1969-02-25

[Stage Direction]
Tenth report of standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs, in French and English-Mr. Gaston Clermont (Gatineau).
[Note: Text of foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce a change in the business of the house. As I announced last Thursday we will be commencing today with the second reading of the omnibus Criminal Code bill, but there will be a change in the order of business when that is completed assuming it is completed today. I had announced last week that we would go on to the drug prices bill, but at the request of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) we have agreed to defer that. We therefore intend to call as the second item of business the third reading of Bill C-138 to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act and would follow that with second reading of Bill C-172 to amend the Financial Administration Act.
I should indicate in connection with the Criminal Code bill and the Financial Administration Act that my colleagues, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) are, I might say with our great regret at the occasion, both in Montreal attending the funeral of a former member for St. Lawrence-St. George, the late Claude Richardson. They will be returning later this afternoon. The Minister of Justice will be in his seat at that time during the debate on the Criminal Code.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport in connection with his responsibility for housing. Arising out of his meeting over the week end with the provincial ministers responsible for housing may I ask the minister, in view of the urgent representations made by these ministers, whether the government is reconsidering its freeze on public housing projects.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, we had a very useful meeting with the provincial ministers. I assured them the questions which are outstanding will be considered by the government of Canada and decisions taken just as soon as possible, and that as soon as those decisions have been taken we will notify them at once.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, would the minister tell the house whether it is a fact that in the past two months no federal funds have been approved, as an example, for Ontario's public housing projects, and I mention Ontario only for the purpose of giving an example, and that a very substantial number of public housing projects in that province as well as in other provinces are in fact held up awaiting the approval of the government of Canada.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I could not say whether it is a matter of fact or not. Some projects have been approved; others are pending awaiting the outcome of the policy review which is presently taking place.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Would the minister consider giving the house a report on motions at an early occasion in respect of his conference with the provincial ministers, particularly concerning those aspects of the housing program relating to the question of conflict of jurisdictions.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there would be much point in doing so at this

February 25, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry stage. There was a good discussion. I think the press already have reported it in some detail, giving some of the points of view that were expressed. Because it was an informal meeting and because there was no agreement concerning the making of a report based on it, I feel it would be beyond my jurisdiction to try to report the position taken by the various parties. I can assure my bon. friend however that the atmosphere was one of the utmost co-operation and although one would not expect that many people to be unanimous in respect of everything, we do want to make decisions which will provide the best result, so that the Canadian people will receive the best value for their tax dollars, and decisions which will meet the housing situation wherever it is urgent in this country.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the minister. Is it a fact that housing developments involving some 3,000 apartments valued at some $38J million are still awaiting federal approval? Does this mean that the minister is freezing certain aspects of the housing program and, if so, what aspects?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think at this point I should offer a word of caution about the form of the questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. I think it is somewhat irregular to ask a minister to confirm or deny a fact, which it seems to me was the form in which the questions were put. I suggest it would be more consistent with the usual practice for the hon. member to ask his question directly.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Perhaps I might ask my question direct, Mr. Speaker. Are housing projects involving some 3,000 apartments valued at $38,500,000 still awaiting federal approval? Has there been some type of freeze on some aspects of the housing program? What aspects are now being held up, and for what reason?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As I just indicated, some projects have been approved, others are in process of being approved, and still others will have to wait a few days until the government has had a chance to review its policy in these matters. It is a fact however that housing construction last year was at an all-time high in the history of the country. This trend has continued during the first part of this year, and I hope it will continue throughout the year.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister whether the particular projects to which I have referred, namely the 3,000 apartments valued at $38,500,000, are being held up for any particular reason? Is this a matter of policy or merely a matter of processing the applications? Why has there been this apparent freeze in federal housing?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is impossible for me to know which particular projects the hon. member is referring to.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact we are talking about freezing at this particular time, and because urban renewal plays a great part in housing problems in this country, can the minister advise whether the contribution of the federal government to urban renewal projects has or has not been frozen?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, it would be difficult, in fact impossible to give a categorical answer to that question, because the answer would be similar to the previous one. In some cases projects have been approved and are continuing. It is obvious in respect of some new projects that some will have to go forward. It is equally obvious that some can be postponed for a few years-and I refer to those which involve large commercial developments, purchases from entrepreneurs, factories, hotels and worn out stores. They can be postponed until such time as we have produced enough housing in this country to meet the urgent needs of Canadians.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I have a supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member resume his seat? I note that a number of other members want to ask supplementary questions. We will soon have to go to another subject. I hope hon. members will exercise some restraint in asking supplementary questions on this matter. However, I will allow a supplementary question by the hon. member for Hamilton West.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to obtain a definitive answer from the minister, particularly as to urban renewal programs already commenced. There are some 300 cities involved with this type of program, and it would be a matter of great gratification if the minister could advise those cities that their projects are not frozen. I have in mind urban
February 25, 19S9

renewal programs already started. It would be of great help to all concerned if a yes or no answer could be given.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, it is just not that simple, because the hon. member is inquiring about 300 and some schemes which have not yet been started. Without reviewing each one of them it would be impossible to give an assurance as to whether or not they will go forward at this time, taking into account the over-all priority on government spending.



REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATIONS FOLLOWING REPORT OF TASK FORCE

Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I think it was about three weeks ago that the minister said he was making urgent recommendations to the cabinet arising out of the report of the task force. As I say, that was about three weeks ago. The minister at that time said we could expect a government statement on housing policy. How long do we have to wait until this statement is made?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Not very long, Mr. Speaker.



THE MINISTRY


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the strong objection by the governments of Ontario and Quebec is the federal government shelving the idea of establishing a ministry of urban affairs?



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

['Mr. Speaker, I cannot report because I do not know about the incident. But I am quite sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs, under whose jurisdiction this matter falls, will be pleased to do so when he is in the house.']
Mr. Real Caouetle (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Since the recent federal-provincial conference, the Prime Minister has taken pleasure in repeating on the C.B.C. network, during the program "Deux plus un" for instance, that money does not grow on or under trees. Could he tell us where money grows?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Such a question should be directed to the Minister of Agriculture.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, you are right in referring me to the Minister of Agriculture, who is an expert in money growing, and to whom I direct my question.
Inquiries of the Ministry



Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Prime Minister relates to the Viet Cong, North Vietnamese forces making a shelling attack on the Canadian t.b. hospital in South Viet Nam, in which a Canadian doctor was killed and the hospital completely destroyed. I ask the Prime Minister whether the other Canadian personnel are safe, and will he tell us something about their well-being? Second, can the Prime Minister report to the house with regard to this incident, which I believe happened about three days ago?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot report because I do not know about the incident. But I am quite sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs, under whose jurisdiction this matter falls, will be pleased to do so when he is in the house.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. He will no doubt recall that on two days last week I asked him questions dealing with the degrading rules and regulations to which the residents of Akaitcho Hall in Yellowknife are being subjected. In reply the minister said he would look into the matter. I wonder whether he can give an answer today.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I was ready to answer Friday, but since the hon. member was not in the house, I had to wait till today in order to do it.
Mr. Speaker, I have considered the problem raised by the hon. member for York South regarding regulations in force at Akaitcho Hall, in Yellowknife, and I have asked the commissioner of the Northwest Territories, Mr. Hodgson, to see that those regulations are not discriminatory. I have also asked him to discuss the institution with the authorities, the parents and the students, in order to come up with a solution that will maintain order

February 25, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry and discipline, be agreeable to the parents and preserve the interests of the students.
The revision of the regulations has begun and I think it would have been better if the problem had been raised at the local level before being raised in Parliament.


David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would inform the minister that my roster keeps me away only one day a week.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We can allow you more, if you wish.


David Lewis: That is, compared with the minister's roster. Has the minister received a second telegram bearing some 60 names, indicating that the purport of the telegram to which he referred last week was voted down twice at two meetings of the residents, and requesting an inquiry into conditions at Akaitcho Hall? If so, will the minister consider instituting such an inquiry?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, indeed, I have received that telegram. I also got many others from parents, and that is why I have requested the commissioner of the Northwest Territories, Mr. Hodgson, to look into the matter.


David Lewis: I would ask another supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, with your permission. Is the minister aware of the existence of a report issued some time ago by someone called Steve Iveson, of the Company of Young Canadians, on conditions in Akaitcho Hall? This report contained a stinging condemnation of conditions there. If the minister is aware of that report, has he given it study and taken steps to see that the situation is remedied?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have not received such a report yet. I believe that it should have been submitted to me before falling into the hands of an opposition member.



CANADIAN ECONOMY


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-iings):: I have a question for the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the cost of living has risen substantially each month for the last 16 months-the longest losing streak on record-and that there is no indication that this current trend is about to be reversed, would the minister advise the house if the government is planning in the near future to introduce new initiatives to counteract this trend?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: would like to point out to my hon. friend that according to O.E.C.D. Canada had the third best record in the western world with respect to the cost of living.


An hon. Member:: That is not good enough.


Edgar John Benson: Secondly, I have indicated publicly that I think this is not good enough, and that all of us must practise restraint. J hope my hon. friend will support all my budget measures in this regard.


George Harris Hees: If this procedure is winning, I would hate to see us when we are losing. However, I would like to ask a supplementary question. Do the minister and his colleagues never get headaches from keeping their heads in the sand so long?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the only time they get headaches is from listening to my hon. friend.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that his last question was not in order. I did not hear the reply but I suspect that that was not in order either.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. It probably has to do with some headaches too. I am referring to the disturbing and obviously deteriorating conditions in the minister's department. Will he say how he intends to deal with the walkouts and large scale absenteeism under way in Ontario yesterday, and with the protests of 2,000 carriers in Montreal?	.
February 25, 1969


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General):: They have already been dealt with. The conditions are normal in Hamilton, Welland and Toronto today, and they are just about normal in Montreal also.


David Lewis: What does "normal" mean?


An hon. Member:: Chaos and confusion.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it the position of the Postmaster General that the backlog of 500,000 letters in Montreal as reported today is a normal circumstance?


Eric William Kierans: The figure is wildly exaggerated, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: have a supplementary question for the Postmaster General. Does he also intend to restore to the public the service which was provided by the Post Office Department?


Eric William Kierans: I think that the service is improving considerably-


An hon. Member:: That is nonsense.


Eric William Kierans: -and when we take into account the fact that over 90 per cent of the people in the two unions favour the five day week, I think that this is a pretty good batting average.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am talking about service to the public.



SATURDAY DELIVERY TO RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS

Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: I have a supplementary question for the Postmaster General. Is he giving consideration to providing a Saturday delivery service to retail establishments?


Eric William Kierans: No, Mr. Speaker.



PUBLIC WORKS


Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Since the federal government will have a deep-water wharf built at Saint-Romuald because two oil refineries will soon locate there, has the Minister of Agriculture considered
Inquiries of the Ministry building grain elevators in that locality to serve the south shore?


Mr. Speaker:: I believe that the question as asked by the hon. member could easily be put on the order paper, and if there is any urgency, I would gladly come back to it with the hon. member to discuss it at the time of adjournment.


Bernard Dumont: At ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker. [English]



TRANSPORT


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: My question is for the Minister of Transport. Would he advise the house if an agreement has been reached between the Canadian Transport Commission and the province of Ontario on the cost sharing of subsidies on intra-provincial ferries?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is difficult for the Chair to determine whether the question as asked is one of urgency. If it is urgent, perhaps the hon. member would not mind returning for the purpose of considering the question at the time of adjournment.



WATER RESOURCES


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: I want to ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development a question arising out of an answer that was given to a question on the order paper. This question is connected with the national problem of the pollution of our rivers. Can the minister assure the house that the national parks under federal jurisdiction will be accommodated with proper sewage treatment plants this year?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, if I am well informed, the department will take the necessary steps to build a sewage treatment plant there as soon as possible, maybe this year.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wonder if I might ask a supplementary question, since this promise has been made for two years, now. Is there an allowance in the estimates to establish such a plant to protect rivers in western

February 25, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry Canada against absolute pollution, and thereby safeguard the health of those in the cities through which they flow?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have not brought the estimates with me today.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: My question is directed to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. May 1 ask the right hon. gentleman whether the Canadian government has exchanged correspondence or held any discussions with the United States on the question of Canada's relations with Red China and, if so, what has been the position taken by the United States?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I know of no such correspondence, Mr. Speaker, but of course we did talk with our United States counterparts on this question as we did with the external affairs departments of many other friendly countries. The outcome is the policy which we are now pursuing.


Robert Muir: May
I ask whether the Prime Minister has received any advice from the government of the U.S.S.R. or held any discussions with that government on this question?


Mr. Speaker:: I hope the hon. member does not propose going through all the nations of the world. Perhaps we might go as far as the U.S.S.R.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I should like to go that far, Mr. Speaker, and I will ask the minister directly concerned to report to me on it.


Robert Muir: Is
the recognition of Red China one of the subjects for discussion between the Prime Minister and Mr. Nixon at the forthcoming meeting in Washington, and was this so signified in the president's invitation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The agenda will be negotiated between the President's office and mine, and our foreign affairs departments. Until an agenda has been established I would not want to go into details about it. But I hardly think this particular question would be the subject of many talks, because our policy is already

established. I would be very glad however to extend some advice to the President of the United States, if he were to ask for it.


Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whilby):: Is it true that the State Department of the United States now believes it would be a good idea for Canada to recognize Red China?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport? In view of reports from Winnipeg that the direction of work at the C.N.R. shops in Transcona is being transferred from Winnipeg to Montreal, will the minister make it clear that this will not mean the transfer of work from Transcona, as happened in the case of the Air Canada operation at Winnipeg?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I must admit I am not familiar with this particular problem but I shall be glad to inquire of the railway company and reassure the hon. gentleman, if that is the result of my consultation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister do that in the house at an early date?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: At the earliest possible opportunity, Mr. Speaker.



DIFFICULTIES IN OPERATION OF TURBOTRAIN

Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancas-ter):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport, or for the acting minister to whom notice has been given. Has the minister any information on the turbotrain fiasco, and whose responsibility it was?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am not sure that the question as asked is in order. Certainly it is in rather strong terms. Perhaps the hon. member might like to rephrase the question. In any event, I doubt that the question should be answered at this time. The hon. member is asking for a report which, in my view, ought to be made on motions.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I shall try again at your invitation. Has the acting minister any information on the latest turbotrain difficulties?
February 25, 1969


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question was put in an excellent way but it is still out of order, in the sense that he is asking for a statement which ought to be made cm motions.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Alfred Dryden Hales: I should like to address my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, Mr. Speaker. In view of the great difficulty it is expected will be encountered this coming summer by Canadian students, both graduates and undergraduates, is it the intention of the government to continue to send teams of men employed by the Public Service Commission into the United States to coax Canadian students back to Canada?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: This operation of retrieval has been going on for some time now, and it has not been discontinued.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Is it the intention to discontinue this retrieval procedure?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No consideration has been given to the discontinuance of a program which we believe to be in the national interest.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Fronienac-Lennox and Addington):: My question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works, Mr. Speaker. I might add that I have given the minister notice. Is the department aware that a certain sub-contractor who was recently connected with the construction of the Bath-Millhaven federal prison complex is failing to honour his local financial obligations and has issued many cheques for labour and services which have been returned marked N.S.F., causing great inconvenience in my riding?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Although the question may be of some urgency, it is the type of question which in my view should be discussed at the time of adjournment rather than asked at this moment.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry INDIAN AFFAIRS



POSTPONEMENT OF CONFERENCE ON NATIVE PEOPLE

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development whether the proposed national consultation on Indian affairs has been postponed and, if so, why?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Skeena asked the same question last night.
The consultations set for March have been postponed for the following reasons: 17 meetings with Indian representatives have been held across Canada since last July. The last one was held in Terrace, British Columbia, as recently as January 28. Many documents have been printed. The delegates have been provided with the reports on the first 15 meetings and the two last reports should be available soon. Those reports have now to be examined and assimilated.
The reason why this meeting has been postponed, Mr. Speaker, is that some Indian delegates have asked for a little more time to read those reports, and more so because two reports are still unpublished, as some consultations took place as late as the end of January.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister what reply he has made to the complaint of the Indian Association of Alberta that it has been denied the degree of representation promised it at such consultation meeting?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet answered the request of the Alberta Indians regarding their representation, but I do not believe that the Indians of Alberta should have a special status compared with the other Indians of Canada.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to one asked a few moments ago by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and is directed to the Minister without Portfolio who is responsible for Indian affairs. In view of the fact that the Minister without Portfolio was present at the Alberta hearings when the Alberta Indians elected six delegates to attend

February 25, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry the Indian hearings in Ottawa, why did the minister not state at that time that Alberta was allowed only four delegates?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question is argumentative.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON &quot;INDIANS AND THE DAW&quot;

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. On December 18, some time ago, I posed a question about the prospects of the government or the minister making an announcement regarding government policy on the document "Indians and the Law". Since then we have heard nothing. I wonder whether the minister would mind looking at this, so that it may be digested, too?

Hon, Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):	Mr. Speaker, I have examined the problem, but I do not think that I can table the order in council in question. I have not had a definite answer yet, but I hope to be able to give one to the hon. member this week.
tEnglish]


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the minister misunderstood my question. I did not ask him about an order in council. I pointed out that on December 18 I had asked whether or not the government would make a statement on policy with respect to the publication "Indians and the Law". I was told that that would be looked into. The minister now tells me something about an order in council and I do not know what the connection is.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I will study the question, Mr. Speaker.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that some farm spokesmen have complained that they have been allocated only a minority of the 400 seats available at the agricultural congress that is to be held in March, will the minister consider a reallocation of seats in order to ensure to farmers the representation to which they are entitled at a conference that is going to decide their future welfare? [Mr. Yewchuk.l


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, 175 of the 400 delegate seats have been awarded to producer groups. I think the hon. member's conclusion is unfair, because of the balance of 225 delegate positions, 105 have been allocated to the provincial departments of agriculture and the federal Department of Agriculture. In addition, 25 positions have been allocated to the agricultural faculties of universities across the country. So I do not think that the assertion of the hon. member is in any way fair.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: A supplementary question which bears upon my previous one. In view of the statement by representatives of western vegetable producers that no seats were given to any marketing board or marketing commission in western Canada at the proposed conference, would the minister be prepared to take a look at this area in particular and to take whatever measures are necessary?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has made a representation to the minister.



REQUEST FOR DOCUMENT PREPARED FOR DEDEGATES

Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, a number of questions were asked yesterday about the agricultural congress, to which I could perhaps reply briefly. First, I am advised that copies of the papers for the congress have been supplied to the members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture. There is a limited supply of these documents, but if any hon. members are interested in securing copies and will so indicate to me, I will be happy to see they get them.



FARM MACHINERY


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: May I say, Mr. Speaker, that I have been in touch with the royal commission on farm machinery and they have informed me that they anticipate having available for release the study on all aspects of farm machinery pricing well in advance of the presentation of the final report. It is the view of the commission that an interim report covering solely the aspect of the relative pricing of farm machinery in Great Britain and Canada could be misleading and that the complete study will be much more useful. That study will be available Shortly.
February 25, 1969	COMMONS



AIRPORTS ' QUEBEC-LOCATION OF FUTURE AIRPORT

Mr. Andre Foriin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
In view of the fact that more than 650 municipalities have sent resolutions and recommendations in favour of the site proposed by the Drummondville municipality for the international airport, could the Minister of Transport tell us whether those resolutions are to be compiled and examined and whether those municipalities will get an answer from the government?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: All representations are considered, Mr. Speaker. If the municipalities have sent in individual representations, I would expect they would in fact be acknowledged.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolieite):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Postmaster General.
In view of the statement he made yesterday that 27 of the 110 employees laid off by Rod Service Limited had been hired by the Post Office Department, could the minister tell us whether the other 83 can also be hired by the Post Office Department in the near future?


Mr. Speaker:: I think that the question could be put on the order paper or discussed at the time of adjournment.



EXHIBITIONS


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Since the cabinet made him responsible for advising it concerning the decision of the federal government about a contribution for the financing of "Man and His World", I would like to know whether the minister is now in a position to announce the decision of the government? If not, when will he be in a position to do so?
DEBATES	5909
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: I am suppose to meet the provincial and municipal authorities this evening, Mr. Speaker.
What I will now say is especially for the information of the press. If the decision is favorable, there will be a press conference. If not, there will not be any.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
If the decision is not favourable, does the minister intend to make statement tomorrow in order to explain the reasons?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In my opinion, the question is hypothetical.


Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It follows up the one raised earlier by the hon. member for Charlevoix.
Is the minister aware that only Montreal tax-payers are eligible for jobs at "Man and His World". So if the federal government is willing to grant some assistance to the city of Montreal for such an undertaking, does not the minister agree that such a restriction should be removed?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has made to the minister representations which have been noted.



REQUEST FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE IN DRYING OPERATION

Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the recent statement by the National Farmers Union that under present government policy in regard to drying grain, an estimated 100 million bushels of grain will be lost through spoilage, is the government contemplating any further increase in financial assistance or any other measures to forestall such a catastrophe?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, whether any grain spoils or does not spoil, there will be no connection between such event and federal government policy. The fact is that the federal government has been very helpful in co-ordinating, to some extent with the provinces, maximum use of grain dryers on farms, as well as

February 25, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry providing additional cash advances. I should like to advise my hon. friend that at the end of this week we will be having a further report from the Board of Grain Commissioners and the Canadian Wheat Board on how far we have advanced in the drying of grain on farms, and what will be the total volume of tough and damp grain remaining at the end of this month.


George Robson Muir: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the minister receives this report will he communicate it to parliament immediately?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I think that could be done, Mr. Speaker.



FISHERIES


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries. Since he made a statement recently about the groundfish industry, may I ask whether he will soon make another statement about the salt fish industry in general, and Atlantic salt cod in particular?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, as I said at the end of my announcement last week, we hope in a few weeks to make an announcement about the salt fish industry.


John Howard Lundrigan: May I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Mr. Speaker. Is his department taking initiatives, in co-operation with the Department of Fisheries, to stimulate the United States market in fish?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking for a general statement which I suggest cannot be made at this time.



TRANSPORT


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Since most of the more than 100 briefs presented to the transport committee recommended the extension of the l.c.l. rate freeze to beyond March 3, 1969, will the minister make sure that the freeze is extended until such time as the transportation policy for the Atlantic area is defined and announced?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, this question is under urgent consideration at the moment, as indicated to the Atlantic premiers in my reply contained in a wire I sent them a few days ago.



HARBOURS


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Will he undertake to table an already widely circulated departmental report on the administration of ports and harbours in Canada. At the same time will he assure the house and the people of Canada that no action will be taken on this report until it has been studied by this house and the department.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the report already has been tabled. I can assure my hon. friend that no action will be taken until the committee has had a chance to study it.



HOUSING


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport in his capacity as minister responsible for housing. Is it his intention to give immediate approval for the building of 800 public housing units awaiting approval in Ottawa. That action may alleviate the already urgent housing situation in this area.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe a similar question was asked yesterday.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Has the minister received reports that across large sections of western Canada migratory game birds in winter feeding grounds are not being protected as they ought to be under the international agreement?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether we might not consider this question at the time of adjournment.
February 25, 1969



WATER RESOURCES


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and is, in a sense, supplementary to the question asked a few moments ago about the matter of water pollution. Can the minister advise the house of any progress made with the provinces towards establishing a national advisory committee on water pollution? That proposal was outlined by the minister on October 16, 1968.


Hon. Olio E. Lang (Acling Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I hope to be in a position to report more fully on that matter in due course.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.
In the supplementary estimates (B) tabled yesterday, we find under Public Works an increase of $4 over the main estimates. Could the minister tell us whether this substantial increase results from the construction of public buildings in Hull?



PROVINCIAL REGULATION AND CONTROL IN MINERAL RIGHTS AREAS

Mr. Randolph Harding (Koolenay West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Considering the recent statement of the mines minister of British Columbia, that offshore oil drilling rigs are still subject to provincial regulation, may I ask if the federal government has any agreement with any province under which it will accept provincial regulation and control of operations in the offshore mineral rights areas?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should be aware of the announcement some little time ago of the administrative lines which the federal government announced pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision on offshore rights. The federal government is administering offshore rights lying beyond the marked administration lines.
Criminal Code



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, February 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) that Bill C-150, to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act, be read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, we are discussing the famous omnibus bill that I would call a catchall because it contains 120 clauses on matters as varied as the control of offensive weapons, betting, lotteries, the breathalizer test, and finally to inaugurate a new era of legalization, that of abortion, with very doubtful effects, one would think, besides clauses very short but heavy with consequences concerning the legalization of homosexuality.
Mr. Speaker, over and above the catchall character of the bill, members of all parties will have to vote for or against the whole bill, and will then be in the impossible and unacceptable position of having to approve it without restriction or to reject it without amendment. Far from accepting the procedure, Mr. Speaker, I wish to fight against it in this chamber, and in this regard, I am convinced that many of my colleagues from all parties intend to do likewise, even those who cannot speak-namely the members of the government party-because their leaders have muzzled them.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, I would like the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) who sponsored this criminal bill, and above all the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for reasons already stated, to know that if legislators use this procedure, it cannot but result in the adoption of an inappropriate, incomplete, inaccurate and even insufficient Act.
We are legislators; we are not necessarily experts in criminal law or even in medicine. However, the different articles of the bill require from the legislators enlightened opinions, a thorough study which will motivate his backing a given article. I am thinking, for instance, of the breathalizer, of

February 25, 1969
Criminal Code
lotteries, of the gun control. I should support such an amendment to the criminal code without any qualification for in my opinion that would meet a crying need, because the criminal code is absolutely inadequate in that field.
However, Mr. Speaker, I strongly object to the legalization of abortion and of homosexuality, for various reasons I am going to state presently.
Such is the impossible situation in which all the members of the House without any exception are put by the present government. That is why I want to ask the minister and the Prime Minister to allow all members to vote for or against a split bill, after grouping according to topics the 120 articles of the omnibus bill. This, Mr. Speaker, is a reasonable claim that deserves not only to be listened to, but also to be warmly welcomed.
The second aspect I want to deal with is as important, if not more, than the first.
Everybody knows that for most if not all members, the bill introduced by the Minister of Justice has several serious moral implications. In fact, we are in a quandary, since the passage of certain clauses could give rise to a real problem of conscience for many members, including myself.
I shall only mention, as an example, clauses 14, 15 and 18 all dealing with different aspects of abortion, and involving serious moral implications as to determining when life begins, since according to experts, there is some doubt as to the determination of that exact moment. Such a situation raises for any conscientious legislator a real problem of conscience an unbearable situation in which no government has any right to put them, because it is then assuming rights which are not his.
For those reasons and many others mentioned by several members, I therefore ask for a free vote, so that every member, regardless of his political allegiance, may express his personal opinion, after having consulted his constituents, because the entire population must be made aware of this question of life and death. Every member should be allowed to vote freely without having to go against his party, committing only himself and his conscience, according to his knowledge and without prejudice to this government.
No party leader, Mr. Speaker, has the right to impose his views regarding this bill. No political party is powerful, big, or efficient

enough to force a member of parliament, whoever he may be, to place the interests of his party or of his leader before the dictates of his conscience, his family, his constituents or of Canada as a whole. Should a party leader do so, whether he be prime minister or not, it would be a criminal act, and it would have been better for him to have died in his mother's womb, during an abortion.
A free vote where each and everyone can express his opinion, without fear of retaliation, that is what I wish and demand, Mr. Speaker. A free vote where everyone can express his truly personal opinion, without causing the government to be overthrown, if any clause or even the whole bill should be defeated. I do believe that such a thing is possible, and that it deserves not only to be given some consideration, but also to be fully examined in depth and approved.
Our debates will be all the better for it, our legislation more human for it, and better adapted to our rapidly developing society. For is it not the purpose of the bill before us to update the Criminal Code? It has now become commonplace to say that our French- or English-Canadian society has developed at a startling pace, and it is only normal that legislators try to update the judicial system, and they have already started.
The primary instrument of the judicial power-the Criminal Code-must also be updated, and we must be happy about that, Mr. Speaker. There is no need to stress the fact that a complete revision of the Criminal Code is long overdue; it must also be adjusted to the new concepts of society. However, Mr. Speaker, in our effort to adjust our legislation to the new sense of values which the Council itself recognizes in putting less emphasis, for instance, on minor things, but more on the essential, the fundamental things, that is the human aspects, the individual and collective participation, the dialogue, etc., we must at all costs avoid falling into the other extreme.
If, on one hand, laws are too rigid, they quickly become inhuman, denying the freedom of individuals and their possibilities, their rightful desires to self-achievement, to development. Because I am Creditiste and because I believe in the self-achievement of the human being, I am happy to see that the government wishes to humanize the Criminal Code, for it is really a matter of humanization.
But if, for the sake of modernization, for the sake of humanization, of individual and collective freedom, we allow ourselves to be
February 25, 1969

led into the venture of libertinage where the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice are leading us, then we are not going forward, because we are just replacing something wrong by something worse. There lies the huge responsibility which rests heavily upon legislators.
On the one hand, we must bring forward a legislation which is humane, and promotes freedom and security for individuals, while on the other hand, that very same legislation must be sufficiently firm to maintain that happy medium which will ensure that our society is based on order and not on disorder, on justice and not on injustice and crime, on honesty and not on perversity.
To illustrate my viewpoint, I shall say a few words of sections 14, 15 and 18 regarding abortion.
Mr. Speaker, it is generally recognized that abortion in all its forms, is being practised on a large scale, not only in Canada, but in many other countries.
It seems to me that abortion is a social ill which cannot be easily erased but as it has most serious implications, we must try to correct it.
The practice of abortion is the indication of a very deep problem which has existed for a very long time and which is more and more prevalent, even though it stems from an ill-balanced notion of sex. That is my opinion.
As the Foyers Notre-Dame have indicated, abortion is rather a last resort in cases where contraceptives have failed. The danger we are facing in this ill-balanced concept of sex, which is often due to an inadequate and unhealthy education or to a rotten social environment, is that when you allow abortion, women who resort to it begin to believe-it is already so-that this practice which I consider as a crime, is the best method of birth control.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that therapeutic abortion is irrational because it is based on false premises and can only warp the scales of values.
Whoever says abortion says interruption of the natural course of things, and the reasons that may warrant such an interruption cannot be, in most cases, anything but pretexts prompted by a false notion of sexuality, or the misfortune of a young girl who has been caught, wilfully or not, or else by the miscalculation of a couple who, for some reason, do not want a child, or still, through the influence of an unhealthy social environment where economic conditions, very often, only make matters worse.
Criminal Code
To procure or secure abortion is not a natural thing. On the contrary, it puts an end, in a most tragic way, to the natural development of life.
On the one hand, Mr. Speaker, people talk of therapeutic abortion, which constitutes a formal contradiction. As a matter of fact, whoever says therapy says taking a step in order to re-establish the normal course of a thing. Whoever says therapy says natural treatment in order to insure health.
Mr. Speaker, doctors admit, even the specialists, that pregnancy is not necessarily an illness. Indeed, in these circumstances, some women suffer only a few minor discomforts, of a very temporary nature.
In general, thanks mainly to medical progress and new techniques that are almost one hundred per cent effective, few pregnant women get sick to the point that their health is endangered and, even less, their life.
Clause 18 of the bill before us is intended to add to section 237 subsection (4) (c) which reads in part as follows, and I quote:
-would or would be likely to endanger her life or health.-
-that is the pregnant woman's. That provision is much too broad and could involve numerous definitions, Mr. Speaker. For instance, these words "would endanger her life or health" need to be clearly defined. And in the same section, we find this:
-would be likely to endanger her life or health-[DOT]
-that is the mother's.
Who shall determine whether the mother's life is or is likely to be endangered? That is the point that should be settled. Where the mother's life is really endangered, medical practioners must intervene to save the mother's or the child's life. The decision, I feel, should be made by the couple and not by the Prime Minister.
If the mother's life is likely to be endangered, decision must still be made, but now it is much more difficult than in the first instance. There is a difference, Mr. Speaker. The legislation should provide for various situations rather than lumping them all together, as if all human reactions could be foreseen.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
We start on a false premise, I think, when we insert in the same clause, in the same paragraph, the words "would be likely" and "would".

February 25, 1969
Criminal Code
In my opinion, these are two different implications. Responsibilities in these two specific cases are different, and the Criminal Code serves precisely to evaluate the degree of criminality of an act in relation to another one.
We cannot therefore put everything in the same basket. I shall make the same comments regarding clause 18(4) (c) which says "would endanger the mother's life or health".
I think that moral, criminal, social and family implications are not the same in the case where the pregnant mother's life is in danger and in the one where her health is in danger.
This is why, Mr. Speaker, I strongly object to clause 18 which stipulates a lot of things, which allows for the consideration of many factors, events, predictions and human reactions which cannot be put in the same basket since every woman and every couple are in a different situation. In this connection, the number of children is very important, since it can serve as a basis to evaluate the degree of the parents' responsibilities.
I therefore think, Mr. Speaker, that as a matter of conscience, every member worthy of that name should object to that clause because it is very precise, too wide in scope, inhuman and because it recommends a criminal act should the doctor propose or accept abortion when the pregnancy would likely endanger the mother's health. We open the door to all illegal abortions that could or even could not be imagined now, since any pregnant woman could claim that her health is likely to be in danger and then the physician, in accordance with section 18(4)(c) would say: "The Criminal Code allows it."
Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, that clause is criminal. I support the provision which states that "it would endanger her life" but I strongly object against "would be likely to endanger her health". That inadequate measure would make possible the homicide of a child who has not asked to be born and who furthermore is innocent. Those provisions are much too broad, when one realizes that a pregnancy is not too dangerous.
I agree, Mr. Speaker, that the life of the mother must be protected. The choice still belongs to the couple concerned. The bill must provide for it, that is fine. The humanization of the legislation has no doubt some advantages.
If the mother has already one, two, three, four or even several other children who

of course badly need her presence, her home would definitely be broken by her death, because she is an essential element of family happiness. It goes without saying, Mr. Speaker, that if her life is in danger, the husband with his wife in accordance with the advice of several physicians could accept the abortion under the vigilant supervision of the medical board of an accredited hospital.
I agree, Mr. Speaker, because this is a typical case where the law must be broad enough to provide for the self-fulfilment of the human being, which respecting him in order that the family-and that is especially important-may go on living in progress and self-fulfillment.
Mr. Speaker, that is the limit! It runs absolutely counter to common sense, to respect for the human being and to life itself, to try and force us as the present government proposes to do, to adopt a clause providing for situations when the life or the health of the mother would probably be in danger.
The alternatives are clear, Mr. Speaker: either the woman was ill before becoming pregnant but pregnancy has made things worse and thus endangered her life; in such a case, 1 would accept the idea of a legal abortion, once the required checking was carried out by the medical board of the hospital; or, again, during the pregnancy, the woman contracted a disease not due to her condition, and then the same principle applies, provided her life is threatened and not her health. But the bill before us says and I quote:
-such female person would or would likely to endanger her life or health-
Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand why, among government members, in particular those from Quebec who understand or are supposed to know the problems of that region, so few rise and express their position on that matter. Either they have no opinion and are stupid, or they have no conscience and are immoral.
Mr. Speaker, I think our sense of duty must be strong enough to allow us to say fearlessly and frankly what we think, even though the Prime Minister would like to prevent us from doing so.
Mr. Speaker, heavy responsibilities fall upon the legislator. This clause is too wide in scope and too vague, which is intolerable in a bill of such an importance. However, the main stumbling block comes from clause
February 25, 1969

14, which is absolutely unacceptable to any sensible man. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, that section would make him guilty of murder who would cause to a child before or during its birth injuries likely to bring about his death, once he has become a human being; in other words, under the provisions of subsection 1 of the bill, once he has come out alive of his mother's womb.
Mr. Speaker, I find that clause most preposterous. It is absolutely unacceptable for many reasons. First of all, it is untrue to claim that a child is a human being only once he is born, as the law pretends it to be, for the premature baby who is bom for example after four, five or six months of pregnancy can surely be "rescued", as the saying goes, thanks to incubators and other medical means which are now sufficiently developped to permit such an achievement.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the abortionist who would cause injuries to a five-month old foetus would actually kill, I think, a human being for were the child born prematurely, he would be recognized as a human being. It can thus be said that whoever brings about an abortion deliberately, by whatever means, from the moment when according to scientists life exists, commits murder.
Secondly, that clause is unacceptable because it is presumed that the abortionist, whether or not an expert-for in this area many illegal acts are committed which are not provided for in the law, even if the latter is more lenient concerning abortion- cannot afford to fail in connection with abortions, which I think is a sadistic attitude. In fact, if for one reason or another the child were to be born just the same, after suffering injuries, that abortionist could be prosecuted for murder, if the child dies after birth.
This compels the abortionist, or the doctor, to use methods that are absolutely sure, effective and drastic to kill the foetus while it is in the mother's womb, because, according to the new sections in this bill, it would not be a criminal offence to kill a foetus in the mother's womb as long as it is there. According to this bill, there would be homicide only if death occurred during birth or following the abortion. Mr. Speaker, I know hundreds of doctors who, in a general way, are opposed to this section and to this bill. Finally, there is another problem, the moral one and it is the most serious of all. Indeed 29180-375
Criminal Code
Mr. Speaker, section 195(1) of the Criminal Code reads as follows:
*-a child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother.
But, all Christians know that there is life long before the child is born. Experts who are atheists believe this also.
We should therefore expurgate from the Criminal Code a definition to the effect that birth is the beginning of life. It is well known, Mr. Speaker, that birth is not the beginning of life but a stage in life's progress and that life has begun long before the confinement.
I suggest that the Criminal Code cannot, unless it be expressly and criminally, state that life begins when the child has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, since most biologists agree that the birth of the child does not mark the beginning of its life but is rather indeed a stage in the progress of life.
In this regard, section 14 of the amending bill does not go far enough since it is necessary at all costs to define what we mean by a human being on the basis of modem concepts and modern knowledge available to us at the present time.
Therefore, it is not reasonable, Mr. Speaker, to keep in the Criminal Code if it is our intention to make it more human-and this is my wish-such a definition of life because birth would become the beginning of life while it is only a stage. At that rate, Mr. Speaker, all murders are permitted.
It is for these reasons that I strongly object to that amending clause which, in fact will solve nothing, which will not put an end to back street abortions but which will only increase them by encouraging the abortionist not to miss the mark for fear of being charged for murder. Is there anything more stupid, Mr. Speaker, more inconsistent and more inhuman than that? Under this new legislation we would accuse someone of murder if he had improperly killed, that is if he had missed the mark. It is horrible. It is immoral, it is inhuman and it is degrading that such a bill be put before us in 1969 when our medical, biological and other forms of knowledge are most highly developed. Mr. Speaker, this is totally unacceptable.
In my remarks now I shall deal with clause 7, on page 24 of this bill concerning homosexuality that is the exceptions regarding acts in

February 25, 1969
Criminal Code
private between husband and wife or consenting adults. The purpose of this bill is to change sections 147 and 149 so that its provisions cannot apply to the acts which I have just mentioned.
Mr. Speaker, I object to this amendment for certain reasons that I shall set forth in a moment. The purpose of this amendment would be to remove from the Criminal Code the subject of homosexuality and its implications.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, if we take it out of the Criminal Code, in view of the fact that at the present time it does not come under the Civil Code either, under what jurisdiction will homosexuality come? This is what I should like to know. Will it not become a personal matter?
In view of the speeches made by the Prime Minister when he introduced the original bill, and that of the present Minister of Justice, it seems that now we want to make it a personal matter and I strongly object to it.
I consider homosexuality as a sexual deviation, a kind of mental deviation and sickness, and as such as an affection which should be treated.
Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised at all at this amendment sponsored by the Minister of Justice. In fact, the attitude of our governments, federal as well as provincial, is well known; they have attempted in every way, not so long ago, to degrade the alcoholic to make out of him a hopeless case, a vicious person, and until recently, they did absolutely nothing in order to fight such prejudices, which they fostered through their silence and inaction. It is not surprising that this same government should escape its responsibilities as regards this illness and should want to remove homosexuality from the Criminal Code, as they do not propose anything in order to rehabilitate those sick people.
Such are, Mr. Speaker, the comments I wished to make as briefly as possible, but which I was most anxious to make. To an oral question asked by an hon. member, Mr. Speaker, a minister answered that he was getting countless letters calling for the earliest possible adoption by parliament of this famous omnibus bill to amend the Criminal Code.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to tell him that we, of the Ralliement Creditiste, did not act in the same way as the majority of the Liberal members. We were not afraid to seek the

advice of our constituents and we organized meetings in our constituencies. We sent circular letters, collectively or otherwise; we had radio broadcasts. By every possible means, we have honestly consulted people, not by setting them against the government, but by securing them objective information, in order to get their opinon.
Mr. Speaker, following the information gathered and the consultations held, at least in the 14 ridings represented by the Ralliement creditiste, one must conclude that in all our ridings, the people are quite opposed to the bill under study, and not necessarily against this government. I want to be objective and to underline that it is the present bill that is being opposed, since by adopting it, the government assumes to itself the right, by determining when life begins, to allow mass murder instead of humanizing this act.
Every day, a good number of people write to tell us that they are against this bill and they plead with us, as members of parliament or human beings-supposing there are still human beings in this house, because when we hear the members and the ministers speak on this subject, I am inclined to doubt it-they plead with us to oppose it, not in order to preserve the Criminal Code, outdated as it is, but in order to modernize it, to humanize it, so as not to prejudice the interest of mankind, as this bill seeks to do.
I have a letter here from Mrs. Therese Leduc, of Victoriaville, which reads as follows:
I am against abortion because our conscience says no.
She says: I thank you. I implore you to go even further and to fight against this bill on our behalf.
I have a letter from Mrs. Andre Hebert, also from Victoriaville. Indeed, I could spend all afternoon, all evening and again all day tomorrow reading letters. I simply wish to read this one, to show that the people in our ridings are perhaps not as stupid as some hon. members think they are because they are very well informed and they know where the present government wants to lead us with this bill.
Mrs. Hebert, of the rue Academie, in Victoriaville, tells me in her letter that I received this morning, and that I will read here-it is rather short-in order to show clearly to hon. members that they should think about it twice before they vote for this bill under the thumb of the Prime Minister,
February 25, 1969

since they would then be doing something criminal. I quote:
No, life should be protected, with the utmost care from the very moment of conception. "Abortion and infanticide are loathsome crimes."
You, as members of the house, will have to vote on this overcrowded bill. In my opinion, it should be rejected. That is what the people would do if they were used to assume their responsibilities.
Mrs. Hebert puts forward the three following arguments:
1.	You want to respect the life of criminals and make abortion legal.
2.	The experience of other countries is quite enough for us.
3.	Abortion cannot be considered just as a means. The best solution is birth control.
She ends her letter by saying this, and I quote:
I should like to have more information about the contents of the bill in order to study it. The public is hardly given any information about this bill. It should be well informed.
Mme Andre Hebert 108 Academie Victoria ville.
I could quote still other letters, Mr. Speaker. I even have here some petitions, but I do not want to waste the time of the house.
I simply want to make a few comments before concluding, Mr. Speaker.
First of all, the present government, the Minister of Justice, and Liberal members- and, I make no bones about it, Progressive Conservative members as well-are all afraid of having to face people with this bill. They are afraid of asking the people what they think of it. They are afraid of giving them information on it. That is why the government house leader and government members would like the bill to be adopted as soon as possible, without discussing it in detail, without really amending it. Last week, we even saw a Liberal member complain that he could not amend a bill in committee.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what will become of this bill C-150 if it reaches the committee stage? If what the member for York East (Mr. Otto) said is true, that is that government members were ordered not to amend bills in committee in order not to hold up the business, bill C-150 will be passed without resistance because the members will have been afraid to assume their responsibilities, and what is worse still, because they will not have consulted the people.
Mr. Speaker, I would not like to be in the shoes of the Liberal members who tomorrow will have to answer to their electors; for even 29180-375!
Criminal Code
now, we are starting to see that the people have had enough of anti-human legislative measures which do not really meet the needs of the people. Indeed, our real problems are family, economic and social problems, and the present government is doing absolutely nothing to alter the situation.
I must not take up any more of the time of the house, but before I bring my remarks to a close I call again for a free vote on this bill, so that every member of the house, regardless of party, religion, or politic allegiance, can vote freely, without running the risk of overthrowing the government.
To my mind, we would then be showing humanitarian feelings, proving how serious we are, instead of being irresponsible and cowardly as we are now.
I should like to hear people speak up on this bill according to the dictates of their conscience and not those of their leader.
I feel that there are times in life when human interests must take precedence over those of the party. It is most unfortunate that in this house-


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull):: May I put a
question to the hon. member?


André-Gilles Fortin: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: In his fine speech, the hon. member for Lotbiniere told us, if I understood well, that thanks to modem inventions, such as incubators and a many other devices, it was possible to preserve life or to extend it. Did he actually say that with those methods, the life of a four or five month foetus could be saved?


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I did not catch the question of the hon. member for Hull and I apologize for it. Maybe the member for Hull is not used to speak in this house, because he does not speak loudly enough. Could he repeat his question?


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: I am going to put it again in French, Mr. Speaker. Did the hon. member for Lotbiniere say in his speech that, with the means at the disposal of practitioners, and thanks to scientific advance 4 or 5 month-old feotuses can be saved?


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I shall reply to' the hon. member for Hull, who is also a doctor, that he knows the answer himself. I shall tell him that I was not afraid, as I said earlier, to consult people.

February 25, 1969
Criminal Code
Therefore I have met several doctors in the district of Lotbiniere. Last week, I met specialists of the University of Ottawa, and I even met the archbishop of Ottawa, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Marceau:: That is easy to see.


André-Gilles Fortin: We shall talk about this later.
At any rate, according to my information it is medically proved that a child born prematurely at four or five months could actually be saved.
When my wife presented me with an heir- a Creditiste, if you please-shortly after the election, there was at that time, in the next room, a five-month premature baby. This child is very well today.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that some medical research is being conducted in this field. Biologists recognize that it is actually possible to save human lives while the foetus is in the mother's womb.
A while ago, Mr. Speaker, while I was trying to answer this question the hon. member for Hull had asked me, a Liberal member, who did not identify himself, said it was obvious when I mentioned that I had met the Archbishop of Ottawa last week on this subject.
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that I am not afraid of expressing my beliefs, but those people are afraid to rise. They do not dare state their principles, if they have any. I wish they showed as much courage as the Creditistes, and expressed their convictions, if they have any.
Then, Mr. Speaker, I would say that members of the New Democratic party attended that meeting with the archbishop of Ottawa, and I congratulate them for that. In fact, one of them had been invited and made it a point of being there, even though the New Democratic party is in favour of the bill.
I also accepted the invitation; however, no Liberal member took the trouble to go. They are afraid to contradict the Prime Minister who muzzles them. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I challenge any Liberal member to rise and tell me whether they have personal convictions or not.
Mr. Speaker, we are not living in a totalitarian country and although we are familiar with helicopters, "trudeaumania" and everything else, I think that hon. members are

intelligent enough to vote according to their conscience. I have much respect for them, whether they are members of the N.D.P., the Conservative or the Liberal parties. I have very good friends in those groups, Mr. Speaker, and I think it would be possible to have an intelligent and human legislation.


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


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, before completing-


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


André-Gilles Fortin: I have not entirely finished, Mr. Speaker-
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Lapointe on a question of privilege.


Gilles Marceau: Mr. Speaker, for the information of the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette), I am not afraid to say that I made that comment earlier. I did, and I am not afraid to say it, because I will speak on the bill. I will try to prove that we were unjustly attacked and that our vote is not guided by the will of the Prime Minister. We have enough freedom to vote according to our conscience.


David Réal Caouette: You
are lying, then.


Gilles Marceau: You are the one who is lying and we shall prove it to you.


David Réal Caouette: Both your hands are tied.


Gilles Marceau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that we were never invited to the meeting mentioned by the hon. member for Lotbiniere and which was held in Ottawa. If we had been invited, we would have gone.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is the way to flush them out.
February 25, 1969


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. May I inform the hon. member for Lotbiniere that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I still have two minutes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent of the house to allow the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


André-Gilles Fortin: I thank you, Mr. Speaker. I should also like to thank the house for its co-operation.
At the stage we have reached now I think that information should be supplied by newspapers, radio or other mass media. Today we live in a modern country where means of communication are extremely quick, efficient and reliable. Before passing of this bill we could easily consult a large part of the people, make some sort of sampling across Canada in order to know better and with greater certainty the opinion of the Canadian people with regard to this bill so as to make sure, if we are indeed responsible legislators, that this is a truly human legislation consistent with the needs of the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, once more I should like to thank the house for its kind co-operation and I should like to ask the Liberal members who object to this bill not to be afraid to stand up since it does seem that the Canadian people back up all those who object to this bill, and in 1969 a Prime Minister cannot impose his views because the opposition is fairly watchful.
I regret, Mr. Speaker, that there are not enough government members who rise and make their views known. I think that would be important. We should like to know what they think of this. We do not know yet whether they are under the thumb of a dictator.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take only two or three minutes of the time of the house. By so doing I am not indicating my opinion of the importance of the bill because obviously the bill is of the greatest importance and is in the public interest, but it has had a full
Criminal Code
discussion. I rise at this time not to prolong the discussion but to indicate my own position at this stage of the proceedings. I have always taken the position of being in favour of a free vote on this measure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: When the matter was first brought before the house I took this position because some clauses of the bill involve a question of conscience for a good many Canadians and a good many members of the house. Putting all these clauses together in the form of an omnibus bill has had the effect of placing a good many members in the difficult position that they may have to vote against the whole bill because they cannot in conscience accept part of it. I have therefore favoured splitting the bill along the lines indicated by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams).
More recently we have favoured a report from the committee in four separate sections which would have somewhat the same effect. We have advocated this for the same reason, that it would thereby remove a good many members of the house from the unfortunate position in which they have been placed by the omnibus nature of the bill. So the members of this party will be voting according to their own consciences.
While I have stated my objection to the omnibus nature of the bill and my disappointment that the government has refused to split it, nevertheless I will be voting for second reading of the bill and for its reference to the committee. Although I have some reservations about some aspects of the bill, I believe that on the whole it is constructive and that it certainly contains a number of measures which I favour sufficiently strongly to overcome whatever objections or reservations I have to some parts of the bill. Therefore I believe it should go to the committee.
As to some of the controversial sections of the bill relating to abortion and homosexuality, I doubt that in practice they really constitute much of a reform or will result in much change in so far as their enforcement is concerned by those responsible for enforcing the criminal law. With regard to the abortion provisions, I am not sure that their main effect will not make it more difficult in fact to obtain abortions in some of the more remote parts of the country, and I have some doubt whether the proposed amendment can be made to work equally across the country. I think this point of view has already been

February 25, 1969
Criminal Code
expressed and elaborated upon in the house. It has been said that in fact the effect of the change may be to create inequality rather than to make abortions easier to obtain.
As to the homosexuality aspects of the bill, again I doubt that the proposed change will have any substantial effect on what is the practice in terms of prosecution. I doubt that these changes will work against the kind of prosecutions which are now in fact conducted. If it is the view of the government that society has no right to be concerned about the moral climate in private society, I do not .accept that point of view. However, I do accept the point of view that the criminal law Is not necessarily the proper instrument for society to use in this connection. I adopt this view particularly since this law cannot, in fact, be enforced in practice and because when a law exists that cannot be enforced it tends to fall into disrepute.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
In summary, on these two aspects of the bill I would say that while there has been a great deal of talk on the other side of the house about the extent of the reform, I doubt that there will really be very much change in the practice so far as the enforcement of the criminal law in concerned. While I perhaps have some reservations, particularly with respect to certain aspects of the changes proposed in connection with gambling, I find important features in the bill which I certainly wish to support at this stage. I mention, for example, those relating to highway safety. Therefore I simply wish to indicate that I shall be voting for the bill to proceed to the committee.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, today we have returned to the debate on second reading of the Criminal Code omnibus bill, C-150. This measure not only represents reform in many substantial areas such as abortion, breathalizer tests and gun laws, but also in the procedures of the criminal law in Canada. As such it probably marks one of the most significant changes in criminal law in the history of this country. The extent of public debate in Canada on its provisions in the last year indicates that the people of Canada are well aware of its many changes.
During the course of the debate we have heard a wide divergence of views on the many provisions in the bill. In deciding to leave the'bill in its omnibus form it is my opinion that the government adopted the only practical course of dealing with this legislation. All the clauses are government measures

which will be supported by the majority of the government party. This does not prevent individual members of the Liberal party from voting against a measure if their consciences prevent them from supporting it. Indeed, some have already indicated they will vote against the bill. Presentation of the bill in an omnibus form does not limit debate. Any member is free to speak on the legislation at its several stages.
The bill will receive a detailed clause by clause examination in the Standing Committee Justice and Legal Affairs Committee by very capable members from both sides of the house. The opposition will be able to propose amendments at appropriate times to any clause.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, but does the hon. member think any of them will ever pass?


Maurice Brydon Foster: If they warrant it, maybe.


An hon. Member:: That is beside the point.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is not beside the point. It is the very thing that matters.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Many days of debate will be saved compared with the time which would be taken if we had to deal individually with seven different acts.
In the clauses relating to abortion the proposal simply legalizes what is effectively the status quo in most parts of Canada today. We do not prosecute doctors today who carry out abortions in order to save the life of a mother. Yet most legal authorities believe that technically these doctors are breaking the law and, this being the case, they are liable to criminal prosecution. The bill before us will legalize a situation which already exists, and in future this operation may be undertaken in an accredited hospital without penalty and in specified circumstances such as with the approval of a committee of doctors. The bill goes one step further by permitting therapeutic abortions to be performed when the health of the mother is at stake. It does not resolve one problem with which doctors are sometimes confronted where a young girl has been raped or been the victim of incest and has subsequently conceived. This is a problem which doctors must continue to work with.
A large part of the population of our country is apparently opposed to carrying reform as far as the proposals in the bill now under discussion do. The legislation we are dealing with today seems to be an accommodation of the vastly conflicting opinions within this
February 25, 1969

country. As such, it is probably the best compromise to suit the opinions of the majority of our people.
The measure of gun law control provided in this bill will be useful and is long overdue. Most people in this country are urban dwellers who use guns mostly in the hunting season. My own area of Northern Ontario is a favourite place for moose hunting, and thousands of inexperienced people flock to the bush annually. Many of them engage in careless, foolish practices such as taking sound shots. A hunter shoots into the bush because he hears a sound which he thinks is game. Often the sound turns out to be another hunter. It is hard to believe that such things happen, but the fact is that many people are carried out of the bush each year, killed or permanently maimed. The bill before us will further control the use of firearms in such a way as to discourage the careless handling of weapons.
The provisions relating to compulsory breathalyzer tests for drivers suspected of consuming alcohol beyond the level of .08 per cent are very serious. Persons thus convicted will carry a criminal record for life with all its attendant difficulties. Were it not for the amazing results which have been achieved in Britain following the introduction of compulsory breathalizer tests, I doubt that this action would be justified. But here are the results in Great Britain, and I read from an Associated Press report from London dated December 2, 1967:
Night-time road accidents in London dropped by a dramatic 42 per cent in the first month after Britain's new drink-drive law was introduced, Scotland Yard said today.
The first official figures to be released since the tests began October 9 also showed a slump in accidents in other British towns and cities.
Scotland Yard said that 54 people were killed in road accidents in London during October-28 fewer than in October last year.
There was a 42 per cent drop in fatal and injury accidents in London between 10 p.m. and 1 a.m., when the total fell by 324.
Accidents involving serious injury totalled 835- 102 fewer than last October-and the number of people slightly hurt dropped to 4,221 from 4,668.
As the tests covered only three weeks of October, the figures for a full month may show an even more dramatic reduction.
"There have been notably fewer vehicles on the roads at night," a police spokesman said.
"The reduction in accidents appears to be due to the breathalyzer," said Stephen Swingler, minister of state at the transport ministry.
"It seems clear that the new drink and drive law is having some effect," Swingler added.
Under the new law, police are empowered to direct motorists to take a test involving a breathtesting device.
Criminal Code
So the results in Britain indicate that we can save lives on our highways, and by this yardstick compulsory breathalyzer tests are justified.
The changes in this bill relating to cruelty to animals are significant. One of the most important is the provision which will prevent persons convicted of cruelty to animals from keeping domestic animals for as long as two years from the time of conviction. This restriction may be applied by a court order. I know of instances in the past where persons raising dogs for medical research continued to follow this practice in spite of two convictions for cruelty; they continued to raise dogs for sale to medical research laboratories by disposing of them through other dog raisers. The medical schools and research laboratories are unaware of the origin of these animals. The new provisions of the bill will give a magistrate or judge power to make an order completely prohibiting these individuals from keeping animals for a period of up to two years.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I am not going to attempt to cover the many other provisions of this bill at this time. I believe that the bill reflects a balanced approach to the reform of criminal law in Canada, and for this reason I support Bill C-150.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, let me say at once so there may be no mistake that, for reasons I will deal with later, I propose to support the bill on second reading, and to some extent I do so for the reasons advanced by the leader of our party a short time ago.
The main thrust of my remarks has to do with what I consider to be the very improper position taken by the government regarding the method that has been adopted by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his colleagues in order to bring this matter into the house and secure the views of members, representing the people of Canada, at the different stages of the debate. I think that the attitude of the government has been arrogant, authoritarian, undemocratic and downright immoral.
Any talk of parliamentary reform, of participatory democracy, of giving a new prestige and value to the work of members of parliament seems to me to be glib and unrealistic in the light of the brutal and ruthless dragooning by the government of its supporters on certain of the issues involved in

February 25, 1969
Criminal Code
this measure. Long after these proposals have become law-and I am convinced they will become law-people will pause and remember that on issues involving certain moral and consciencious questions which should lie far outside the range of political partisanship laws were in fact placed on the statute books by most questionable means.
All too often governments explain their decisions by saying that the methods and means used are immaterial so long as they secure the passage of certain legislation. I oppose this attitude. I deplore it. I see too much of it in the way this government approaches its responsibilities. I challenge the assumption that the means are immaterial. In a democratic society they are tremendously important, and at times can even be said to outweigh the objectives. There was never a dictator who did not rationalize his actions with the statement, "It had to be done because the country needed it."
The debate has generally been a good debate of high calibre, save only that I must again express regret that in my opinion many of the government members have been inhibited in their approach to certain of the matters covered by the bill, and I think this has had a restricting effect. Nevertheless, the quality of the speeches, the sincerity of the motives, and the eloquence of the expressions which have found their way into Hansard have been a certain indication of the deep feelings and the strong emotions which have been brought into play not only in this house but in the country as a whole.
I am also inclined to think that the spirit which has been engendered in this debate has its foundation rooted in something even more fundamental than the issues here. Society is troubled, is stirring, is changing. People are challenging old values and are sometimes tempted to replace them with new theories which have not been tested or are not likely to be successful.
When society is in such turbulence as to seem likely to perish, it is good advice that we should seek to restore to it the principles from which it sprang. The Criminal Code, which nourishes many of the rules that govern society, should always be related to justice, and truth is the nursing mother of justice and must always be the light which guides a people groping to find their way.
Members from both sides of the house have delved into the merits of many of the proposals and I have but a few simple comments to make. I naturally reserve the right to make further comments after the bill has been

through the standing committee and has come back to the house. As a matter of fact, under the procedure we are now following we are, in effect, taking a step in the mechanical process of moving this bill on a stage so that in committee it may be examined in detail and members may have the opportunity to consider it and to propose amendments that then come back to this house.
In reviewing the comments which have been made may I say I have nothing but respect for the differing points of view and opinions which have been expressed, and I do not think it right that any hon. member or group of members who cannot accept views which have been otherwise expressed should in any sense seek to disparage these alternative points of view. Certainly we must give the fullest effect to views of a religious nature offered validly and sincerely, particularly if those views are honestly held by a considerable percentage of our population. There is today, alas, too great a tendency for society, like a river, to find ways around the hard rocks of morality. Proposals must be examined in the light of their effect on the preservation of the basic unit which western civilization was founded, namely, the family. I do not regard myself as being among those who feel that the family has outlived its usefulness and may well be quietly rejected at this time. So if society does require the retention of the family we must be prepared to recognize and give effect to certain moral principles which are essential for that purpose, even to the extent of declaring certain acts to be a crime. This, I think, is the whole approach of our criminal law.
When people in their infinite wisdom and through the actions of their representatives have concluded that the continuation of certain specific acts which heretofore .have been only moral or social offences have now become so widespread and so much a danger that they must be raised to the quality of a crime and subjected to regulation and punishment, then this must be so. A sin can become a crime if the act has become or is so abhorrent and repugnant to human belief and is so likely to cause a deterioration in our social behaviour that it must be brought under control. I say this because some of the statements that have been made in the house, with some of which I do not agree even though they may have been expressed by people who have come to the same conclusion I have by other means. This, of course, is not always an easy thing to do. It is in coming to determine what is a crime or what should not
February 25, 1969

be brought into the category of a crime that we find ourselves parting company. I say this because, even though I may not agree with the views that have been placed on the record by some members, or with their assessment and evaluation of the facts, many of the people who have so spoken have based their convictions on morality and religion. I respect this position and I understand and appreciate the quality of their argument.
Let me conclude this portion of my remarks by repeating that I intend to support this bill on second reading. I do so despite the fact that I bave very definite and grave reservations, as well as strong doubts, about certain aspects of some of the clauses contained in the amendments to the Criminal Code. People have said there is a right to personal independence. I prize that right. But let me say this-and here I think I am paraphrasing what some philosopher said-that tjie body we use to traverse the slim isthmus between birth and death is not a completely private carriage. Society has a certain interest in it and in what we do with it.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I must say-I hope my remarks will be accepted as an objective viewpoint but I must make them all the same-that it is not as easy as some have suggested today to have absolute personal independence and freedom. The curse of the overplanned society is all about us. Every day, in parliament and in the legislatures of this country, governments are encroaching on our freedom of choice to live as we like. I do not like this. I oppose it when and how I can. Those who approve and support restraints on independence and curbs on the social and economic freedom of mankind do not make the best advocates for some of the changes which are proposed in this measure. I say this not only because of some of the things I have said previously but because I have the feeling that all too often the government has not made any real attempt to meet squarely the various wrongs and injustices which criminal law should always be aimed at.
The feeling persists with me that there has been an effort to try to show that this government and party are progressive and forward-moving, that they have cried out and exclaimed about change and progress and said, "See how fast we are going," while all the time keeping an eye on public feeling and public approbation and trying to cover the widest possible spectrum of what, in the Liberal party, passes for popular support.
Criminal Code
This is always our difficulty-the eternal struggle between right and wrong.
That is simple to say. We can generally locate wrong but we are not always sure of how to remedy it. Again, the punishment of wrong will not necessarily result in the triumph of right. For those reasons it is improper for any government to try to make political capital out of some of the issues which have been brought forward in this bill. This, I think, is where the government falls down. They have this inordinate preoccupation with things which are new. To be new, Mr. Speaker, is not always to be right.
It has been said that we should so arrange things that we adopt new views only when they appear to be true views. Thus, when I see the government's overly political approach to this issue, it seems to me that this administration is beginning to emit an odour of mild decay. It is simply not good enough to look at these positions and say that this is all we can do at this time and that circumstances are against us. Man is not the creature of circumstance. Circumstances should always be the creatures of man, and any government which forgets this does not deserve to continue in office.
In viewing this measure I have tried to look at the over-all picture. A great deal of general good will flow from the vast majority of proposals put before us in this measure. Much benefit will flow from it to millions of people, and for that reason I support it. My only regret is that the government did not see fit to include a great many more proposals of reform with regard to the substantive and procedural aspects of the Criminal Code. In the light of existing criminal law jurisprudence based on decided cases, of new discoveries and experience in other lands, I submit we are woefully far behind a great many other democratic societies which have made improvements and discovered them to be effective and useful. Nevertheless, knowing that so much good will flow from these general proposals I must support the bill despite the fact that certain, particular measures contain proposals which I either reject or which do not meet the real problem in each instance.
I hope that certain changes will be made in committee. This hope, of course, is a faint one in the light of our recent experience when the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) stated his disillusionment in no uncertain terms.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He was very truthful.
5S24

February 25, 1969
Criminal Code


Gerald William Baldwin: The measure of diluted, dictated democracy conjured up for us in that epidode does not give me too much confidence that the government will permit its docile supporters to introduce any meaningful changes. Nevertheless, in the light of the views I have expressed and bearing in mind with deep respect the contrary views of others, I must support this measure at its second reading stage. May I say that I am proud to be a member of this party which will, as indicated by my leader and by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), permit a free vote on those issues which must bother the consciences of many.
I end by saying to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice and other members of the government that if they do not listen to what we on this side of the house have said and to what supporters like the hon. member for York East have said, the mild odour of democratic decay which hangs over their party will soon become the stench of decomposition and dissolution.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to make a few comments on Bill C-150. I am a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, and when the bill is referred to the committee we shall study it in greater depth.
I had hoped to see the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) here this afternoon. He is referred to as the boy with the silver spoon in his mouth. Since I am sometimes known as the boy with the wooden spoon in my mouth I thought, because of our differences in family, financial standing and social and educational backgrounds, that we could carry on a sort of dialogue this afternoon and recount our different experiences which stem from our different walks of life.
Many Canadians have said there is a law for the rich and a law for the poor, probably because of experiences in encountering the law or from reading or hearing of the experiences of others who have had dealings with the law. Many may hold this opinion of the law because of the narrow base on which it rests. The criminal law, in particular, says that protection of the person and property is paramount. As is well known, in the past most criminals came from low income groups in our population. These days, however, they come from the more highly sophisticated sectors of society, as is evident when one studies cases of stock fraud and fraudulent bankruptcy. Clearly, criminals today may also come from the higher income groups.

In the past the criminal law was mainly concerned with retribution. The law dealt out revenge. Although in modern times a timid approach has been made toward reforming and rehabilitating offenders, I submit that we have not gone nearly far enough in this direction. We have placed too much emphasis on the guilt of offenders and too little on why offences have been committed and what corrective measures are necessary to solve our problems.
I remember what Judge Stewart and Dr. Blatz said about juvenile delinquency when I attended law lectures at university 25 years ago. They suggested that we ought to place less emphasis on guilt and that we should set up a panel of doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists, members of the clergy and members of the business world to plan a strategy that would bring about the reformation and rehabilitation of young offenders. This idea has slowly evolved in the juvenile courts, and we should attempt to apply this approach to the adult courts by experimenting with young offenders between the ages of 18 and 25 years. These are the critical years of youth. Studies have shown that if a young man does not get into trouble in his tender years the likelihood of his committing an offence in his later years is very remote. Therefore this age group is of vital importance.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
This does not mean that we should ignore men over 25 years who have committed offences. We have to set up decent prisons. We have to have proper training and retraining programs. We have to have an adequate parole system. We have to have after-care with regard to employment. In this regard I pay respect to Harold King who has a farm outside Toronto and attempts to help young men released from prison find their place in society. It is a shocking disgrace that men like him cannot call on the public treasury to assist them in their rehabilitation work.
This is why we of the New Democratic party, although we support the measures in the bill, would supplement it by introducing immediately measures such as the abolition of corporal punishment, the expunction of criminal records, reform of the bail system, the right to legal counsel at trial and a prohibition against wiretapping. These are not mollycoddling measures. They are necessary steps to develop right attitudes and respect for our laws, for the police and others who enforce
February 25, 1969

Criminal Code
and administer the law. However, we must start with youth.
I recall that in 1966 the then solicitor general tabled a report on juvenile delinquency. I also recall a conference of social workers at Lake Couchiching in May, 1967. These social workers, after making a detailed study of the report, anticipated great changes in the treatment of youth. Thus far there have been no changes. There has been inaction by the government, and more particularly a general apathy on the part of the present Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith).
I rather admire the Solicitor General for some of his past performances but I find very little to admire in his approach to amendments to the Juvenile Delinquents Act. I find very little to admire in his approach to the expunction of criminal records.


Mr. Mcllraith:: What do you know about either of those subjects?


John Gilbert: February 25, 1969
Criminal Code


Mr. Valade:: Would the hon. member allow a question?


John Gilbert: Certainly.


Georges-J. Valade: Could the hon. member tell us how the amendment with respect to abortion is going to get rid of backstreet butchery?


John Gilbert: I appreciate the question of the hon. member and I would respectfully suggest that with this amendment we are developing a new atmosphere and new attitudes with regard to abortion. As I said, when a young woman is pregnant she will now be able to have the assistance of social workers, doctors and the clergy to help her think through the problem so that she can make the right decision. We have not gone as far as the law in England goes. We have not instilled confidence in our young people with regard to the pregnancy problem, but with the patience, understanding and encouragement of the hon. member who has just asked me this question I am sure we will attain maturity with regard to this problem.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
With regard to the problem of homosexuality I have said, as have many Canadians including the Prime Minister, that it is necessary to get out of the bedrooms of the nation. Attitudes are changing with regard to homosexuality. In the past homosexuals were looked upon as lepers by society. People had almost the same attitude toward homosexuals that some of the early Christians had concerning lepers. Now people have an attitude of regret rather than revenge. When one reads the Wolfenden report one appreciates the understanding and compassion of the members of that committee in dealing with the problem. Experience has shown that very few first offenders charged with an offence involving homosexuality have been sent to prison. The report stated that only 30 per cent of first offenders in England were committed to prison. My experience in Canada in this field indicates that most first offenders have a fine imposed upon them. Many of them are placed on probation with a term attached to the probation that they attend a forensic clinic for treatment.
One of the recommendations of the Wolfenden report was that information should be obtained with regard to first offenders before a magistrate or judge imposes sentence. This is an excellent recommendation in view of some of the psychiatric and psychological problems first offenders have. One of the

problems with which many Torontonians have been confronted in respect of homosexuality is the frequency with which homosexuals hang around public washrooms and lavatories. In fact, members of the morality squad in Toronto take up positions in washrooms. They bore a hole in the wall and by that method of detection have brought some homosexuals to court. This seems to me to be a rather nauseating approach to criminal detection. This is one reason I welcome the change. I think many members of the morality squad feel ill at ease when applying such detection methods.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You are not suggesting that this bill makes that permissive.


John Gilbert: No, I am not.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Then why do you bring it up?


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I have just had an interjection from the hon. member for Calgary North. I believe he is saying this amendment will bring about no change in the method of detection. I remind the hon. member that there will be a new attitude and approach to this problem and that the same number as in the past will not be hanging around these places. There must be protection for young persons who use the public parks and public lavatories. It has been suggested in the Wolfenden report that municipalities pass bylaws to prevent loitering by homosexuals around public washrooms. The Wolfenden report also indicates that homosexuality is not a disease but that total reorientation from complete homosexuality to complete heterosexuality is very unlikely indeed. As part of the corrective treatment they indicate there should be, first, a change in the direction of sexual preference, second, a better adaptation to life in general and, third, greater continence or self-control. Those are some of the corrective methods suggested in the Wolfenden report. They also indicate there is a place for the psychiatrist, the clergyman, the social worker and the probation officer in helping to deal with this problem.
In respect of lotteries, personally I am opposed to lotteries being conducted in Canada, especially as a device to collect moneys to help finance our social programs, hospitals, medical care and education. When one hears about the experience of countries like Ireland which have had lotteries for many years one is tempted to think it is a tragedy that
February 25, 1969

Criminal Code
Canadian money is going to Ireland instead of remaining in Canada to be used for social purposes. If one were to examine the hospital and educational institutions in Ireland one would very quickly realize that they have made little or no advance in these areas. When one thinks of the huge amount of money collected and the small amount used one cannot help but be greatly discouraged by this attempt to meet the cost of social programs. The experience in New York State, and I would think in the city of Montreal, has shown that this approach is not one which has met with success.
I believe that lotteries create an emotional instability among members of our community. In many instances, because money is spent on gambling families are deprived of some of the necessities of life. It is a rather sad commentary to note that churches, which are the guardians, educators and teachers in respect of our moral and spiritual life, should use bingos and lotteries as a means of financing the building of churches. I do not think most Canadians like to think it is necessary to use such methods to build churches. I for one am strongly opposed to the lottery clauses in the
bin.
With regard to the provisions in respect of the breathalyzer test I am sure most members are in agreement with this because of the murder on our highways which in many instances is due to the use of alcohol. One of the members from British Columbia set forth the practice in that province whereby the police, after stopping a person whose ability has been impaired, give him an opportunity either to park his car and go home or take a breathalyzer test. The person must surrender his driving licence for a period of 24 hours. Considering that a conviction carries with it restriction in respect of employment, travel and bonding, I would hope members of the committee would give serious study to the approach taken by British Columbia.
A recent survey by the Ontario Addiction Research Foundation shows that the greatest danger to high school students in Toronto is not drugs but alcohol. Robert Robinson, the foundation's director of education, stated after results of the survey were known:
There is no doubt that alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana, glue-sniffing and L.S.D., because it is more widely used and because of its longterm effects.
9 (4:30 p.m.)
One appreciates the changes in the law in other jurisdictions, more specifically in Great Britain. The note I have indicates that authorities in Great Britain believe that under the new U.K. drinking law the breathalyzer may have saved 1,000 lives in the first full year of its use. For the ten months to the end of July deaths were down 1,075 or 12 per cent from the previous comparable period. Cases of serious injury dropped by more than 10,000, or 9 per cent.
I think this is the reason most Canadians are in agreement will the change involving the use of the breathalyzer. We welcome the amendment bringing about improvements to the Parole Act. I would hope that when we reach the committee stage we will invite representatives from the Canadian Corrections Association, who have already filed a brief in respect of this matter, to attend the committee and inform members of their views as to further amendments to improve the act. We also welcome the changes in respect of summary conviction appeals. Any lawyers who have had experience in this field I am sure have found many hang-ups, and I congratulate the government for attempting to correct this problem.
We appear to be at the cross-roads of society. We need a new lift and a new outlook. This is why so many Canadians are looking to the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General for the development of bold and courageous initiatives to update the law so that Canadians will be able to say they live in the most updated community in the world.


Gilles Marceau: Mr. Speaker, having listened to the comments made by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin), I thought it would be only natural for a government member representing a constituency in the province of Quebec to set forth his views on the bill now under consideration.
I do not believe it would be advisable to prolong the debate. Since this bill will eventually be referred to the committee on justice and legal affairs, there will likely be lengthy discussions there and, on third reading, there will probably be other comments in the light of the conclusions the committee will have arrived at.

February 25, 1969
Criminal Code
However, at the request of the hon. member for Lotbiniere, I wish to tell him I have taken as an insult his false utterings as regards the government members.
Of course, I have not the advantage of having a well-prepared speech. But this will perhaps enable me to give my own opinion rather than the views of others.
I must admit, Mr. Speaker, if that may please the members of the Ralliement Credi-tiste, that at the outset, I had some doubts about the value of this bill. However, I thought I ought not rely on my personal opinion and I somewhat followed the method used by the honourable member for Lotbiniere. I too held consultations throughout my constituency and throughout the ones adjacent to the Saguenay-Lake-St. John area.
I will say at the outset to the honourable member that 1 received a few letters, from my constituency only. To be honest, I must say those letters were not in favour of this bill, however, after consultations with civil and religious authorities, I must say quite frankly to my honourable friend that I was surprised at the comments I received.
I expected that the striking argument of our friends of the Ralliement Creditiste to the effect that life was a gift of the utmost importance and that morals should prevail in the vote that will be taken would prove to be the most convincing one.
To my great surprise, I got the following answer: that bill represents a permission, not an obligation. And by way of answering the hon. member for Lotbiniere who said that there existed the following dilemma: either we were stupid, we members of the government, for not intervening in this debate, or we were inhuman. I think he forgot another option. Either the members who do not intervene are stupid or they are inhuman or idiotic. I regard as imbeciles those who cannot -understand the extreme importance of this bill which represents a landmark in the Canadian life. I regard as an imbecile the man who could not make the people in his riding understand that this legislation was extremely advantageous to them because it opened new horizons to them and allowed them to make a distinction between religion, morals and the law.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gilles Marceau: Mr. Speaker, they din into our ears the principle that life is the most precious thing. I quite agree, and this is why

I am in favour of this bill. I consider, Mr. Speaker, that although I am a Catholic-and by saying so I probably want to avoid every attack that could be made against me about my former intervention because I am a Catholic and I am proud of it-this does not prevent me from considering those who practice another religion as not following the right track. I do not think I can assure that I have a monopoly on truth, but I believe, on the other hand, that if a person is pregnant and believes that her morals and her principles allow her to ask for an abortion, I cannot in all conscience let her die because I am a Catholic and therefore against abortion.
I consider, Mr. Speaker, that it does not belong to me to pass judgment on the intentions of others who do not practice my religion. From the moral point of view, I am not in favour of abortion, but as a legislator in this house, I think that in our pluralist society everybody has the right to follow the principles that he regards as just and I do not think I have the right to prevent him from doing what he wishes. Indeed, I think that the bill under study takes into account the Canadian context in which we also live in the province of Quebec.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I would not say I have consulted everyone of my constituents, for this would not be true, but I am happy to say that I have probed rather deep into the matter and had quite a number of consultations, regardless of the political allegiance of my correspondents.
Of course, as a representative of the riding of Lapointe, it may seem rather strange that I should speak in favour of the government. I understand my friends of the Ralliement creditiste have always been accustomed to hear, in this riding, a voice expressing distrust towards the government in power, but, this does not mean that my predecessor, whom everybody knows, had only shortcomings. On the contrary, I will say this about him that he was sincere and understood in his own way the role of French Canadians in society.
I do not necessarily share his opinons but, I would not go so far as labelling him as some people have. It is the first time I have the opportunity to talk about him and I must say I am always glad whenever I meet him. Even though we do not share the same views this does not prevent us from being what I would call casual friends
February 25, 1969

Mr. Speaker, I shall not say that the bill under consideration is perfect, nor that I endorse all its provisions. The breathalizer test, for instance in my opinion, implies very important principles which tend to change the entire picture of our criminal law. As most members know, the accused is presumed innocent. This is the basic principle of our criminal law, a principle that we have somehow imported from England, and, in my opinion, it is a good one, although it differs completely from the French principle of law whereby the accused is presumed guilty.
Now, in this new bill, the accused is presumed guilty and it is up to him to defend himself and prove that he is innocent of the charge laid against him.
I must say that I have certain scruples about this, perhaps as a lawyer and as counsel for the defence. But, on the other hand, considering the number of accidents we deplore in Canada, and considering the principle outlined by the Minister of Justice, (Mr. Turner) to the effect that he who drinks must not drive, we are confronted by a drastic principle, and under those circumstances, I might be inclined to support government members for that reason. I must admit however that some questions need answering and I trust that members of the opposition and my other colleagues of the government will enighten me on the advantages of such a measure, and on the possibility of perhaps making the law more efficient and more acceptable through other means.
All this to say that, contrary to what my hon. friend for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) said, I do not tag along behind the Prime Minister and I shall not vote even if the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) were to tell me to do so. (Laughter)
Some members smile across the way; I wonder if they could say as much.
I accepted freely to join the Liberal team and if ever I realize that I must forego my freedom of action, my free vote, I shall not hesitate to go back home. But I am still confident within my party, there is still enough freedom and honour for me to be allowed to vote according to my conscience and convictions.
I feel that is an insult for the prime minister, who has given the impression of
Criminal Code
being a sincere man to be told that he is capable of imposing his will upon the members.
Knowing the sense of humour of the hon. members for Lotbiniere and Temiscamingue,
I am sure that in making those assertions they wanted to tease us.
To my mind, Mr. Speaker, in the case of paroles, the bill does not go far enough. A while ago, an hon. member mentioned that the bill should allow the destruction of criminal records after a while, and that there was a recommendation to that effect. I want to state emphatically that in my opinion, such a provision should be included in the bill.
I am in a position to know, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, some people have come to me with a criminal record going back four years. They were turned down from interesting jobs in spite of their qualifications, simply because they had a criminal record going back several years.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the rehabilitation of convicts is essential and that we should do something in order to enable those people, especially young people who have made a mistake because they were influenced by others, to rehabilitate themselves and take back their place in our society.
In the lottery field, Mr. Speaker, I must say that I heard the arguments of the previous speaker who is against lotteries. I should say that the problem is not so serious in the province of Quebec, at least in my area. I have heard favourable comments about this question, but when I consider that lotteries could become a means of taxation, I am perhaps not ready to accept such a view for the time being, and I hope I will get some clarification in committee and through discussions with my colleagues, who could perhaps convince me that this would be the best solution.
To sum up, Mr. Speaker, I think I represent the opinion expressed by the majority of my constituents when I say that I am in favour of this legislation. I should add, Mr. Speaker, that at first I was not in favour but after consultation I think it is my duty to indicate to this house that I shall vote for this bill, but that I hope we shall have the opportunity in committee to bring in some useful and efficient amendments in the interest of all Canadians.

February 25, 1989
Criminal Code


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend in a definite way, to participate in the debate on Bill C-150.
I heard this afternoon my colleague, the hon. member for Lotbiniere, deliver a magnificent speech that he had prepared himself and I draw the attention of the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Marceau) to that point.
Again for the information of that charming colleague, I shall tell him that all members of the Ralliement Creditiste are able to prepare their speeches themselves, and speeches clever enough to retain the attention of the house, speeches that mean something, even about an omnibus bill which deals with abortion and all kinds of things.
I understand, as the hon. member has just said, that the bill will be sent to committee, after the vote on the motion for second reading. But, in committee, Mr. Speaker, what happens in this house happens all over again.
The government is still in a majority. That is the point we come to with its decision taken in advance. Even if we introduce amendments, nothing will ever be changed, for it is the government which leads the way, within the committee as well as in the house, because the government holds the majority. That is why I always stated and I still do- that a government in a minority is more helpful to Canada than a government in a majority that enforces its opinions, as is the case nowadays.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lapointe said that he also had consulted civil and religious authorities, and that the bill was opening new horizons. We have been hearing about abortion, homosexuality, etc. for a long time. However, it is the first time in Canadian history that those matters are dealt with in legislation. I would say that the bill constitutes a general abortion, even if we asked that it be divided.
With regard to lotteries, the bill shows that it will be the abortion of the financial system.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: With regard to carrying weapons, that is a very important question.

It might be considered as the abortion of understanding between individuals.
Homosexuality is in some way the abortion of marriage between a man and a woman, and not between two men.
With regard to the breathalizer test which makes it possible to know whether an individual has been drinking or not, it is the abortion of sobriety or of breweries, as the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay) said; his area has experimented the abortion of breweries.
Parole is the abortion of justice.
Mr. Speaker, this is a bill of abortion.
Now, getting down to business, this afternoon the hon. member for Lapointe complained of vicious attacks made by the hon. member for Lotbiniere who described exactly what is taking place. The hon. member for Lapointe rose and expressed his opinion; he was against the bill at the beginning and is not yet for it. He still does not grasp all its consequences, all its implications, but he informs us that he will vote for it and that it is a matter of personal conscience.
A few weeks ago, Pope Pius XI declared, I mean Pope Paul VI-I often quote Pius XI to enlighten my friends on economic questions-that conscience must not be permitted to choose whatever path it pleases, that it must be guided, for without guidance, chaos ensues. If the human conscience is not guided, we will witness protest movements, such as we are witnessing now, and bomb explosions in the very heart of Montreal. If a man's conscience tells him to go and place a bomb at the stock exchange in Montreal, he will go. Personal conscience moves people to become enemies. Why? Because we have neglected to give such conscience the guidance it needed.
The men in their forties or fifties have received conscience-guidance from their parents at an early age, from their teachers during their first years of schooling, and later on, from their university professors.
At that time, we protested in our own way, for example against the fact that you could not smoke during recess, or against being followed by a supervisor. Still, one must admit that the guidance we received in matters of conscience has made responsible citizens of our generation. We do not regret the education we received. There existed then guidance for the conscience, a respect for authority, which no longer exist today. And what
February 25, 1969

we are witnessing now are the results of too much freedom of conscience. Let us live according to our own conscience. To a young 17-year old boy we say: live according to your conscience. They are still in diapers, but they are told to act according to their conscience. What a strange political philosophy.
It is for those very reasons that one sees revolutions, wars, anarchy, etc. It can be explained by the lack of authority of those who are supposed to use authority. When the authority has no respect for itself, situations like the present one will arise. The authority is mainly afraid of losing votes.
Mr. Speaker, did the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) draft this bill? Pressure must have come from some quarters. From where? I have not made suggestions to the Prime Minister, nor have the Liberal members. They are not the ones who suggested to the actual Prime Minister, when he was Minister of Justice, to bring forward the original Bill C-195. I am convinced there are powers at work behind the scene who have drafted the bill and compelled the government to put it before the house. Today we are receiving letters of complaint about this bill.
I am sure the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) will vote in favour of the motion for second reading of the bill and reference to the committee. He knows the opposition will not be able to do anything in committee. So it is a lot of nonsense. Tonight on the C.B.C. network, we shall hear our usual loud-mouths say: The hon. Leader of the Opposition is in favour of the bill on second reading, so it can be discussed in committee. But he will not even be there to discuss it in committee.


An hon. Member:: It is true.


David Réal Caouette: It is true, Mr. Speaker. A Liberal member has just said that I am right. I know that there are some Conservative members who agree with me.
Mr. Speaker -


Georges-J. Valade: The Prime Minister will not take part in the debate in committee.


David Réal Caouette: At the next election, the Prime Ministeer will not be there either! During the election campaign last June, did any Liberal member consult the members of religious orders,-brothers, fathers, nuns -to ask them what they thought of Bill C-150?
Criminal Code


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I hear some hon. members say "yes". Why do they not rise from their seats to tell us what the members of religious orders said to them at that time? The Liberals told them:	You
must vote for the Liberal party, it is the great national party par excellence. At that time, the parish priests, the curates, the brothers and the nuns all fell for those sweet words, but when they voted for the Liberal party, they voted for this bill respecting abortion that is now under consideration.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: Fortunately, everyone did not fall for that sweet talk, in all parts of the country. In my area, the nuns know for whom to vote, as well as the members of religious orders, the parish priests and the curates. These people know that I say exactly what I think and not what someone else thinks. I believe this bill should never have been introduced in the house.
Mr. Speaker, may I say that it is five o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker;: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform tfie house that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe) - Canadian Economy-remedial measures contemplated by government; the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis)-Indian Affairs- Yellowknife, N.W.T.-regulations in Akaitcho Hall; the hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Alkenbrack)-Public Buildings-Bath-Millhaven federal prison complex.
It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, private bills, notices of motions.

February 25, 1969
Canada Elections Act



PUBLIC BILLS


[Stage Direction]
AMENDMENT RESPECTING AGE OF VOTERS Mr. Lome Nyslrom (Yorklon-Melville) moved tjiat Bill C-21, to amend the Canada Elections Act (age of voters), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
He said: Mr. Speaker, at this time I take pride in introducing Bill C-21, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act with regard to the age of voters. The bill, if passed, would reduce the eligible voting age in the whole Dominion of Canada from 21 to 18.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
At the outset I want to make an assertion which is essential to my cause in presenting this bill today. It is that voting at the age of 18 is, in my opinion, a right which should have been granted to young people many years ago. Participation in the political process should not be a part-time job; it should involve young people at all times, and this means providing them with that basic right, the right to vote. All too often politicians use young people only to lick stamps or place stickers on car bumpers during election campaigns and political conventions. Lowering the voting age to 18 is long past due.
In order to get people involved we have to work to extend the political base as much as possible. Years ago, only people who held property were allowed to vote. This limitation was relaxed to the benefit of all Canadians. Women received the franchise and this, too, resulted in benefits to the Canadian people.
I should like to summarize briefly the history of the lowering of the voting age to 18. The C.C.F. government in Saskatchewan, soon after its election in 1944 under the leadership of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), lowered the voting age to 18 in that province, enabling young people to vote at that age in the 1948 election. The age limit was subsequently reduced in Quebec, British Columbia, Alberta, and in Newfoundland where the voting age is 19. We also find voting ages of less than 21 years in the United States in the states of Georgia and Kentucky as well as in the new states of Alaska and Hawaii. Nearly 40 countries have adopted a voting age of 18, countries in all 
corners of the world on both sides of the iron curtain, countries with differing political ideologies. It seems ironic to me that Canada should still have a voting age of 21. We are still debating the mediaeval concept that persons are not mature until they attain the age of 21. This concept grew out of an age when a person was not thought physically able to wear armour until he became 21.
I appeal to members to vote on this bill, not to talk it out. All of us know that similar bills have been presented many times by members of all political parties. All political parties at one time or another have been in favour of reducing the voting age to 18. I believe that as far back as 1962 the committee on privileges and elections unanimously recommended that this should be done in Canada. But the proposal never seems to come to a vote, or when it does it is defeated, or the issue is tied up in committee after committee.
The former prime minister of Canada, the right hon. Lester Pearson, speaking to the house on November 18, 1963, came out in favour of reducing the voting age. But nothing was done about it. As reported in Hansard at page 4858 Mr. Pearson said:
This party has been committed to the reduction of the voting age to 18 years of age for some years, and we are anxious to see that it is done as quickly as possible.
I suggest the time has come when we should stop talking about this matter, both here and outside the house, and pass a bill giving effect to this proposal.
Young people have been expecting to get the vote at the age of 18 for a long time. I picked up an article the other day in the Globe and Mail of November 16, 1963, which raised this hope among many people, and I should like to quote a paragraph or two from it:
It is virtually certain that all Canadians who have passed their 18th birthday will be able to vote in the next federal election. The Commons election committee was unanimous, this week, in approving the reduction of the voting age (at present it is 21); and all parties have indicated they will support the change when it comes to the floor of Parliament.
The arguments in favour of the change scarcely need repetition. People can now vote at 18 (provincially, but not, of course, federally) in Saskatchewan and in Quebec; they can vote at 19 in Alberta and British Columbia.
All over Canada they can work at 18, marry at 18, drive a car at 18, go to jail at 18. They can fight in wars at 18-and in fact, as servicemen,
February 25, 1969
[Stage Direction]
can vote in federal elections at that age. The ultimate logic of this is to give all of them the federal franchise at 18, and this is what Parliament is about to do.
That was in 1963, nearly six years ago, and still nothing has happened though members have brought bills such as this one before the house in each and every session. For this reason I appeal to hon. members today not to be hypocrites but to do something about the situation when they have the opportunity.
One of the greatest reasons for the cynicism of young people about the whole political process today is that nothing ever seems to happen. Part of the fault is attributable to Members of Parliament on both sides of the house. All too often we tend to be redundant and repetitive, talking about the same things year in and year out and using the same speech on occasion after occasion. As a result, parliament has become ingrown and out of touch with many segments of our society.
We give young people responsibility for carrying out many of the laws which are made by our society-I have already mentioned a few of the obligations placed upon them-but we do not allow them to participate in the decision-making process which determines the laws they must obey. All too often we as politicians and society in general adopt a domineering attitude. We think young people are good enough to lick the stamps and do the Joe jobs, the mechanical tasks, but when it comes to making decisions they are just not capable in our eyes.
In the last election campaign the Prime Minister went across the country inviting young people to become involved in the political process. Yet he has been denying them a fundamental right, the right to vote. This is the point at which private Members of Parliament should take action. All of us know that young people are ready to become involved. This happened in the course of my own campaign during which hundreds of young people participated actively in making the decisions as well as knocking on doors.
There is a growing awareness in the youth community of events around them, an awareness which is logical, given the society in which we live, a society in which automation and technology play a leading part. Information flows in quickly from all over the world. We can see evidence of the starvation in India and Biafra, of the condition of those
Canada Elections Act
who live in urban ghettos and the depressed areas of Canada. In such circumstances young people today are more aware of events in the world around them than they were even ten or 15 years ago. Because of advances in technology, people today possess many of the mechanical and quantitative goods for which their parents strove years ago and as a result more stress is placed on the quality of life and on values other than material values. Young people are more keenly aware of these things than they were 20 years ago. Indeed, it appears somewhat ludicrous that we should still be talking about lowering the voting age in the year 1969.
We hear a good deal about the generation gap and the difficulties some find in understanding young people. There is one way in which we can help improve this situation and it is by getting young people involved in doing things others do. If we ignore them, we cannot understand them, and this is the point at which things become very dangerous.
I should like to outline some of my reasons for thinking that young people should be allowed to vote. First of all, I consider it to be a right. Moreover, I believe they are mature enough to vote as intelligently as anybody else. In many provinces they reach legal age at 16 or 18. They must then be responsible for their conduct, they must appear in court when summoned and go on to gaol if sentenced. They are liable for military service if called upon. It is ironic to me that a person should be considered old enough to kill or be killed for his country when we do not give him the franchise here at home. They are considered intelligent enough to be trained to fight but not intelligent enough to vote.
Today many young people are organizing groups in an attempt to have the voting age lowered. One organization known as "Down Three" has circulated leaflets to all Members of Parliament on the issue of military service and I should like to quote one paragraph:
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
There is a great deal of inconsistency in the status of a young person in Canada. Eighteen-year olds, in time of war, can be conscripted for military service. Are 18-year olds adults or children? If adults, surely they should have the right to vote in time of peace, as well as in time of war.
This is the kind of inconsistency that appears in our society time and time again.
[Stage Direction]
February 25, 19GS
Canada Elections Act
As we look around us we observe the many financial and social responsibilities a young person has. Many young people between the ages of 18 and 21, even younger, are married and have families of their own. Many of them are working and paying income tax. Many have responsibilities at home as well as responsibilities to the community at large. Since a driving licence can be had at the age of 16 most of them drive a car. They can hunt and carry a gun. Many churches in the country have already recognized that people are responsible for their actions before they reach the age of 21.
We should also give young people the opportunity to become involved in society at an earlier age. A better balance should be struck in Canada between the young and the elderly in the matter of voting. In this regard there is quite a disparity. As Maclean's magazine pointed out in an az'ticle last June:
Nearly half the Canadian people are indeed under 25-some 9.8 million out of 20 millon, according to the 1966 census-but only 1.4 million of these are old enough to vote. Among 11.2 million voters they are 12.5 per cent, or exactly one in eight. And though they are the largest of the five-year age groups into which the census figures are broken down, outnumbering the next youngest voters by about 220,000, they are still less than one-fifth as numerous as that vast army of the middle-aged and the elderly, the 7.4 million electors who are 35 and older-
If young people were given the vote I submit there would be a better balance in the representation of the Canadian people.
Lowering the voting age is but a toe in the doorway, as it were, toward opening up society for the participation of youth. Our young people are impatient. They are demanding a number of radical socio-economic changes. They want to eradicate many disparities. We need to create a society that offers far more avenues to explore. Lowering the voting age would be but a start toward the accomplishment of these things. Many of our present institutions are very cold and de-personalized.
Our young people want democracy but democracy in its truest sense. They want democracy not only in the parliament of Canada and in the government but also in the private sector of our economy. They want universities to be democratized. Our Indian people want more say in making decisions, and many of our workers in factories want a greater participation. The public wants more control over corporations that affect a large part of their daily lives.
[Mr. Nystrom.l
Let me conclude by saying this: If we do not go even as far as to extend the voting age, we are only asking for trouble. We will be ignoring basic facts. It would be but a small step toward opening up society and increasing the opportunities for people to participate. This is why many people are losing faith in our present democratic system. Even many moderate students are asking why they have to demonstrate or hold a sit-in before people will listen to them. We do not want this sort of thing, and like to accomplish things quickly and in a democratic manner. Unless we do so we will encourage more and more activity outside political channels as we know them today. Therefore I ask the house to give this matter serious consideration and to pass this bill today.
Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: Mr. Speaker, over the past several years private members from all parties now represented in the House of Commons have presented bills to provide that the age of voters under the Canada Elections Act be 18 years instead of 21 as at present. During the life of the 27th parliament nine public bills were introduced by private members to amend this section of the act. These bills were either talked out or referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. In November, 1963, the standing committee actually approved an amendment to the Canada Elections Act to lower the voting age to 18. Although since 1960 prominent members from both government and opposition have agreed with the argument that the voting age should be lowered, as yet no government action has been taken to bring about this change. This state of affairs seems to suggest and to lead one to suspect that although lip service is paid to arguments in favour of lowering the voting age, in fact the most convincing considerations must be those that are against doing so. This is what one is led to assume from what has happened in the house in this regard since 1960.
A strong feeling undoubtedly persists among many that young people are particularly susceptible to radical or extremist elements. Since they are likely to be influenced by unscrupulous factions, so the argument goes, they should not be trusted with the franchise. Such an attitude really calls for proof positive that young people will handle the franchise intelligently, even before they have the opportunity to vote.
February 25, 19S9

The same impossible demand was made by the opponents of female suffrage. It was claimed that women lacked the experience to vote intelligently, that most of them really did not want the vote anyway, that they would tend to vote in blocks and would be easy prey for demagogues, that such a volatile electorate would destroy our institutions and, finally, that they were just not ready for the franchise-some day maybe, but not just yet. These were the arguments of those who opposed female suffrage in Great Britain and the United States.
In respect of our youth at the present time, there are those who, on the one hand, seem to fear the influence of the youthful voter, whether it is expressed or whether it is merely felt. There are probably many members of the House of Commons as well as people outside the house who somehow fear the influence of the youthful voter. On the other hand, there are those who see in our youth a new generation-impatient, idealistic, and having a more thoughtful attitude toward national and world affairs. Between these two attitudes of fear and caution on the one side and praise and urgency on the other, there is probably a middle road of truth.
According to several surveys, young people in their teens show no significant difference from older people in their attitude to or understanding of political issues. If such be the case, why not leave the voting age at 21, an age that has long been recognized as the legal attainment of one's majority? If the need for change is pressed upon us, then why should the voting age be set at 18 rather than 17 or perhaps 19? The answer in part is that the establishment of 21 years as the age of responsibility in voting has no relevance in the 20th century. As is well known and as was mentioned previously, the present standard is borrowed from ancient English common law which designated 21 years as the minimum age for knighthood. This was supposed to be the age at which a young man would be strong enough to bear the weight of armour. We all know there is no magic to the age of 21 years. There is no guarantee that a person will assume adult responsibility as soon as he reaches his 21st birthday.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
What justification is there for selecting 18 years as the voting age in preference to 21? The fact is that those falling between the ages of 18 and 21 are considered adults for many purposes. They can marry, begin having families, pay taxes, drive cars, serve in the
Canada Elections Act
armed forces, and so on. Eighteen years seems a good age to have as the voting age; it is approximately the age when young people leave high school to enter the labour force or to proceed to higher education.
Studies in the United States have shown that persons 21 years of age are among the most delinquent voters. It has been concluded that the reason for this is that by the time these young people have turned 21 many have become so far removed from the stimulation of the educational process that their interest in public affairs has waned. Consequently, some of these young people may be lost as voters for the rest of their lives.
Perhaps the most compelling reason for lowering the voting age is that Canadian politics needs the transfusion of enthusiasm and interest that younger voters would give it. Through the years young people have been a great help to political parties and candidates-as helpers but not as voters. Since young people have played important roles in many campaigns it is disturbing to find they can persuade others to vote but cannot vote themselves.
Lowering the voting age to 18 years would tend to bring about a better and more equitable balance in the electorate of this nation. As the life expectancy of our people rises the number of older voters increases. A corresponding expansion in the number of younger voters would broaden the political base and perhaps provide concurrently a more balanced approach in the nation's general political outlook.
We know from history that it is usually a difficult task to expand the electorate. Often a strong measure of agitation is required, as was demonstrated by the Chartists, the suffragettes and the United States negroes. In due course political parties and leaders somehow become capable of embracing new ideas and people, but the process generally is slow. In time the federal government will extend the franchise to those between 18 and 21 years of age, but by then it will be following the practice of most provinces in Canada. To date, five provinces have lowered the voting age either to 18 years or 19 years, and the question is being considered seriously by other provinces. It seems a pity that the federal government is not giving leadership in this matter. Our youth generally deserve this right. Recent public opinion polls have shown that the number of people in favour of lowering the voting age to 18 years has increased considerably.

February 25, 1969
Canada Elections Act
Before resuming my seat, Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer briefly to another change which is urgently needed in the present Canada Elections Act. I am concerned about the problem of the absentee voter. In my constituency of Thunder Bay many Great Lakes sailors lose their votes because they are away from their polling places on election day. During the advance poll they may find themselves at a location where they are not registered. In Canada we have persons who, because of sickness, infirmity or incapacity

they may be away travelling or absent for any number of reasons-are unable to attend their polling place.
May I point out that the Report of the representation commissioner in 1968 on methods of registration of electors and absentee voting recommended that in this country we should follow the Australian method of absentee voting. There one may cast one's ballot at a different polling place but it must be in the same province. The report also recommended that postal voting, the mailing of one's ballot to the place where one is a registered voter, should be introduced into Canada.
The need to lower the voting age and to provide for the absentee voter must be resolved before the next general election. I hope that these amendments will not be under debate still in the 29th and 30th parliaments.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, may I have your indulgence and the indulgence of hon. members on the government side of the house to speak for five or six minutes in support of the bill brought before this house by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom). It is significant that a measure similar to the present one has been before the house on nine occasions. Considering the interest the youth of this nation has displayed in this question, I think it ought to be decided very quickly.
We must ask ourselves, will we permit our youth to face responsibilities and help in the solution of problems which are causing inequities in this complex life we live? I have been fortunate in being involved with youth in my travels across the country. I am pleased to see the involvement of youth in the political arena. Surely it would be unrealistic for us to contend that we should not lower
[Mr. Penner.l
the voting age as this is not the proper time to do so.
In Hamilton aldermen 22 years old are elected. I am pleased to see that one of the youngest members ever to sit in this house is the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville. Surely the youth of certain elected representatives is significant of something. Perhaps the significance lies in the preoccupation of our youth with politics.
May I put it this way, Mr. Speaker. I was fortunate enough to have involved in my election campaign between 500 and 600 young people. As a result of their vitality, energy, know-how-I am speaking of political knowhow-and advice 1 was elected to this house. I stand here very proud and very honoured that young people were involved in my campaign. At the same time I am concerned about any communication gap that may exist between the younger and older generations. Although we are prepared to say our young people are responsible enough to go to war, to come before the courts and to drive cars, at the same time when it comes to what may be termed the "nitty-gritty" of life we are reluctant to give them certain rights and responsibilities.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Participatory democracy is a phrase much used on the other side of the house. I am interested in it. I want to see more people involved. One of the most important groups in this great dominion of ours is the under 25 age group which makes up half the population. I do not think it takes a great deal of brains to understand what is happening at this particular juncture in time, when we think that half of the people in this country are under the age of 25 years. That is a significant statistic.
We must be prepared to accept the fact that there are many responsible people within this group. The restless minority is one thing. We hear about Sir George Williams College and about the University of B.C. Let us not become beclouded by the actions of the restless minority; their actions of violence; their actions of intimidation; their actions of blackmail. Let us look to the responsible ones who have the ideas, who have the energies, and who have the philosophies that can play a part in our political life.
The only proper forum for the energies, the restlessness and the excitement of youth
February 25, 1969

is the parliamentary caucus, not on the street demonstrating, waving flags, exciting and inciting. The proper forum is within this grand chamber.
I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that this is a time when we can be realistic not only in attitude but in action. It is all right to be committed but let us have a commitment with deeds. I think we have a lot to learn from the young people. As I listen to them, as I read about them throughout this nation, I believe we must start now reducing the communication gap, that gap which now-a-days means that if you are not under 30 you "aint with it". It is very unfortunate when young people have to seek leadership from within their own group without relying on the wisdom and experience of those who have had an opportunity of laying a foundation for them.
That is why I am concerned and hope that this bill does not get talked out. This talking-out business is starting to confuse me. I see so many good things proposed, but then during private members' hour I look at my hon. friends on the other side of the chamber, and how many of them do I see? I see, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen of them. Are they going to talk this bill out? To my hon. friends opposite I say, let us be realistic. Let us face facts. I hope this chamber will send this bill to the standing committee which can deal with the matter in greater detail.


Mr. Guy LeBlanc (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased I can devote a few minutes to expressing my opinion on this very serious question indeed. Young people have a very important part to play in our country, as in all communities around the world, and everyone, young people or adults, and especially we, the members of the house, should consider that problem carefully, with a view to finding a definite solution as soon as possible.
We all know that, for some years, that question has been discussed by the various executive committees of our pressure groups, such as the Chambers of Commerce and other organizations, as well as by our legislatures and the legislative bodies of almost all the countries in the world.
Canada Elections Act
Today, as a matter of fact, I was reading a book written in the United States in 1949, by a Mrs. Julia A. Johnson, entitled The Lowering of Voting Age. The author makes an individual and almost exhaustive study of the whole question and reviews all the arguments for or against giving young people between 18 and 21 years of age the right to vote.
I realize that since then the same ground has been covered in our own circles. I remember that the question was debated in the province of Quebec in 1964, on the occasion of a political rally, with warmth and enthusiasm. Naturally, there was much excitement among the young people attending. For my part, I voted for the passage of a legislation to grant the franchise to 18 year olds.
Since then, and especially now with this bill, I go in for this slightly less radical approach as this matter is so important that, in my opinion, it should rather be introduced by a group of members of Parliament. Because also of all the aspects of this problem, many provisions may be neglected or forgotten if only one member presents such a public bill. I think that franchise for young people should be taken into consideration, but within the framework of the complete revision of our Elections Act which, I presume, will be made before long. And I suppose that in a short while we shall be able to study it in committee.
Young people must evidently be appreciated at their real value because, as we all know, they have many good points but they also have responsibilities. I am not one of those who say that they represent a group with dangerous opinions. I rather think that among them, those who make a lot of noise are a minority. They are the ones who cry the loudest while most of our young people are seriously preparing themselves either through studies or some form of training to assume in future the role assigned to them in order to replace adults when they attain their majority and maturity.
I think that a distinction between those two terms, majority and maturity, is necessary.
Maturity results from the complete development of an individual or a group, while majority is established through legislative enactment.
Our youth have a part to play at the present time. They will play their most important

February 25, 1969
Canada Elections Act
part in the development of our society, once their studies are completed, as we have done ourselves.
Indeed, over the ages and still at the present time, youth have been of special interest to politicians, businessmen, industrialists, for various reasons and motives, some commendable and others-we must admit it since it is human-less commendable.
Throughout the world, many politicians have been interested in youth for mere electioneering purposes or mere partisanship. I feel that when we, here in Parliament, are seriously considering to grant a special status to youth, we have to ask ourselves if the reasons impelling us to give them the right to vote or any other right are above electioneering or partisanship. I do not mean to say that electioneering or partisanship are good things. In our democratic system in Canada and elsewhere, those techniques of electioneering, party organization and partisanship are important, worthwhile and good. However, when youth especially is involved, we have to consider principles which are on the same level as politics in the best sense of the word. By doing so, we are taking into account the principles which will contribute to the development of Canada and will enable us to solve more quickly present priority problems.
It is not a matter of granting somebody a right just to please him or to get his vote at the next election.
Besides, the majority of our young people are seriously getting ready for the future, to fight for society and their own, as we are presently doing.
They long for truth, frankness and efficiency, and they do not particularly like those flatterers who try constantly to lure and beguile them.
All agree that the matter is important; to me it is also very complex. That is why 1 believe it is better to wait until our Elections Act is revised and I wonder if the fact of debating a private member's bill for an hour could cover all aspects of the problem and get the results we expect from our statutes.
A member of the opposition said earlier that during election campaigns, we use our young people to put stickers to automobile bumpers. I have a different opinion. Young

people and adults render services to politicians, but in most ridings, the young are interested in politics all year long.
o (5:40 p.m.)
In the Rimouski constituency and in the province of Quebec in general, we have a group of young people really interested in politics. And what are their goals? They do not strive for the right to vote in the near future. They are eager to improve their knowledge in politics, and their general knowledge as well.
First, they want to know the mechanics of our parliaments. They have an interest in politics between electoral campaigns, and they are most active groups, as most of those we have in our constituencies.
As I was saying a moment ago, this question has been widely commented for years. One has only to go through the Hansard of the Commons, the reports of associations, clubs and political conventions to realize the extent of the discussion. But perhaps it has not been properly dealt with, for nothing has been settled in that respect, at least at the federal level.
I was reading today in the November 1964 issue of MacLean Magazine an article written by a well-known newspaperman, Mr. Norman DePoe, who investigated the matter and covered almost all aspects of the voting right for 18-year old people.
As far as 1964, Gallup-type polls conducted among young people revealed that some were for the right to vote for 18-year old people while others were not and preferred to keep the status quo, so that they get a better preparation. They were looking forward to replace in a few years those on the front line either in politics or in the management sector.
For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I sincerely believe that it would be better for the government to make a general revision of the Canada Elections Act before arriving at a decision on this question.


Mr. Henry Laiulippe (Compion):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words on Bill C-21 introduced by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) the object of which is to lower to 18 the age of voters.
February 25, 1969

Unfortunately, I am not quite in agreement with the hon. member, in spite of his good intentions when introducing this bill.
In the present situation, in a country in turmoil, in a country where too much confusion prevails, where the young lack leadership and do all sorts of things, it would not be advisable to adopt such a policy, that is to lower the voting age to 18.
At 18, the young are all schoolchildren, they all attend classes. So, they certainly do not have the time to keep abreast of politics, and I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that if we authorized voting at 18, some 18 year-olds would run as candidates in the elections.
The responsibility for things done during an election campaign, if taken seriously, is more serious than one might think because they are intended to improve the economy. Positive, carefully considered decisions must be taken and I do not think that the majority of the people who are not 21 yet are mature enough to make any valid political decisions. I think that it would be unwise on our part to grant the right to vote at this time to young people of 18 because many of them at 21 know absolutely nothing about politics and therefore cannot come to a decision or express valid opinions in that respect.
I agree that among those who have not yet reached the age of 21, some may be more advanced than others.
In fact, there are some who, at 18, are quite responsible but there are very few. Most young people at 18 are not responsible enough to come to a positive decision on matters such as the subject we are discussing now.
I have seen with my very own eyes, during the last election campaign, wealthy politicians organize dances and send invitations out to young people who were not old enough to vote. These young people are not concerned at all with politics; they would rather drink, dance, date this or that young lady. They are concerned with the car in which they will ride, it is the only thing they care about. Therefore, there is no sense of responsibility at all. I have seen in my riding meetings organized by old political parties at a cost of several hundred dollars, where there were almost only young people. There were practically no serious-minded people at those political meetings or dances organized in
Canada Elections Act
order to secure votes. Therefore, if the right to vote had been given to those 18 year olds, the politicians with the greatest financial means, the ones that are the most gratified by their own party and who organize dances, might have obtained their votes by being able to win them over more easily.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we must dwell upon the way people may act. We must also recognize that we are not merely mossbacks. An 18 year old is not an old-fashioned person, but a young man. It is a man who is supposed to have had some education, to be somewhat serious-minded, to have even a certain maturity. However, at the age of 18 years, according to several enquiries that were conducted, to the numerous questions asked to most of the young people, the answers were rather shifty, and quite negative. This shows that people of that age are not mature enough to vote logically and intelligently at the time of elections, especially in a country like ours where great changes are now taking place.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Rimous-ki (Mr. LeBlanc) said earlier that young people must have certain qualities; they surely have qualities and nobody questions that. Young people have qualities that should be taken into account; we must guide young people, we older politicians. Young politicians must also guide the young people who have the right to vote or are involved in politics. They should teach them politics; they should show them what is to be done, what is to be changed, what is to be improved in an economy, and that is almost untouched upon in the schools. When young people of 18 have finished their studies, they have learned almost nothing about political economy.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I think it would be beside the point to say that it would be useless to allow these young people to play a part in our politics and in our economy, which must be reformed and which needs people who have been thinking, people who have been reflecting because we are now on the eve of a revolution. The young people are about to revolt.
Young people no longer believe the old politicians. They think they are old fogies, all of them. The old politicians do not do anything for the young because they have

February 25, 1969
Canada Elections Act
no maturity, because they do not know the consequences they do or might do eventually.
I object absolutely, as the hon. member for Rimouski used to say, to the study of this question. It should be considered far more thoroughly so that we might know if it will be reasonable one day to lower the voting age.
In the province of Quebec, Mr. Lesage's party lowered the voting age and that was fatal to it. If the provincial Liberal party had not lowered this age limit, it would probably be still in office.
Mr. Speaker, I am not suggesting that young people have always cast their vote without being aware of what they were doing but there is one thing I can tell you: they do not vote just for the sake of voting, they vote to be able to enjoy a dancing party or for what little money they can get to move around and enjoy themselves. That is what the majority of them have in mind, for they are not that much interested in politics. As I said earlier, there are exceptions to the rule, but I am sure that most of our young people think that way.
Mr. Speaker, for all those reasons, we cannot bring down the age of the voters in order to enable these young people to go to the polls, especially where federal elections are concerned since these are more important and carry more implications than provincial elections. Indeed, action taken by federal members is not confined to the provincial level but has a bearing on the international scene. We know what we are doing but we have yet quite a lot to learn and though we have attained maturity, many of us still make sometimes very serious mistakes. Just imagine then what could happen with a young chap who is unaware of the consequences of his acts.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the said bill be not now read a second time, but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Mr. Speaker:: I should bring to the attention of hon. members that the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe) had the floor

at six o'clock. He relinquished the floor to the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell). May I take it there is agreement in respect of this course of action?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Martin P. O'Connell (Scarborough East):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to know whether I may-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have not yet settled the first problem. Let me bring to the attention of hon. members that the hon. member for Compton relinquished the floor at six o'clock. Certainly, no other member can take possession of the floor for the purpose of moving a motion unless there is unanimous agreement on the part of hon. members to allow him to do so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: D'accord.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, by leave I move:
That the order for second reading of Bill C-72, to amend the Canada Elections Act (age of voters) be discharged and the subject matter of the said bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand there are now two motions before the Chair. I will put the first one to the house. Mr. Forest, seconded by Mr. Deachman moves:
That the said bill be not now read a second time, but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Forest, seconded by Mr. Deachman, with the unanimous consent of the house, moved:
That the order for second reading of Bill No. C-72, to amend the Canada Elections Act (age of voters) be discharged and the subject matter of the said bill be referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: The hour set aside for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. I now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
February 25, 1969


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) that Bill C-150, to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
David Réal Caouette: I
thank you, Mr. Speaker, for mentioning that it was the riding of Temiscamingue in the province of Quebec.
Before the supper adjournment, I was saying that the bill under consideration, Bill C-150, should never have been introduced in the House of Commons. Most of those who favour its introduction conclude their studies by saying that we should respect everyone's conscience.
As I mentioned earlier, Pope Paul VI said just a few months ago that the conscience should be guided and directed by Christian moral law rather than partisanship.
The hon. member for Lapointe said that he would vote according to his conscience. He will, but following a lecture by his party's organization. Therefore, is it according to moral law or to partisanship that hon. members state they will vote for Bill C-150?
Mr. Speaker, in practically every country in Europe, people who have followed the dictates of their conscience can be found. Let us consider for example countries such as Greece which for a while-and I do say so- was the stronghold of civilization, India, Persia and Iran which in the past were highly developed countries. I would add even France and England which, a few centuries ago, were also highly developed countries. Let us see what is happening now in Greece with its concept of free personal conscience.
Let us consider, for instance, Iran where 83 per cent of the people are illiterate. I happened to be in India lately where out of 530 million people, 97 per cent cannot read or write.
Criminal Code
Instead of teaching these people how to produce to feed their fellow men, we have chosen to work towards birth control. At the present time, about $2 is paid to every man who agrees to be sterilized for birth control purposes.
In India, instead of studying the production capacity necessary to feed the people-and I suggest that India could feed at least five times its present population-its people are being taught birth control to help the food shortage, so that within a few years, 25 to 30 years from now at the most, the population of India will be made up of old people and there will be no one to take over from them.
Here in Canada, while we are dealing with birth control, in Quebec as well as in the other provinces, there is inconsistency. On the one hand, some people say the birth rate is decreasing noticeably and that people are up against it; on the other hand, people are showing the so-called advantages of contraception, of birth control or advocating abortion projects, which is entirely against human nature.
Try as we may, we can pass parliamentary legislations, the Creator will ignore them. It is He who has given us life and no man has the right to take away such a life from whoever it may be.
My colleague from Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) recently had a questionnaire sent around in his constituency. I also had consultations in mine. My colleague from Bellechasse precisely asked the electors of his constituency the following questions about the bill under consideration:
Are you in favour or not of therapeutic abortion, when the life of the mother is quite seriously endangered?
Are you in favour or not that the serious decision, namely whether or not there should be abortion, that such a decision be taken by several practitioners (medical committee) after consultation with the mother, the father or the guardian?
Do you believe that in all other cases, abortion should be considered an illegal and punishable act, under the present provisions of the Criminal Code?
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, those are objective questions, not partisan ones. Now I have here a few answers-I could quote hundreds of them from all the constituencies of the province of Quebec-namely one that comes from Sainte-Perpetue in the constituency of Kamouraska, that of my excellent friend the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne). The lady who wrote that letter is not afraid to sign her name. She is Mrs. J.-C. Belanger, from

February 25, 1969
Criminal Code
Sainte-Perpetue, l'lslet county, mother of 15 children, I quote:
Sir:
I want to give you my opinion on abortion. I do not know where we are going with those confounded laws passed by the government. Confound it! To kill or to have one's innocent child killed is an abominable crime. I daresay it is the greatest crime that will be perpetrated in the world.
We are farmers and we would never dare procure the abortion of a cow-
I wish to stress those words, Mr. Speaker, and keep on quoting:
-we would fear for its life, we would fear for its health. We do not know how to call those gentlemen who dare introduce such a bill. Think a while and hold on until the last minute and God will bless you.
I hope that several people will give their opinion like I did and that it will be taken into consideration.
Mr. Speaker, this lady was not afraid to have children since she had 15 of them. And today, I would say that the supporters of abortion do not approve of it for medical reasons only, but rather, in most cases, for purely economic reasons.
Let us consider, Mr. Speaker, the case of a 22 year-old young man who has just finished his studies and who is courting a young lady who has also just finished her studies at the age of 21. It is normal to be in love with a 21-year old young lady and to wish to marry. Suppose they decide to marry. The young man has a job which does not pay too much. So the young lady says: Let us marry and I will try to work to increase our family income. However, let us try and agree not to have any children for the next five years or so. The two young people who are 22 and 21 years old get married, which is normal and nobody has anything against it. After their marriage, of course, they make love but precautions are taken in order to avoid immediate pregnancy. But, at a certain time-this is what is called bad luck-the young bride becomes pregnant. Then, necessarily, the child will be born normally after nine months. This disturbs the young bride who will have to quit her job. This very fact will decrease the family income and will bring to this home not bitterness perhaps, but a kind of fear that they will not be able to make ends meet.
Mr. Speaker, any member, whether he belongs to the Liberal, the Progressive Conservative, the New Democratic or the Creditiste parties knows that such situations
[Mr. Caouette.l
exist today. The young bride who does not want to lose her job will try, in many cases, to find means to free herself from the child she is bearing even after two or three months. At that time, the young bride will perhaps be blamed. But, Mr. Speaker, is the bill which will legalize this practice consistent with Christian morality?
I am 51 years old. I was born in Amos, Abitibi, in 1917, when the only means of transportation was the C.N.
We were far away from any important centre of the province of Quebec. My mother bore 14 children, out of which 8 are still living today, and we managed to get through the recession. My father was a small employee with the provincial government and earned $90 a month-and we used to sit 10 around the table! In those days, I was attending the College of Limbour, not far from Hull, and later the College of Victoriaville, run by the Brothers of the Sacred Heart. I was the second child of that family of ten who had to manage with $90 per month, and, Mr. Speaker, as we scrambled through this recession-which was a catastrophe for many Canadians and for all the people of Quebec- on Sundays, the parish priest would say from the pulpit: "Do not be afraid to have children; large families will have less trouble than the small ones." And he was right, Mr. Speaker. In fact, large families fared better during the recession than the small ones. I have seen bachelors who were practically starving whereas large families always managed to get through with a cow and a dozen hens. However, in those days, our dwellings were not, perhaps, as comfortable as those we have today, but we could live in them like human beings.
Today, at this very moment, if we toured the riding of Kamouraska, along the banks of the St. Lawrence, on the north or the south shore, we would see houses built 300 or 400 years ago, in which hundreds of little French Canadians were born. They never starved, Mr. Speaker.
And today, under the pretext that civilization is progressing, that we must become more civilized, we advocate birth control. Instead of passing laws to enable families to live decently, laws are being passed to limit the number of children. Let us go around Montreal: what goes on there? Instead of building the type of house families need, high-rise
February 25, 1969

buildings are built that look like chicken coops, and have no space tor children.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: There are no yards for the children to play in, but instead, four-room apartments, for families of six or eight. Of course, one looks a little stupid, Mr. Speaker. There is a lack of space; is it because there is a shortage of land? Not so. But because first of all, there are material interests which defy all morality and impose such bills as Bill C-150.
Mr. Speaker, I have another letter here from a citizen of the county of Bellechasse, Mrs. Poulin; she writes:
Mr. Caouette, please give to the member-
-this letter-
-thank you. This is the first time a member has sent a referendum to his electors for a serious cause, as this one surely is; the reply is no.
Why abolish the

As you can see, she has no university education, but rather that of a farmer with a lot of good common sense. And I continue the quotation:
Why abolish hanging for convicted murderers-
-under the pretext that we have no right to make an attempt on the life of others, in order to civilize the world.
-and allow the murder of an innocent-
-a child who is about to be born-
-who has not asked to live-
It is God who gives it to him.
He needs it and other people want to kill him. The responsible parents do not know what they are doing; they enjoy life foolishly-
Such is their purpose.
And that other member who said last week that life starts after three months, as if a being deprived of life could develop; Parliament has too many of those members, and to think that those empty heads are so well paid.
I do not know which empty head spoke at that time, for if I knew, I would name him.
And you Mr. Caouette, so courageous for the past thirty years, X am listening to you, no one speaks like you, people think that nothing can be achieved, they are so used to being whipped-
-with such political parties as we have.
-Thank you for taking the trouble of writing to me; it is a just cause that, I hope, you will win.
Criminal Code
Mr. Speaker, this is a letter from the constituency of Bellechasse. Here is another from a constituent of Dorchester who thanks the member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) for sending him that questionnaire.
I thank you for enabling ordinary people to express their views on Bill C-150. In view of the interest that you are taking in the matter, I am taking the liberty of setting forth my reasons for taking such a stand.
Since your questions are put outright, I have to answer them in the same manner, the more so as I have not seen the full text of the bill.
Yours very truly.
And the answer to the questionnaire is quite simple. It is clearly against abortion and against homosexuality. Signed:
Jean-Gerard Poulin.
Mr. Speaker, I want to quote another letter from Saint-Pacome in Kamouraska riding:
I congratulate you for your concern for your constituents by asking their opinion on the omnibus bill. All M.P.'s could have done like you in order to know the opinion of their constituents. I am not from your area, but I give my opinion anyway;
I am dead set against the omnibus bill, against abortion, against free homosexuality and against divorce.
When there is too much freedom and no authority, nothing good or nice remains!
I believe that the man (rather the husband) and the wife must take all responsibility in some very exceptional cases; why generalize for a few exceptions? Thank you for your kind attention towards the problems of one of your faithfull readers.
Mr. and Mrs. Louis-Philippe Alexandre, Saint-Pacome, Kamouraska county.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, we have heard the remarks of several members. I heard recently the member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) tell the house that he had the misfortune of losing his wife and his child at the same time, in child-birth.
Mr. Speaker, that really happened. We bereave such unfortunate happenings, of course. When my mother died in 1960, I lost everything. I did not know who to turn to and that was tough luck. But that does not mean we should legislate in the way of immorality by interfering with Christian morals.
Someone said that personal conscience must be respected. I am all for that, Mr. Speaker, but it should also be guided. Some people say that certain religious authorities support their views. And yet I have here statements which

February 25, 1969
Criminal Code
are taken from a very serious study by Reverend Father Paquin, a Jesuit, the author of a book entitled: "Ethics and Medicine", which deals precisely with direct abortion, criminal, abortion, therapeutic abortion, eugenic abortion, in short, with all kinds of abortion. And here is what Father Paquin writes:
Direct abortion is always immoral and profoundly illicit:
In ethics, such distinctions do not exist: any direct abortion, whatever the reason behind it, and even if it is approved by the state, always has the same moral significance.
It is officially forbidden by the moral code to practice abortion.
Mr. Speaker, here are the principles of natural law mentioned by Father Paquin:
The murder of an innocent being is always considered a murder, and it is the more repulsive as the victim is less capable of defending itself. No one is master of a fellow-creature's life-
Of his father's, his mother's, his wife's, his child's.
No one is master of a fellow-creature's life, even if that creature is known as a foetus.
Neither the mother nor the doctor nor the State can be free to decide. The consent of the mother and of the State are worthless consents which could not alter the immorality of a murderous action.
Such is the nature of abortion that it must be compared to foeticide. To reject the foetus out of the mother's body, without which it cannot live, is tantamount to wounding it mortally; it is placing it, in an immediate and direct manner, in an impending and sure danger of death.
Father Paquin continues as follows with respect to therapeutic abortion:
In general, therapeutic abortion describes a technically indicated abortion to save the mother's life.
Those indications can be numerous or limited, according to scientific advance, according to current opinions in medical circles, according to special knowledge of such and such a doctor or a surgeon. In fact, it is very arbitrary.
And that is not only in connection with the birth of a child, Mr. Speaker. About 25 or 30 years ago, when one had appendicitis-it was not called appendicitis, but "body tied in a knot". When one's body was tied in a knot, he died there was no recovery possible. Finally it was found out that by removing a small gut of about three inches long, the knot was untied and health was regained.
How many of our Liberals are now tied up, Mr. Speaker. Even with therapeutic medicine, they cannot be untied.
I am still quoting Father Paquin when he refers to moral judgment:
Whatever may be the medical viewpoint, moral judgment cannot be different for a so-called crim-

inal abortion and a therapeutic abortion. The general condemnation we have established previously holds for all cases of abortion, since an end, even excellent, can never justify the use of means which are essentially bad.
Mr. Speaker, it is in the name of Christian morals than we are protesting and not because we do not want to save lives. On the contrary, we want to save all lives. When the good Lord allows a human being to be born, man has no right to decide whether or not he must accept it. This new life is sacred. It is not a life given by man, but a life given by God, and nobody has a right to smother it, whether it be through medical means or any other means. Reference is made to abortion in other fields. I was quoting earlier an excerpt regarding eugenic abortion, with a view to effecting race selection. For instance, a cripple would not be allowed to sleep with a woman, or should a woman become pregnant from such a union, she should seek an abortion. In other words, the child should be killed in his mother's womb.
Mr. Speaker, I think all members-everybody perhaps-have seen perfectly healthy couples, a highly intelligent man, a superiorly intelligent woman, give birth to a moron. This happens through no fault of theirs, nevertheless they have in their family a sick child whom they will not even be able to keep with them. On the other hand, not too healthy people have been known to have very intelligent children, children who developed well and became prominent citizens later in life. We have seen that and it proves that if man proposes, in the long run, God disposes. Men may be ready to propose this law on homosexuality, abortion, etc., but regardless of what they do, in the long run it is God that will dispose. And, Mr. Speaker, the Rallie-ment Creditiste is happier to be on the side of God's teachings than on the side of the Liberal party's teaching.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise my voice in protest against some of the features of this bill. The First is the refusal of the government to permit the separation of the con-traversial features, second, the permissive clauses relating to homosexuality and, third, the relaxation of prohibition against abortion. These are matters engaging the consciences of Canadians and members of parliament. It is in incredibly bad taste on the part of the
February 25. 1969

government to force members on both sides to vote on these matters on a purely partisan basis. In so doing, they have reversed the trend in this chamber in recent years of members being allowed a free vote on matters of conscience, such as capital punishment. Now, we have a government which, even on questions such as homosexuality and abortion, must assume a partisan posture. This is a rather regrettable and sad spectacle.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
I ask hon. gentlemen opposite, why all the concern about homosexuality? I point out to them that we are living at a time when taxes have never been higher; interest rates are escalating; inflation has gone out of bounds; wheat sales are dropping; we have no national oil or national science policy; unemployment is shooting up; disorder and violence are stalking the land; and the government nerves itself to a mighty effort on behalf of homosexuality.
In all humility, I ask hon. gentlemen opposite: Why? Why the concern of the members opposite about homosexuality? What does this bill accomplish? It gives a green light to homosexuality. It makes respectable what heretofore was not respectable. It takes off "the wraps". One of the dangerous features of homosexuality is compulsive conversion. It is no use hon. members opposite saying this is not so. It is not only the experience of the medical profession but the accumulated experience of humanity through the ages. Homosexuals proselytize, and in so doing endanger young people before they are at an age to realize what is involved. That is why in flashing a green light at this time the government is embarking on a course fraught with dangerous consequences. A similar problem exists in connection with abortion. It lies in the difficulty of control. I ask the government how, once this legislation is through, it proposes to control homosexual activities? How does it propose to keep them from becoming even more blatant than they are now? Apparently, the government is not concerned about this. It is understandable, of course, that a government which looks with tolerance on marijuana and takes no interest in the destruction of millions of dollars worth of university property should be unconcerned about exposing young people to uncontrolled homosexuality. But the question is, what degree of control can be exercised?
Coming to abortion, the same question presents itself. How can a panel of doctors
Criminal Code
decide the issue? A woman who demands an abortion will get it because there are no grounds on which it can be refused. This government is therefore in a position where at the same time that it is legislating uncontrolled homosexuality it is also asking us to accept unrestricted abortion. I refuse to do so.
I do not intend to go into detail on the moral questions involved in abortion. I think the simple fact of taking away the life of an unborn child is serious enough to impress most people. Once life is there surely a child has the right to its continuation. We have spent millions improving maternal welfare, prenatal and post-natal care, and on lowering the death rate of newborn babies. How casual some of us are about destroying a foetus which otherwise would live.
We know what the arguments are; such a step is in the interests of the mother's health, mental or physical. This includes possible inconvenience or embarrassment, because "health" can include every reason under the sun. The simple fact is that we have agreed that a child before birth has no rights. It is part of a philosphy of our time which is a kind of anti-life philosophy. There is something about new life that seems to frighten some people. Surely, once life exists it must be maintained.
I am against abortion as defined in this bill for the simple reason that there is no way of ensuring that life will not be destroyed unnecessarily or frivolously. Personally, I am against the extinction of life by the hand of man under any circumstances. But the act itself gives no assurance that life will not be destroyed for the most frivolous reason-that is, simply on request. That has been the experience in other countries and it will be the experience here.
We have been given figures showing the enormous numbers of abortions being performed illegally, as though this were an argument to have them performed legally. Surely, these children have a right to be born. Rather than participate in their destruction, why does the state not allow them to be born and undertake responsibility for looking after them? Facilities for child treatment and child care in this country are disorganized and chaotic. Hardly a day passes but the press carries an account of child beating, child neglect, child abandonment. Surely, something could be done in this area by the federal government in co-operation with the provinces.

February 25, 1969
Criminal Code
We have a government that wishes to reserve for itself only those areas of jurisdiction which are politically profitable. Where there is a real need, such as preventing the destruction of university buildings, or for child welfare, it shies away and, like Pontius Pilate, washes its hands. Is it not better to do something about looking after unwanted children in a country suffering from a shortage of population instead of destroying them before they have a chance to be born? I say this is a callous and heartlessly anti-social provision. You cannot control the granting of this permission. You cannot say no when an abortion is requested, and you will not say no. The simple request will be enough. It may be cheaper than building institutions or children's villages to look after the unwanted, but it is certainly not a Christian or a positive social concept. It is a concept both negative and destructive, a shrugging off of responsibility.
Why not let these children come into the world and grow up as Canadians? Why not accept the responsibility of providing for them? Why not look after the mothers and remove the stigma attaching to unwed motherhood? Why should there be a stigma? This bill perpetuates that stigma by somehow suggesting that a child about to be born out of wedlock has no right to be born. This is an anti-social, heartless attitude.
I leave these matters to the conscience of the government and its supporters. As for my own conscience I am, thankfully, responsible only to myself and I shall vote against a barbarous betrayal of my beliefs.


Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could reply to the hon. member who has just spoken by telling him the reason for the homosexuality clause and perhaps even for the abortion clause, though I certainly would never presume to speak on behalf of the government. I believe the reason is simply that these laws are unenforceable. In other words, the legislation relating to homosexuals has not been enforced. The number of convictions is almost nil. Therefore, when a law is not enforceable it becomes a dead letter on the books and is better removed. I believe the government used a similar explanation to justify abortion, the subject with which I shall deal mainly this evening.
I find myself in this embarrassing position. I voted for the abolition of capital punishment when we had a free vote.

[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


Steve Eugene Paproski: Will the hon. member permit a question. How does he suggest the law in private homes will be enforced with respect to acts of homosexuality?


John Mercer Reid: I am sorry I did not hear that.


Steve Eugene Paproski: How does the hon. member suggest that the law with respect to homosexuality should be enforced? I am talking of acts in private homes.


John Mercer Reid: I understand the proposal is that there should be no law on the matter. Acts between consenting adult males are permitted.


Steve Eugene Paproski: What about acts between those who are not adults?


John Mercer Reid: I am speaking to the general principle of the bill. I am sure the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) will be glad to answer that question.


Steve Eugene Paproski: At the same time perhaps he will define consent.


John Mercer Reid: As I was saying before being interrupted, I am in the embarrassing position of having voted for the abolition of capital punishment. The argument that justified my stand was that there was sufficient danger under our legal system of having an innocent man convincted of murder and sentenced to death. Those risks were sufficient to justify the complete abolition of capital punishment. Now, however, I am asked to vote for a piece of legislation which will permit what I consider murder in a different form, murder in the form of abortion. The government's position in introducing this measure is that the present abortion law is unenforceable. Evidence presented before the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare, which was chaired by Dr. Harley, now retired from politics, indicated that many abortions take place in hospitals under the guise of operations of various sorts, and on kitchen tables, with quacks operating.
Since the abortion section of the Criminal Code is not enforceable, the government feels it is justified in bringing forward this new legislation. In other words, you cannot have legislation that is not enforceable, because then the law becomes a laughingstock. At any rate, that seems to be the major plank on which the government is resting this particular clause of the legislation. No doubt, if I were a member of the cabinet, I should have little hesitation in agreeing that it is the duty of the government to regulate law and order,
February 25, 1969



even if in so agreeing I had to overcome any moral scruples I might have. It should be noted that the legislation is not mandatory, but permissive. Nobody will be forced to have an abortion.
I find difficulty in accepting the concept of legalized abortion, which I consider murder. I argued, when arguing for the abolition of capital punishment, that human life was sacred. Science has demonstrated that there is no abrupt beginning or ending of human life. When conception has taken place life has begun. If the process begun is not disturbed a baby will eventually be born. In other words, if the normal process of life after conception is allowed to continue, a child will be born. Anything that destroys the continuity of what has taken place will destroy life.
Science has demonstrated the conditions under which the human race exists. We live within a fairly narrow range of temperatures under precise climatic conditions. We must breathe oxygen. If you destroy any of the factors making up the conditions under which I live, I will die. For instance, if you cut off my oxygen supply I will die. If you destroy the conditions under which the foetus may live, you kill it. I think there is a clear analogy between the two examples I have raised.
My opinion is that when we are dealing with abortion we are dealing with the taking of human life, which is murder. It would be easy for me to end my remarks on this note, but I do not think that would be fair to me or anyone else. As I said before, the government's argument is that the abortion section is not enforceable and that the law with regard to it is breaking down. That consideration must weight heavily with the cabinet which is charged with the responsibility of governing this country. As a private member, no such responsibility rests on me and it will be possible for me to vote against this clause during the debate on the report stage. At present I have not made up my mind, but my inclination now is to vote against this amendment.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Don't worry; you will be whipped into shape.


John Mercer Reid: If no additional evidence is brought before the committee to change my mind, I shall be bound, in all conscience, to vote against this clause.
I now wish to talk about the definition of life and death; particularly, I wish to talk about death. A series of heart transplants has taken place during the last two or three years, as a result of which we have had to
Criminal Code
redefine death. At one time it was said death ensued after the heart stopped beating. Now, it has been defined as the moment when the electroencephalographic or chemical waves cease within the brain. The latter definition is most important since many old people in hospitals show no signs of brain activity yet are kept alive by modern medical methods. Since the Minister of Justice has said that another reform to the Criminal Code will be brought forward, I suggest these points might be considered in that amendment.


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, the amendments to the Criminal Code now before the house have been extensively debated. It is not my intention to repeat points that have already been discussed adequately. However, there are some points I wish to discuss further at this time.
The Criminal Code deals with many areas of the functioning of society and legislates with respect to problems that develop in the interrelationships of people. It touches many matters that involve deeply held views on morals, ethics and social philosophy. This was attested to by the great volume of mail received by most hon. members.
In common with other hon. members, I received a large volume of mail on many aspects of the Criminal Code. Much of my mail was from people expressing an individual point of view. They presented those views in a straightforward manner. Some of the mail was the product of organized campaigns, either in the form of petitions or in the form of a series of letters. This is a legitimate means of expression. I might say that, with few exceptions, my mail was free of undue or unwarranted pressure.
A matter of considerable interest to me in recent years has been legislation with respect to impaired driving. I witnessed the aftermaths of a few catastrophic accidents in which there were indications that one of the drivers involved was impaired because of alcohol. Such events leave a lasting impact on one's mind. I expect hon. members who have had similar experiences appreciate that. I am in favour of a fairly tough line on impaired driving cases and am happy to see the 0.08 per cent blood alcohol level included in the legislation. Experience in many jurisdictions shows that this figure with respect to blood alcohol represents a turning point in one's ability to control a vehicle.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
At the same time, I must say that I am not technically qualified to judge the adequacy of

February 25, 1969
Criminal Code
the tests that are proposed. I hope the committee will make certain of this matter before reporting the bill. I must also express some reservations about the powers given police to take breathalyzer tests. While the law as proposed may appear to be clear, I think in practice there will be difficulties when police confront people and on the flimsiest of pretexts demand that they take the test. Will a person who refuses to take a test have a criminal record?
A major portion of the bill deals with firearms control. Again, I must express support for this provision although I feel it would be folly to rely too heavily on the measures proposed as being a solution to the problems involved. There is no question about the need for a tough law for the careless hunter. However, problems of gun control in our large urban centres are difficult to resolve. I received a number of letters from people who were concerned that the proposed legislation would infringe on the legitimate activities of pistol and gun clubs. I followed up these representations and, in the final analysis, people who examined the legislation agreed that it would not interfere unduly with such activity.
Throughout the bill I noted a large number of instances where discretionary powers are granted provincial attorneys-general. While I am only a layman so far as law is concerned, I must question this matter. It seems to me that the possibility of abuse must be considered with respect to some provisions where the guidance set out in the law is minimal. For example, the powers given an attorney-general on lotteries are wide. On the other hand, an attorney general is placed in a difficult spot where he has to judge matters with too little legislative guidance, and indeed this makes it easier to place pressure on an attorney-general.
A number of representations which I received contained a curious mixture of opposition to the proposals dealing with lotteries, homosexuality and abortion. Opposition to lotteries is based on long-standing moral convictions. Frankly, I have no basic views in opposition to lotteries as such. As a matter of policy I would be opposed to state lotteries as a means of raising public funds, but I have not seen reasons why this opposition should be expressed in the form of a legislative prohibition applying to all governments in Canada. Opposition to the proposals with respect to homosexuality is based in large part on a lack of understanding of the nature of the problem and of the opportunities for blackmail which are made possible under the

present law. Thus, I feel that the proposals in this bill are in the right direction.
Possibly the most difficult single matter for hon. members in this bill is the amendment with respect to abortion. Widely divergent views are held on this matter, ranging from the view that it is a matter of simple medical procedure with no greater import than that to the view that absolutely no measure to allow abortion under any circumstances is morally tenable. As legislators, we must also take cognizance of the incidence of illegal abortions often performed at great risk to the life and health of the mothers in question. It has been suggested that, as with some other problems, each person might follow the dictates of his conscience. It is not as simple as this with respect to abortion. Here, we are dealing with life itself. The state has an obligation and duty to protect human life where it exists. Extremes of views exist on the question of when human life begins.
These views range from the proposition that human life begins at the moment of conception all the way to the view that it begins only when the umbilical cord is severed. I hold no dogmatic view on this question. Indeed, I think no one can assert with finality on this question. However, it is clear that human life does exist prior to birth. Various indicators of the progression of life, such as the stage at which viability is possible, beginning of movement, and foetal heart beat, are constantly being pushed back to an earlier stage of pregnancy, and show that there is no one moment during pregnancy which represents a sharp change in the stages of development. Indeed, more evidence points to the fact that development of the foetus is gradual and continuing throughout the entire pregnancy.
Under these circumstances, it is incumbent upon the state to be extremely careful in legislating. Steps should not be sanctioned that could represent the taking of life. I reject any attempts to justify abortion legislation on the grounds that the state through other actions, such as in police action, war, execution of criminals, etc., has been deemed to have the right to take lives or take action that may or will result in loss of life. Surely, no comparison can be made between an innocent unborn child and an adult who has no regard for life or who may be defending other lives.
Indeed, it would be well for hon. members to reflect on the fact that unborn lives in the womb are the same sort of lives possessed by ourselves, our families and all members of
February 25, 1969

society. The unborn child has rights as well. Indeed, it might be well to note in comparing our lives with unborn lives that none of us had any say or control over our coming into existence, our birth, and indeed we were well into our lives before we could have even grasped the thought that we have some control over the question of whether we should continue our own lives. Thus, I cannot see my way clear to supporting this section of the bill. It is very vague in some of its wording and meaning, but gives full recognition to a principle that I am not now prepared to recognize.
At the same time, I urge that more work be done to resolve the outstanding questions involved. This involves a decision by many people to allow a full and honest inquiry into all aspects of the matter, and means that some people must be prepared to examine fully previously held dogmatic assertions and assumptions. Other proposals may come forward. Indeed some of my colleagues, as stated by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), will move an amendment to remove the abortion provisions altogether from the Criminal Code. In some respects this may be preferable. It would mean that we as legislators, would not be giving legislative sanction to this particular matter. Nevertheless, it leaves the question of whether we, as legislators, are avoiding an important responsibility.
In my views on this subject I differ from the policy of my party and of the majority of my colleagues. I respect the sincerity of views held by those who differ with me and I acknowledge and appreciate their respect for my views. It made me proud to be a member of the New Democratic party when I witnessed the ready recognition of these rights and the absence of pressure to conform. I know some hon. members opposite who not only have to wrestle with their consciences but also have to face the pressure of party whips and of the cabinet will envy my position.
I recognize that there is a widespread disposition to approve the amendment on abortion. If it passes it becomes the law of the land, but I sincerely hope hon. members will give further study to some of the implications of the amendment. I wish to enumerate some of the points that concern me.
1.	Is not health a very vague term to include in the section as a justifiable reason for an abortion?
2.	How will this provision operate in practice? There are a number of factors such as
Criminal Code
the relationships of doctors, hospitals, etc., which need to be carefully considered.
3.	Is the position of the hospital that does not want to have abortions performed protected, and is the position of hospital employees who do not want to participate in an abortion protected? The doctor is protected who does not want to perform an abortion because he can simply refuse to do so, but nurses and other employees who refuse to do so may find their jobs in jeopardy. Certainly, their position should be protected.
4.	Should there not be provision for a review after five years, such as is the case with capital punishment? This would involve continuing studies during that period which could contribute to a more knowledgeable decision when the time comes.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, I am in the position where I feel some items such as legislation against wire tapping, the abolition of corporal punishment, reform of the bail system and other matters are not included in this legislation, although the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) has indicated that some further amendments are forthcoming. I feel most of the bill represents a step forward in criminal law. However, there is one major item with which I do not agree, and that is the amendment with respect to abortion. The opportunity, however, is available for all members of this house to decide on this one particular provision. Since most of the bill represents a step forward in criminal law, and since it has been acknowledged that in practice the new abortion section is not likely, as it is worded, to result in extension of the practice, I feel I should support the bill but will oppose the section on abortion when an opportunity is presented.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Hon. Hugh John Flemming (Carleton-Char-lotte):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be brief because I rise for the purpose of protesting the action of the government in bringing to this house Bill No. C-150 in its present form and giving us no alternative but to vote either for or against a package which deals with many varieties of situations. This package is given to the members of the house to swallow as if it were a pill. I find some of the contents of the package are acceptable, but they probably make up the sugar coating of the bill and are probably intended so to be. I am convinced, however, that inside the sugar coating there are some ingredients which may be properly classified as poison so far as the general public good is concerned. For that

February 25, 1969
Criminal Code
reason, I protest the presentation of the bill in its present form.
Let us just read the motion which is before us:
-motion of the Minister of Justice for the second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs of 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.
If there ever was a bunch of hash all put together in one package, this is it. Then, the minister has the effrontery to sit here and smile about it, as if it were something we should enjoy. Not only do I not enjoy it but I find a good many things about it entirely unacceptable. Our leader this afternoon informed the house that so far as our party is concerned, the vote will be free. I listened very intently to various speeches made in connection with this bill because I consider it a very important one and something which should not be decided quickly.
I heard the opinion advanced by some members that we should vote for the bill because of some of the good things contained in it. I find myself inclined to vote against it because of the bad and undesirable things contained in it. That is my reaction. The purpose of the bill is to legalize certain things which I submit are demoralizing and degrading. I refer especially to homosexuality. I should like to ask the minister whether, before this debate is concluded, he would inform the house what the practice in past years has been when amendments to the Criminal Code have been submitted to the house. I would wager, Mr. Speaker, that such amendments have always been presented as amendments to the Criminal Code and have not been wrapped up with a lot of other things. That is my opinion, although I have not looked up the previous procedure.
Surely, the members of this house are able to deal with such questions on a non-partisan basis, on a basis which they are convinced will result in the well-being and general good of the people of Canada. Surely, that is a proper approach. In dealing with something as important as amendments to the Criminal Code, why should we not deal with amendments to the Criminal Code only? Instead, we find these amendments wrapped up with the various other statutes which I have just mentioned, including the Customs Tariff. What is the relationship between the Criminal Code and the Customs Tariff?

In presenting the bill as it has, the government has left itself open to the charge that since there are so many things in one package there must be something to hide. I submit the procedure is capable of that interpretation. Therefore, whether that is or is not the case, I am sure all members will consider they should examine the bill with great care.
I am not speaking about the bill from a legal point of view or from a therapeutic medical point of view. I am just dealing with this matter as an ordinary citizen of Canada. I object to having our Criminal Code amendments wrapped up with a lot of other things which certainly have no connection whatsoever with the Criminal Code. I submit that the government is deserving of the censure of the house for having presented the bill in this form.
I speak from the standpoint of what I believe may contribute to the improvement of the general moral tone of our people; I speak from the viewpoint of conscience, if you like. Certainly, I am a person who has no reason to advance an argument concerning why a person's approach to a decision of this nature should not be made in the light of his conscience. There certainly is nothing wrong with that. I believe our effort should be to improve things, to restrain evil and to contribute to the well-being of all our people. So, I object to the mixing up of these amendments with other statutes.
We are still considering second reading and referral to a committee. Well, the approval of second reading has been approval in principle, and I presume still is. This afternoon the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin), to whom I listened with great attention and who I believe deserves a lot of credit, asked for a free vote. So do I, and that is what we in our party are going to get. The feature in the bill to which I particularly object is the homosexuality feature, because I do not think that anything that degrades the moral tone is good legislation.
I know hon. members might argue that it is necessary to do something because homosexuality is already being practised. But that same argument could apply to murder because murder is not non-existent; it could apply to stealing; it could apply to many things which come under the Criminal Code. So, if one wanted to argue, he might say that we must legalize stealing, we must legalize perjury, we must legalize murder because there are occasions when they are practised. I submit the fact that they are practised is no reason to place the label of respectability on them. That
February 25, 1969

is my point. The Minister of Justice laboured the other day in an attempt to justify this measure, but I for one think he did a pretty poor job. Usually he is very convincing and persuasive, but in this case he was arguing against something which, in my opinion, he did not believe. One cannot do that and make it stick. That is what he was trying to do. He did not do as good a job as he usually does.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
What do we do when we vote on this measure? We have to vote either yes or no. We must know what is the responsibility of the government in presenting a bill in this form. There are some items in the bill which are acceptable; for instance, those items in respect of safety on the highways. Nothing could be more important. There has been some mention of lotteries. I am not sure I have any strong views in this regard, but steps are being taken to deal with this situation and I have no doubt these steps are considered to be steps in the right direction.
Why should we wrap up all these measures together? I assume the government is trying to hide something. We are being asked to legalize homosexuality if we vote in favour of this bill. There is no question about that. We are being asked to put the stamp of respectability on something many of us do not feel is respectable. I, personally do not propose to do this and I am not going to vote for this section of the bill. I And no fault with someone who does vote in this way because that is an individual's right of choice. I cannot vote to place a stamp of respectability on something that is degrading and demoralizing to our people. I realize-


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) is rising to ask a question.


John Edward Broadbent: Would the hon. member permit a question, Mr. Speaker?


Hugh John Flemming: I do not think I should yield the floor.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Not to him, anyhow.


An hon. Member:: Let him make his own speech.


Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Speaker, there is no reason why the hon. member cannot make his own speech.
Criminal Code
I have not dealt with the subject of abortion. It is my feeling that this is a difficult question in respect of which one cannot make a snap decision. I was impressed with the speech this afternoon by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin). Obviously he has made a great study of this matter. He cited various changes in words that could bring about a lessening of the restraint and respect for embryonic human life. I am sure everyone will acknowledge the importance of human life, whether it is embryonic or full-fledged.
This is a question which can best be answered by medical people. Perhaps members of this house can argue this question, but nevertheless it does involve a form of human life. I find it difficult to argue this subject because I have not given it the attention which I think its importance deserves. I do believe, however, that we must all acknowledge one fact. The government should have presented amendments to the Criminal Code in such a way that it would be possible for members of this house to give attention and care to these separate and important matters.
I listened to speeches by hon. members on the other side of this house who referred to the question of abortion. No doubt they felt they were justified in arriving at the conclusions they tried to put across. I find no particular fault, but I do say it is difficult to argue one way or another in view of the conflict that exists in the specific situations presented to the house this afternoon.
Let me content myself by saying I feel that the government is deserving of censure for the way it has presented this bill. It should have presented an amendment to the Criminal Code on an absolutely non-partisan basis, and in such a way that it could be examined by a committee. In this way, members would receive the advice of expert medical men and the opinions of experts from other countries which have made changes. All of these things could have been done had we concentrated on one thing at a time.
As a result of the way the government has presented this bill, the committee will be examining seven different things. According to the remarks of one member on the government side of the house, government members are told not to tamper with any bills before committees. That is what one member on the Liberal side has said. They have been told not to make any changes. What is the use of referring these matters to committees when members know that their efforts have been throttled before they begin? Those are not my

February 25, 1969
Criminal Code
words, those are the words of the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto). I have a copy of his letter. Someone sent it to me but I do not think it was sent by him.
In concluding my remarks, let me say that I appreciate the attention of hon. members in the house and I hope that I have made my point in connection with the bill before us.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, it would be difficult for me not to speak on this bill before it is referred to the committee, if it ever is. However, I want to spare the house the obligation to listen to my comments on every clause of Bill C-150, as well as on the clauses that are not in it.
Most members of my party have spoken on almost all of these clauses in order to bring them to the attention of the committee.
I personally have had the opportunity to speak on Bill C-195 sponsored by the then Minister of Justice, now the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), which is a true copy of Bill C-150. That is why, today, my remarks will be restricted to the clauses dealing with abortion and homosexuality, after having agreed in principle to all the other clauses of the bill.
Even on those two scores, I shall limit myself to a short review of the present debate and dwell mainly on the positions of the various parties pointing out afterwards some statements that were made in the house. I thought that in so doing we could reach conclusions beneficial to hon. members and instructive for all the committee members.
In order to dispel any possible ambiguity concerning statements that all my colleagues tried to make clear, I shall summarize our positions.
First of all, with the exception of the clauses covering abortion and homosexuality, we shall support the amendments contained in Bill C-150, perhaps with some minor changes.
Secondly, as homosexuality and abortion involve religious and social responsibilities, we shall require that those subjects be treated separately, in order to allow separate and free votes on each of them.
Thirdly, I dare hope that the committee will grant us what the house has always refused us, namely that the right-thinking members of the committee will vote in favour of deleting the words "mental illness of the mother" from the section on abortion.

And lastly, we require that the amendment concerning homosexuality be simply deleted from the bill.
I have noted that most of the Englishspeaking Liberals, for very few French-speaking members dared talk openly before their constituents, tried mainly to defend and support the bill. The hardest task was to find worthwhile arguments to make people swallow the pill. I believe that they have not succeeded. The medicine is by far too bitter, especially for Roman Catholics. Nevertheless, I wish to congratulate those hon. members who had the courage to stand up for their religious and social convictions'. Anyway, we feel comforted when we realize that even though there are among our Liberal friends some elastic consciences that I might compare to balloons, we have reason to thank those who still know how and are anxious to preserve their identity. And thank God this is the great majority, both among Liberals and members of the other parties.
I shall make no secret of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that I have talked to many of them and that they do not all agree since some will object or will abstain from voting if the amendments proposed are not accepted in committee.
I was most interested by the reaction of the Liberals to certain petitions asking them to oppose the bill as it now stands. I understand how hard it is for them to find a valuable excuse in the face of the growing increase of objectors. Here is what they most often reply. It was imposed upon them on the order of the great chief who so ruled it. Abortion is not so serious since the bill tends only to save the mother's life. It is an over-simple and childish answer which does not reveal all that is hidden in the substance of the amendment to the act.
They reply also that the amendment on homosexuality only aims at preventing police agents from breaking into private bedrooms so that adult couples of the same sex be not disturbed or still that the amendment relating to homosexuality does not tend to legalize homosexuality. A law is probably introduced to "delegalize", something of which I would have never thought, Mr. Speaker.
Are they not conscious of the fact that this bill will legalize cohabitation and all sexual relations between two men or two women, they should stop laughing at people with this matter of relations between men and women.
February 25, 1969


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Gauthier:: It is still another contrivance of the big chief, I suppose. Some made a point of adding to their comments on the bill stories which could bring tears to the eyes of the most hardened persons, stories moreover, which were unrelated to the specific point to which we object.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, if that amendment was solely meant to save the life of the mother, we would not have to alter the present legislation. I would even add that all our con-sciencious physicians have always respected that compulsory reservation. But the bill goes still farther, since it adds:
-to protect the mental health of the mother-
This is a door opened to abuses. There remains only to establish a small board made up of three physicians specializing in abortions and that is it. It is easy for a physician who wishes to do so to diagnose symptom of mental illness in a pregnant girl or woman. Since according to the testimonies of the highest medical and religious authorities, any abortion is a real murder, who would be ready to authorize such a butchery of innocent and harmless unborn children?
Some suggest that it is not a religious matter. They are free to do so, but any practising Catholic must condemn such a criminal act on account of the great commandment: Thou shalt not kill. Indeed, if all sins are not necessarily criminal, on the other hand, all crimes are necessarily sins.
All true Christians to whom the law of Christ forbids to take part in such a crime, and all decent men to whom the mere law of nature inspired the bill of rights should be strong enough to stop the movement toward legalized infanticide.
Indeed the bill of rights says that the greatest of fundamental rights is the right to live.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Therefore, I appeal to all Catholics and all Christians who represent about 80 or 90 per cent of the house. I also call upon atheists who have still a little sense of humanity, to remove from the bill on abortion the words I mentioned earlier and, for goodness sake, let there not be any more ridiculous comments such as those we have heard a few days ago from someone who likes to criticize everyone else without ever looking at himself in the mirror at night. In fact, that member
Criminal Code
concluded his comments by saying:	Mr. Speaker, personally I am against abortion and homosexuality and I shall vote for both. After that, the only thing to do is to dry up.
The Conservative members who spoke insisted that the bill be divided, in order to vote separately on each aspect.
We have supported them because we refuse to swallow the pill. We also realize that among them, opinions are divided according to religious denominations and it is only natural to find differences among lay people on such delicate matters. Besides, the same disagreements can be found among theologians.
The member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) has presented himself as a theologian-something I never doubted-although we have not read the same authors nor had the same professors, and it is only normal that we should differ regarding the bill, because I emphasize particularly that I am discussing only what is written in the bill, not what should or could have been in it.
As for the members of the New Democratic Party, most are well known for their avant-garde ideas, that they call sophisticated. But I always considered these ideas as being not too catholic. The leader of that party in the house made it very clear when he stated that part of our criminal legislation was formulated at a time when the clergy was greatly influencing popular beliefs and morals and dictating to our society most of its attitudes.
Since then however, he said, our society has evolved. We now have a pluralist society, where it is no longer possible to impose on a religious group the generally accepted views of society.
If the remarks of that hon. member could be applied to our financial system, it would be marvelous. But in the realm of religion, I will tell him that whatever he may think it is certainly not progress to follow the downward path of a materialistic and atheistic minority.
Unfortunately that is the modem trend. Indeed we had a sample of it when listening to certain New Democratic party speakers. One always wonders what they are driving at. If there is a traitor to hide, they join in. If there is a notorious criminal to defend, they join in. If there is a revolutionary principle to expound, they again join in.

February 25. 1969
Criminal Code
They are the ones, probably in collusion with the Liberals, who abolished the death penalty, and that in spite of the opposition of 90 per cent of the population. At that time they were crying over the fate of the worst Canadian criminals.
Now they are urging the government to legalize the murder of innocent beings, and immorality in all its forms. Moreover, according to the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), the minister does go far enough in his legislation. After speaking on everything that was not in the bill, he begs the Minister of Justice to have much harsher legislation passed for the protection of animals, which he claims to love with all his heart. What should one think about such reasoning, Mr. Speaker? I think that it is simply preposterous, and the committee must examine all his statements to help him compare contradictions.
I am sure that we have in this committee enough members who still have a conscience and who are still able to use it with all freedom, and I ask them to make a Christian gesture, a human gesture by simply removing those two sections from this bill. And, in order to help them, I shall quote a letter. I had as good as promised you not to quote any one, but I am almost compelled to quote this letter I received from a parish priest from Quebec. He makes his opinion known. It may be of help to the committee members! This is what this priest has written:
I want to add some explanations to my answer-
-about abortion and homosexuality.
If I had to vote on this bill, I would vote against it, as the Prime Minister is not willing to split it. Yet there are many good things in the bill-
I mentioned it at the start also.
-as the bad is deliberately mixed in with the good, while it would be so easy to separate the two, my conscience would compel me to vote against it.
Incidentally, by refusing to break up this bill, the Prime Minister is committing an outrage against the conscience of the members of his party; they are compelled to choose between their conscience and their loyalty to the party. I am afraid that, in the liberal camp especially, servility-
-if you will forgive the expression-

before a Prime Minister who abuses his authority by not respecting the conscience of his members, partisanship, or loyalty to the party may win over conscience. If there were several liberal members with courage enough to say frankly to the Prime Minister; "Split the bill and give the

members a free vote, or else we shall vote against this measure even if the government must fall; we prefer to follow the dictates of our conscience than to abide by the requirements of party solidarity"-I am sure that the Prime Minister would then give in. But I very much doubt that there are at present in Ottawa, in the liberal party, enough men with the necessary courage to do this.
By the way, I am personally convinced that there will be enough honest liberal members to amend some sections of this bill. I quote further:
-As to the bill on abortion, it is lousy.
A-It is supposedly an attempt to legalize what was being done illegally. Big deal! the government does not have to give in to immorality, but rather to make sure the rights of the citizens are respected; and the first of these rights is the right to live.
B-It was said that this bill had to be passed because we lived in a pluralistic society.
What a stupid argument! It is the duty of a government which realizes its functions to protect the weak against the abuse of the powerful. No pluralistic argument can authorize a government to side with the executioners.
Is there a weaker and more defenceless being than a tiny child in his mother's womb?
C-This bill is a backward step for civilization. In the past, a father had the right of life and death over his child. The advances of civilization led to the realization that God alone was the Master of our lives; this right is passed on to the State under certain definite circumstances.
Whether they admit it or not, when passing this legislation on abortion, the government legalizes murder.
This bill brings out their revolting inconsistency.
Last year, capital punishment was abolished by a legislation for a number of criminals; however this year with another piece of legislation we are condemning some innocent beings in their mothers' womb. As far as logic is concerned, we have seen better examples of it.
Mr. Speaker, that was just a letter from a parish priest and if ever you wish to collect them, we have received them by the thousand. In fact, we have asked for them and sent out questionnaires to our constituents, and I can assure you that today in Quebec, 95 per cent of the people share our opinion.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Mr. Loiselle:: That is not true.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Somebody shouts that it is not true and moreover it is an hon. member from Montreal. I invite him to look into the reports I have and out of 2,000 letters-
February 25, 1969


Gérard Loiselle: They are not all ignorant people in the province of Quebec.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: I have nine. They may be ignorant but they are moral. It is much better to be moral than to be too learned and immoral.
I had others, Mr. Speaker, namely the one from-


Gérard Loiselle: Do as your vicar tells you and you will go to Heaven.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: -VAlliance pour la vie. Besides, all the members got it and that is what I find surprising.
While we are trying to plead our cause, we hear them bleat over there. It hurts them. But let them go back to their own constituency to clear up things. They will hear some squawking. Let us stop all this cheating, misleading people; let us tell them what this rotten bill is all about. If we speak today it is so that people may understand every word in the bill.
I am sure that if a referendum were held on this bill in the province of Quebec, the bill would be defeated right away.


Gérard Loiselle: Come to Montreal for the next elections.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: I went on the island of Montreal and although it is now called a bomb city I was surprised to see that there are still serious-minded and right thinking people there.


Gérard Loiselle: You were not elected either.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the time allotted to me is running out and I would like to know What the hon. member is saying because we hear them...


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
honourable member for Roberval has the floor right now.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: I thank you very much Mr. Speaker for taking care of the situation because he is gobbling up all my time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: I have been a member of this house for seven years. I have always found it strange that, as soon as we wish to debate a problem there is always a small group of French Canadians who try to "block" us. I
Criminal Code
find that discouraging. Some of them are good as I said, and I thank them. On the other hand, it is always the same ones who come and gather here, who often change seats in an attempt to make noise and prevent us from speaking. Well, no, Mr. Speaker, I am a bit like St. Paul:	I cannot help speaking.
(Applause)
I hope that my remarks will be useful to the committee and to all my Liberal friends, and that they will light again the little flicker of conscience that remains in them.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abiiibi):: Mr. Speaker, I thought that the honourable member for Saint-Henri (Mr. Loiselle) wanted to speak-


Gérard Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, the member for St-Henri has already made up his mind. It did not take him a seven day debate to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Gérard Loiselle: You will get a taste of your own medicine. You will fall into the canal and stay there-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Gérard Loiselle: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is a very basic rule of this house which states that no member who has the floor must be interrupted.
The honourable member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise).


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, it is my turn to express my opinion on Bill No. C-150, which the Liberal government suggests we should adopt today.
The minister seems in a hurry to have this bill passed on second reading, which would acknowledge the principle of it and I would fail in my duty if I did not freely convey in this house the opinion of a large majority of my constituents who have taken the trouble to write to me, either individually, or collectively, asking me to oppose a number of clauses of this bill which are inconsistent with everything that is human and Christian.
In my opinion, the subject matter of this bill should have been divided among several different bills that the members could have considered more fully. This would have enabled them to better understand the implications of the proposed measures, and to do a better job.
5956

February 25, 1969
Criminal Code
By packing Bill No. C-150 like an overcrowded bus, the government gave the Canadian public the impression of having something to hide and it tried to take the opposition members by surprise, or at least those who object to some of the reforms proposed in the bill.
There are, in this bill, some amendments which seem excellent to me and which could have been approved very quickly, had they been introduced separately. Those amendments will suffer from the delay due to the stubborn refusal of the government to give parliament a square deal.
Since the time allotted to me is running short, I shall not waste it on measures which appear acceptable to me such as the use of the breathalizer which has become a necessary method of stopping the slaughter on our highways. The results obtained in countries where this measure is applied, especially in England, lead me to approve this drastic measure designed to protect our drivers. A few months ago, a Conservative member of Great Britain was telling me that even if he had objected to that legislation when it was passed in England, he had to admit now that it was a good one since it had reduced by 33 per cent the number of fatal accidents.
There is also a clause legalizing lotteries, naturally, under certain conditions; while I agree with that amendment, I do not feel that it will be the key or the solution that will save the provinces or the large municipalities from the stagnation in which they find themselves; at best, they will be a voluntary tax, where the tickets may be sold under pressure and of which the individual will pay the cost.
Other amendments are proposed in the bill which are of great importance; they deserve that we reflect upon them at length because of the results which can be foreseen if they are adopted and implemented. I am thinking of the amendment legalizing homosexuality and abortion.
I tried to understand why the government should want to legalize homosexuality. The Prime Minister himself has told us that the government has no business in bedrooms, and I agree with him.
At the present time, the government or the police cannot see what goes on between two people behind closed doors; but it is the responsibility of the police to see that certain things do not go on in public, are not seen

in theaters, on street corners or in public places. Fortunately, the proposed amendment will not allow more freedom in public than before.
The only effect the proposed amendment on homosexuality will have, if it is passed, will be to indicate that the government approves what God himself condemned so emphatically.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, to support my allegations, I would like to quote a few paragraphs from an article recently published in "L'Equipe":
For Christians, Saint Paul's warning in his Epistle to the Romans is cause for reflection; speaking of the moral concept of pagans towards creation, Saint Paul wrote;
"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections; for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet."
And the article adds this
It is about time that one seeks to revalorize the roles of man and woman rather than enacting "legal" measures which degrade them.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
It would be much more profitable to teach men how to become more masculine and women how to become more feminine; all would benefit and the society would be better off. Otherwise, we are heading directly towards revolution, if not decline.
Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of this debate, we heard hon. members speak in favour of legalized abortion, others against it. For personal reasons and also because of representations received from my constituents, I am opposed to the legalization of abortion.
I read with deep interest the proceedings of the committee on health, welfare and social affairs which received briefs and heard eloquent and well-prepared evidence on abortion and all its implications.
The hon. members are not the only ones who have considered and weighed this amendment to the Criminal Code. Other highly qualified people and organizations, after serious consideration, have declared themselves against making abortion legal as it is proposed to do.
I have here a petition signed by 100 citizens from my constituency. These people are opposed to the legalization of abortion for reasons which I would like to enumerate:
In regard to the amendments presented to the House of Commons by the Minister of Justice-
February 25, 1969


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must draw the attention of the hon. member for Abitibi to the fact that it is ten o'clock.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might make a suggestion. Since we have had quite a discussion at this stage and I think we over here are in accord, I was wondering whether it might be possible within a few minutes to finish the debate tonight and to have the vote so as to determine whether or not this bill should go to a committee?


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, we strongly object to the proposal that the hon. member has just put forward as we think that some very important legislation must be passed. Moreover, some members of our party still want to speak on the omnibus bill.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The time being ten o'clock, the motion to adjourn the house is deemed to have been put and seconded under the provisions of Standing Order 40. The question therefore is that this house do now adjourn.
February 25, 1969

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

A motion to adjourn the house under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.



CANADIAN ECONOMY-REMEDIAL MEASURES CONTEMPLATED BY GOVERNMENT

Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, I asked the following question:
Would the minister tell the house which action the government Intends to take to remedy the weaknesses of government policy in matters of unemployment, industrial wind ups and price stability?
My question was made up of three different parts. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me tonight the opportunity to discuss this problem. As a matter of fact, it is a problem that can be discussed very rarely because there is not enough time to do it, even if it is a problem of the highest importance.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the privilege of asking my question again to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Marchand).
In taking this opportunity, I am asking once again the same question to all hon. ministers and members, specially to those who are particularly responsible for the economy on the national scale. Unemployment, bankruptcies or industrial wind ups, increase in prices, those are three economic factors that prove the weakness of the government policy in the economic field.
Why is unemployment increasing? Why do our industries close their doors or fall into the hands of foreign capitalists? Why do prices increase during a period of growing unemployment? Those are the various questions that I want to bring up tonight and to which I would like some answers.
Those three obvious indications of nationwide economic trouble should open our eyes, should make us aware of the weaknesses of our economic policy, and compel us to correct the causes, before the population is even more adversely affected.
Let us not waste any more time proving that such difficulties exist. Everyone admits that they do. Newspapers mention them every day. All sociologists are agreed that the rich are getting richer while, at the same time, the

poor are getting poorer, within the boundaries of one country and in all the countries of the world.
This gap is forever widening, Mr. Speaker, between the poor countries and the rich ones, between the under-developed countries and the highly industrialized ones. But even in the latter, there are the same widening gaps between the prosperous citizens and the indigent ones.
The trouble being general, it is all the more tragic. Instead of letting it spread, we should without delay look for adequate remedies. There is no point in maintaining the same economic policies to correct the ills that they have brought about, directly or indirectly. It is our responsibility therefore to call the attention of the ministry on that point while avoiding criticizing anybody.
I find that since the new government took office on June 25 last, the same dropping curve persists and the same economic policy on the part of the government inevitably leads to the same results. Consequently the economic situation deteriorates instead of improving.
There is more and more division in Canada as the gap widens between the poor and the rich and the system proves increasingly unfair with the rich getting richer while the poor are getting poorer.
That situation being recognized and accepted, I might point out that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), as reported in yesterday's newspapers, stated before the students of the University of Montreal that the true solutions to the problems of our day have not been found yet.
In that respect, I would say that the Prime Minister is right-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think that the hon. member's time has expired.


Gérard Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I wish to use these few minutes to reply to the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe), who, in his question, has touched upon three different subjects: unemployment, the closing of some industries and price in stability.
We have just heard the hon. member's plea. While listening to him, one would believe that Canada is now in a state altogether deplorable, terrible and not to be envied at all. One should not always look on the black side of things as the hon. member does in
February 25, 1969	COMMONS
respect of the various bills introduced by the government.
A while ago, he was referring to another bill that he considered to be abominable and inconceivable. I am still looking for some coherence from that party. Of course the government will most probably bring some emendations, but to claim that the solution may be found at a moment's notice is an entirely different matter. I do not believe that any member in this house has found the magic wand and it is a foregone conclusion that is will not be found hy the Ralliement creditiste.


Some hon. Members:: We want an answer.


Gérard Loiselle: Well, if you want an answer, let me have my say and I shall try to give you that answer.
First of all, one must see things clearly. You are elected by the people and your job is not to constantly attack and criticize the government, to tell them what to do and what not to do.
What are you suggesting as an alternate solution?
Since the beginning, you have done nothing else but criticize. Certainly no Creditiste government will correct the situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must remind the parliamentary secretary to direct his remarks to the Chair.


Gérard Loiselle: You are perfectly right, Mr. Speaker, but when hearing certain things one sometimes lets one self be carried away. That is what happened to me.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if I can try not to lose my temper over the unkind remarks of the member for Compton, I would like to point out to him that with regard to unemployment, hiring has increased. In July last, there were 5,533,000 positions and in January-when unemployment is usually worse-there were all the same 7,753,000 positions.
The rate of unemployment in January is still lower than in December. Indeed, it went down from 4.8 in December to 4.3 in January. Mr. Speaker, from January 1967 to January 1968, there were in Canada some 324,000 new positions. I do not think that any one can say that conditions are deteriorating, since within a year, they-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order. The time al-loted to the hon. member has expired.
DEBATES	5959
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion



INDIAN AFFAIRS-YELLOWKNIFE, N.W.T.- REGULATIONS IN AKAITCHO HALL

David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the question which I have asked the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) about Akaitcho Hall arose out of the fact that never since I first read Dickens have I known of a school residence where the conditions were as outrageous as they are in this residence under the direction and the authority of the minister and his department. The people in this residence are treated in a way which is puritanical, oppressive, insulting and degrading. I cannot speak indignantly enough about this situation.
You are dealing, Mr. Speaker, not with children you are dealing with 200 people the average age of whom is 18J years, ranging from 14 to 24. The hall was originally built to accommodate 96. It now accommodates about 200 and instead of two to a room you have four to a room, just about as serious overcrowding as you can have in a school residence. These young adults are treated like children. They cannot leave the building without obtaining a pass, and when they return they have to hand in their pass. Their language is censored. They are told they must not chew gum in the hall. We are dealing with grown people. The type of clothing they wear is regulated. In fact, if the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) wore an ascot and sandals and appeared at a cultural hall, he would be dismissed from the school. They cannot visit their friends in Yellowkinfe without special leave or enter any home in Yellowknife without special leave from the superintendent or one of the supervisors. They cannot have visitors without special permission. Riding in ears or taxis on the streets is prohibited. If someone comes to Yellowknife to stay at the school that person's car must remain parked for the entire duration of the visit. The behaviour of these young adults with the opposite sex is governed by a degrading, insulting and childish regulation. I have a copy of the regulation before me, and I shall read it:
Young people of opposite sex are naturally attracted to one another. There is no intention on the part of staff members to destroy such friendships. However, such friendships must be kept strictly controlled in conduct.
What is the conduct that is permitted? I shall read further:
Specifically, the holding of hands on walking trips to town and perhaps occasionally in the hall will not be objected to, but any personal contact other than this is not acceptable.
February 25, 1969
5960	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
I am reminded of the personal contact the Prime Minister had during the last election campaign with the opposite sex. There is supposed to be a student council but the student council is composed of five members, three of whom are appointed by the superintendent and supervisory staff. One member is responsible for the boys and the other is responsible for the girls. When an attempt was made to set up a proper student council everyone concerned with the attempt was intimidated and coerced in a terrible way. I have in my possession also the report by a volunteer of the Company of Young Canadians which sets out all the details together with examples of dismissals, expulsions, coercion and discipline for infractions of incredibly harsh and stupid rules.
The other day the minister referred to the fact that he received a wire. I suggested it was the same wire I had received. I knew it must have been, and of course it was. That wire said, in effect, "We thank you for trying but think we can settle our own problems". The fact is that the proposal to send that wire was defeated by the students at two meetings in the noon hour and in the afternoon in the cafeteria, but the superintendent sent it nevertheless. I know the minister has received a second wire which the students signed. About ten of them signed both wires. This is the usual result of intimidation, as I have found in long practice in labour relations.
The second wire is addressed to me. It reads:
We thank you for your concern and would like to ask you to investigate the situation at Akaitcho Hall. Could you send someone to us to get the real impression of our unique problems here. We hope you are with us.
Then, these students tell us about the first wire. I have in my possession a letter from one of the residents of the hall. It is from a 20 year old girl who says she is still treated as a child. In the letter there is this sentence:
We desperately need help and will be most grateful for any that we may receive.
If I had more than seven minutes, there are literally dozens more incidents and instances I could cite. I wish to use my last minute or two to tell the minister, who is courteous enough to be here this evening, that the responsibility rests with him and his department. It may not be his entirely because he has headed this department for only seven, eight or nine months and these regulations date back to at least 1964.


The responsibility for this situation, however, does lie with his department. If the departmental officers did not know this was happening, they are a bunch of incompetents who ought to be fired tomorrow. If they did know what was happening and did nothing about it, they are a bunch of sadists who ought to be sent to a psychiatrist instead of being responsible for the education of the men and women who are native citizens of this country.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have come to the house this evening to answer the hon. member.
I think that the terms he used were a little exaggerated and I feel that the situation is not as bad as he suggested. It is a quite delicate situation and as soon as I was told about the problem, I asked the authorities of the Territory to conduct an inquiry. Now as I have full confidence in people who have acquired some experience in labour relations -like the hon. member for York South- I have asked the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories, Mr. Hodgson, a formeer labour leader, to deal with the situation himself and to see to it that any abuse is corrected.
Evidently, we must take into account that in the house of commons, we are always told, that the people in the North should make their own decisions and enjoy selfdetermination.
That is a local problem. The situation had not been reported to the local authorities, but only to Ottawa. I asked the commissioner to investigate and have consultations with all interested parties, mainly the authorities responsible for keeping order in the institution. The hon. member will appreciate that it is necessary to have certain internal rules in order that an institution can work and that be protected the interests of the parents who send their children, for when boys and girls of different age groups attend an institution such as this, one must realize that some to be very sensitive about the situation.
Furthermore, there are in those institutions persons with a different background and of different ethnical origin, and it is necessary to be verey sensitive about the situation.
One must also consider the interests of the students who attend those institutions. I think we should consult them in that regard. Naturally, rules are perhaps a little too strict, and for this reason I asked the commissioner to examine the problem. I know that the regulations are being revised.
February 25, 1969	COMMONS
I personally visited some of those hostels and I wonder whether the hon. member has had that privilege. In fact, when I went up North, I visited a hostel in Inuvik, one night, and young people were dancing there just as they would in any hall here.
I know that in such circumstances, rules may sometimes appear strict, but they are enforced leniently. That is why I asked the commissioner to inquire, to try and find a solution to the problem and conciliate the interests of the institution, those of the parents and those of the students concerned.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS-BATH-MILLHAVEN FEDERAL PRISON COMPLEX

Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Speaker, my reason for rising tonight is the result of a question I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Langlois) in this house this afternoon during the question period. This question pertained to certain financial irregularities relevant to a subcontract on the Bath-Millhaven federal prison complex situated in my constituency of Fron-tenac-Lennox and Addington, in the County of Lennox and Addington.
Let me remind the house that this project will call for a financial expenditure of over $20 million. The present contract, which was awarded to Argo Incorporated of Montreal, is part of the total and amounts to over $10 million.
The subcontract in question here tonight was awarded to D. Leblanc Incorporated of 750 Boulevard Labelle, Chomedy, Laval, Province of Quebec. This latter firm is reported to be in receivership as of approximately February 13, and I believe their management and staff have returned to the Province of Quebec. I am sorry to report to the house that before doing so they left thousands of dollars in worthless cheques, refused and declared n.s.f. by the bank they were issued on, namely La Banque Provinciate du Canada, 5990 West Boulevard Gouin, Montreal, Quebec.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
The estimated total liability of this firm's cheques in Lennox and Addington County and the Bay of Quinte district is reported to be many thousands of dollars. As one constituent said to me, it seems that they went back to Montreal one week end and forgot to
DEBATES	5961
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion come back. When I questioned the representative of the prime contractor, Argo Inc., at their office on the job near Bath, they told me that unfortunately this subcontractor was not bonded. I call on the government and the minister to explain this situation and the dire lack of management on the part of the government for not ensuring that all subcontractors on the job were bonded with a pay and performance bond the same as Argo, the prime contractor.
Like any other job of this size being performed in any local community, the labouring men on the job worked with implicit confidence that the cheques they received would be honoured. This is a huge government project. In turn, the local businessmen and the banks, all part of our economy, cashed the contractor's cheques without any doubt as to their validity. These cheques were for the most part issued to cover the wages of labour-rers. For example, the owner of the closest grocery store to this project, the Millhaven grocery at R. R. 3, Bath, is holding about 16 cheques totalling $1,180. These cheques are not worth the paper they are written on. I hold in my hand photostat copies of them.
The Royal Bank in Odessa has seven cheques totalling over $400, and their branch in Bath holds 37 payroll cheques totalling $3,003.50. This has been a very costly affair for the working men, businessmen and the financial institutions in my riding. The damage goes even beyond my area, because I am informed that several business places in the city of Kingston hold some of this worthless paper.
I declare that this situation indicates that someone, including the government, is not looking after business. Why was this contractor not bonded? Surely, it is a statutory requirement that all contractors working on federal government jobs must be bonded as to pay and performance. I have mentioned that people in a typical Canadian community such as ours co-operate with confidence in accepting and cashing a federal contractors' cheques, especially from such a multi-million dollar job as this. In this case, they all received a slap in the face or, I should say, a kick in the pants from the rear.
Some lawyer might tell me that the way to solve this vexing problem would be for each holder of a worthless cheque to ask the man who gave it to him to make restitution, and so on all the way down the line. But this company is now reported to be in receivership,
February 25, 1969

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion which means that what they will pay in bankruptcy could amount to a very lew cents on the dollar, or perhaps nothing.
I call on the government and the prime contractor in this matter to reimburse the labouring men and businessmen of Frontenac-Lennox and Addington. This $20 million project, and the government, will be viewed with suspicion from now on if restitution is not made immediately, the whole matter set straight and the wronged parties reimbursed. There is a tremendous amount of ill-feeling in our district because of this situation.
I have not yet learned the particulars of the contractual relationship between Her Majesty the Queen and Argo Inc., the prime contractor, and Leblanc Inc., the defaulting subcontractor. But in the name of fair dealing, over-all good faith and justice, I call upon the government and the Department of Public Works to compensate our people, labourers, businessmen and local banks for the inconvenience and loss they have so innocently sustained.


Mr. Paul Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, regretfully I have to confirm that there appears to be some bad paper circulating in the area to which the hon. gentleman refers. It has been a continuing concern of Public Works over many years to draft and include in all contracts a code of working conditions that is fair and equitable to all contractors and which at the same time minimizes the chance of bad debts and workmen's liens. This code has been developed with the cooperation and approval of the Canadian Construction Association.
The department has received representations that cheques issued by the subcontractor have been returned "N.S.F." and, on this basis, has dealt with the general contractor, advising him of the situation. The general contractor has undertaken to redeem any cheques issued for direct labour by the subcontractor and not yet cashed. Anyone holding such a cheque should contact the prime contractor. Furthermore, the Canadian Department of Labour has placed an investigator on the project and has asked this department to withhold from the prime contractor's next progress claim an amount of $30,000 while they investigate claims of employees of the subcontractor who have deposited or are holding cheques. Any claims accepted by the Department of Labour will be covered by the $30,000 withheld from the prime contractor.
I am assured that the bonding company and the prime contractor are fully aware of the situation that a number of unsupported cheques have been recovered, and that both the prime contractor and the bonding company are investigating the extent of the trouble with all due diligence.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the house is deemed to have been adopted. The house stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Wednesday, February 26, 1969



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Tenth report of standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs, in French and English-Mr. Gaston Clermont (Gatineau).
[Note: Text of foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]