, when I come back from the May meeting in Brussels, to make a statement to the house.



WATER RESOURCES


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: My
question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, however I notice neither he nor his parliamentary secretary is here. I hope the absence of the hon. member is not caused by having acquired a taste for red herring. Is the acting minister in a position to inform the house if a decision has been made to assist the fishermen of Placentia Bay and St. Marys Bay which have been affected by pollution?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the matter of the terms of the formula we might apply is under active consideration. As I assured the house earlier, there is a disposition to help these fishermen. For obvious reasons their inability to earn a living is beyond their control. As I am sure all hon. members will appreciate, it is difficult to find a formula to do this. I propose to meet with some of the fishermen during the weekend and hope we can come up with some of the answers at that time.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the acting minister whether yesterday's reports in the press and on TV regarding animal experimentation by the Food and Drug Directorate of the Depart-

ment of National Health and Welfare, and other related matters connected with the Department of Fisheries, were precipitated by a public relations effort on the part of these departments.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, Mr. Speaker.


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. He mentioned meetings to be held in Newfoundland during the weekend. In view of the Air Canada strike and my inability to get home to my constituents, would he consider taking me along with him?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I assume the question has been heard and will be considered.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I assume the question period is over.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) on a point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My
point of order relates to the business of the house. I am sure it was an oversight, but yesterday we were not given our usual Thursday statement concerning the business for the ensuing week. I wonder if we might be given this statement at this time by the Minister of Agriculture, in his capacity as acting house leader. I am assuming that the debate on Bill C-15Q will not last much longer and we would like to know what will follow that business. In giving the order of business I hope the minister will bear in mind the desirability of our giving our attention first of all to matters such as housing, veterans affairs and various other important issues.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, it has been difficult to outline a program of the business that would be called in the ensuing days, because of the length of time that has been taken on Bill C-150. If the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is correct in his assumption that we are approaching the end of that debate and the disposal of all the stages of Bill C-150, then of course if that were to happen today we are prepared to call Bill C-157 which is item No. 43, then Bill C-153 in respect of the Historic
May 9, 19G9

Sites and Monuments Act which is item No. 17, and perhaps item No. 36, Bill S-15 in respect of the Food and Drugs Act. However if it should take all of today to complete the report stage of Bill C-150, we would call third reading of that bill for Monday.
It is not completely clear at this point in time, because we do not know when third reading will be finished, whether immediately following that we will be calling the bill in respect of the status of the official languages of Canada or the bill in respect of the National Housing Act. This will depend on how much time is required for Bill C-150.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether there are other interim items which might be called. It has been suggested that item No. 68 in respect of the report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications might come up for debate.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Perhaps we should have a brief meeting of the house leaders to discuss matters of this nature.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, May 8, consideration of Bill C-150, to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Peninten-tiary 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. 19, Mr. Rondeau.
Mr. Henry Laiulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, at the time of adjournment last night, I was reciting the litany of the economic disorders generated by the present situation.
Mr. Speaker, when confronted with economic chaos, man should always get priority, for the very existence of the world is at stake and we have to defend it. The present chaos, slowly but surely, will lead us to the worst calamities and at last into a death whirl, thereby disturbing the very essence of human life.
At the present time, we have before us the bill on abortion. We are discussing an amendment moved by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau), for deletion of clause 18 from
Criminal Code
bill C-150, and I should state, in the light of abortion, that never has human folly reached such a peak by way of cruelty, barbarity, cowardice and stupidity.
None can doubt that this world is hurling itself into the abyss, except those which have eyes and see not.
Instead of seeking negative measures we had better imagine positive, vital, constructive and moral ones. At the moment, we are thinking about economic measures, about man's requirements which are not adequately met. These requirements are the continuance of the human race and to continue, that race needs favourable economic conditions.
[DOT] (12 noon)
We are thus led to study documents and methods from other countries which went through the same alternatives as we do and were subject to conditions similar to ours.
Abortion in our society does not only involve morals and ethics but also peoples' health. There are medical and social factors involved, as is the case for venereal diseases.
This bill on abortion is not essentially meant to deal with the woman who cannot be aborted and dare not have an abortion, but with the mother who does not want to have one.
In France, Mr. Speaker, some steps have been taken to improve the economic conditions of the mother who is often led to ask for an abortion, because the economic conditions do not allow her to cope with that situation and to pass through that stage.
In France, family allowances are three times higher than those in Canada. Allowances for single salaries have been established and are paid beginning at the first child if there is only one professional salary in a home.
We have established the housing allowance. Housing allowances are paid to pregnant and, married women or unmarried mothers who do not have the means to lodge themselves properly. Then the State intervenes and sounder economic conditions are offered to those persons.
The rates of the S.N.C.F. and the principal transportation companies have also been substantially reduced. When a pregnant woman or her husband use those means of transportation, they enjoy special rates to protect the family and expectant mothers.
Abatements have been granted according to the number of children in the assessment of taxes.

May 9, 1969
Criminal Code
In Canada, we also have tax assessments but they are not high enough to enable families to live decently as human beings.
Mr. Speaker, several measures, before and at the time of birth, have been enacted to help women carry through their pregnancy.
Further provisions have been made, including three free consultations during the third, sixth and eighth month of pregnancy. In the course of the first month, a complete check-up must be made free of charge by the physician. If the husband or wife works, prenatal allowances are granted after each medical examination.
Mr. Speaker, Canada has no such plan. This is one of the reasons for today's complications. One of the reasons why the famous Bill C-150, and particularly clause 18, have been introduced is that we are unable to provide the people with sound economic conditions.
Such a situation would call logically for the deletion of clause 18 from the bill. It is logical, Mr. Speaker, that we take the time required to adopt economic, social and humanitarian measures for the benefit of our Canadian families to whom our country owes its greatness and its splendour.
So, Mr. Speaker, about first child allowances in France, it is said, and I quote:
-are paid only if the birth occurs in the first two years of marriage or before the future mother is 25 years old. So a single woman who becomes pregnant after the age of 25 does not receive this allowance. It would seem desirable, on the contrary, that she benefit from this allowance even if she is above the age limit, to encourage her to keep a child of whom she will be the sole supporter.
A nursing bonus is payable from the thirtieth day following birth; it is equal to two thirds of the amount of the monthly allowance.
What special steps are taken for single women? In order to increase the marriage rate, some countries have established a marriage loan-
-in Sweden.
It is a loan bearing current interest but requiring no guarantee. The marriage loan with partial refund at each birth promotes the regularization of common law marriages and early procreation.
A preventive allowance for desertion. But the payment of a small amount is an inadequate palliative, and is therefore ineffective.
Maternity homes provide free care. Women can stay there up to three months after delivery. (At Fontenay-les-Roses, women can remain there up to a year after their delivery; during the day, they look after their child and do housework.)
Therefore, the principle is excellent. Unfortunately, there is not a sufficient number of those maternity homes. In France-
-and in many other countries

the homes are financed by the state in a proportion of 20 per cent and social welfare 
provides the remaining 80 per cent. In that area, the Salvation Army is very efficient

-and plays a very important and productive role.
Mr. Speaker, faced with all those possibilities, once again we must logically and seriously think about what we are doing. The changes we are bringing to the Criminal Code will not be useful to Canadian society. The measures contemplated provide for the legalization of atrocities which are absurd-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Henry P. Latulippe: -terrible-


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


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, the effect of this amendment would be to wipe out the proposed new section 18 which seeks to broaden in some measure Canadian abortion legislation. For this reason I and the party with which I am associated must oppose it as we have opposed many other amendments which have sought to prevent any modernization of our abortion laws.
For many days now a number of us have sat quietly while a minority of members of the house have voiced their opinions, often in very passionate opposition to what they believe to be wrong. That is their right. They have exercised it to the full, and those of us who believe in civil liberties have been glad to let them exercise it to the full. But now, Mr. Speaker, it is time that the majority should be heard. It is time that something should be said in support of the opinions of the majority of people not only in this house but across Canada.
Less than a month ago a Gallup poll was taken in this country and this question was asked:
It has been suggested that abortion be legalized as well, to preserve a mother's physical or mental health. Would you approve or disapprove of such a step?
Some 73 per cent said yes. Nearly three-quarters of those polled were in favour of legalizing abortion to preserve a mother's physical or mental health. That is exactly what the amendment that the government has put before us in this omnibus bill proposes.
I feel that this legislation does not go far enough, and I shall explain in what regard it falls short in a moment. However, I believe that the significance of this legislation lies not
May 9. 1969

so much in its provisions as in the fact that the government recognizes that the majority of the Canadian people definitely want to come to grips with the problem of abortion.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
I have been appalled, but not too much surprised, at the number of the members of this house who have absolutely refused to recognize that there is an abortion problem, a problem that exists in real life. Yes, it exists in their philosophies and in the particular religious and moral convictions they have cited. It is real there, but they have refused to recognize it is a real thing in the lives of thousands of Canadian women today. They have refused to see the problem that exists. They have refused to recognize that thousands of Canadian women every year are getting abortions, most of which are illegal under the present law. They have refused to realize that those women who can pay are able to get an abortion abroad or right here in Canada; and these abortions are carried out carefully and safely in all respects. As I have said, this applies to those women who can pay. Those women who cannot pay are being butchered, mutilated and tortured by people who are often quacks and unfitted for the job. Often well-intentioned neighbours attempt abortions with barbarous instruments. Some women have to resort to people of this type because they have no other way of securing an abortion.
Many women are having to bear the burden of pregnancies which they do not want and cannot cope with at all. We have been told over and over again in this house that women ought to be able to bear the consequences of their act, just as though the act were not participated in by others. Here I refer to the male half of the team, which very often gets off scot-free and has no difficulty at all. This hideous discrimination is continuing. We have the disgusting hypocrisy of seeing this kind of thing going on and the law doing nothing to grapple with the problem. The choice we in Canada face today is not whether we shall have abortions or no abortions, because we will have abortions and they are being performed now. The choice is, shall we have legal, safe abortions regardless of whether people are wealthy or not or shall we continue with the backroom, butcher system of abortion which we have had to date? This is the choice before us.
We in this party wanted it declared legally that abortion is not a crime. We wanted to do what we are proposing to do with respect to
Criminal Code
birth control legislation, that is, remove it from the Criminal Code altogether and put it where it belongs, under the heading of a medical and social problem. We wanted to leave the question of abortion to the decision of the pregnant woman, her doctor and those people directly concerned on either side of the partnership. That is what we wanted, Mr. Speaker, but you, quite rightly, found this was not possible in the way in which our amendment had to be drafted. Therefore we shall have to continue to press as best we can for the enlargement of the legislation introduced by the government. We shall support this legislation until we get something better.
This is a 4 per cent law. A similar law was passed recently in Colorado and it is called just that, the 4 per cent law, because it affords relief and help to about 4 per cent of the women who need it. I talked recently with Dr. Alan Guttmacher of Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, and he tells me it is true that the Colorado law will minister to about 4 per cent of the women who need this help. We shall support the government legislation because it is an improvement over the present law even though it falls very far short of what is necessary. This legislation does not touch the question of illegal abortion, which is the most serious aspect of the problem for those women in the low income groups.
I should like to tell the house one or two A things in which I believe. I believe that the state has no right to compel a woman to continue a pregnancy which she feels unable to cope with, whether for reasons of physical, mental, or emotional health or of economic circumstances. I believe the state has no right to compel an unwanted child to be born.
We have been told by speakers to my left that women want abortions for reasons which are often not at all serious. We have been told that it is not a serious reason for a woman to want an abortion when she already has a number of children and feels that for health or economic reasons, she cannot cope with any more. In my view it is the responsibility of parents to have only the number of children they can afford. It is the responsibility of parents to have only the number of children they can afford to raise properly as Canadian citizens in good health, well educated and well aware of their responsibilities. This is the responsibility of parenthood. To go ahead and have all the children that arrive is in my view the height of irresponsibility in today's world. I believe that, Mr. Speaker, from the very depths of my being.

May 9, 1969
Criminal Code
In the old days the world needed all the people it could get in order to carry out the work of the world, which often had to be done by brute force and ignorance because they did not have all the mechanical aids that we have today. In those days there was a great deal of disease and maternal and infant mortality. There had to be many more children if there was to be any hope that enough of them would survive in order to carry out the work of the world and continue the human race. However, Mr. Speaker, I say with all the force at my command that today the world needs an increasing population in exactly the same way that we need the nuclear bomb.
Responsible legislators who are grappling with today's problems and Canada's share of world problems would not make the kind of irresponsible statements that we have heard in the last few days, namely, that we should continue indefinitely increasing the population even of this country which is not yet overcrowded. These are irresponsible statements in a world where the population explosion is menacing certain areas now. We also shall have to take the consequences of the population explosion in those areas.
One feature of this debate which has alarmed, saddened and, I may say, made me feel very indignant, is the attitude toward women which has been displayed by some hon. members. It is quite an unconscious attitude; I am not saying it is deliberate. It is an inborn, inbred, uneducated attitude, an unconscious attitude on the part of many people in this country toward women. I could read letters to the house too. The leader of the Creditistes read a letter last night. I have received letters from the same type of people, although not the same type of letter.
The letters I have received are from people in despair, social workers and pregnant women. These are not young girls who go out for an evening and get into trouble; they are women who have had three or four pregnancies, are in poor health and financial circumstances, often with an ill husband at home, and who do not know how they will raise their existing children physically, emotionally and financially. They do not want to be forced to have indefinite numbers of children. They do not want this situation to continue with nothing being done about it and no recourse at all available to them. These are women who have tried birth control methods conscientiously and honestly, and those methods have failed. These are not frivolous, light-hearted women who want an abortion so 
they can get into a size 10 dress when at the moment they are wearing a size 16.
I think some hon. members who have taken this attitude have done so because they do not know any better. This is the kind of attitude I have been listening to for many days. They have treated women purely as baby machines, without minds, feelings or rights of their own. They have suggested that it is the duty of women to have any number of children without complaint. They have suggested that therapeutic abortion boards should include a psychiatrist for the purpose of telling women that maternity under any circumstances is good for them. They have suggested that spiritual advisers be appointed to therapeutic abortion boards for the same purpose.
As George Bain said in his column in the Toronto Globe and Mail the other day, the boards they suggest might include just about everybody but the T.V. repair man, and it might be a good idea to put him on the board because he might show more compassion than the people who have been suggested as members. Members of this house have argued that pregnancy reduces even an intelligent woman to a state of mindlessness where she needs a man to tell her what is good for her, and that, of course, is always that she must continue her pregnancy regardless of the effect upon her or the child or society.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
The great majority of people believe that this attitude is completely wrong. No one denies the right to anyone to hold such beliefs or express such opinions as the ones to which we have been listening for the last two weeks, and we have proven this by sitting quietly while they expressed them. But I will not permit the impression to be left by them that this legislation will in any way force abortions on people who do not want abortions and who do not believe that they are right. This legislation will apply only to those who want and who believe in the necessity of abortions.
In spite of much that has been said and implied, no one will force an abortion on any woman who does not want one. No one is going to force a doctor to perform an abortion if he does not want to perform it. Let me assure hon. gentlemen that no one has the slightest intention of aborting them, even if such a procedure were desirable-and who is not tempted at times? I am afraid that no therapeutic abortion board would be willing to do the job even if it included psychiatrists, spiritual advisers and TV repair men.
May 9. 1969

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 their conscience, while respecting the right of the minority to continue in their own way according to their own conscience. The other night I heard the Credi-tiste 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 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.


David Réal Caouette: Would the hon. lady permit a question? I agree that the minority should not impose its views upon the majority, but would the hon. lady not admit that a referendum should be held across the country on this very matter so that we can determine the views of the majority and of the minority?


Malcolm MacInnis: I believe it is the job of the government to govern, and once that government has implemented its policies in legislation the referendum will come at the next election. If these people can prove that they are the majority, then we shall have a referendum in the right way, at the right time, and in the right place.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Loiselle:: The hon. member is speaking like a Liberal now.


David Lewis: Do not insult her. She is doing well.


Malcolm MacInnis: I should like to say a word now about clause 18 and the premises where abortions are to be permitted. I am very glad to see that since this legislation was introduced the government has added approved hospitals to the former provision which simply said that accredited hospitals would be the only places where abortions could be performed. I think this is a very wise change because accredited hospitals are far too narrow a base for the operation of the new legislation. If the clause had not been changed, the result might well have contributed to the pile-up of abortions such as we have seen in other countries. Second, some districts have
Criminal Code
no accredited hospitals, and consequently abortions should be allowed to be performed in approved hospitals, which means approved under the laws of the province wherein they are situated. Third, some accredited hospitals will not want to perform abortions anyway. So in order to allow an opportunity for necessary abortions to be performed, even where there are several hospitals available in our cities, we are very glad that the government has added "approved hospitals" to "accredited hospitals" as places where abortions can be performed. Eventually

and this would help in more scattered areas-I believe abortions should be allowed to be performed legally in well equipped and approved medical clinics and even in well equipped and approved doctor's offices. We are not ready for that at the present time but eventually this should be done.
The facts about abortion are shrouded in an emotional fog which it has been very difficult to penetrate even in the long investigation that has been carried out. Recently I witnessed a film which showed an eight-month foetus which was almost a completed human being. It was very recognizably human. In that film the impression was given that this almost completed human being was a fit subject for abortion. I raged when I saw it because there was no opportunity to say anything about it then. This impression is all wrong. Abortions could and should be performed before the end of the third month of pregnancy. The safe limit is the twelfth week of pregnancy. This has been brought out in evidence over and over again. The knife is not the only way. We have been told over and over again by some witnesses before the committee that an abortion is a dreadful thing, that it involves the loss of vast quantitities of blood, haemorrhaging, mutilation, and all kinds of other complications. This is a great exaggeration. For example, the new suction or vacuum method is in wide use in countries behind the iron curtain as well as in other countries, notably Japan and Israel. I myself have witnessed such an abortion which was performed on a two-month foetus. It required only a local anaesthetic, took 15 minutes to perform, and was carried out by a regular qualified doctor in Canada. It caused practically no bleeding-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member. Has the hon. member the unanimous agreement of the house to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

May 9, 1969
Criminal Code


Malcolm MacInnis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This operation relieved a woman in her late thirties who had several children. She had health problems which her doctor had told her were serious. Her income was very modest and her husband had refused to consider any sterilization of himself even though he was in sympathy with what she was doing and in full knowledge of it. I may say that I witnessed this operation with her permission. This woman had conscientiously but unsuccessfully tried birth control methods, with the acquiescence and co-operation of her husband. The operation brought about relief from a situation with which neither she nor her husband felt able to cope. Within 15 minutes of the operation being performed the woman got up from the table, had a cup of coffee and on the arm of her young daughter went home and has been perfectly well ever since.
This is the truth about most abortions, and I wish it was better known. Those people who are keeping this truth shrouded in an emotional fog and who are using the ideas of the middle ages to prevent us from entering into the 20th century are not doing a service to the Canadian population. Let them leave these ideas back in the middle ages together with the torture chamber, the rack, the thumbscrew and those other things which belong to a less enlightened age and which are not in accordance with the needs of today.
The whole subject of abortion should not be treated as a criminal matter but as the medical, personal and social matter which it
is.	It should be dealt with in such a manner as to provide justice to every citizen regardless of his or her income. It should be dealt with in such a manner as to provide flexibility for individual cases and for different schools of thought in Canada; there should be flexibility to accept new methods and techniques. The only way to meet these requirements is to remove the subject of abortion completely from the Criminal Code and leave it to those directly concerned, namely, pregnant women, their doctors and those members of the medical profession required. The bill now before us does not do this, but pending the introduction of such legislation I serve notice that while I am in health I shall present proposals for such legislation until we get
it.	Meanwhile, we in this group are glad to go on supporting this bill right through to the end of this debate, and we hope that the end will not be far off.


[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) for having readily participated in this extremely important debate, and at long last, the minister was seen to smile.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, after such an extended debate on the question, the only remarks made in this house were against abortion; because of this, we are pleased with the contribution of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway.
However, throughout her speech, one could perceive the main reason why she is in favour of such a legislation. Of course, we had foreseen it, since we have been denouncing it since the very beginning of this debate. And all the sentimental and social arguments put forward by the hon. member are precisely those that have been ascribed to us, and that is the reason why we continually wandered during this debate from considerations entirely unrelated to the subject matter, that is whether abortion is a murder or not, whether it should be allowed for health reasons or what is the nature of the abortion.
Scientifically and medically speaking, what is abortion? The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway was entirely off the track in this regard.
Why are we told about illegal abortion? There is nothing in this clause that will control illegal abortion. On the contrary, clause 18 will promote illegal abortion and I want to substantiate my statement with very specific arguments.
In those countries where abortions were authorized, on the ground that there were too many illegal ones, what happened? Illegal abortions quadrupled after the legislation authorizing abortions was passed.
It is very easy to understand. Why? What happens? Let us suppose this bill is passed and abortion is legalized according to the provisions of clause 18. What will happen to all those women and young girls who are just waiting for abortion to be legalized to resort to the provisions of the law? In those extremely numerous cases, these young girls or women will come before the hospital therapeutic abortion committee to ask for an abortion. The doctors will discuss the case, consider whether it is justifiable or not and after having studied the condition of the patient, will decide against an abortion because the life of the mother is certainly not in danger nor is her health affected. What will happen?
May 9, 1969

Criminal Code
The young girl or woman who asked for an abortion will get it anyway, but who will she go to then? After meeting with a refusal from the advisory committee, she will consult illegal abortionists. There will be plenty of such cases.
That is why such legislation, in all the countries where it was adopted, caused increase in the number of illegal abortions. We shall not be shocked by the haemorrhages brought on by the use of knitting needles, or of any kind of contraption.
Why do we not need this legislation? Because present statistics, at least those relating to Quebec, prove that the number of illegal abortions is decreasing to a very great extent. We are about to reach the zero point on this subject. Why? Because there are some misgivings. Since people are better educated, they know better how to manage. So abortion becomes useless.
Why then authorize abortions for quite sentimental and emotional reasons?
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway brought in the argument of "the population explosion", which makes me laugh because, nowadays, at least in our region, large areas are abandoned and an increasing number of our rural parishes are deserted. There is an increasing shortage of manpower to the extent that it is impossible to step up the development of our immense country. The expression "population explosion" makes me laugh.
But, as the hon. member comes from Vancouver, perhaps she fears the yellow peril and in view of the great number of Chinese and Japanese people who are faced with a population explosion problem, I do understand her point.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
Perhaps the hon. member is being influenced by the problems faced by Japan, India and China. But, what has that got to do with Canada, a country larger than the United States, almost as large as the Soviet Union with her 225 million people? It is absolutely inconceivable to talk of a population explosion in Canada, a country of 22 million people. This is something unbelievable, especially for us Quebecers and French-Canadians who can perpetuate our race only through childbirth, because we cannot rely on immigration to increase the population of our country.
For us, the best kind of immigration is made up by the children coming from the wombs of our women, and we want to look at
the problem more positively and encourage the raising of families, because we need them.
This argument about the population explosion is ridiculous, in my opinion, and it should be dropped, either in the Atlantic or in the Pacific, or in both.
Mr. Speaker, it is also regrettable that the only feminine voice we hear in this house-a charming voice which we love to hear as a rule-should express ideas which, in my opinion, are in opposition to those of the great majority of the population.
We said that we represented our areas, that we reflected the opinions' of our people, but we become more and more aware that people think like that throughout Canada.
In support of this statement, I will recall the wonderful speech made by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) last night. His intervention was worthwhile, in my opinion, and set the record straight.
The hon. member said, and I quote:
-I will remind the minister that the onus is not on those members who are carrying on the debate because oi their deep religious conviction and the dictates not only of their consciences but of the consciences of Canadians throughout the land, including Canadians in the area which I represent.
Mr. Speaker, Calgary is far from Quebec, far from Trois-Rivieres, far from my constituency. But I realize that over there they have the same problem; most Canadians are opposed to abortion, just like the majority we are representing here as a minority. This is what the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway was saying earlier.
We are told that we are standing in the way of freedom, of democracy, that we are hindering the house. This is a manner of speech which to me does not reflect reality, since many members have been elected by a narrow margin.
And when two, three or four parties have put up candidates, the member elected by the people may get only 20 or 25 per cent of the votes in his riding. Therefore, we must conclude that 75 per cent of the people did not vote for the government. Thus the government is elected by about 35 or 40 per cent of the voters, which means that 55 per cent of the people were against the present government.
When we speak of majority, we should take this factor into account in the political system we have at this time. It is an anti-democratic system to the extent that it was said that the Pearson government was ruling with 37 per

May 9, 1969
Criminal Code
cent of the votes. Even if 63 per cent were against it, that did not prevent the government from holding office.
In such circumstances, we do not hold a majority. And yet a majority is against the present administration. That is why to say that a minority holds back the majority is a ridiculous statement. On what grounds can one be prevented from taking the floor in the house? Will such a practice be used to undermine a sound democracy?
I shall quote but one paragraph of a letter sent by Mrs. Marie-Paule Doyle to Mr. Marcel Gingras, editorial writer of Le Droit, who in his lucubrations decided to write an article on the Creditistes' stand against the omnibus bill.
Mrs. Doyle concludes her letter as follows:
Our democracy is a pitiful one and I am very disappointed to find that the media, which in my opinion should ensure that democracy operates as well as possible, are so willing to flatter a government whose members are mere puppets.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) admits it sometimes most candidly, he tells us that he cannot do anything, because he has some commitments.
It is too bad, because the Minister for whom we have a high regard and who moreover we find much more handsome than the Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Attention, attention!


Mr.   Malle@: -on account of all those stories has unfortunately become a mere puppet. His features, his attitude, his fine bearing, in fact everything in him are not consistent with the word puppet and I am sorry to say that he is one, because it is true.
Therefore, the argument, according to which a minority delays the proceedings of the house-an argument which they are starting to hurl at us-is untrue. When we maintain that a majority of Canadians are against abortion, we are absolutely convinced. And the intervention of the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway has all the less surprised us, because I remember that at the beginning of the discussion on the bill we had told the house that the bill, especially as far as homosexuality and abortion were concerned, actually originated from the New Democratic Party and we still have again another proof thereof.
People say that we are going back to the Dark Ages, that we express ideas that are as dead as the dodo. In barbarian times, such actions were common. They were perpetrated in primitive tribes, where the mother or the

father had a right of life or death over their children. Abortion was performed, not only when the child was in its mother's womb, but at the time of birth, so that girls were killed with impunity, but boys were safe. Those things happened in barbarian times, during the Dark Ages.
Today, we live in a modern world where the right to freedom comes first. The most valuable right to freedom is the right to live and this is the one we defend. This is the very right we are defending today from a position of strength, since we got the support of a great number of Progressive Conservative members and here again I would like to quote what the hon. member for Calgary North said yesterday:
Tonight, a great nation is bleeding. It is bleeding because the government insisted, because of the antagonism of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), on bringing in this bill, no matter what other important questions were facing the nation, and ramming it through the house. I am not one of those who are critical of my hon. friends to the left.
He should have said to the extreme left.
That little group has fought and stood for the principles in which it believes. These hon. members are content to have their names publicized and to be accused of filibustering. They feel deeply about this question. The minister knew this when he introduced the bill. The Prime Minister knew it. We are now engaged in a debate on this contentious issue. The bill contains many worth while amendments. The minister knows how I and my party feel about amendments to the Criminal Code.
We are not alone, Mr. Speaker, but we have been alone unfortunately, in discharging our true responsibilities, we have been alone in stirring up public opinion and in awakening somewhat the conscience of hon. members. We are going on today with determination, all the more so as we find that others now share our views, that others have finally understood that our fight is not a useless one. Whether this bill is adopted or not, whether these clauses are adopted or not, when the people learn of the consequences which we have stressed, they will recognize those who have fought for a just cause.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
Those who were not swayed by emotions or blood, realize that the only possible attitude is to preserve the privileges attached to the indefeasible right to live, and that this indefeasible right also belongs to a human being still in the mother's womb.
What is the value of human life? I could say that a building has a certain value, and the same thing goes for human life, but the building has value only in relation to human
May 9, 1969

beings and to their needs but human life has intrinsic value. These two values come into play for human beings; they have value for others, and an intrinsic value as human beings. It would be dangerous to confuse the two, for we might then be tempted to look upon individuals as upon instruments to be used by others, or even by the state. That is just about the philosophy of the N.D.P. in this regard.
This same faulty reasoning would allow the killing of the unborn child for the sake of family well-being. If we consider, the value of a human being only in his relations to others, any human life becomes expendable.
A cripple, a homeless or abandoned tramp may not seem to have any value for others. If this were the only valid criterion we could eliminate people in cold blood. It is forbidden because we recognize the intrinsic value of human life.
Never mind the circumstantial concepts surrounding the fundamental right to live; we must not be influenced by such considerations. We must safeguard the paramount principle, the right to life, which we have fought for.
Yesterday we had the chance to hear two magnificent speeches by the hon. members for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) and for Temis-camingue (Mr. Caouette)-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.
Does the hon. member have the consent of the house to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Agreed. The hon. member for Champlain.


René Matte: I wish to thank sincerely all the members, particularly since it is the first time such a privilege is given me.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: You are getting better all the time!


René Matte: Here is how we must consider the question of abortion.
From the beginning, we have spoken to all the amendments only from a scientific and medical point of view. But yesterday, in order to prove that we were not repeating ourselves, and to show that we had studied the question from all angles, we heard the two speeches of the hon. members for
Criminal Code
Shefford and Temiscamingue, who stressed the moral and religious aspects. It was the first time we put those arguments forward, because we wanted to be taken seriously.
We wanted to extend our full co-operation to the government and to clarify the matter.
Everyone knew that the matter was controversial, from the very moment the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) introduced this famous bill, and since the election campaign which all the members of our party waged on that issue in their respective ridings.
Therefore, the government knew that that was an extremely complex matter which would give rise to doubts and would lead to this opposition.
That is why today, Mr. Speaker, the odium of this endless debate should be imputed to those who are actually responsible because they had been warned that we would not let such a matter pass without opposition. Even if this could harm us politically, we had taken for granted that we had the right and the obligation to reassert here, in the house, the truly human stands which are imperative with regard to such a vital and important matter.
If we were the only ones, Mr. Speaker, to think like that, if we had been the only ones to advocate such a thing, I can assure you that we would have realized a long time ago the mistake we were making in trying to extend the debate. But we were sure of having a full and unconditional support. I have not received a single letter telling me to stop. I am still waiting for a telephone call of someone who will tell me: "What are you doing? Enough of that. What are you trying to do?" I am still waiting.
Then, Mr. Speaker, why is it that all the representations we are receiving urge us to carry on and to try and convince the government?
It is a very sad thing indeed-I said so before in my first speech on the subject-to find that this house is often nothing more than a school of verbosity. That was one of the most unpleasant surprises I had since I came here. We realize that all our arguments are only intended for posterity. Luckily, we can at least count on that. When our grandchildren will read those speeches, they will say that there were at least a few who had common sense at that time.
What is disappointing is that we know it is useless to bring forward any argument or to consider the question from every angle, since we know perfectly well that the decision is

May 9, 1969
Criminal Code
already made. There is nothing more discouraging for a young member who wishes his country well and who would like that all legislation considered beneficial to the entire population. I am still waiting for an answer to the question I asked the minister. I am insisting on this for the last time, as we are now studying the last amendment regarding abortion.
Mr. Speaker, about three months ago, I put a question on the order paper. I asked whether some organizations were advocating the passage of the bill on abortion and homosexuality and, if so, which ones. The minister himself told me by a curt "no" that there were none.
On the other hand, he mentioned some 50 to 60 organizations which had sent their opinions on the subject. As he said "no" and as 50 to 60 organizations had sent briefs on the subject, that meant that all those organizations were totally in favour of the bill, or at least had strong doubts about it.
I would like the minister to tell us who are those people, apart from the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway and other hon. members of the New Democratic Party. Who are those people who want the passage of the bill on abortion? Who are those people? We should know that.
Are there people other than a certain Lyse Payette who, on the C.B.C., said that she wants to be the sole master of her body, and that it should be so with all women,, and that it is as simple to undergo abortion as to have a tooth out? Who absolutely wants-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. It being one o'clock, I must now leave the chair until two o'clock.

At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2 p.m.
René Matte: Mr. Speaker, in order not to hold up the debate, I should simply like to close my remarks on these words: I should like all the considerations we have brought up on the amendments concerning abortion to be summarized by the last amendment we have introduced proposing the

deletion of clause 18. If that amendment were passed, any debate on the omnibus bill would automatically be brought to an end and this house would have proved to the people that it could take into consideration all opinions, regardless of whose they are. It would give the government the opportunity to prove its fair play, its understanding, and to prove that all the members really participate in the shaping of our legislation; in short, that together we strive towards the goal of giving our country adequate laws, with a view to helping not only a very limited number of individuals but, generally, the whole population for the common good of all. That was the purpose of all our interventions.


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, it is the first time that I speak on this bill. I would have liked to speak several times but I hesitated for various reasons. First, I am not a lawyer. Therefore, I do not understand all the legal terminology.
Second, I am neither a doctor nor a psychologist. Therefore, I do not understand all the complexities that might present themselves, either on the side of the doctor in relation to the legislation on abortion, or on the side of the woman in relation to her health.
Moreover, I do not have statistics to prove my point, but I wish to say a few words because I am concerned as a legislator, and especially as an individual, by the way in which society is governed.
I might say that I do not speak for all my constituents, because opinions differ in my constituency, as everywhere in the country. I sincerely think that most Canadians are opposed to this part of the bill.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
Many government members are opposed to motion of the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace (Mr. Allmand).
I have, myself, as a representative or simply as an individual, discussed the proposed legislation with my colleagues who are lawyers.
The present legislation authorizes abortion if life is endangered. I discussed this problem with several colleagues of mine and all of them had the same answer. This is perhaps why I have not intervened so far: I was worried. If to procure abortion is a crime- though I know abortion is sometimes necessary-we must do away with all this.
May 9. 1969

On the other hand, if the legislation or the clause we have at present allow abortion when life is endangered and it is not a crime,
I am satisfied.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder why people want to go farther. And who wants it? What actually can endanger health? A nervous break-down? A headache? What does it mean? I do not quite understand.
This debate has not really answered that question. The word "health" was not defined clearly enough for me to accept clause 18.
The decision will be made by a committee of medical practitioners. Why not by one doctor only, who would bring common sense into play? If it is now a crime for a doctor to procure abortion, let us simply amend that part of the law.
Abortion should not be allowed for whichever reason comes to mind. That is why the word "health" has not yet been defined, in my opinion. I do not know what is meant by the word "health". It is that part of the law that worries me.
I object to the bandying about of all-too-handy reasons to justify the plucking of the infant from his mother's womb, and thus his murder.
As I said, there are reasons. If there are sufficient and serious reasons, let abortion be performed. This bill is a little too permissive, in my opinion.
Nobody said anything about the father of the child. I think that is also very important.
Clause 18 of the bill, in my opinion, is too liberal with a small "1" or perhaps with a capital "L".
At any rate, in allowing such things to take place, society urges us forward. It becomes too liberal for me. They want to change everything. Universities are a good illustration of that. Nothing is worth-while anymore. And so, down with everything.
No Mr. Speaker, there are still some things we should preserve; we could improve them perhaps, but let us not be too selfish and only think of number one, without giving a thought to anybody else.
Time has come to assume our responsibilities and, above all, to make our country a place in which it is good to be born.
We must and we can create a society which will care for unwanted children, but-and this is very important-before passing such a legislation, we should educate the mothers so that they and their children, might have a place in this world of ours.
Criminal Code
Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are given too much licence. This bill is pushing us even further. As far as I am concerned, suffice it to say that if a doctor feels that an abortion is necessary, let him procure it out without committing legally a crime. In my view, the present law says so. That is why I am in favour of the amendment, or against clause 18.
A free vote has been called for. I submit that if the majority of Canadians wanted such a legislation, there would be no problem, even if we were allowed to vote freely on the matter, because the bill would be passed anyhow.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, it should not prove difficult to justify my intervention in this debate, considering the great number of representations we have received and also some facts that I shall have the opportunity of bringing to light during my speech.
I felt the government would give a great deal more attention to the numerous representations made by various important and impartial organizations on behalf of thousands of citizens. I have tried to understand the reasons that might justify the government in taking such action.
I listened to and read the speeches of the supporters of this bill and I also took into account the valid arguments of those who oppose it. I have done a great deal of reading which enabled me to judge the situation better: the ideas and principles expressed by ancient and modern thinkers, that required at times more than a superficial look.
We cannot always make decisions that meet our wishes. The main point in making a decision is that it be supported by facts. Any man is entitled to his own opinion, but no one is allowed to be mistaken as regards evidence. I think that you will agree with me that these two things are quite different from one another: the facts are controllable and remain unchanged, whoever refers to them, whereas each individual has his opinion. Let us beware of a false objectivity seeking only the happy medium between two divergent opinions, no matter where the truth lies.
I have before me an article entitled "The English people are worried about their abortion legislation", which appeared in the newspaper L'Action on April 15, 1969, and I quote:
The way the legislation permitting abortion under certain circumstances is now applied arouses "serious concern, even among its supporters", said

May 9, 1969
Criminal Code
Mr. Richard Crossman, the British Minister of Social Services on Monday afternoon in the House of Commons.
That is to say, in Great Britain.
That legislation passed by parliament in October 1967 and which came into force in April 1968, authorized the termination of pregnancy when it involves a risk or endangers the physical or moral health of the mother, the unborn child, or the other children the mother already has.
Mr. Crossman stated that he was particularly displeased by the way the act was interpreted and applied in the private sector. Since June 1968, 22,000 abortions. have been performed, more than a third in private clinics. The others were performed in government hospitals under the social security scheme.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
Such matters should be considered before passing too readily an abortion bill.
These facts, Mr. Speaker, should bring our friends who support the legislation under consideration to pause over the consequences of the decision they are getting ready to make.
This is happening in Great Britain where the government reacts favourably to the socializing ideas of our N.D.P. friends.


An hon. Member:: That is right.


Charles-Eugène Dionne: In the March 1968 issue of Relations I found an article which I will quote to support my argument. It deals with the Vatican II council.
God, master of life, has entrusted to man the noble ministry of life, and man must fulfil such a task m a manner worthy of him. Life must therefore be protected with extreme care as soon as there is conception. Abortion and infanticide are horrible crimes.
. The right to live involves the duty to maintain it. The right to decent living involves the duty to behave with dignity in a civilized world. The right to search for truth involves also the duty to get to the core of such search within the limits of legality.
Men being what they are, it is natural that morals and politics seem sometimes to disagree, but it is also natural that we tend to reach an agreement in that field.
With a certain astonishment, I have observed the rather loose wording of the various clauses of that famous bill which has to date given rise to so much comments and which has shown that such legislation cannot be passed lightly. After all, it is a rather complicated document of more than 125 pages.
The amendment under consideration affects a clause which has considerable scope. However, we think that we are justified. Nobody

can accuse us of delaying the discussion of the clauses of the bill, especially on this one.
In the first place, we did not ask for it and to judge by the considerable number of protests which we receive, it does not seem that the people want it either. To please the advocates of a new morality, should we allow, without discussion, the passage of a bill which include peculiar provisions inconsistent with the natural order?
We do not believe that we hold the monopoly of virtue, but we are not ready either to assume the responsibility of having contributed to destroy the authority of law. This authority is visibly challenged at every stage of this debate.
Is not law itself undermined by the increase of criminal abortion cases?
I think it is in order to re-establish its rights that many people, in various ways, favour more liberal legislation. We know the facts give the lie to that.
The extension of legal abortion does not reduce the incidence of illegal abortions. The purpose of the amendment is precisely to prevent decisions being made without thorough consideration.
I have here an article from the newspaper La Liberte et le Patriote, of St. Boniface, Manitoba, and I shall quote some excerpts referring to abortion:
It is quite obvious that the Criminal Code, as all other human legislation, must be revised from time to time. The complexity of modern social life can no longer be regulated according to rules established at a time when conditions and mentality were entirely different.
That does not mean we should proceed in a simplistic or absolute way, without allowing for a trial period in the administration of the law and without considering the deeper values that are involved.
It is particularly the case regarding the new provisions on abortion. The murder of a child in the womb of its mother or the provoked expulsion of a foetus not yet viable have always been considered, in any civilized society, as an abominable crime, as were the murders of children already born.
The real moral principles of mankind must be deeply buried if a society, our middle-class society, has become unable to see the murderous aggression against a viable foetus as the result of a criminal mentality, as in the case of any homicide.
Is the expansion of abortion laws a sign of greater civilization? Let us read what a famous historian, Daniel-Rops, indicates among the causes of the decline of the Roman Empire.
"The other threat the Roman society is faced with has always had something to do with overindulgence in lucre and luxury. It has become so easy to get a divorce that public authorities have
May 9, 1969

Criminal Code
become worried. Two legislations were passed, one in 19 B.C. and the other in 9 A.D., in an attempt to limit the damage, to fight adultery and to encourage births. Abortion and exhibition of children are not crimes and are common practice". (Jesus en son temps", p. 172)
One would think this is a description of a segment of our society. Does that not leave us a little perplexed? Would we want legislation that would lead us to the same fate as ancient Rome?
On page 107 of the Relations magazine, which is published by a group of Jesuits widely known for their competence, one can read about the attitude of Catholics and nonCatholics with regard to abortion, in a well-researched article written by Father Marcel Marcotte. This article, from beginning to end, reflects so much understanding and wisdom that I feel compelled to apologize to the author for extract ng some excerpts. The -whole is a masterpiece reflecting with impartiality [DOT]Christian thinking on the very serious problem now under discussion, after having set forth the problem conscienciously and having clearly explained that the Catholics are not trying to impose on the non-Catholics their religious and moral views on abortion, but to express democratically their particular opinions on what the common good entails.
Father Marcotte writes, and I quote:
One must insist on this point, because certain reactions in the public and even in the parliamentary committee and the government seem to indicate that the intentions of the Episcopate have not been understood and occasionally have even been grossly misrepresented.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
Further on, in the text, we find the following, and I quote:
Should a biologist, a medical doctor, a jurist, a Catholic moralist uphold the views of his Church on the problem of legal abortion, he is immediately accused of wanting to transpose in the legislation irrational prejudices related to his religious belief.
We can read also, in the same article, the following:
The same objection crops up again in discussions and lingers in the press under all kinds of forms; the members of the parliamentary committee are sick of hearing it. In short, it could be summarized this way: Since the legislation does not oblige Catholics to practise abortion, why would Catholics want to force non-Catholics not to practise it? We have just shown the lack of foundation for such serious charges, in the case of the official Canadian Church. Catholicism has, of course, maintained more strongly than most of the other religious groups, the traditional assertion which, up to recently was practically unquestioned, whereby the foetus from the first moment of pregnancy has a human character; it has therefore brought in sharper focus the immoral character of abortion. But it would be wrong to think that non-Catholics -mainly those with Christian roots-are on the
subject as tolerant as they are believed to be. It is not the Canadian bishops but the Anglican Conference of Lambeth which stated in 1958:-In the strongest terms, Christians reject the practise of induced abortion or infanticide which implies the murder of a life already conceived (as a violation of the mother's personality) except in case of precise and unquestionable medical necessity. The condition of families or even governments which are desperately confronted with poverty and population explosion, can help us understand why, in their opinion, abortion is not as cruel as the slow starvation to which they are doomed. However, in the eyes of the Christian people, the sacred value of life is an absolute notion which admits of no violation.
And it is not a Catholic theologian but two of the most eminent theologians of the modern Protestant doctrine who wrote in turn:
The unborn child is, from the outset, a child. It is in a developing state and does not possess an independent life. But it is a human being and not a thing, not just a part of the mother's body. Whoever destroys a life in its germ, kills a human being-
Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics.
The destruction of the embryo in a mother's womb is a violation of the right to live granted by God to this new life. To ask if, in such a case, one is dealing with a human being or not is merely to confuse the issue. The obvious fact is that God surely intended to create a human being and that this embryo of a human being has been deliberately dispossessed of his life. It is nothing else but murder.
Dietrich Bonheffer, Ethics.
Closer to us, Professor Paul Ramsey, from Princeton University, expressed equally definite opinions in a recent article in the Dublin Review and in a paper read at the International Conference on abortion held in Washington in 1967, under the auspices of the Kennedy Foundation. Foeticide, he said, does not differ in any way from infanticide; an argument that can justify abortion could equally be of value to justify infanticide; as such an argument does not exist, one must conclude that abortion can never be justified.


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


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief in my remarks. I think it is becoming obvious that the abortion section of this bill is very controversial and is causing a great deal of distress among some members of the house as well as many people in Canada. I do not think I need elaborate on the fact that the government has a responsibility to govern this country. I do not think there is any denying the fact that the country is facing many serious problems at this time. I am sure government members are of the opinion that the Creditistes are carrying out a filibuster. I would point out that I do not necessarily agree with them. A filibuster

May 9, 1969
Criminal Code
works two ways. It takes two parties to disagree; one party proposes something and another party agrees or disagrees with it. In this case the Creditistes happen to disagree with a measure proposed by the government. The government has a perfect right to withdraw this section of the bill, and if this were done the debate would end very quickly.


An hon. Member:: Stick to medicine.


Paul Yewchuk: I stick to medicine on weekends, but at the present time I have to stick to philosophy. Turning from medicine to philosophy, Mr. Speaker, I point out that one of the problems facing the farmers of the west is that they cannot sell their wheat. The government is either unable or unwilling to market their wheat. Therefore, why are we in the House of Commons talking about legalizing abortions and homosexuality? How will this help sell wheat? We have a housing crisis in this country; more than half of the work force of Canada cannot afford to buy, a house in which to live. I ask again, why are we talking in the House of Commons about legalizing abortions and homosexuality? How will this solve the housing crisis? I do not think it will. I believe we are wasting time.
This government has a responsibility to govern, to deal with the serious problems facing the country. Yet here we are wasting time talking about a controversial matter which will have no bearing on the economic problems facing us and will in no way alleviate those problems.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I would ask the hon. member how he relates the sale of wheat to the amendment that is before us.


Paul Yewchuk: I apologize, Mr. Speaker, and will try to keep to the amendment under discussion, but I think these are related questions. Solutions of the problems I am discussing are being delayed by talking about the abortion question, which as far as I am concerned is simply too controversial to proceed with at this time. I am sure that every member on the government side who has read his correspondence dealing with the question of abortion will admit that most of it has been against the bill.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Paul Yewchuk: Pushing forward with this legislation to legalize abortions and homosexuality has bogged down the government so much that the business of the country is being seriously neglected. I think the Minister 
of Justice (Mr. Turner) is aware that this is an unpalatable section of the omnibus Criminal Code bill. We have reached the point where the minister should withdraw this section, but he will not do so. I wonder whether this debate will be referred to on a later occasion when rule 16A again comes before the house and whether the government will say: We told you so; we have to set time limits on debates to prevent this happening in the future. I can see this coming. I shall not accept that argument if it is raised in support of rule 16A which was discussed before Christmas.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We
aborted it!


Paul Yewchuk: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice a question which I hope he will answer. Why was it so important to deal at this time with the sections of the bill concerning abortion and homosexuality? Canada is 102 years old. We have been getting along just fine with things the way they were. Therefore, why is this issue so important at the present time? Why are we taking up the time of the house talking about this question when we face so many serious problems in the country? Why, in view of this, are we discussing these two controversial issues?
I conclude by saying that I hope the government will reconsider its position and live up to its responsibility to deal with the important economic problems facing the country. I have mentioned a couple of those problems but there are others such as the spiralling cost of living, high interest rates and poverty. Twenty-five per cent of our people are living under conditions of poverty. How will legalizing abortion and homosexuality solve the problem of poverty? I do not think it will. I believe we are wasting time. I think it is shameful that we have spent so many days discussing this bill, thus delaying the honest to goodness business of the house about which we should be talking at the present time.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


Mr. Girard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker,
I rise in my turn in order to strongly support the amendment No. 19 moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau), and tending to delete clause 18 of BiU C-150.
I do not intend, as usual, to speak too long. Many things have been said on the subject,
May 9, 1969

Criminal Code
but there are still many things to be said, and certain statements, I think, deserve to be taken up.
The members of the house must make a decision heavy with consequences because, by broadening the legislation on abortion, people will be allowed to play with lives which do not belong to them.
The broadening of the legislation on abortion is construed by the public, at least by some people, in very different ways. Many people send us comments, letters, petitions or newspapers clippings to express their opposition to this abortion law. Some people through the party in office, have spread the word, that the government law on abortion would allow abortions on request.
This is why I think that we must act, as legislators, with all possible care, in order to avoid all the mistakes that could be made in relation to the legislation on abortion.
We believe that every human being has the right to live, unless he loses it through his behaviour, but I do not feel the foetus is an aggressor. It is possible to plead self-defence at times, but in the case of the foetus, this does not apply; to my mind, there is no question of the foetus, on his own, attacking the life of the one who carries it.
Others have proved before me, in spite of the faulty interpretation given in the Criminal Code, that life starts at the time of conception.
According to the evidence given, both before the committee of justice and legal affairs and the committee on health, welfare and social affairs, highly qualified doctors have proved, beyond doubt, that life starts upon conception.
God has willed that two human beings unite to perpetuate creation, and whether or not there will be life is decided at the time of this union. As Pope John XXIII said, and I quote:
-that human life is sacred ... from its very start, it directly involves the creative action of God.
Life is sacred and must be respected from the start, from conception on.
Dr. Houdre states, and I quote:
-man and woman create the child; one and the other provide, at the start, a very small mass of protoplasm that contains the potential of a being perpetuating the species and is endowed with the particular characteristics inherited from the father and mother.
This is further proof that life starts upon conception, that from that moment on, it must be respected.
Clause 18 of Bill C-150, wants to add to the act " . . endanger her life or health"; abortion would then be permitted. That is the vexing point, for the "health" of an unmarried or married mother can be construed in a very broad manner, and this could lead to all sort of abuses. Should we kill a living being, even if it is still in the womb of his mother, when very often it would only meet the whims of a woman for whom pleasure is the sole rule of conduct?
In the report of the debate of the committee of health and welfare page 867, No. 24, we can find the evidence of the President of the society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Man; Mrs. Sally-Ann Kerman. We know that unfortunately, all too often, in the case of mothers who are asking for abortion, the child is unwanted. This is what Mrs. Sally-Ann Kerman had to say in that connection:
As for the unwanted children of women who feel they must have the "right" to their body-
-as was saying, a few months ago, Lise Payette, on C.B.C., as she claimed a right to the free use of her body, we must understand however that another being has some rights too.
To come back to the quotation:
-I can only say that precious few of us here today did not become conceived because of planned parenthood. We all sort of "grew" on our parents as the first nine months of our development took place and by the time we arrived, everyone was adjusted to our existence. As a woman, I resent the use of the "right" when describing my body. I have the right to be my body unless I wish to destroy it, or tell someone how to dispose of it before or after death, or sell it for material gain. Now unless you propose to legalize suicide, euthanasia, or prostitution, do not tell me legalized abortion will give a woman the "right" to her body. I do not have to have unwanted children because in the affluent society I live in, birth control is my answer. I pay for my birth control methods, but the welfare recipients do not, and so even the non-affluent in our society do not have to have unwanted children.
Should birth control fail-and it is now 98 per cent effective-I do not think that legalizing abortion for the failures is enough reason to liberally destroy many humans, some of whom will benefit society. I do not want to go into the discussion of some of the world's famous "bastards" or people who have come up from the most impossible environments. We all know they exist, just as we all know there are hundreds that do not do anything but remain a blight to our society. Unless we are willing to murder the ones we have already established as "unnecessary" or "criminal", why pick on innocent unborn ones. I don't think we would have much use for social workers if we could solve all the world's problems with legalized abortion.
Criminal Code

May 9, 1989
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, that is undeniable evidence against the reasons a woman can set forth, in various instances, to secure an abortion.
This clause is intended to allow therapeutic abortion. But are we sure that only true therapeutic abortions will be performed? There is room for doubt. Let us listen to what Dr. Marcel Boisvert, a Montreal psychiatrist, said on February 5 last, at an information meeting held at the Plateau auditorium in Montreal. I would like to put on record once again that brief testimony which shows beyond doubt the uselessness of therapeutic abortion:
As a psychiatrist... I believe that the present bill on abortion is not likely to help promote health, but, on the contrary, it could be prejudicial to the health of individuals and of society.
This is the conclusion reached by a reputable psychiatrist, after lengthy studies and a long professional experience. It is another evidence coming from an authorized person, who is forewarning us against the bill the government is now asking us to approve.
The reasons some people put forward when they ask that the legislation on abortion be broadened, are smack of hedonism. These people lust for the pleasures, the pleasant things in life, but reject duties and responsibilities.
It is sad to think that all children being both are not welcomed by hearts full of joy and hope.
Mr. Speaker, the person addressing you is the father of ten children. Well, every time there was a new birth in the family, my wife and myself, and later, the oldest children, have always rejoiced immensely in welcoming the new born baby.
Poverty and complex social situations sometimes create a painful atmosphere when a child is born, and that is mostly what prompts some women to refuse motherhood. We have failed to provide living standards that would allow families and individuals to develop fully. There is rather a tendency to restrict life opportunities. It is our duty to establish living standards suitable for human beings.
God has1 endowed the world with enough riches for all mankind. There are no poor countries but, in my opinion, only idiots who do not know how to use that wealth.
To respect life does not only mean not to kill. It means that life should be allowed to produce to full capacity, that the human 
being should be able to develop freely and harmoniously under proper conditions. Instead of legalizing the killing of innocent beings, let us rather make it possible to live, and we shall then fulfill the wishes of the Creator.
That is our duty, Mr. Speaker, and what is expected of us. I urge all members to follow the dictates of their conscience, and to be strong enough to have them respected.
In the course of this debate, and during the discussions in the various committees, especially since 1967, it was sought to find out the reasons why some people were demanding that the abortion legislation be extended. We came up with all kinds of reasons, and to show quite clearly how far some persons can go when they ask that the abortion legislation be extended, it has been demonstrated through the experience of every country in the world, that every time some latitude was allowed, the door was opened to abuses.
We know what happened in some countries, particularly in Germany, during the evil period of Nazism. We know how lightly the leaders of the German people valued the human being, with what carelessness and what contempt of human dignity they treated their disadvantaged citizens.
Some months ago, one of those leaders, Dr. Hefelmann, was located and arrested. And this is what Dr. Hefelmann, who was accused, as well as three other ex-nazis, of having taken part in 73,000 mercy murders under Hilter, had to say at his trial and I quote:
We needed space for the wounded. The heads of the Third Reich were expecting the Allied raids and wanted to be ready to take care of the wounded, whether civilian or military.
Long before war started, Hitler was contemplating a radical solution to dispose of mental and physical deficients and there was no doubt whatever as to what Hitler meant by "radical solution".
Then, the various testimonies, the various bills moved by the members of the house were intended to ask for what Hitler was doing in Germany before and during the second world war.
And I should like, before concluding my remarks, to recall the evidence given by a member on October 3, 1967, as is indicated in No. 1 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the health, welfare and social affairs committee.
An hon. member, and I am talking of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), advocated the passing of an abortion bill. She stated three reasons in support
May 9. 1969

of her stand and explained the fourth as follows:
-and this is the positive side-I think it is time that we began to work toward quality population in this country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if I understand that statement and may take the liberty of commenting it, this means that mis-shapen or mentally retarded children should suffer the same fate as in Germany.
The quotation continues as follows:
We are beginning to hear about the need for improving population and certainly to have children born into a country as the result of rape or incest is not going to be too helpful when one considers the environment that they are likely to encounter.
-were are not sure-
Also, I want to say that if some conditions are foreseen, such as in the case of thalidomide babies or congenital diseases, I do not think it would be advisable for Canada to allow such beings to be born.
In my opinion, this is going much too far in a society where there is room for all those who are allowed to be born.
Such considerations should prompt us to be very careful and to ask all hon. members to think twice before doing anything to make abortion available upon request.


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I had prepared a 20-minute speech, but, so as not to delay the business of the house and to allow members to enjoy a longer week-end-they all have a lot to do during the week-end-I shall refrain from making this speech.
However, before resuming my seat I want to congratulate my hon. colleagues for having so ably shown that the object of this amendment was to delete clause 18 from the bill. I am in favour of the suppression of clause 18 and I shall vote accordingly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 38 (Mr. Rodrigue) which reads:
That Bill C-150, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act, be amended by deleting in clause 18 the words "a majority" in lines 38 and 39 on page 42 and substituting therefor the words: "unanimous decision".


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The question is on motion No. 37 (Mr. Rodrigue) which reads:
That Bill C-150, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act, be amended by deleting paragraph (c) of subsection 4 in clause 18 on page 43 and substituting therefor:
"(c) has by certificate in writing signed by the three members of the Committee, stated that in its opinion, the life of the mother cannot be kept safe from danger with the continuation of her pregnancy."


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The house will now proceed to the question on motion No. 19, Mr. Rondeau, which reads as follows:
That Bill C-150, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act, be amended by deleting therefrom clause 18.
Messrs:


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, there has been some discussion through the usual channels and I believe there is general agreement that lor the balance of the consideration ol those matters that are still outstanding in respect of Bill C-150 we might have an order that the house proceed to third reading of Bill C-150 on Monday after completion of the report stage of the said bill.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, there is agreement to this order, that if the report stage is completed on Monday we can then proceed to third reading without the one day delay.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is the agreement if we do not manage to finish in the next 17 minutes.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: We have also agreed Mr. Speaker, that the study of the motion for third reading of this bill should be undertaken as soon as possible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered. The house will now proceed to the consideration of motion No. 42.


Mr.   Knowles. Winnipeg North Centre@for Mr. Gilbert: 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 inserting therein clause 75a as follows:
"75a. Section 641 of the said Act is repealed."


Mr. Speaker:: As has been indicated to hon. members there is some question as to whether this amendment is in order, is procedurally correct, and if hon. members have views to express for the guidance of the Chair I would be pleased to hear such views at the present time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief and I shall do what I feel I must do as graciously as I can. On behalf of my colleague, the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), may I say that we feel the subject matter of amendment 42

May 9, 1969
Criminal Code
is one that it would be desirable to discuss while we are debating the Criminal Code. What the amendment proposes is the abolition of whipping, or corporal punishment as we usually call it. However, one has to admit that your rulings, sir, which you gave on April 25, respecting amendments Nos. 17, 18, 20 and 32 would make it very difficult for one to argue that this amendment is in order.
The rulings that I refer to were based on the fact that in your view those amendments sought to go behind the present bill, to make changes in the act itself. One has to admit that that is what this amendment would do, and therefore I am afraid I would be damaging my reputation if I tried to argue it was any more in order than the other ones were. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, if you rule it out of order we will understand, but we hope that the government will deal with this matter at an early date.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps it is not necessary to consider the matter further. I would be tempted to say I concur in the judgment rendered by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). This motion to delete section 641 of the Criminal Code would go beyond the amendments now before the house and because of this, concurring in the arguments put forth by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I rule that the amendment cannot be put to the house.
The house will now proceed to the consideration of motion No. 43.
Mr. Knowles, Winnipeg North Centre (for Mr. Gilbert) moved:
(43) April 15, 1969-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 inserting therein clause 75b as follows:
"75b. The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 655 thereof, the following section:
655a. (1) Subject to the provisions of subsections
(3)	and (4), everyone convicted of an offence punishable on summary conviction under this act, who, for a period of three years after he has served the sentence imposed or has paid the fine imposed as a result of this sole offence, has not been convicted of any offence under this act, shall, for all purposes including those of this act be deemed not to have committed the offence for which he was convicted.
(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4), everyone convicted of an indictable offence under this act, who, for a period of five years after he has served the sentence imposed

or has paid the fine imposed as a result of this sole offence, has not been convicted of any offence under this act, shall, for all purposes including those of this act be deemed not to have committed the offence for which he was convicted.
(3)	A Board of Convictions Review shall be established by the Attorney General for Canada and upon the expiration of the periods in subsections (1) and (2) as the case may be a person may apply in writing to the board to have his adjudication of guilt expunged.
(4)	Upon receiving the application provided for in subsection (3), the Board of Convictions Review may, where the person has not been convicted of any offence under this act within the period of three or five years as the case may be, make an order that his adjudication of guilt be expunged.
(5)	Where the Board of Convictions Review denies the application it shall give written reasons and, the person may, within ten days after receiving such notice, appeal the decision to a superior court judge by notice of motion upon two days written notice to the board.
(6)	Where an order has been made by the Board of Convictions Review to expunge a person's adjudication of guilt, all documentation relating to his arrest and conviction shall be extracted from the files of all law enforcement agencies over which the Parliament of Canada has jurisdiction and shall be sealed and kept separately under the jurisdiction of the Attorney General for Canada.
(7)	In all matters over which the Parliament of Canada has jurisdiction, a person may not be questioned with respect to arrests or acquittals which have been deemed not to have taken place pursuant to subsection (8) or with respect to convictions which have been expunged pursuant to the provisions of this section.
(8)	Anyone arrested for the commission of an offence under this act and subsequently released without further proceedings and, anyone receiving a verdict of acquittal, who has not been arrested or acquitted for a period of one year following the date of his arrest or acquittal as the case may be, shall, for all purposes including the purposes of this act, be deemed not to have been arrested or acquitted.
(9)	Nothing in this Act prohibits the reference, in any proceeding under this act, to a person having been arrested, acquitted or convicted where such arrest, acquittal or conviction represents a subsequent arrest, acquittal or conviction, as the case may be."


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has misgivings about the procedural aspect of this motion, and I would be pleased to hear the views of hon. members.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, after my remarks of a few moments ago I was told by my colleagues that I would never get a job as a defence lawyer. But there is such a thing as consistency, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Fairweather:: Not in this place; maybe in paradise.
May 9, 1969

Criminal Code


Stanley Howard Knowles: This seems to be an attempt to get me off the track, Mr. Speaker. In any event, this amendment in our view is a very important one. Its subject matter has to do with the desirability, in certain cases, of expunging criminal records after a reasonable period of time. We felt that this subject formed part of a discussion of the Criminal Code and should have been in order at this time. However, in view of the rulings you have already given in respect of the amendments I cited a moment ago, I realize that if I tried to argue that this one was in order it would probably be in vain.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member would not be a good defence lawyer he would be a splendid Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I think my ruling on this
amendment has to be considered with previous rulings to the effect that the proposed motion does go beyond the terms of the bill. For this reason it is irrelevant and cannot be properly put.
We will now proceed to motion No. 44.


Harold Edward 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.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I hope all hon. members of the house have noted that, as usual, I am in order and, as has been drawn to my attention by comments I hear, that this is the last amendment on this omnibus bill. It does not deal with abortion or homosexuality. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, it is a new concept because my amendment deals with rehabilitation of those who are living. There are some interruptions, Mr. Speaker, and I have been asked by some Conservatives if I would not take them into consideration, too. May I answer, sir, that so far as I am concerned anyone who is mentally atrophied is dead.
For the benefit of those who have not had time to go into the implications of the section which I hope to have amended, may I point out that it does not deal with the Parole Board nor does it deal with any inmate of a penitentiary. This section deals wholly and solely with certain authority to be given through the medium of the Lieutenant-Governor of a province to a specified officer in dealing, under certain circumstances, with boys and girls in provincial reformatories or with those who have received a sentence of one day less than two years and are therefore in a provincial jail.
In order to make the situation amply clear, and since the proposed new section is brief, may I read it as it appears on page 119 of the omnibus bill. The clause is No. 110 and it refers to a proposed new section 37A, headed "Temporary Absence" which reads as follows: [DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
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, with or without escort, for medical or humanitarian reasons or to assist in the rehabilitation of the prisoner at any time during his period of imprisonment, the absence of the prisoner may be authorized from time to time by such official for an unlimited period for medical reasons and for a period not exceeding fifteen days for humanitarian reasons or to assist in the rehabilitation of the prisoner.
In view of the wording of this clause, I ask the consideration of the house in respect of my amendment. May I say very briefly that for a great many years I have had great interest in penology. It has always been my hope that we in Canada would reach an understanding in respect of those who are anti-social and break the law. It has been my hope that our approach would not be that of punishment but of the rehabilitation of offenders.
May I make it clear, Mr. Speaker, I am not saying I believe in molly-coddling those who break the law laid down by parliament and enforced by the judiciary of the country and who are sentenced to reformatory, jail or penitentiary. Having paid the price for the offence committed, these people should be rehabilitated so they can become useful members of our society.
I was most happy to note the recent public remarks of the chairman of the Parole Board of our country, who stressed that we have many people in jail in Canada who should be on probation or parole. It costs the taxpayers of this country much less to have them on probation or parole than it does to have them in jails or penitentiaries. The experience in recent years in Canada is that when offenders are released on parole the majority of them can be rehabilitated. We have had over 80 per cent success in this regard.

May 9, 1969
Criminal Code
With that very brief background, Mr. Speaker, I shall deal with my amendment to this clause. I can well understand the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith), the minister in charge of our penitentiaries and responsible for reporting on the parole system, including in this omnibus bill introduced by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) authority for the Lieutenant Governor of a province to designate authority to a responsible official to grant leave to a person in a reformatory or provincial jail, without limit, for medical reasons. However, I say that from the viewpoint of rehabilitation, philosophy and policy I am absolutely stumped by the reasoning behind the wording of this clause. It provides that if a person is to be released by the responsible official designated by the Lieutenant Governor for humanitarian or rehabilitative purposes, the release shall be limited to a period of 15 days. In my opinion, this does not make any sense whatsoever.
If the Criminal Code enacted by the parliament of Canada contains authority to release a prisoner for 15 days for humanitarian purposes, why in the name of heaven cannot this release be for 16 days, three weeks or a month if the humanitarian reason is still present and if the prisoner is not breaking the rules laid down when he was granted that release for humanitarian purposes?
I should now like to say a few words with regard to rehabilitation. There must have been not only a cloudiness but a complete blank in the mind of the Solicitor General and his advisers when they included in this clause the limitation of 15 days for one released for rehabilitation purposes. Although a prisoner may have proved that he is a top-notch and should be released, at the end of 15 days the authorities will say: Boy, you will now come back to jail.
I think I know the argument that will be advanced by the Solicitor General for the inclusion of this provision in the bill. Unless I am wrong-and if I am, the minister will say so-the only reason is that there is no limitation upon the release of a boy or girl from a reformatory or provincial jail who may be a good subject for rehabilitation. The authorities concerned are exercising the power of the Parole Board of Canada. I do not know of any other reason, because only the Parole Board has the power to parole.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Who drafted this clause?


Harold Edward Winch: I do not know, but they certainly did not know what the devil they had

in mind, and they did not know anything about modern penology. Mr. Speaker, since the time for private member's hour has arrived, may I call it four o'clock?



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. 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 the following bills to which the concurrence of this House is desired:
Bill S-31, an act respecting Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
Bill S-32, an act respecting the Canada North-west Land Company (Limited).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being four o'clock, the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, like the acting house leader for the government, I commence these few remarks by saying there have been some discussions and I think it will be found that there is general agreement to deal with the first bill under this category, namely, Bill S-6, and that when the consideration of this bill has been concluded, the house might adjourn. I think that is a general understanding. If this can be agreed to, I think hon. members will find that the consideration of Bill S-6 will not take very long.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my understanding also is that there is a general disposition that Bill S-33 might be dealt with in the same way.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, as has been pointed out, there have been some discussions, and if we can dispose very quickly of item No. 1 on page 31 of the order paper and perhaps refer item No. 10 to the committee without debate, there would be agreement to this.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, February 13, consideration of Bill S-6, respecting
May 9, 1969
[Stage Direction]
the Canada Trust Company, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, and the amendment of Mr. Saltsman.
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, it has been the long standing position of the New Democratic party to support and encourage Canadian ownership in all industries of this country. Our reason for wanting this bill passed expenditiously at this time is that we feel there may be a danger of hurting this particular company if the debate were prolonged. I should like to quote from the text of an address by the chairman of the board and president of the Canada Trust Huron and Erie Company:
We are hopeful that the bills will be passed, but understand there is a possibility that they may be talked out and thereby fall to the bottom of the list under procedure relating to private bills. This of course would effectively prevent the granting of the authorization for increased capital for the time being, and it would cause delay and consequent expense in completing the Waterloo Trust and Halton and Peel Trust mergers.
This is certainly not the intention of the New Democratic Party, and for that reason I ask the consent of the house to withdraw the amendment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Private Bills


Mr. D. Gordon Blair (Grenville-Carleion) moved:: That Bill S-6, an act respecting the Canada Trust Company as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs be concurred in.
Motion (for concurrence) agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time, by leave now?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


Duncan Gordon Blair: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.

Robert Jardine McCleave: that Bill S-33, to incorporate Atlantic Mutual Life Assurance Company be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to the
special order agreed to on this day, this house stands adjourned until Monday at 2 p.m.
At 4.05 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.

Monday, May 12, 1969



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Third report of Standing Committee on Regional Development-Mr. Morison.