1969-05-08

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received which is as follows:



GOVERNMENT HOUSE OTTAWA

[Stage Direction]
8 May 1969
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Hon. Ronald Martland, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 8th day of May, at 5.30 p.m. for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant, Esmond Butler
Secretary to the Governor General.


[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs-Mr. Tolmie.
[Note: Text of above report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasl-ings):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the unprecedented and very serious increase of more than 1 pier cent in the consumer price index, the cost of living, during the past
month-the culmination of the sleady rise in the cost of living which has been taking place for the past several years because of the failure of the government to take steps to deal with this critical situation, and particularly the refusal of the government to arrange for this house to discuss and debate the economic problems which have brought about this serious situation.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion proposed by the hon member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) is based on a Dominion Bureau of Statistics report which indicates an increase in the consumer price index. As hon. members know similar motions have been proposed earlier in the course of the current session, motions which dealt with D.B.S. reports on unemployment.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
Standing Order 26 requires not only that a problem be important, urgent and national in scope but that the discussion of such a matter be a matter of urgency. Even under the new rules the relevant factor in Standing Order 26 is urgency of debate rather than urgency of the matter itself.
It would appear that a motion such as this one can be allowed only if the ensuing debate could be expected reasonably to affect the course of the urgent situation or to result in immediate corrective action. I doubt that this could possibly be achieved by an adjournment debate dealing with a continuing situation such as unemployment or the international balance of payments or the volume of exports or inflation.
Since the beginning of the session we have had a number of debates dealing with economic matters. These debates have ranged far and wide, touching particularly on unemployment, taxes and inflation. It can be expected that a number of similar debates will occur before the end of this part of the current session. I have in mind particularly the debate on the anticipated presentation by the Minister of Finance.
For the moment I do not think I would be justified in allowing this additional debate in preference to the planned business of the house.

May 8, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



PRIVILEGE


Mr.   Gaefan-J. Serre@Nickel Bell: Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday I put a question in the house to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux). Now, in yesterday's issue of Le Droit, I am referred to as a Conservative member of parliament.
I consider that a serious insult not only to me but also to the people who elected me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Serre:: I would point out that even though I am surrounded-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Gaetan-Joseph Serré: -by Conservative members-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member. He stated his question of privilege, but I must remind him that according to Standing Orders he should have given notice of it to the Chair.
I have always tried to insist on this point and I believe that if I made an exception in this particular instance, it would be very difficult for me in the future to apply or to enforce the rules which stipulate that notice must be given.
Under these circumstances, I do not think that the hon. member should be allowed to carry further the question of privilege he has just raised.


Gaetan-Joseph Serré: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that even though I am surrounded by Conservative members, the latter have not yet had enough influence over me, not even the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis)-


Mr. Baldwin:: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am sure this party would be willing to give unanimous consent because our social standing is being seriously endangered by this sort of thing.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Maclnnis:: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have ruled that there is no question of privilege. The hon. member on the original point of order

was actually pursuing a question of privilege. If hon. members want to debate this kind of point they are free to do so, but as far as I am concerned I think we should go on with the business of the house.


Mr. Stanfield:: Mr. Speaker, obviously some people never know when they are lucky.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to change the tone of the discussion by asking the Prime Minister a very serious question arising from the apparent confirmation that Israel possesses the atomic bomb and that Arab states are seeking nuclear weapons from the Soviet Union. Will the Prime Minister say whether Canada, as one of the signatories of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, will consult with our allies in an effort to keep the nuclear ingredient out of the already tense situation in the Middle East?


Hon. Miichell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be permitted to reply to the hon. Leader of the Opposition. Of course, we have no means of knowing about the accuracy of the reports which have appeared in the press. The Israeli government has affirmed that Israel would not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons in the area. In a press report Mr. Gideon Saggi said:
Israel is not a nuclear state and, just as has been stated in the past, will not be the first to introduce atomic weapons into the area. The reports are speculative, inaccurate and unauthoritative.
That is the statement of the government of Israel. As far as the Canadian government is concerned, we share the hope of the Leader of the Opposition and, I am sure, of all members of this house that these reports are not true. We hope that Israel is not acquiring nuclear weapons. Canada, as one of the first countries to ratify the non-proliferation treaty, has urged nations, including Israel, to sign and ratify that treaty, which should preclude the acquisition of nuclear weapons by additional countries. We would hope that Israel would accede to that treaty and we are urging her to do so. This would of course, effectively end all speculation.
May 8# 19G9	COMMONS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he will seek to verify directly whether this report is correct and whether, as a good friend of Israel, he as a representative of Canada will make direct and forceful representations in this regard. I ask also that renewed efforts be made by the government of Canada to strengthen efforts being directed toward the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. But even if this report turns out to be untrue, as I hope it does, it surely warns us once again of the grave danger of the proliferation of nuclear weapons.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I can reassure the Leader of the Opposition on this point. We have the greatest concern, which I know reflects the concern of all Canadians, about this development. May I add that Canada itself has not been participating in any of the scientific work that has been going on in Israel relating to the nuclear bomb. There has been no co-operation between Canadian and Israeli scientists in this field, and we have not been providing any uranium that could be used for this purpose.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Would the minister tell the house what progress has been made in the talks with the Peking government with regard to the recognition of Communist China?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that our ambassador in Stockholm will shortly be meeting with the representative of the People's Republic of China in Stockholm.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmoni):: I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Inasmuch as the negotiations with Mainland China may take some time, I wonder whether the minister or the government are giving consideration to the establishment of some interim contact, either in the nature of cultural delegations or possibly of student exchanges in the coming months?


Mitchell William Sharp: We would welcome in general these kinds of exchanges and if, as the hon.
DEBATES	8465
Inquiries of the Ministry gentleman suggests, these negotiations are prolonged, I think this might be a very useful initiative for Canada and for the People's Republic of China to take.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to address a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Can the minister assure us that the house will have an opportunity to express its views on the recognition of Communist China before the government makes a decision in the matter?


Mitchell William Sharp: I hope that as many members as possible will express their views so that the decision of the government, when taken, will reflect the opinions of hon. members.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister regarding the figures released today, indicating that the cost of living for the month of April increased from 123.2 to 124.6, which represents an increase of 1.1 per cent for a single month. This is a sharp increase in the cost of living for the balance of this year, if continued at this monthly rate. What steps does the government intend to take to stop this spiralling cost of living which is having such an adverse effect on people generally and particularly those on lower and fixed incomes.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to indicate a series of steps which will be taken and we hope will have the support of this house, because the matter raised by the leader of the New Democratic party and the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings is a very serious one. Apart from the continuing steps we have taken to curtail expenditure and to keep collective bargaining within reasonable limits, we on this side hope that in the budgetary debate, which I take it will take place in a few weeks time, when we announce the composition of the commission on prices and incomes and when we announce to the country our further expenditure cuts, we will have the support not only of the

May 8, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry opposition but also of the various sectors of the community. There will be a need for the government to introduce some very severe expenditure cuts which will hurt different vested interests in the country. We hope we will have the support of the opposition parties on that.


Gerald William Baldwin: Why have you taken so long?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the Prime Minister's statement yesterday about an adjournment of the house in the early summer, can he give the house an assurance that before parliament recesses legislation will be introduced to place some restraint on unjustifiable price increases, in order that the Canadian people may know that the government is seriously trying to stop this spiralling cost of living?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I cannot venture to prophesy the effects of our future actions. I will just remind the house that had we heeded the opposition pleas and not proceeded with the cuts, inflation would have been a great deal worse.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: Does the Prime Minister not agree that what he just said is a further example of his many attempts to mislead the Canadian people on most of the important matters?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the further supplementary question is argumentative.


George Harris Hees: It is just a statement of
fact.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Temiscamingue wish to ask a supplementary
question?


Mr. Real Caouetie (Temiscamingue):: Yes,
Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that he just said that new restrictions would have to be imposed in various sectors of the Canadian economy, is the Prime Minister considering the serious suggestions made in the house by the Rallie-ment creditiste?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think that all those who know about such things agree that the suggestions coming from the creditiste system are, essentially, of an inflationary nature and inflation is precisely what we are trying to fight.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether he does not think it is possible to overdo restraint, as appears to have been done now for some time by his associate, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again I think that this supplementary question is argumentative.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether, keeping in mind financial priorities and keeping in mind the increasing cost of living, he has any ideas or policies to assist senior citizens who cannot live on their meagre pensions?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member is asking now for a general statement of policy. If the question were allowed we would be getting into a debate which, as I suggested a moment ago, should not be allowed.


George Harris Hees: This is simply not included in the just society.



WHEAT-DISCUSSION WITH MAINLAND CHINA RESPECTING SALES

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, whom we welcome back from his extensive pilgrimage.
May 8, 1969	COMMONS


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gerald William Baldwin: We hope he has returned a wiser man, from the east. Will the minister take up with his colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs the possibility of a representative of the government discussing with representatives of the government of Mainland China the question of wheat sales, unless, of course, this runs contrary to the indicated views of the Prime Minister on government involvement in the sale of Canadian wheat?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: I thank the hon. gentleman for welcoming me back. I promise to keep my Asiatic smile.
On the subject of communications with China, I wish to rectify what seems to be a false impression on the other side of the house. We are in touch with China. We had a trade commissioner at the Canton Fair. As a matter of fact the trade commissioner was good enough to meet me in Bangkok to report to me on what was happening there. In the second place, the assistant chief commissioner of the Wheat Board was in Hong Kong recently discussing wheat sales with the interested parties on the communist China side.



WHEAT-POSSIBILITY OF DEFAULT IN U.S.S.R. AGREEMENT

Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Would the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce end the uncertainty and confusion sweeping the Canadian grain market by advising this house, and indirectly western farmers, whether the U.S.S.R. has in fact cancelled a substantial part of its order and is considering whether it should even pay for wheat it has already received, citing grain damage.


Jean-Luc Pepin: This is not so.
Negotiations between the Wheat Board and Export Khleb, the agency of the U.S.S.R. government, are continuing. The situation in the U.S.S.R. is not such, however, that they have found it possible to live up to their commitment to Canada, but there is no reason to believe they will not honour that commitment.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Do I
understand from the minister's answer with regard to the commitment of the U.S.S.R. that there is a question whether this long standing
DEBATES	8467
Inquiries of the Ministry agreement-a matter of three years-will be honoured?


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is not what I said. I said there was no reason to believe that the U.S.S.R. would not honour the commitment it has with Canada with respect to wheat purchases.



WHEAT-POSSIBILITY OF BROADENING LIST OF PURCHASERS

David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
As he just said, he must have talked about wheat here and there during his trip. Did he find in other countries or on other continents new customers for our wheat surpluses?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, everywhere in the world today there are wheat surpluses. In Australia, for instance, the government just took steps to restrict the production of wheat. The Australian government will not take the responsibility of selling more than 350 million bushels and everything produced in excess will be at the farmers' own risk.
I just want to point out that overproduction of wheat in the world at the present time affects not only Canada but all the exporting countries also.
\English~\



WHEAT-STATIONING OF SALES REPRESENTATIVE IN MAINLAND CHINA

Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorklon-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of trade and commerce. Will the Canadian government consider stationing a permanent sales representative of the Canadian Wheat Board in China once diplomatic recognition has been achieved?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder whether this is the type of question that should be asked now.



WHEAT-POSSIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL SALES RESULTING FROM VISIT OF MINISTER TO ASIA AND ANTIPODES

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to find out from the minister of trade and commerce, following his safari in Asia, whether he would inform the house about possible increases in sales of wheat that have been

May 8, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry obtained as a result of his presence for so long in that very productive area in which he travelled?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, this trip once again gave me the occasion to witness how extensive was the sales promotion system of the Canadian Wheat Board. I met the wheat board people in Bangkok doing research into the wheat requirements in the area. I had the occasion of witnessing how good was their sales promotion.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not think-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the right hon. gentleman rising on a supplementary?


John George Diefenbaker: I do not think the hon. gentleman understood my question. As a result of this visitation and his meetings with the Wheat Board representatives, is the minister in a position to say whether any country in Asia is going to increase the amount of wheat that it purchased last year. Have new purchasers been secured or potential markets obtained?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I am not in the habit of claiming credit for selling wheat, as was a previous government. I can tell the house that I did have useful discussions on the I.G.A. with Australian ministers and with the Australian wheat board. While I was in Singapore a sale of wheat was made by the Wheat Board. However, as I was on the spot I did not find it possible to board a plane back to Singapore to sign the contract.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must bring to the attention of hon. members that perhaps we should pass on to another subject and resume tomorrow the debate on this particular topic. I had already started to recognize the hon. member for Swift-Current-Maple Creek.



WHEAT-REASONS FOR LOSS OF MARKETS

Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swiff Current-Maple Creek):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the minister, following all his discussions in regard to the wheat situation, can inform the house, and particularly the farmers of Canada, why Canada lost 33 per cent of her markets last year?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that this question is not the type that can be asked.



BEEF-REASON FOR STATEMENT ABOUT NEW ZEALAND EXPORTS TO CANADA

Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Is the minister going to make a report to the house on the results of his long trip to Asia and the Antipodes? Secondly, would he explain why and on what basis he told the New Zealanders that they would have a greatly expanding market for beef in this country?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. While the first question might be in order, the hon. member knows he cannot ask the minister to comment on statements that even he has made outside the house. I believe the first question was whether a statement should be made, and perhaps this might be answered.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, being a very humble person, I would not want to take the time of the house to make such a statement today, but I think I did make a good speech in Vancouver the other day, of which I will send the hon. member a copy. On the subject of beef, which is an important subject-


An hon. Member:: The question was ruled out.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Was it? O.K. Then-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on a supplementary question?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister for his offer to send me a copy of his speech, hut he has already done so. It is on this basis that I asked the question about beef. I would respectfully point out that if a member of the government makes a statement that is of great importance to one segment of industry in this country, then I think it is quite in order, and always has been in this house, for members to ask that minister for the basis upon which he made the statement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is not my understanding of the rules. It is certainly not what the book says.



WHEAT-ASSISTANCE TO CANADIAN FARMERS TO REDUCE ACREAGE

Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: In view of the fact that there is such a large surplus of
May 8. 1969

wheat in exporting countries, has the government given any consideration to assisting our farmers to reduce their wheat acreage?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Western farmers are used to making their own decisions. I understand there will be a reduction of 12 per cent in wheat acreage in the coming year.



WHEAT-INQUIRY AS TO INTRODUCTION OF TWO PRICE SYSTEM

John (Jack) Henry Horner: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister inform the house and the western farmers whether or not he, his department and the cabinet are seriously considering the inauguration of a two-price system to allow the farmers to stay in business?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the cabinet is very conscious of its responsibilities in this matter.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Are you?



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. H. E. Stafford (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. In the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's ban on tobacco advertising on its radio and television networks, Dr. Davidson, president of the C.B.C., referred to the continuous deliberations of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs which has been considering this subject and related matters.
Did the C.B.C. consider that it was prejudging the possible results and conclusions from those deliberations, and did it consider that it was acting on a matter which is under active discussion by a standing committee of this house; that it had insulted-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Harold Edwin Stafford: -that committee by taking this action before the tobacco industry-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have to interrupt the hon. member's speech. Will the hon. member resume his seat. I suggest to the hon. member that he may like to discuss this matter at the time of adjournment.
Inquiries of the Ministry INDUSTRY



FAIRBANKS MORSE (CANADA) LTD.- ATTEMPTS TO AVOID CLOSING OF PLANT

Mr. J. Edward Broadbeni (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, just to continue the pattern. In view of the government's efforts to ensure that foreign owned companies in Canada act in Canada's interests, would the minister attempt to dissuade Colt Industries, Inc. of the U.S.A. from closing down Fairbanks Morse (Canada) Ltd. in Kingston?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the question might be put on the order paper.



HOUSING


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing. In asking the question might I call his attention to the fact that in the legislature of Ontario a day or two ago the minister of trade stated that a substantial part of the province's housing program had been held up due to the lack-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member must ask a question directly.


Francis Andrew Brewin: My question is this: I know that the minister is new to his responsibilities, but will he answer the request of the provincial minister?



AIR CANADA


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. In view of the expansive statement of the Minister of Labour yesterday in reply to the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour on the settlement of the dispute between Canadian Pacific Airlines and the Transportation and Communications Employees Union, can the minister say what progress is being made in the much more important dispute between the machinists union and Canadian Pacific Airlines and Air Canada?


Hon. Bryce S. Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the parties met yesterday


Harold Edwin Stafford: Ten o'clock.

May 8, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry very briefly to discuss the procedure they would follow. They have agreed to that procedure and I understand the meetings continued last evening, that they were quite productive and are carrying on today.
I might mention to the hon. gentleman that it is a matter of opinion which strike is the more important at any time.



EXHIBITIONS


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Mr. Lucien Saulnier, president of the executive committee of Montreal, during a long interview granted to the Montreal Star on Tuesday last, has invited the federal government to participate permanently in "Man and His World". Could the minister tell the house whether Lucien Saulnier or His Honour Mayor, Jean Drapeau have communicated with him in this connection and whether the government intends to answer in the affirmative to that urgent and important invitation?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have received verbal representations in this connection from Messrs. Drapeau and Saulnier. However each department of the government is entirely free to take its decisions in that field and in the past as this year also, a certain number of departments and organizations of the government, for instance, the National Film Board, the Central Housing and Mortgage Corporation, the Travel Bureau-have participated to "Man and his World" in one way or another, but I do not have time to elaborate.
I wish also to point out that the government has recently taken part in a tripartite negotiation with the Quebec government and the City of Montreal which has indirectly resulted in a grant of more than $1 million to "Man and His World".


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Would the minister tell the house whether various departments of the federal government intend to participate in "Man and his World", especially the Secretary of State?


Mr. Speaker:: Order! In my opinion, the supplementary question is much too general and cannot be asked at this time.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I wonder if he will make a statement to the house about the extent of Canadian participation in the twenty-fifth anniversary of the D-Day exercises. Also, to what extent will Canadian personnel be participating in that exercise?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, at the invitation of the government of France a Canadian delegation will commemorate the twenty-fifth anniversary of the D-Day landing on French soil. The names of those who will be on the delegation have already been announced. Two members of the House of Commons are included, as well as the Sergeant-at-Arms and other distinguished persons who will well represent the government of Canada and the veterans of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister indicate which two members of parliament are to be on the delegation?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Yes, Mr. Speaker. One will be the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Smith) and the other the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall).


Mr. Speaker:: I draw the attention of hon. members to the time. There are only four or five minutes left in the question period. Perhaps we might go to other subject matters.



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It relates to the government of the Northwest Territories. What action has the minister taken as a result of the Auditor-Generals' findings that there were such serious errors and inadequacies in the records of expenditures and revenues of the Council of the Northwest Territories that no reliable financial statement could be prepared therefrom.
May 8, 1969	COMMONS
Is anything being done to correct what might be a very awkward situation.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I must advise the hon. member that I am not aware of that statement by the Auditor General, but I will inquire immediately and report as soon as possible.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Communications.
It can be foreseen that, following the increase in its postal charges from $28,000 to $55,000, the magazine Montreal, which made Canada known throughout the world, will disappear. Does the minister intend to grant a reduction in postal rates to that magazine?


Mr. Speaker:: The question should be put on the order paper.


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



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kenl-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Because the action of the C.B.C. in curtailing tobacco advertising has serious implications for Canadian tobacco producers, will the minister advise the house if the government has advocated any stepped-up research program so that alleged harmful ingredients of this Canadian product might be removed either at the production or refining stage?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what action has been taken since the C.B.C. made its announcement that the hon. member referred to. Our department has a continuing research program to identify the harmful ingredients.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, may I change the subject matter we are dis-
DEBATES	8471
Inquiries of the Ministry cussing and direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs about passports. In order to avoid many errors being made on applications, will the minister withdraw all the old application forms and replace them with new forms; or would he see to it that government agencies and persons handing out these applications will at least change the price from $5 to $10?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I will certainly take these suggestions into consideration. This however, has not been the main source of trouble. It has been the incomplete filing of information.


An hon. Member:: People pay $5 too little.


Alfred Dryden Hales: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister ask his colleague, the Postmaster General, to advise his staff not to hand out forms on which there is printed the $5 figure. The $5 figure should not be on the form, but should be changed to a $10 figure.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is it the position of the government of Canada that there ought to be no over-all military reduction of NATO capability overseas.
Mr. Speaker:: Order please. I wonder
whether the Leader of the Opposition is not asking for a statement of policy. I doubt whether that kind of statement can be made now.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I rephrase the question, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister can answer in a word. Was the Minister of National Defence speaking government policy on Friday when he said that the government, generally, agrees with the proposition that there should be no over-all military reduction of NATO capability overseas.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is part of the government's policy, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: What part?


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the

May 8, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry Secretary of State. Considering the tremendously enthusiastic reception London is giving the Canadian play "Anne of Green Gables", will the minister consider bringing the cast to Ottawa so that this great play can be included in the opening festival of the National Arts Centre.


An hon. Member:: It's too clean.


Gerald William Baldwin: Bring Don Messer to the hill.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State. May I ask him to express our appreciation to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for the excellent example it has set to other media by announcing last night that it will discontinue all cigarette advertising.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Mr. Henry Laiulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Communications.
In answer to requests by the municipalities of Lac-Megantic and Coaticook, could he say whether those cities will soon by provided with letter carrier delivery as the government has been promising for three years, considering the representations and the expenditures those municipalities have made to meet the requirements of the department?


Mr. Speaker:: Such a question should normally be put on the order paper.



WHEAT-REQUEST FOR ACREAGE REDUCTION PAYMENTS

Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and is related to the question asked a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Lis-gar. In light of short wheat sales and the resulting low income of western farmers will the minister and the government give consid-

eration to introducing acreage reduction payments?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the previous answer covers that question.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Since the Canadian Nurses Association has pointed out that the attitude of the federal government to nurses' education has been one of lethargy, bordering on antipathy, may I ask whether it is the intention of the government to increase resources devoted to educating nurses, especially at the baccalaureate, masters and doctorate levels.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. I venture to suggest to the hon. member that that is a question touching on general policy and normally it ought to be put on the order paper.



FINANCE


Mr. Roberi Muir (Cape Breion-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Is it his intention to set up a budget bureau modelled on United States lines in order to place departmental spending directly under the control of the Privy Council?


Mr. Speaker:: I would suggest that that question too should be placed on the order paper.



HOUSING


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the minister in charge of housing. Will he be introducing amendments to the housing legislation before the house, as a result of the persuasive arguments of the members of the housing committee of the Liberal caucus on Wednesday morning?


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, may I request that tomorrow you turn your eyes
May 8, 1989

in this direction during the question period, because we are not part of the Liberal rump.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will cast both eyes in the direction of the hon. member tomorrow.



TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order may I direct a question to the government house leader in connection with the business of the house. He did not announce in the business for the balance of the session before the summer recess whether or not the government intended to bring forward legislation to deal with the Maritime Freight Rates Act, but will he bring forward for debate the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is not a point of order. The hon. member might have asked that question during the question period. I regret that I did not have an opportunity to call on him but I will do so tomorrow.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, May 7, consideration of Bill C-150, to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, and motion No. 38, Mr. Rodrigue.
Mr. Speaker:: May 8, 1989
Division
Maclnnis	Rochon
Maclnnis (Mrs.)	Rock
Mackasey	Rose
Macquarrie	Roy (Timmins)
McBride	Roy (Laval)
McCleave	Ryan
McGrath	Rynard
Mcllraith	Saltsman
McIntosh	Schreyer
McKinley	Scott
McQuaid	Serre
Mahoney	Sharp
Marceau	Skoberg
Marchand (Langelier)	Smith (Northumberland-
Marchand (Kamloops-	Miramichi)
Cariboo)	Smith (Saint-Jean)
Marshall	Southam
Mather	Stafford
Mongrain	Stanfield
Monteith	Stewart (Cochrane)
Morison	Stewart (Okanagan-
Muir (Cape Breton-	Kootenay)
The Sydneys)	St. Pierre
Muir (Lisgar)	Thomas (Maisonneuve)
Munro	Thomnson
Murphy	Tolmie
Nowlan	Trudeau
Ny strom	Trudel
O'Connell	Turner (London East)
Olson	Turner (Ottawa-
Orange	Carleton)
Orlikow	Wahn
Peddle	Walker
Pelletier	Watson
Pepin	Weatherhead
Perrault	Whelan
Pilon	Whicher
Portelance	Whiting
Pringle	Winch
Prud'homme	Woolliams
Reid	Yanakis
Ritchie	Yewchuk-182.
Roberts	
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: The question is now on
motion No. 35 (Mr. Rondeau, for Mr. Rodrigue):
That Bill C-150, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act, be amended by deleting in clause 18 the words "or health" on line 5 on page 43.
Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of hon. members that we proceed with the vote immediately?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder whether it would be possible, for the convenience of all members of the house, that when there are deferred motions to be voted upon they be printed in the one place where hon. members naturally look to find the order of business, namely, Routine Proceedings and Orders of the Day. We have had to hunt for these amendments. It is true that we can find them in Votes and Proceedings of a day or so ago or in the Special Notice Paper that was printed a few days ago, or a few weeks ago, because it seems that long. I think some hon. members have had difficulty in finding precisely what they are voting on. I may say, without mentioning names, that one hon. member thought he was voting on something else. I think my suggestion would clear up a lot of confusion.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: That was the Prime Minister.
Division


Mr. Speaker:: I must say that we attempted to produce a paper which would help hon. members. However, we will look at the situation again and consider the very valuable suggestion of the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order which has been initiated by what the Prime Minister indicated. I rise now to draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that the votes of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and one other member should be set aside because they obviously broke the rules and procedures of the house in taking their places when they did.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. member. I cannot agree with his suggestion. The Standing Order which the hon. member should consult says that an hon. member cannot take his seat once the question has been put. Of course hon. members will recognize that the hon. member sitting to my left came in before the question had been put. Both hon. members voted according to the rules.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, in all fairness I think that the member whom Your Honour identified as a member to your left should not be identified as a Conservative but as a member of the N.D.P.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think the matter should be discussed further. I appreciate the fact that the hon. member thought he had a legitimate point of order but the fact of the matter is that the Standing Order permits members to come in and take their seats as long as the question has not been put. Of course the moment the Speaker starts to put the question it is a well known rule that members cannot take their seats.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on exactly that point of order. Your Honour was on your feet and had started to speak before the minister took his seat.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Maiane):: Mr. Speaker, in the same vein as my hon. colleague, I think that all those votes are not important any more because this institution has become the laughing-stock of the population and a minority is destroying it-
Criminal Code


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere):: Mr Speaker, I do not think parliament is becoming a laughing stock, but that could happen if we ever have too many incompetent or irresponsible members, such as the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane).


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the hon. member to think before he speaks. In my opinion, the hon. member has no right to use the kind of words he just said. I suggest to him to use discretion in the choice of his words, and above all to keep his remarks to the motion now before us.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, that is just what I intend to do, and I thank you kindly for your relevant remarks However, it would be easier for us to keep to our remarks if we were not interrupted all the time.
It should be noted, first of all, that the bill now before us would authorize abortion when the life or the health of a woman is endangered, whether this can be determined with certainty or not. This excludes abortions on any other grounds, such as refusal of motherhood or misunderstandings with the husband.
That is why the government proposes the establishment of a therapeutic abortion committee whose duties would be to determine such questions and issue a certificate to authorize an abortion.
What can one say about such a legislative proposal? We believe it is not enough to provide in the bill that there will be in each institution a therapeutic abortion committee whose function will be to decide when abortions should be authorized.
We think that this mere fact is not sufficient to ensure a greater guarantee, more security to the patient, to the doctor who will perform the abortion and to the government legislators who will pass this legislation.
In our opinion, it is definitely not enough to require a majority vote within the committee, for the sole purpose of authorizing the abortion, in view of the many doubts and the numerous cases which may occur from one patient to another.
Therefore, we think that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Rodrigue) is acceptable and desirable, for all the reasons I stated briefly yesterday.
I would like to take a few minutes to explain the reasons why we believe the deci-
May 8, 1969
sion of the committee should be unanimous for every abortion, rather than taken by a majority.
As I said yesterday, there are a great many academic discussions among doctors, which indicates that opinions are divided and that the same yard-stick cannot be applied to everyone when considering the various cases.
We have heard last night about all kinds of cases: the unmarried mother, the married woman pregnant with an adulterine child, the woman taken unaware by a pregnancy, the female worker who wants to get rid of the child to pursue her work unimpeded, the society woman, the artist, who would consider giving birth as a catastrophe, the woman who suddenly panics and becomes neurotic.
Those are some cases that I chose, among others, to demonstrate what problems the therapeutic abortion committee will have to face and also that very likely the members of the committee, for similar reasons, may be unable to arrive at a unanimous consent
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, the advantage is that the grounds on which a woman requests an abortion may not always be acceptable and it might be difficult in many cases to establish whether or not her life or her health is really endangered.
Consequently, we want a unanimous decision, so that if a woman falling under the categories I have just mentioned applied for an abortion to the therapeutic abortion committee, of course, two doctors might say: We are prepared to allow an abortion and issue a certificate. However, the other doctor who, in accordance with his code of professional ethics, his conscience and his knowledge, has more misgivings than the two other, might discover that the applicant is an unwed mother, that she rejects motherhood, and that abortion would not solve her problem but rather aggravate it.
Consequently, that physician would be justified in objecting and his refusal could convince the other two not to deliver a certificate authorizing abortion, so that they could then consider the case of that woman and help her otherwise and better than by procuring her abortion.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see in today's issue of Le Droit an article on abortion by Dr. Noel Walsh which is entitled: "A psychiatrist's opinion"
This psychiatrist backs us up fully, Mr. Speaker, when we say that physicians are far

May 8, 1969

from having, unanimous views. In almost 80 per cent of cases, an abortion is not a solution to the problem of the pregnant woman, but rather worsens her condition and such is the opinion of a majority of physicians.
In this regard, Dr. Noel Walsh said, and I quote:
There are many aspects to the problem of abortion that I cannot consider due to lack of space. In conclusion, I would like to sum up the main ideas I developed:
You must agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that this psychiatrist shares our view that termination of pregnancy is not a solution but a complication and that we must consider each case in particular. He does not say there must be unanimous consent of the committee, but his conclusions indicate that we must take every possible precaution in order to protect the physical, mental and physiological health of the woman, to ensure the full and safe enforcement of the law and to secure understanding and a code of professional ethics within the therapeutic committee.
The first conclusion drawn by Dr. Walsh is as follows:
In the present state of psychiatric knowledge, there are to my mind no psychiatric grounds to justify abortion and, on this point, my opinion is shared by many psychiatrists. I even believe that I have demonstrated that abortion, in the views of psychiatrists, is always harmful.
So, Mr. Speaker, if Dr. Walsh, an eminent psychiatrist, is able to say that in almost all cases, abortion is harmful, and that the patient's case is aggravated, by it, we must take into consideration this expert's view and ask ourselves the following question: Would it not be better to stipulate that the therapeutic abortion committee must be unanimous in its decisions and that such decisions must be based on scientific and medical information and not on sentimental grounds in order to avoid the risk of allowing an abortion that could be more harmful than beneficial to the person in question?
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Dr. Walsh states as a second conclusion:
There is every reason to fear that this bill does represent, in the structure of Canadian justice, a first crack which gradually could lead to a deterioration of human rights.
Here again, because I ask myself the question with regard to the amendment, I wonder whether these therapeutic abortion committees will not be in fact-as I have said earlier-the corner-stone of this legislation concerning abortion and therefore will have to ensure the enforcement of the law and of
Criminal Code
justice for each human being, each patient, and if they cannot implement the legislation in accordance with medical and scientific standards, a deterioration of justice will follow and once again Dr. Walsh would have been right.
And to eliminate this problem and put all the chances on our side, because we are referring here to a guarantee and not a filibuster, the unanimity which should prevail, in our opinion, within the therapeutic abortion committee would be a tremendous guarantee for the patient, for the therapeutic abortion committee, for the government and for the administration of justice.
Dr. Walsh comes to his third conclusion and I quote:
The legislation will have adverse effects on the Canadian woman, Canadian family life and the quality of Canadian life in general.
Mr. Speaker, this does not necessarily relate to the amendment.
The fourth conclusion is really interesting and I quote:
The legislation will have a detrimental effect on the medical profession.
Mr. Speaker, one can see that we have here an interesting conclusion:
The act will have a harmful effect on the medical profession.
Therefore if we ask and demand that the therapeutic abortion committee make not a majority decision but a unanimous one as to the approval of abortion or the issuing of a certificate allowing abortion in the case of a patient, this will oblige doctors to perform abortions willingly only when it is really in the interest of the patient and in accordance with the ethics of the medical profession.
Short of that, we are in danger of minimizing the role of the medical profession.
That would justify Dr. Walsh who is afraid that the act will have a harmful effect on the medical profession.
We must maintain the confidence of the Canadian people in their doctors and protect the doctors themselves through certain safeguards in the law, with respect to their patients, in order precisely to strengthen the confidence that should be established between doctor and patient.
In his fifth conclusion, Dr. Walsh says and I quote:
The act will not reduce the number of criminal abortions.
Mr. Speaker, we believe that if we do not ask the therapeutic abortion committee to

May 8, 1969
Criminal Code
make a unanimous decision, it would mean, in the case of a majority decision only, that many cases would obviously occur where an abortion would be allowed that would really be on a pretext, because the bill in itself has too broad a meaning.
When it is said that abortion would be allowed in all cases when pregnancy would probably or would be likely to endanger the life or health of a woman, the number of such patients would be pretty high because the word "likely" is so difficult to define, so wide, and opens the way to so many reasons, as well as the word "health" which is impossible to define. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) himself recognizes the fact.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Thus, all the cases which could be covered under the expression "would be likely to endanger her life" should be scrutinized by the therapeutic committee, and a certificate could not be delivered unless the decision of the committee is unanimous.
I would not like to give more details, since I think I put forward the main arguments which make me support the motion without any qualification. That is why I shall vote in favour of the motion moved by the hon. member for Beauce.
I think it is a constructive amendment which actually changes but one word in the bill, "unanimous decision" being substituted for "majority". I am convinced that the minister will certainly object to that, or is likely to.
I find it hard to believe he will oppose it, and to understand his motives. But I should like to urge him strongly to study our proposal to ask that each committee reach an unanimous decision in every case submitted to it, because he will surely agree with me that if abortion is a problem, we must not aggravate it through a law that is incomplete, too vague, which opens the door to every pretext; which would not consequently create justice but would contribute to degrade the justice we want to establish.
Mr. Speaker, I should like the Minister of Justice to reflect seriously on the matter, and to make his comments, in the hope that he might tell us he agrees with us for once.
As for us, we are convinced that this is a positive measure and that the house would be well advised to support it.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, in the standing committee on justice and legal affairs, we considered many

amendments, because the government received almost 25 of them.
But now we have reached the report stage, and the government supports the bill as drawn up and amended by the standing committee of the house. Eecause we support the report, I therefore feel, for good reasons, that we must reject the amendment moved by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Rodrigue). I shall explain why.
When he spoke in the house, the member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) a doctor, reminded us, and rightly so, to my mind, that medical science is not an accurate science. It is, precisely a matter of judgment, a matter of experience, a matter of delicate medical analysis, which goes beyond the qualifications of the doctor.
Thus it would be unreasonable to insist and to demand unanimity of a medical council, where medical art founded upon human judgment. And I think that we should not expect unanimity concerning the symptoms which tell whether the health or the life of the mother are in danger. It is not a mathematical question. It is not an exact science. It is an art pertaining to professional judgment.
This is why I regret to have to say once again that the government cannot recommend to the house acceptance of the amendment presented by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Rodrigue).


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words, to second the amendment of my colleague from Beauce (Mr. Rodrigue), who has just supported my colleague from Lotbiniere and, at the same time, to comment on the statement which has just been made by the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner).
He quotes the statement of his colleague from Hull (Mr. Isabelle) to the effect that the medical science is not infallible and that it is rather an art than a science. On this point, I would be inclined to agree with him and it is precisely that which led the member for Beauce to present this amendment.
If the doctors, with all their science, can err, it stands to reason that two doctors can err in a worse way than three.
As a therapeutic committee made up of three medical practitioners is required-not by us but by the government-it seems important that these three highly qualified doctors should be enabled to cut short a human life only if all three are agreed.
Mr. Speaker, in other fields of human activity, where committees, such as arbitra-
May 8. 1969

tion or legal committees, made up of several members, are required to render a decision, there is always a difference when a unanimous or a majority decision is reached.
That is why we insist on providing in the bill, if clause 18 is passed, that a unanimous decision is reached by the therapeutic committee concerned.
A few minutes ago, the Minister of Justice referred to the comments made a few days ago, in a similar situation, by the hon. member for Hull. During evidence he gave before the committee on health, welfare and social affairs, as is recorded on page 11 of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, No. 1, the hon. member for Hull said in answer to a question by the hon. member for Vancouver -Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), and I quote:
Mrs. Maclnnis, there is one general observation 1 want to make on your bill. First, I am not too sure that we can achieve a change. I am for change, but how are we going to achieve this change?
At that time, the hon. member for Hull was asking himself that question.
Another thing is this: you are aware of the fact that for the past 25 years many countries, especially the Scandinavian countries, Russia and some other countries, have widened their legislation on legal abortion and since this legislation has been brought along, strangely enough there has been an increase of illegal abortions in those countries. This is something that we cannot understand, but it could be easily understood in the light of Mr. Stanbury's point of view that therapeutic abortion committees-


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The parliamentary secretary is rising on a point of order.


Jean-Charles Cantin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is entirely outside the bounds of the amendment. He is taking us through various countries, reading us quotations 25 years old and talking a little about everything. The question is whether or not a committee should be unanimous in its decision. I suggest that he should be called to order and that he should speak only on the meaning of the amendment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I was listening to the hon. member for Abitibi very carefully, but sometimes it was difficult to know whether the argument he was develop-
Criminal Code
ing was leading to a point that was related to the amendment. I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. However, I hope he will observe the point raised by the parliamentary secretary, that he is required to confine his remarks to the amendment.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I think I am as conversant with the Standing Orders as the Parliamentary Secretary of the Minister of Justice.
I only wanted to speak about the conclusion reached by the member for Hull in the committee of health, welfare and social affairs. I was just coming to that conclusion in which the hon. member, who is himself a doctor, reminds us that even therapeutic abortion committees, judges, lawyers, doctors etc. are at odds on such matters, which accounts for the fact that the number of therapeutic abortions has decreased while the number of illegal abortions has increased.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, when a woman or a girl comes before a therapeutic abortion committee to request an abortion on physical or mental health grounds, apparently there will be three doctors to pass a judgment, but only two of them will have to decide whether her health is in danger.
But the hon. member for Hull answers the question we are likely to ask ourselves. As the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) was asking him: "Doctor, is the mental health of a person easy to determine?", the hon. member for Hull replied: From the medical viewpoint I think two doctors are not enough to make such an important decision. This is exactly what the amendment is aiming at. It sees to it that two doctors will not be able to grant an abortion, if the third one is opposed to it.
In closing I shall refer to the remarks made by the hon. member for Hull who said that if there are too many of them, there will be chaos then.
Therefore, if we must accept a therapeutic committee to decide whether or not an abortion will be carried out in the case where the health of the mother would be in danger, I would have preferred that one of the three practitioners on this committee to be a gynaecologist. Since we ask that the committee be composed of three doctors to decide if the abortion will be carried out or not, I believe we should state in the legislation that the decision for or against the abortion should be

May 8, 1969
Criminal Code
unanimous. Then there would not be any possible ambiguity.
As the hon. member for Hull pointed out, the danger in this amendment lies in the fact that in cases where the committee will refuse an abortion in the light of the reasons given, then the woman or the young girl requesting the abortion for health reasons, whether physical or mental, will probablement go to a quack and that will not settle in any way the problem we want to solve by this amendment.
Mr. Speaker, it is for these reasons that I support the amendment moved by my colleague from Beauce (Mr. Rodrigue) and I believe the other members should do the same when the vote is taken.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, we are once again considering an amendment which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) could have looked at from another standpoint.
We support this amendment on the ground that doctors themselves have a great deal of difficulty reaching complete agreement on the nature of abortion and that the law would protect them further if it required unanimous agreement within the committee whose duty it will be to decide whether or not a female person should be aborted.
Mr. Speaker, by demanding unanimity, we feel sure that the committee will not be faced with a situation which would result in decisions based on uncertainties. The amendments increasing the number of responsible members within the abortion committee have been written off so that the committee will be made up of three members, instead of four or even five.
Therefore, it is most important, if only three doctors remain on the board, that those three be unanimous in their decision, so that in a field as serious as human life, a less conscientious doctor should not be left to influence the others unduly.
Mr. Speaker, that is perhaps the reason why, some time ago, the editorial writer Claude Ryan, of the newspaper Le Devoir, referred to those sham practitioners who, for a year or a year and a half now, have flooded radio and particularly television-mostly our national system-with their views on abortion. For one doctor who favours abortion, and on request, there are thousands of others who have had no opportunity to express their own opinions publicly. Those sham practitioners were the ones alluded to by the journalist.
Now, the very same newspaper Le Devoir, mentioned by my friend the hon. member

for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) a while ago, has published also a letter from Dr. Maurice Jobin, who supports abortion. In that letter, Dr. Jobin took exception to Mr. Ryan's condemnation of sham practitioners.
And Mr. Ryan, in a foot-note to Dr. Jobin's letter said this, and I quote:
I wrote and I repeat that too many sham practitioners flood the air with their superficial talk on extremely complex and delicate subjects such as abortion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I must remind him that the motion we are considering deals with the question of whether the decision of the therapeutic abortion committee ought to be unanimous. I do not wish to restrict the right of the hon. member to speak on the motion but, so far as possible, I feel he ought to confine his remarks to the specific motion now being considered.


Mr. Maiie:: Mr. Speaker, thank you for your remarks, but the purpose of my intervention is to show it is important that the committee be unanimous, because doctors do not all share the same views and we require unanimity to avoid a situation where two doctors on the committee might be in favour of abortion for some women, while the third would be against. Such a situation, if it arises would be exceptional and would be frowned upon at first.
It is impossible, when human lives are concerned, when the right to live is involved to ignore 33J-since one out of three would represent 33-J-who might be right, and to leave it to two out of three to make that decision. It would be a serious mistake to leave things as they are, since an indefeasible and unquestionable right is involved the right to live of a person of 90, 100, 101, as well as of a person of 50, 10, 9 years and that right also exists for a human being still in his mother's womb. This is our opinion and many physicians, especially those who have studied genetics, agree with us. They tell us that life begins at the time of impregnation when the impregnated ovule is actually implanted in the womb.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, as far as unanimity is concerned I would like to denounce, along with the editor of Le Devoir, Claude Ryan, the sham practitioners. There will always be a
May 8, 1969

few who will exert influence on such committees; it is therefore quite important to distrust them. By requiring the unanimous consent of the abortion committee in accredited hospitals, we would thus secure a better guarantee than by leaving the clause in its present form.
I did not say that those sham practitioners were physicians, even if it is possible for physicians to turn quickly into sham practitioners when they take cover under their specialization to uphold views which strictly have no direct or causal connection with their competence. As for the argument about figures put forward by Dr. Jobin in his letter, it is entirely his own. It is not with such computations that we can prove the basic truth of a statement.
Dr. Jobin can also claim full ownership of his gratuitous innuendoes about his medical colleagues who do not think as he does on the question of abortion.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker I was in order.
I wanted to show the present disagreement among physicians. A great number of them, and the majority in Quebec, are against abortion. They have various reasons but one of them is that therapeutic abortion is no longer necessary today. That is what Dr. Noel Walsh said and I quote:
This leads me to refer to the relationships between psychiatry and abortion. As you may know, according to obstetricians and physicians, medical and obstetric indications justifying abortion have practically disappeared and mostly, favourable indications to be expected in the future will be of a psychiatric nature. The question we must ask ourselves, then, is: Are there any psychiatric grounds for abortion?
Here again, you can appreciate the problem, Mr. Speaker, since there is no longer such a thing as therapeutic abortion. This is one of the main reasons why we are so much opposed to the present bill. The way we have insisted and come back to the same subject these last few days proves we are dealing with blockheads-if I may use the expression. All obstetricians and all physicians quoted are not Creditistes, Mr. Speaker, but people who are mainly concerned with this important problem of abortion. We have no objection against therapeutic abortion, provided the bill has no serious consequences.
We do not object to therapeutic abortion, Mr. Speaker, for the simple reason that it no longer exists. With medical progress, abortion is now uncalled for. If it were a matter of life and death for a pregnant woman, if a choice had to be made between the life of the foetus
Criminal Code
and her own life, we would not be opposed, then, to the doctor making use of all treatments required to try to save the life of the mother and at the same time the life of the foetus. We have no objection to that and we do not understand why so much time must be wasted on a question that medical science is on the point of solving definitely.
If doctors themselves hold such opinions, you will readily understand that they have some doubt as to the usefulness of the bill as it now reads. It would have been possible to legislate about abortion but in an acceptable manner.
It would have been sufficient to delete one small thing from the Criminal Code, that is the possibility of instituting proceedings against a doctor who, because of the treatments given by him to a pregnant woman, has caused an abortion.
At the present time, nothing prevents that woman or some other persons from suing the doctor. That was the only point that needed to be dealt with. There was no need to authorize or to legalize abortion on such and such a pretext.
As I just said, several doctors were in favour of abortion. Others are much more broad-minded, and claim that individual freedom would allow a woman to get rid of a foetus she is bearing, just like having a tooth pulled.
Mr. Speaker, there are all kinds of people in any profession, including the medical profession. It is to be wondered why they are more influential, and why their opinions are mostly retained.
That medical committee could always find somebody who would be either against or for abortion. So, it would then be necessary, in order to ensure an accurate diagnosis, to require unanimity. That would be a formal guarantee which, in my opinion, should have been considered much more seriously.
In so vital and so essential a matter as the one under consideration, it is extremely unfortunate to see some members take it so lightly as to call this debate a public mockery. I think it is extremely disastrous for the house to find that for some members the right to live of future generations is not worth anything more than that.
As far as we are concerned, it is to think of the people of the future, of the thousands or millions of people of the future who will not come to life because abortion is being legalized, is much more serious than just a mockery.

May 8, 1969
Criminal Code
Our position is justified. As regards an amendment such as this one, when we ask once more the Minister of Justice and urge him to seriously consider this question, we abide by the standing orders. It is quite logical and it delays in no way the business of the house.
I repeat what I already said on several occasions, Mr. Speaker. Should the minister want a little more time to consider this, should he like to receive other briefs, or obtain further information, let the house adjourn and let us wait. Why such a hurry? Why do we have to pass the bill to legalize abortion? What is so urgent about it?
Who is urging us on? Is there at present such a great number of women at grips with that problem and who are waiting for this legislation to be able to get rid of their foetus?
We wonder why we are being accused of filibuster since we were not responsible for introducing the bill. Since the minister has just told us once again that he would not accept this amendment-and this time he seemed to be a little sad in telling us that- and if he thinks that he is not yet sufficiently informed-we should like once more to adjourn this debate, to wait and to proceed with some other business.
The bill on the official languages should be one of highest priority for the government and I think that the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is very pleased to see this debate drag on because it enables him to set aside the bill on the official languages and it provides him with a justification for not introducing it. He will say: the Ralliement creditiste did not want it because they drew out the debate on abortion.
We anticipate all these things and even though the matter we are discussing now might embarrass us politically this is not why we fight for our point of view; our inspiration is the significant principle of life.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
That is our position and there is no political capital involved. We are not claiming to be defenders of morality, but defenders of life, of human rights, of freedom and of the human being. And as far as we are concerned, human life begins within a few days after conception.


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, the amendment we want to incorporate today in Bill C-150, reads as follows:
That Bill C-150, an act to amend the Criminal Code ... be amended by deleting in clause 18 the
IMr. Matte.]
words "a majority" in lines 38 and 39 on page 42 and substituting therefor the words: "unanimous decision".
I think it is important to know the big difference between "a majority" and "unanimous decision". This amendment is very serious because the question is whether to end life or not. The difference between "a majority" and "unanimous decision" is most important, because I feel the terms are contradictory, if a decision is to be made by the therapeutic committee in hospitals and clinics for or against abortion. There must be no doubt as to the health condition of the person on whom an abortion is to be performed, because, in my opinion, "doubt" means "a majority".
In this case, I think that "majority" is contrary to "unanimity" because in such a vital matter it is most important that the committee take a unanimous decision. A doubtful decision can be prejudicial to the health and probably to the life of thousands of people.
I would not want, because of some "nearly" or "perhaps", my progeny, which I value more than anything, to be in danger. I have ten children, which makes me very happy, and I would like to have more. Not for anything in the word would I want a therapeutic committee	to decide,	without beingunanimous,	the	abortion	of some of	my
progency.
For those reasons, I want such a committee be very serious and its decisions to be unanimous.	That	is why I	fully support	theamendment	moved by the	hon. member	for
Beauce (Mr. Rodrigue).


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 38 (Mr. Fortin, for Mr. Rodrigue). Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion? All those in favour please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my view the nays have it. Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75 the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
May 8. 1969


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

He said: Mr. Speaker, I shall try to be brief in introducing amendment No. 37 since we have already discussed related subjects when amendments No. 26, 33, 35, 36 and 38 were discussed.
The purpose of the amendment I have moved is to replace clause 18 (4)(c) of the bill by the following:
"(e) has by certificate in writing signed by the three members of the Committee, stated that in its opinion, the life of the mother cannot be kept safe from danger with the continuation of her pregnancy."
Therefore the legislation would allow two doctors representing the majority, such as mentioned in paragraph (b) of subclause 4, on a three-member committee, to authorize abortion on health grounds, such as specified in section 18 (4)(c) of the bill now before us.
Some people may have different views on this subject, and the same may be true of abortion committees.
The community will soon find out which committees are more broad-minded. That is one of the reasons why I am inclined to think that the bill, as drafted and submitted, will lead people to believe that abortions will be performed on request.
Some doctors may question the value of the life destroyed by abortion. However, judgments of value are not medical judgments, and doctors are not any more competent than others to pass such judgments. In any event, Bill C-150 would confer upon them the supreme authority to judge what a human being is worth before his birth.
The establishment of committees does not provide any guarantee that the law will be properly interpreted, that this legislation will safeguard the common good and will be observed.
If we consider the differences in the frequency of abortion in the world, we find that the hospitals where the greatest number of
Criminal Code
abortions are carried out are those where the committees are the most tolerant.
I sincerely believe that in so amending the legislation, committees called upon to take such a decision will be respected.
If the majority reports is accepted as such, the reasons put forward by the third member of the committee who will refuse to sign the report, would probably be as sound as those of the majority.
The decisions to be made by the committees are most important and we must take all the necessary steps to prevent lives from being destroyed, or health endangered, because of a hasty decision.
It took the medical profession many centuries to gain the trust and the consideration of the people for its devotion to life and the relief of suffering. The best medical tradition has always showed deep concern for the life of innocent defenceless, weak or crippled human beings.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Now, we are asked to change all that and to renounce one of the main provisions of the Hippocratic Oath, which reads as follows:
I will give no deadly drug to any, though it be asked of me, nor will I counsel such, and especially I will not aid a woman to procure abortion.
Modern medicine provides us with hospitals and techniques which surpass anything mankind has known so far; nonetheless, we are constantly told that the progress of medical sciences dehumanizes the patient. The patient has become a "heart case", a "brain case" and so on.
We feel sure that the legislation on abortion will speed up this process. The doctor recommending abortion will become, reluctantly perhaps, a sort of quality expert. As his counterpart in industry, his responsibility will be to reject substandard, abnormal human beings.
There is no easy solution to the abortion problem and it is a mistake to try to solve it through a vague legislation.
Because of its complexity, we cannot hope to settle the problem easily.
The procedure to follow is quite different. Respect of human life throughout its various development stages should be promoted through education and educational laws. A serious study should be undertaken on the frequency of illegal abortions and on the measures to be taken to eliminate them. Such a procedure must promote medical research and really attempt to make available to moth-

May 8, 1969
Criminal Code
ers in trouble the resources of medicine and psychiatry. It must ensure a greater understanding of unwed mothers and of their children and actually meet their needs. It must promote research and the implementation of a more adequate social and family policy.
Everybody seems to agree on the meaning of the word life. But we are unable to define health, because this term is quite ambiguous. It is all very well for the legislature to use it, but somebody else will have to interpret it. Numerous pieces of legislation give rise to the same problem. I think the world life is clearly defined. We all know what we are talking about and we can actually tell if the life of such or such a woman is in danger.
Mr. Speaker, it is wise for the legislation to require that three doctors sign the certificate, and such is the main purpose of this motion. Doctors will enjoy some protection, patients will be assured that their case will receive serious consideration and will not be treated as mere correspondence.
Doctors who have authorized therapeutic abortions are certainly no criminals.
I feel this motion will clarify the legislation under consideration and that it will be approved by the house.


Jean-Charles Cantin: Mr. Speaker, the comments which we could have made on that amendement were similar to those made when amendment No. 35 was under consideration. I had the opportunity yesterday to say a word on that amendment and the same remarks apply, but I would add that this afternoon, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) set forth the reasons why he rejected amendment No. 38.
Now, amendment No. 37 has the same meaning and the same motivation as amendments Nos. 35 and 38. Then, the same arguments apply and for the same reasons, the government cannot approve that new amendment.


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, as mentioned by the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mr. Cantin), the amendment now under consideration moved by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Rodrigue) is a rehash of the one discussed yesterday.
Through a legal expedient, the Ralliement creditiste has decided to destroy the democratic mechanism which is Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, that the amendment brought in by the Ralliement creditiste is obviously a 
method, a means to snatch away from the Canadian people the exercise of democracy, that is-


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


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This afternoon, we have strictly confined ourselves to the amendments before us. We have been most conscientious. We are making rapid progress in the consideration of the amendments and we find the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane) is not justified in making such remarks, because they are out of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. If the point of order the hon. member is making is that possibly the hon. member for Matane is out of order, I must say that from what I have heard so far 1 am in agreement. I have been paying fairly close attention to the debate this afternoon and endeavouring to apply the rules of relevancy in order to expedite this matter. I would now invite the hon. member for Matane, if he wants to contribute further to the debate, to restrict his remarks to the amendment before us.


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, the Ralliement creditiste has been out of order for 19 days. I dare them to say how-


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Pierre De Bané: I would ask the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) to wait until I am finished.


David Réal Caouette: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Pierre De Bané: All right, go ahead.


David Réal Caouette: I think this is no business of the member for Matane (Mr. De Bane) who is presently behaving like a clown. He is out of order, and to show how smart he is, he is constantly picking on Creditistes. The member for Matane knows we are ready for an encounter anywhere, because we can settle the hash of a hundred like him.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. As I pointed out to the hon. member for Matane, it
May 8, 1969

Criminal Code
is sometimes difficult to apply the rules of relevancy. In the first instance the Chair must respect the rights of hon. members to express their points of view, and one must hear that point of view before one can judge whether or not it is relevant. At that point it is sometimes apparent to other hon. members that the remarks go beyond what appears to be relevant. The Chair attempts as far as possible to apply the rules with fairness to all hon. members. I think it is in the interest of the application of these rules of relevancy that hon. members restrict their remarks to the matter before the house.


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that it will not be the member for Temis-camingue (Mr. Caouette) or the admirers of Hitler and Mussolini who will teach us the rules of democracy.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I again point out to the hon. member for Matane that the Standing Order and the citations are very specific in respect of relevancy. I am wondering whether, if we continue to proceed in this way, we will advance the legislation before us. I can caution the hon. member only so many times.


Pierre De Bané: That minority is trying to- [English]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, I am going to deal specifically with the amendment under consideration, but I cannot refrain from saying a word, apart from the amendment, about the supporting arguments put forward by members of the Ralliement creditiste. And it is with that in mind that, before dealing with that specific point, I wish to say that the Ralliement creditiste is holding up the business of the house after its members tried to secure the voters' support which failed them at the last election.
I remind you that, in the Matane constituency, Creditistes did not muster 10 per cent of the votes while the whole campaign hinged on the abortion problem, and they were defeated on that particular issue-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think this is the third time I have pointed out
to the hon. member that the rules in respect of relevancy are very specific. Remarks of hon. members must be directed to the amendment. I intend to enforce these rules as forcefully as I can, but I should also point out to the hon. member that if I were to allow him to continue in this fashion I would then have no option but to allow other hon. members to pursue the same course. This would only produce disorder in the house, and my responsibility is to maintain order. Let me point out to the hon. member that he must confine his remarks to the specific amendment before us. The rule of relevancy applies to him as it does to all other hon. members, and I intend to enforce it in respect of all hon. members.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you for the shrewdness and the fairness with which you are presiding over the debates of this house. As for the amendment before us, it is, once more thanks to a legal fiction, the repetition of the motion which has just been defeated this afternoon by 90 per cent of the members.
Mr. Speaker, what is the Ralliement Creditiste trying to achieve with this amendment? We have just heard the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Rodrigue) repeat a lot of platitudes and nonsense, while the bill is the first attempt to regulate therapeutic abortion in Canada. Never has a physician who had performed a therapeutic abortion been prosecuted in Canada in the last 100 years. An effort is now being made at last to regulate this vexing subject.
In view of the democratic system, that is to say of the equality between men, I respect the opinion of the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Rodrigue) since no one has the right to thrust his opinion on someone else. But when a minority has been trying for 19 days with amendments such as today's which is a repetition of yesterday's to make its opinion prevail, I submit that those people are trying to have the minority rule the majority. And 1 fear the day when these disciples of Hitler and Mussolini would have the majority, for we can see how they act, although they are but a minority today.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, you called the hon. member to order at least four times and he has overlooked your remarks. I would therefore invite you to name this member and to expel him from the house.
8486
Criminal Code

May 8, 1969


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. There was a moment when I thought the hon. member for Matane was dealing specifically with the amendment. I would suggest, however, that his latter remarks tended to drift away from the amendment. I point out to all hon. members that the difficulty the Chair has is that we have the Standing Orders and the citations in Beauchesne, and we can only operate with the co-operation of hon. members, short of naming them. That is exactly the problem we face. I point out to the hon. member for Matane that the house proceeds best with the co-operation of hon. members; that is the only way we can really proceed. If the hon. member persists in being out of order, he puts the Chair in a very difficult position.


Pierre De Bané: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to remind the house that it is not I, yesterday, who interrupted the Ralliement creditiste when the hon. member for Lot-biniere (Mr. Fortin) allowed himself to say that the Liberal party was made up of homosexuals. But I let them say these dirty things, Mr. Speaker, because I know that the worst thing these people can do is to underestimate the intelligence of the people. I want to come to this precise point: the amendment of the hon. member for Beauce. He knows very well-


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


David Réal Caouette: I rise on a point of order.
First I hear that the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane) is now speaking without the permission of the authorities of his party. Nobody expected that.
Furthermore, as far as the point of order is concerned, we do not appeal to the intelligence of the member for Matane (Mr. De Bane) no more than we did yesterday, because we know he is deprived of any.


Pierre De Bané: The remarks which the member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) has just made prove that his stupidity can only be matched by his demagogy. This is what he just proved.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I would invite the hon. member to continue on the amendment specifically or I will be in a position where I must refuse to recognize him.


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, as I said, the bill as a whole is the first attempt to regulate a most serious act which has been carried out for the past 100 years without any regulation. The regulation found in the bill contains several checking and supervisory mechanisms, namely that of enabling the provincial department, in each province, to check whether the legislation has been enforced to the letter, and not as the member for Beauce attempted to suggest, that it would become abortion on request.
Mr. Speaker, I conclude with these words. This bill led to a referendum in the province of Quebec in the last election and the Ralliement creditiste wanted it that way. I find that the tactics used by that group at this time are absolutely unworthy of our democratic system.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I might have been caught off my guard to speak to this amendment which is almost identical to the preceding one, I agree. Fortunately, the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane) came to the rescue. (Untranslatable pun on "debaner"-(De Bane) and "de-panner" (come to the rescue.)
Mr. Speaker, it might be advisable to explain why we come back with amendments which are so similar, yet the wording of which is different. There is a very logical, very clear reason for that. We have been telling ourselves that if the government, and in particular the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) feel, for instance, that the wording of amendment 38 where the words "unanimous decision" would replace the word "a majority" is not acceptable, then we offer him an alternative through another amendment which this time the minister might find more acceptable more in conformity with legalistic terminology. That is why we return to the charge. There is nothing alarming in that. We are not trying deliberately to hold up the business of the house. We are merely trying to find a formula to help us accept more readily the legislative measure on abortion.
It may be, Mr. Speaker, that there was an error at the start, when amendment No. 19, was placed at the end. Had it been studied at the beginning of the debate, all the other
May 8. 1969

Criminal Code
amendments would have been cancelled automatically, which might have been more logical. Whereas now we are discussing small changes, to be made in the various paragraphs of clause 18, while we will soon be discussing the last amendment which proposes the deletion of clause 18. It must be understood that we are merely seeking the most suitable formula to the greatest number of members in this house. That is the only reason why we have a series of amendments the general purpose of which is the same.
An amendment on the official languages cannot be moved when we are dealing with abortion. It is obvious that all the amendments deal with abortion; and I cannot understand why some members cannot see that. It is obvious that the amendments are repetitious. We are dealing with abortion and all the amendments deal with it. One does not have to be exceptionally bright to understand these nuances.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, paragraph (c) of subsection (4) reads as follows:
(c) has by certificate in writing stated that in its opinion the continuation of the pregnancy of such female person would or would be likely to endanger her life or health,
Mr. Speaker, we have tried to get the term "likely" deleted. Since we failed, if the word "certificate", were followed by "in writing signed by the three members of the Committee, stated that in its opinion, the life of the mother cannot be kept safe from danger with the continuation of her pregnancy", as far as we are concerned, the amendment would solve the problem on abortion, and would make the law acceptable to us.
Far from being an empty measure it is something extremely specific. For someone who can read and understand, it is obvious that this amendment would provide us with all the guarantees which we are seeking, that is to prove to all Quebecers including the hon. member of Matane that this is no idle talk. If the hon. member for Matane wants to stake his seat I would be the first one to go and fight him in his constituency on that matter.
Mr. Speaker, to prove to you that we are sure of what we are saying when we maintain that we represent the public opinion and that of people we know quite well, people we took the trouble to consult, people who have responded to our calls and who have sent us loads of letters and documentation of all kinds, we take the liberty of discussing a problem which is not foreign to us but which 29180-538J
we know quite well. This matter is so important to us that we do not think we are mistaken in defending the very right to life.
Mr. Speaker, if the minister would give serious consideration to this amendment he would realize that it summarizes the opinion of the Ralliement creditiste as a whole, which is at least the opinion of the whole province of Quebec. And when it is requested that such certificate allowing abortion be signed by the three members of the committee, this makes it slightly different. Some people may not realize it, but it is different indeed. It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that through this amendment, which makes all the difference in the world, we are doing away with all the possible interpretations of the word "health". Abortion must then become justified within strictly defined limits: the danger to the mother's life. Consequently, by means of that amendment, we wish our position to be clarified as much as possible; and we are not the only ones who should show goodwill.
Goodwill should be shown by the government. Of the 44 amendments initially moved and later grouped together this amendment at least should be studied and given more consideration. If the minister were not content to kill time and wait for the end of this, we would long ago have proceeded to something else.
The decision authorizing an abortion must be reached in the most adequate manner possible, and, in this regard, even the authority of the doctors may be questioned. That is why the committee must be unanimous in its opinion that the continuation of the pregnancy would endanger the life of the mother. That gives the guarantee that we are looking for. The amendments to the Criminal Code that have been submitted would legalize abortion for various health reasons, that are not clearly defined, but that favour a wide interpretation. The effect of those amendments is to say to the medical profession: this is your problem, do what you want with it, we do not care.
Mr. Speaker, that is not the right way to deal with a problem as serious as this one. The question has been debated for a number of months, not to say a number of years, and the people appear to be bored with it. The reason is that, during the election campaign, the present Minister of Justice, as I clearly remember, had given to understand that amendments would be brought to the bill as submitted by our present Prime Minister who was then Minister of Justice. The people relied on the government to introduce the
May 8, 1969

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion amendments that would give the guarantees they wanted.
That is why at one time, people were not concerned with these problems of abortion and homosexuality. During the election campaign, our major issue was to object to abortion. So we are consistent with ourselves because we have been given the mandate to object to the abortion legislation. We abide by it, and we take


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Again I caution the hon. member that he is going beyond the specific amendment that is before the house. In any event, it is five o'clock.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In keeping with the wisdom and restraint of the New Democratic Party during this debate, I respectfully suggest to hon. members that we dispense with private members' hour and continue with this debate so we can finish it, complete the bill tomorrow and start with new business on Monday morning. I am sure that we have the co-operation of all members of the house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Apparently there is no unanimous consent.



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill C-165, an act to amend the Income Tax Act and the Estate Tax Act, without any amendment.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the house that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Post Office Department-request for return of six-day mail delivery and counter service the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman)-Combines-failure by sugar 
refineries to obey court order; the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau)-Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-"Don Messer's Jubilee", replacement by Canadian folklore program.
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, private bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, February 7 consideration of the motion of Mr. Wahn for the second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs of Bill S-ll, to incorporate Aetna Casualty Company of Canada.
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I think that the position of the N.D.P. on this kind of private member's bill is well known, especially to the various sponsors of like bills on the government side of the house. This is the third time this bill has been before us for consideration and a great many of the members of our party have spoken on it at considerable length. I think that the words of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) were certainly worthy of our consideration, and I might, with your permission, paraphrase some of them during my discussion of the bill today. Perhaps the most outstanding speech on this bill was made by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), a colleague of mine from British Columbia. His remarks have given us all a great deal of inspiration and cause to consider where this sort of activity is leading us so far as the direction of our financial institutions is concerned.
I feel that the bill before us is another example of a United States company attempting to get into that very lucrative, legalized racket, the insurance industry in Canada. This measure, which originated in the other place, is an attempt to have this company incorporated as the Aetna Casualty Company of Canada. We note with interest that it is a direct subsidiary of a United States company whose home office is in Hartford, Connecticut. It is well known that this company, under another name, has been doing business in Canada for a great number of years in the life insurance field. Now it wishes to expand into a great variety of other types of insurance coming under the heading of general insurance. I notice that the company would
May 8, 1969

like to increase its capitalization in order to enable it to take part in the general insurance business which would include among other things, fire insurance, various types of accident insurance, aircraft and automobile insurance, credit insurance, even earthquake insurance, as well as boiler insurance and falling aircraft insurance.
I do not understand the difference between aircraft insurance and the special type of insurance known as falling aircraft insurance but I am sure the company would be delighted to furnish this type of insurance if it were possible to make money for its shareholders by doing so. I notice also that the company is interested in extending its business into forgery insurance. It has taken an interest in the farm problems of this country because I notice it wishes to get into the hail insurance business. Community service clubs and similar organizations which arrange outdoor celebrations in our country and run the risk of losing money should the weather turn out to be inclement might well be interested in hail insurance.
The company is also interested in real property insurance. Again, despite the fact that we are well on the way to bringing medicare to most Canadians it wishes to become involved in sickness insurance. Apparently the company feels that coverage under the medicare plan will not be sufficient; it wants to expand its business in such a way as to bring greater security to the average Canadian. This is an altruistic move and an example of good corporate citizenship.
I see the company also wishes to provide sprinkler leakage insurance. This brings up all sorts of erotic connotations. I would be pleased if the hon. member who sponsored this bill would indicate what this type of insurance actually means. If it is needed in our country and if it provides a service which Canadians do not enjoy at the present time it would certainly be a point in favour of the bill. Theft insurance is well known to most of us; it is applicable as long as we make certain that we lock our doors. If we neglect to do so, I am told that in order to collect theft insurance the thing to do is to smash the lock with a hammer as soon as you get home in order to indicate to people in official circles that a theft has really taken place. Then there is water damage insurance. I suppose the need for that arises as a direct result of sprinkler leakage. As to insurance against wind storms, this is something in which all members of the house will be interested, judging from the debate here in recent days.
Private Bills
It is all very interesting and helpful but I think it begs the real question. The real question with regard to insurance in Canada, as in other parts of the world, is the influence which the insurance industry has on our financial institutions. I propose to read briefly from a book called "The Mortality Merchants" by G. Scott Reynolds, which is obtainable from the Library of Parliament. I am going to read, in fact, from the jacket. These words are presumably by the author, though I cannot be sure:
Insurance companies today have such swollen reserves that they own or control 67 per cent of the nation's wealth-assets which are doing nothing to increase the death benefits the public is getting.
The book goes on to describe some of the things insurance companies are doing generally to mislead and rook the public.
A great many people are involved in the insurance industry and I am sure that a large number of them are providing an adequate service. I do not think we could do without various types of insurance. Certainly we have to accept some risk ourselves-and the "deductible" clause provides for this-but we cannot insure ourselves against all losses. There is a definite need for insurance in our country, and if we damn the activities of the various insurance companies this does not necessarily mean we are damning the concept of insurance in general. What is of particular concern to most people who are interested in the subject at all is the fact that insurance companies do not really provide the protection they say they do. There is very much in their selling techniques which is left to the imagination of the salesmen or may be implied by the efforts of the salesmen.
Then again, it seems to me there is almost endless duplication of the various services we have in Canada already. I cannot for the life of me understand why we should need any more of them. It is beyond my understanding that Aetna could come up with the statement that the public would benefit because competition within the industry would be increased. I have never seen this happen before, and there are a great number of insurance companies operating today. We find company after company, salesman after salesman, running around doing essentially the same things and, what is more, at the same price. I would be prepared to sit down and relinquish the floor if anyone in this house can show me how the multiplicity and variety of insurance companies has led in any meaningful way to lower rates of insurance to the general public. It seems to me it will do just the opposite. If

May 8, 1969
Private Bills
you have ten men running around doing what one man can do, then it seems to me that comparative costs will be somewhere in the neighbourhood of the power of ten. I do not see how this leads in any meaningful way to a reduction of costs or the provision of better protection for the Canadian public or, for that matter, the citizens of any other country.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
This is not the only instance of duplication. Constantly, one company after another is vying for the consumers' dollars, and we are told that this will lead to lower prices. I do not think this is the result. When companies merge we are told it is an attempt to improve efficiency. I cannot see how one can contend on the one hand that rationalization brings about efficiency, and on the other hand that extra competition brings about efficiency. This is a contradiction in terms. You cannot have it both ways. It seems to me it has to be either one or the other
I should like to give an example of a related activity that has a great number of outlets and different brand names, namely, the gasoline industry. A great number of companies seem to feel that they should direct their best efforts to putting a gas station on every street corner in the country. This is done under the guise of competition of some sort. I think most of us here have noted that, with the exception of a few cut-rate places, most of the gas companies seem to arrive at precisely the same price for their products. As a matter of fact, it has been suggested that perhaps there really is not very much difference between their products. However, I think that marginal differences and services tend to be overemphasized in this field, as they do in the insurance field.
Another example of how the public is being misled is in the operation of the deodorant market. People seem to feel that if they buy a particular kind of deodorant they can come up smelling like a rose-no personal pun intended. There is an endless duplication of various types of deodorants on the market, and this seems to spur competition. However, I am not certain that it accomplishes much more than that, unless it is to line the pockets of the manufacturers of such commodities. Soaps are another example. Many


Mr. Wahn:: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I would question whether the hon. member's remarks are directed to this bill, which relates to an insurance company. I realize he may be having difficulty in saying anything that has not been said before, but neverthe-

less we are very much interested in hearing remarks that are directed toward this particular subject matter. I submit that the hon. member's remarks about soap and deodorants are hardly relevant to the field of insurance, this type of insurance at any rate.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn) that perhaps I did indulge in a mild excursion, but I felt it was necessary to do so in order to clear the air, as it were. I also felt that perhaps this was a collateral example of the kind of thing that is happening in many other industries However, let me assure the hon. member that I will desist from following this line because I certainly do not want to make him uncomfortable. I think the hon. member is entitled to hear a discussion of the merits of the particular bill he is sponsoring and therefore I will get right to the point.
What I am really trying to say is that it is very difficult in this kind of industry to justify another intrusion by a foreign-owned firm into the Canadian market on the ground that it is going to bring about better service to the insurance purchasing public of Canada. I have tried to make the point that rather than having too few insurance companies we already have too many, that this multiplicity of companies has not contributed anything in terms of efficiency of operation or reduced cost to the insurance buying public.
Instead of our approving this type of bill in this house, I am certain that Canadians would be more interested in the results of some kind of study along the lines of the Hall commission report on medicare so as to see whether or not we really do need further extensions in the general insurance field in this country. It seems to me we are always being told we do not have money to build homes, that we do not have money for schools, or that we do not have money for many of the essential services that we require in this country. Yet insurance companies are able to construct monstrous edifices to house their continually expanding office forces which, in my view, do little more than chase paper.
If such a committee of inquiry were struck to look into this field, it would probably come to the conclusion that some sort of public ownership of the general insurance field, as in the case, for instance, of the automobile insurance field in Saskatchewan, would enhance service to Canadians. This service is required. I think insurance companies tend to grow fat on the real or imagined suffering of people generally, and particularly from their need for security.
May 8, 1969

I believe I have said enough about this matter to outline to the house the point I am making in the discussion of this bill. In conclusion I suggest that what we have to do is to see to it that extensions of foreign-owned insurance companies in this country are discouraged unless they are prepared to vest at least 50 per cent of their ownership with the Canadian people. If that were the case, when legislation such as this was brought before the house I think the members of this party would be much more prepared to support a plea for incorporation.


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to carry on with the trend of thought pursued by my colleague. So far as Canadian ownership of insurance companies is concerned, I am sure that the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn), who introduced this bill in the house, must feel a little ashamed when day after day he reads in the newspapers that individual companies incorporated in Canada or companies that are supposed to be good corporate citizens are not even attempting to concern themselves about Canada generally, or even to concern themselves about recognizing the laws of the land. I am sure it is only right that I should refer specifically to an analogy that I think is most pertinent in this particular case. May I refer to a Headline in today's Globe and Mail which reads: "Cuba To Buy Flour Worth $29 Million."
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I draw to the attention of the hon. member sponsoring the bill that in the case of flour mills we have a situation that is analogous to that of insurance companies in this country. Many of our insurance companies and flour mills are controlled by United States interests. The article I have before me says that Canada sold $22 million worth of flour to Cuba. Actually, the sale was to the Soviet Union but the flour is to go to Cuba. The article says that the main mills involved are Ogilvie Flour Mills of Montreal and Maple Leaf Mills of Toronto. The order was divided among Canadian mills, each of which is to supply a share. The significant words in the article are these, and I invite the hon. member to pay attention. It says that not participating in the sale to Cuba were Canadian flour mills owned or controlled by United States interests. Those foreign controlled mills were prevented from selling to Cuba because of the provisions of the United States trading with the enemy act. The article ends by saying that 1969 sales are equivalent to about 15 million bushels of wheat.
Private Bills
May I also remind the hon. member for St. Paul's of what has been happening to another Canadian company, Robin Hood Flour Mills. That company is controlled by United States interests and in Moose Jaw a mill of that company was closed, resulting in lost employment for many people of the area. The Robin Hood Company is talking of closing other mills across Canada, largely because it is prevented from selling wheat to some countries by virtue of United States regulations governing its parent in the United States. Surely a company in this country should not be affected by regulations passed in another country, and here I refer specifically to the United States trading with the enemy act. Robin Hood, which is dominated by Minneapolis Milling, may have to close many Canadian mills, to the great humiliation of Canada.
The same sort of argument applies to foreign dominated insurance companies. We want to see insurance companies in this country which are owned by Canadians. We do not want to see in the case of insurance companies the situation that applies to companies such as International Petroleum, owned by Standard Oil of New Jersey. I use International Petroleum as an analogy because although it is United States owned its head office is in Toronto. Recent publications show that Canada's name is mud in Peru, largely because of the actions of this company which has its head office in Toronto.
Returning to the other part of the analogy, the insurance companies, I submit that we should not have in this country insurance companies which are subsidiaries of parent companies in the United States. I therefore suggest to the hon. member who is sponsoring this bill that he withdraw it from the order paper. Considering the lost wheat sales that affect our western farmers and considering the bad name International Petroleum has given Canada, I submit that the hon. member ought to consider withdrawing this bill from the order paper.
If an insurance company wants to do business in this country it ought to make sure that any bill to incorporate it includes a clause saying that the company is Canadian owned or very shortly after incorporation will become Canadian owned. When a bill like that came before the house recently it was passed and the members of this party did not object to it. But unless there is such a clause in such bills to incorporate this party will oppose these applications. I think we owe that to the Canadian people. I therefore suggest that hon. members sponsoring bills like the

May 8, 1969
Private Bills
one now before us-and I know they act in good faith-make sure that such a clause is included in their bills.
Having said that I now move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis):
That this bill be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence.
The record shows that when this bill first came forward the chief spokesmen for the company were from across the border. I have in my hand a copy of the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce of the other place. It is issue No. 4, dated Wednesday, October 23, 1968. I see that two individuals from Hartford, Connecticut, appeared before the committee. The general manager of the Canadian office appeared, but his origin is not indicated. Of course, the parliamentary agent also appeared before the committee. It seems that the company to be incorporated was to be a new insurance company with power to transact all classes of insurance except life insurance. On page 41 of the proceedings Mr. R. Humphrys, Superintendent of Insurance, is reported as having said in part:
If incorporated the company would be owned by the Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, a United States company that has been authorized to transact insurance in Canada over many years.
He went on to say:
Foreign companies can come into Canada and become registered under the insurance companies acts and transact business here on a branch basis if their financial condition is sound. This is a very common method of doing business in Canada.
I have already referred to our lost wheat sales and to the activities of the International Petroleum Company, with headquarters in Toronto. Flour and petroleum interests in Canada controlled from within the United States have not behaved as good corporate citizens. Mr. Humphrys went on to say:
Many of them, however, form or purchase Canadian incorporated companies and do business in Canada through the Canadian subsidiary.
I ask the hon. member sponsoring this bill whether the company wishing to be incorporated will be a good corporate citizen of this country or will it behave as other subsidiaries of United States companies have behaved? It seems that some of them do not intend to obey the laws of this country and do not intend to be good corporate citizens. In fact in many cases, as I have mentioned, they have certainly blackened the name of Canada. [Mr. Skoberg.l
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
The desire here is to form a new Canadian company and direct the Canadian business of this group through a Canadian subsidiary. It might not be too bad if the subsidiary were prepared to live up to the laws of Canada and become Canadian owned within a predetermined time. But when a U.S. company bought Robin Hood Flour of Canada it was made clear there was no intention of allowing the Canadian company to export flour to the U.S.S.R. or Cuba. It is a complete disgrace that a company like Minneapolis Milling can dictate to Robin Hood Flour and so do harm to the Canadian economy. This is what will happen if we continue to allow these foreign insurance companies to be incorporated in Canada.
I believe I have laid the groundwork to which the facts of this case may be applied, Mr. Speaker. I believe that hon. members who insist on sponsoring bills such as this, with no provision for the companies concerned to become Canadian owned, will now hesitate to sponsor such bills. I have drawn the attention of the house to the fact that we must be very careful about incorporating companies that do not intend to become good corporate citizens.
We appreciate those companies that do live up to our laws and are good citizens, but there are too many that have no intention of living up to our laws. I conclude by urging hon. members to give consideration to the points I have put forward.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the first thing I wish to do is to congratulate the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg) upon moving the amendment to this bill. I would also like to compliment him on his remarks, and I wish to support them. I also wish to say the same thing with respect to the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose).
As we all know, Bill S-ll, an act to incorporate Aetna Casualty Company of Canada, was introduced in the Senate, and was first discussed in this house by the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn) on December 19 last. We must ask many questions when we debate a bill like this, and I would like to hear the hon. member for St. Paul's answer many of the questions that not only I but other hon. members -wish to ask about bills of this sort. We have been asking questions relating to such things as foreign ownership, the control of the company, and why this company wishes to be incorporated in Canada.
May 8, 1969



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, it is the desire of the Honourable the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General that this Honourable House attend him immediately in the chamber of the Honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate Chamber.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following Bills:
An Act to amend the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation Act.
An Act to incorporate Transcoastal Life Assurance Company.
An Act respecting The Quebec Savings Bank.
An Act to amend the Co-operative Credit Associations Act.
An Act to amend the Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act.
An Act to prevent the introduction or spreading of pests injurious to plants.
An Act to provide compensation to farmers whose agricultural products are contaminated by pesticide residue, and to provide for appeals from compensation awards.
An Act to amend the Income Tax Act and the Estate Tax Act.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the house that we now call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of Bill C-150, to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain
Criminal Code
consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, and motion No. 37, Mr. Rodrigue.
Mr. Matie:: Mr. Speaker, I still have five or six minutes left. I was discussing the amendment requiring that the certificate be signed by three members of the committee, when in its opinion, the life of the mother cannot be kept safe from danger with the continuation of her pregnancy.
In order to avoid any mistake or medical error, it is important to get the formal guarantee duly signed by the committee and permitting the abortion so that should one or even two - of the three members of the committee be too permissive there would still be a safeguard, since all three members have to sign. It seems to us that this is a point which should be considered very seriously because should abortion ever be accepted, although we are still against it, we are trying to sensitize members and public opinion to that problem.
We realize more and more that the problem is far from being settled and that thanks to our comments, a good number of people have been aware for a while now, that the legislation which is being crammed down their throats-and I did say crammed-is not all it should be.
If people consider all the amendments which we have introduced, particularly the amendment which we are discussing now, they will easily detect the direction we want to give this legislation, so that even the most prudish, the most scrupulous people could say: "At least we know that they will not go beyond just and reasonable limits, and that all those people who would have liked to use this legislation to achieve more or less legitimate purposes, will find themselves foiled.
Mr. Speaker, our efforts to see the Minister of Justice take this into consideration are not prompted by our desire to win a battle and prove that we were right. It is not that at all. We simply want to better protect society. It is this protection that we have set our hearts on.
And if we did not have so many examples or experiences based on facts, we could perhaps be less informed on the subject and our remarks would be more or less useful.
But when we rely on the experience of all those who accepted abortion, when we consider the evidence given last year on Bill

May 8, 1969
Criminal Code
C-195 and this year on Bill C-150, we believe that government members should set aside their pride and admit once and for all that this bill C-150 includes clauses that must definitely be reexamined, clauses the effects of which are so serious that we cannot allow ourselves to pass them without sounding a note of warning.
When we are accused of being a mere handful to maintain that certain clauses should be opposed, it is somewhat false considering the stand taken in this house, for if we applied the solution advocated by the leader of the Ralliement creditiste, the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette), we would ask the people themselves, by means of a referendum, what they think about it.
And if we could say that 90 per cent of the members in this house are in favour, and 10 per cent against, we would still maintain that the people as a whole are against. This is no surprise to us, considering the many empty seats in the house.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I would ask the hon. member to limit his remarks to the amendment, which reads as follows:
-"has by certificate in writing signed by the three members of the committee, stated that in its opinion, the life of the mother cannot be kept safe from danger with the continuation of her pregnancy".
I wonder what these empty chairs have to do with this amendment.


René Matte: The empty chairs are in perfect harmony with the empty heads which one sees on the Treasury benches-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I would like to remind the hon. member of the warning that was given to one of his colleagues this afternoon asking him to weigh his words carefully.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, the whole thing boils down to this: if the house were ever to accept section 18 of the bill concerning abortion, and if the amendment presented by the hon. member for Beauce were added to it, the minister and ourselves would have an opportunity to have section 18 adopted without offending the particular principles of the majority of the people, simply because we believe, as an important part if not an immense majority of the people, that one could think: "The guarantee is really foolproof, seeing that this certificate must be

signed by the three members of the committee, when all three are fully convinced that there is no other way to preserve the life of the mother." This guarantee would make it possible to accept the legislation under certain conditions.
This is why such an amendment would enable us to agree with the minister, and to stop, once and for all, this debate which has lasted far too long.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Bechard): Is the
house ready for the question? All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 75 (11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: motion No. 19:
That Bill C-150, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act, be amended by deleting therefrom clause 18.
Mr. Speaker, we are to study tonight the amendment which I have the honour of sponsoring, that is motion No. 19. This is the last of the amendments our party will have presented with a view to improving this famous bill.
I believe 44 amendments were introduced at the start which later on were reduced in number. Now, of those 44 amendments, some were sponsored by government members, others by Progressive Conservative members and several by Creditiste members.
The object of those amendments, Mr. Speaker, was to improve the bill now before us, although it was studied by the committee on justice and legal affairs and in this house in order to make it less nefarious and less odious to the people. After a few days of discussion in the house, we realize that the government party and more specifically the
May 8, 1969

Criminal Code
Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) have not deemed it advisable to accept any of those amendments.
That is why we are wondering why the Minister of Justice has not given us any acceptable reasons for rejecting those amendments; why he has so stubbornly refused each and every one of those amendments that were clear, to the point, and which were intended to correct objectively the bill under study.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I should like to remind the hon. member that he may not speak on a decision or decisions already taken by the house, and not by the Minister of Justice.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your remarks. I was about to deal with the purpose of the amendment.
The house has voted against those amendments. Because the minister has given us very poor reasons, or rather no reason at all for rejecting them, we have had to bring in this amendment which I am sponsoring tonight. All the amendments we have so courageously and brilliantly fought for in this house having been rejected, we have no other choice but to present the amendment now before us, which proposes the deletion of clause 18 from the bill.
Mr. Speaker, our amendments are substantiated by strong evidence,, as this bill is of general interest for all levels of our society. Our arguments were based not on feelings but on scientific and sociological facts. We have not had the opportunity as yet to put forth our objections or our views on the moral arguments which are actually indicated in the enforcement of such legislation.
Mr. Speaker, during the last few days we have brought forward arguments from skilled doctors known throughout Canada, so that we can show their value to the committee on justice and legal affairs as well as to this house.
We heard arguments and evidence given by gynaecologists, who are well-informed on that subject, and are very interested in the bill.
We also heard the views and objections' from psychologists, psychiatrists and pediatrists, who stated the reasons why they unanimously object to the bill before us.
We also quoted in this house the arguments of associations, hospitals, parents, children's aid societies, and many other valid testimonies against this odious bill received from every part of Canada.
Tonight I would like to bring forward arguments, which have not yet been set forth in this house, because our amendments were not open to moral arguments against abortion.
Mr. Speaker, it is very well to tell us, at the committee on justice and legal affairs, that we should not set forth moral arguments in connection with such legislation, but I claim that morality is important in our legislation and it is important also for a nation.
Not only is morality important, but because justice, which should be part of our legislation, is the basis of our moral principles, we must bring about moral arguments against this bill.
Morality, Mr. Speaker, is the backbone of a people. It is its compass, and the peoples who gave up their moral principles are now under the sign of the hammer and the sickle. I do not believe that the Canadian people is yet ready for legislation adopted in all Communist countries of the world. In the light of public opinion, I do not believe that the Canadian people wish this bill to be passed. This is the reason why we are so strongly opposed to it, not only on moral grounds but for scientific and sociological reasons as well and for the future of our race.
As to the remarks which have been made regarding moral arguments against the omnibus bill and particularly against abortion, I would like to read an excerpt from an open letter from the Reverend Father John Moss, addressed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) which was published in the Canadian Register. I quote:
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
The object of this article is to protest against the reintroduction in parliament of the legislation called the omnibus bill, which, in my opinion, is designed to amend the Criminal Code to such an extent that it becomes ominous and disquieting for thousands of Canadian citizens.
I am referring particularly to the sections relaxing the laws on abortion, to use the elegant expression, or on generalized infanticide, to use honest language.
These words are from the Reverend John Moss and they reflect the opinion of the Catholic Canadians, who make up half of our population. In his conclusions, he said:
The government whose policy is not to get involved in what goes on in bedrooms should not propose what should be done in delivery wards.
He asked the members of parliament who were to study the legislation not to miss the macabre humour of that American psychiatrist who, on reading a bill similar to our omnibus bill, stated that if one of his patients ever wrote such a piece of legislation, he would never allow such patient to leave the mental institution.

May 8, 1969
Criminal Code
Obviously that is not flattering for the promoters of the bill, the Prime Minister of Canada and the present Minister of Justice.
In an editorial entitled "Abortion, from Solomon to P. E. Trudeau", which was published in the February 1, 1968, issue of the magazine Maintenant, two laymen, Mr. Vincent Harvey and Mrs. Helene Pelletier -Baillargeon, answer those who, along with the promoters of that ignominious bill, allege that pluralism in our society, that is to say, a multiplicity of creeds, as well as social expediency, justify legalization of abortion. I quote:
That is an over-simple opinion. However, a country which fully adheres to the Charter of Human Rights, rehabilitates the handicapped, educates orphans, treats the retarded and abolishes the death penalty is also a country which, whenever the least doubt remains in favour of the life or the innocence of one of its members, abstains from intervening against him. In fact, such a country always requires irrefutable evidence to condemn a criminal, requires duly certified medical certificates to legally confirm a citizen's death. Now, in such a doubtful case as intra-uterine life, far from waiting until convincing evidence is available, the State legislates as if the embryo were not actually a human being, since it sometimes allows it to be destroyed.
The argument of pluralism, in our opinion, gives us food for thought. Since no civilized State can today authorize the destruction of a life considered innocent or still fully human by many ... then such a State implicitly at least, even though it denies making any option whatever, has already made one, that is by refusing to acknowledge the human personality of a foetus and considering it a "thing" which may be disposed of in the name of alleged higher interests.
Such legislation is not requested by the people but only by a few whose true motives we cannot understand but who make such an infernal turmoil that the government has listened attentively to them.
We should perhaps find another reason which could explain such amendments respecting abortion. At least this is what Reverend Father Marcel Marcotte, Jesuit, claims in an article entitled "Abortion, morality and law", published in the February 1968 issue of Relations.
Here, Mr. Speaker, is what Father Marcotte said:
As things are going, we will finally think that Canada is definitely an Anglo-Saxon country whose umbilical cord has really not been cut somewhere. No sooner had Great Britain voted new laws on divorce, on homosexuality or even, these recent months, on abortion than already the Canadian government falls into step and follows close behind.
In Canada, from the ashes of political colonialism is a new colonialism, of a judicial nature .. . com-

ing forth with new life? That is how they sometimes solve controversial questions in Ottawa.
This is how requests and protests from Quebec ... in connection with an important and precise matter ... and in the present case

-from Christian Canada-
-often are received: they are hushed up, swept under the rug and altogether treated unfairly. Small wonder then, that so many Canadians are complaining about their lot and that they dream, occasionally, of autonomous political structures, thanks to which their voice will cease, at last, to be a cry in the wilderness?
We are blamed, we, the Creditistes, and Christians in general, for using moral arguments in our opposition to various sections of the omnibus bill, especially where abortion is concerned.
You must have noticed, Mr. Speaker, that the supporters of the omnibus bill have also brought out moral arguments.
For instance, the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) in the speech he delivered on April 17, stated as recorded on page 7646 of the House of Commons Debates, and I quote:

a group of theologians from Laval University-
But who are those theologians whose names have not been mentioned? Why did the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres not identify the theologians who are members of the committee he mentioned?
Another hon. member whom I respect, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), as well as certain members of his party do not like to hear the Creditistes, when they discuss abortion, take into account the moral requirements and teachings of the Church to which they are proud to belong.
Nevertheless, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre did not hesitate to refer to the authority of a few Protestant denominations to assert his opposition to the clause on lotteries in Bill C-150. This is what he said in this connection, as reported in the official report of the House of Commons of April 21, on page 7776:
We have had a good deal of correspondence about Bill C-150. I should like to say that I am particularly proud of the kind of letters and submissions that have reached my desk from the churches and church organizations. The thing that interests me is the stand that most of the churches have taken on the question of lotteries.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre could use the arguments of certain Protestant churches to object to lotteries and even bingos, there is all the more reason for the Creditistes and Christians
May 8, 1969



in general, to use the authority of their religious leaders as far as abortion, infanticide or the murder of innocents are concerned, because this bill, Mr. Speaker, by legalizing abortions is legalizing the murder of human beings, according to our beliefs and our religious convictions.
The testimonies I am about to read into the record, Mr. Speaker, are not those of anonymous theologians such as those whom the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres quoted; they are but the highest authorities of our Church.
First, here are the rules of conduct laid down by Pope Pius XI, in his encyclical letter on Christian Marriage of December 31, 1930:
But another very grave crime is to be noted-
-the encyclical letter refers to a very grave crime-
-which regards the taking of the life of the offspring hidden in the mother's womb. Some wish it to be allowed and left to the will of the father or the mother; others say it is unlawful unless there are weighty reasons which they call by the name of medical, social, or eugenic "indications"-
-As to the "medical and therapeutic indication"
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
-that is the purpose of the bill-

to which, using their own words, we have made reference, Venerable Brethren, however much we may pity the mother whose health and even life is gravely imperiled in the performance of the duty allotted to her by nature, nevertheless what could ever be a sufficient reason for excusing in any way the direct murder of the innocent?
This is what the Church thinks; therapeutic abortion is the direct murder of an innocent.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) talked about changing times, and ecuminism that would allow for new solutions.
Now, here is a text of Vatican II, entitled: "The Pastoral Constitution of the Church in the Today's World" in which the council states:
Everything opposed to life itself, as well as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, all those practices and others similar are truly infamous.
The Pope and the council Vatican II took a strong stand against abortion. Canadian bishops, who are the pastors of half the people in Canada, also declared against abortion, which is advocated by this bill.
The Canadian bishops, whose voice was smothered off-handedly by the present government, when the bill was introduced, saw
Criminal Code
fit to reassert their position on December 5, 1968:
We reaffirm that it is not possible to make of abortion a purely personal question as if, in such a case, the life of another person were not involved at all.
And the cardinals, archbishops, and bishops of Canada said:
We ought to remind Catholics that they are bound to comply with the teachings the Church, regardless of a legislation intended for a pluralistic society.
When the Canadian episcopacy speaks thus, how can the Prime Minister claim to be a Roman Catholic and introduce a bill which is offensive for Roman Catholics and disapproved by his Church?
How can the Quebec Liberal members claim to voice the opinion of their Catholic electors, when they are in conflict with the most recent guidelines of the leaders of their Church? How can they prefer the guidelines of their party to those of the Canadian episcopacy, without betraying the confidence of their Catholic electors who, themselves, are going to follow the guidelines of the Roman Catholic church? This is a case of conscience for them, but the Ralliement Creditiste will also want, as a matter of conscience to recall to all Quebekers how the Liberals of that province have betrayed them, how Quebec Liberals are behaving-


Jean-Charles Cantin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order.
I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cantin) is rising on a point of order.


Jean-Charles Cantin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order because I think the hon. member grossly overdoes it and goes far beyond the scope of the proposed amendment. I think he should limit himself to the matter in hand, which is the repealing of clause 18. I do not see how the political behavior of Liberals or even the question of religion for that matter can be brought into the picture. Let us deal strictly with the subject matter of the debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I would therefore ask the hon. member, following that point of order, to stick to the amendment being examined.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I must say that the Parliamentary

May 8, 1969
Criminal Code
Secretary to the Minister is completely off the track, since in the committee on Justice and Legal Affairs-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I asked the hon. member for Shefford to stick to his own amendment.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I shall do so, but I wish to say that my reasons were quite in order. If they hurt the government members, this will not prevent me from stating them in this house.
I wish to say that Quebec federal Liberal M.P.s-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order please. I suggest that the hon. member's last words are out of order.


David Réal Caouette: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


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


David Réal Caouette: My colleague from Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) is bringing in evidence which, it seems to me, relates directly to the amendment he is defending tonight and the other hon. member who spoke a moment ago is out of order, because his comments had nothing to do with the amendment.


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


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I suggest-*


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. May I remind the hon. member for Temiscamingue that it is incumbent upon the Chair to decide whether hon. members are out of order or not. I therefore ask the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) to restrict himself to his amendment and I remind him that his last words about some party or other have no connection whatever with the amendment moved by him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I shall stick to the amendment which calls for the deletion of any mention of abortion in this bill. The attitude of some hon. members, in this house, is an insult to the highest moral authorities in this country. The time will come when they will be paid in kind. Why authorize abortion?
Mr. Speaker? It is to give more freedom to the depraved people in this country, and to please the easy-going women of our society
(Mr. Rondeau.]
who could not care less about their neighbours and our race. It is also to please credulous girls who fall easily into the gutter and also to please flighty ones who go out night after night to conquer new lovers, and also to please dissipated women-


Jean-Charles Cantin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: -who lack foresight-


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


Jean-Charles Cantin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cantin).


Jean-Charles Cantin: One only has to listen to the hon. member to realize he is out of order. He can keep his own morality to himself, but he should have regard for the morality of others. We are here only as legislators, and not as moralists. We are here to legislate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is the
hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wool-liams) rising on the same point of order?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I do not see how anyone can object to anything the members of the Creditiste Party are saying. Although I do not endorse the delay in proceeding with this bill, I do not see how members on the government side of the house can object. After all, if the Creditiste amendment to delete clause 18 is accepted, it will be just about the only change to our abortion law.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wonder whether the consciences of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) and his parliamentary secretary are uneasy tonight? After all, on an earlier occasion we had the solemn promise that this bill would be divided. Perhaps the conscience of the Minister of Justice is sensitive. We ought to let members of the Creditiste Party continue their speeches.
The Acling Speaker (Mr. Bechard): Order, please. I agree with part of the hon. member's remarks. The latter part of his remarks were out of order.
May 8, 1969


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker.
I shall try to collect my thoughts. My thinking is clear but I think the interruptions aim only at causing us to lose the thread of our speech.
I was saying that if abortion is accepted it is only in order to please.
I was talking about the unforeseeing dissipated women who act first and think afterwards, those who are unrepentant lovers and cannot tell right from wrong any more, and about the too obliging married women, still unaware that life is a serious business.
Mr. Speaker, a people always like to find and to recognize itself in its laws. The laws are the image of a nation. But the bill before us, and especially abortion, does not reflect the way of thinking of the Canadian people. And if we fought so fiercely against the bill, in this house, especially against abortion, it is because we know-and we are convinced of that-that such a legislation is not a true image of the Canadian nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Our statutes give us an idea of Canadian morals, of Canadian traditions, of the Canadian way of thinking and of Canadian history, but the bill we have been discussing for some weeks is altogether inconsistent with Canadian ways of thinking. When, for instance, we pass in parliament a bill that runs counter to the views of a nation, we sow the seeds of anarchy in the midst of that nation.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to deal with this amendment too long but it is vitally important for the Canadian people. And that is the reason why we want it to be passed in the house. And we ask all the members, for whom conscience still has a meaning, to kindly vote according to their conscience and to pass this amendment so that we shall not be ashamed before the Canadian people and so that our children also will not be ashamed of the hon. members and heads of family in this house.
If, unfortunately this confounded bill were to be passed by this house, the blood of millions of foetuses which will be assassinated in the future, be upon the Liberal party and upon the Minister of Justice and their issue.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the amendment which is now before us requires that the part of Bill C-150 relating
Criminal Code
to abortion, that is to say clause 18 of the bill concerned, be completely repealed, entirely removed.
But we are accused of being demagogues, of wanting to make political capital out of our stand on abortion.
Mr. Speaker, I would say that any member of the house could have shouldered the same responsibilities on clause 18 as the members of the Ralliement creditiste. And we were not motivated by demagoguery. As leader of the Ralliement creditiste, I have observed the conscientious job which has been done by. each of the members of the Ralliement in the house. Be it the member for Champlain (Mr. Matte), the member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin), or any of their colleagues, they were earnest, well informed, cognizant of authoritative sources, and what they told the house was full of common sense. They certainly did not play politics.
Tonight, Mr. Speaker, I received a letter which cannot be suspected of partisanship, as it could have been sent to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner). It comes from the Sanctuary of the Sacred Heart in Pointe-aux-Trembles, Montreal-I am not quite sure of it, but I think it must be in the constituency of Mercier. It reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Caouette,
At our regular meeting-
The letter is dated May 6.
-the Capuchin Fathers of the sanctuary of the Sacred Heart of the Reparation, in Pointe-aux-Trembles, unanimously agreed on a special resolution to send their warmest congratulations for the humanitarian and Christian stand you and your group have taken in fighting the omnibus bill on matters dealing with abortion and homosexuality.
Together with all those who believe in the dignity of man and the greatness involved in being a Christian, we wish to pay a tribute to you and encourage you in-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I wish to kindly remind the hon. member for Temiscamingue that all he has said up to this point has nothing to do with the amendment before us and moved by his colleague from Shefford.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, this is a letter regarding abortion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I remind the hon. member that the house is not the right place to read all the congratulations that the Ralliment creditiste or any other party has received from all over the province.

May 8, 1969
Criminal Code


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, in this case I shall keep on quoting accurately the representations I get regarding abortion. I will go further than that. Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the Chair, but if I am pushed too far, I shall get myself named and expelled from the house, in the name of human dignity. It seems to me the rules should be the same for everyone and applied in the same way.
I am quoting evidences concerning abortion. We moved a clear and precise amendment, in order to remove abortion issues from the bill. I am quoting excerpts which are not of a political nature but which express a feeling of human dignity.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I understand very well the hon. member, but the rules of the house apply to all, including the hon. member for Temiscamingue. A specific amendment has been moved by his colleague, the hon. member for Shefford, which reads as follows:
That Bill C-150, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act, be amended by deleting therefrom clause 18.
I see that the hon. member understands very clearly what it is all about and I should like to remind him to keep to the amendment under consideration.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and with the greatest respect, this amendment to clause 18 gives any member, the opportunity to discuss any phase of the matter before us, which is abortion. There is nothing in the rules of which I am aware which prohibits an hon. member from reading a letter from someone saying the government is making the right choice or the wrong choice, taking the right course or the wrong course. I think the hon. member is in order.
This is an open debate. It is being held under the new rules. We are debating an amendment to delete clause 18, dealing with abortion, and with the greatest respect to your ruling, sir, I feel that the hon. member is on solid ground and can make his speech accordingly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. Perhaps it is the opinion of the hon. member [The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard).]
that he is on solid ground, but I would remind him that there is somebody who is responsible for the application of the rules of this house. There is a specific amendment before the house and I ask the hon. member to direct his remarks to the specific amendment, not to third reading of the bill.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I am not at all at the third reading stage of this bill, I am dealing with the amendment and I quote:
-be amended by deleting clause 18 from the bill.
I am giving the reasons why I approve this amendment that clause 18 be entirely deleted, as far as abortion is concerned. I am using evidence coming to me to explain the reasons why I approve this amendment and also to establish the unreasonable attitude of those who are against it, those who want to maintain in the bill clause 18 which we want to see eliminated, deleted. That is why I am stating here the congratulations we have received for our stand on abortion-not with regard to customs tariffs or even to homosexuality or to bingoes-but abortion.
I am unaware of any standing order that forbids me to quote evidence in support of my assertions about abortion, which we would like to see deleted from the bill.
Here we are encouraged and commended for the energy with which we defend the rights of the human being and the unerring teachings of the Vatican II council in this matter of abortion.
Yours truly,
The Capuchin Fathers of the Sacred Heart
Sanctuary
Pointe-aux-Trembles, Montreal
Mr. Speaker, we have a great deal of evidence. I could go on quoting for 20 minutes tonight, all the time at my disposal. I would have enough to last two or three hours on third reading, because we intend to deal with the bill as a whole at that time. But tonight we are discussing the amendment of the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) to delete from the bill the clause on abortion.
Besides representations from parish priests and mayors, I have the letters of two priests who congratulate us for our stand on the matter of abortion and our efforts to remove it from Canadian statutes.
We take examples in England where the system was established a year ago. Today they are sorry they have done so. In Canada, the Minister of Justice himself deep down is against the measure on abortion. I am convinced of that.
May 8, 1969

Criminal Code


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have here a copy of a letter addressed to the Minister of Justice by Mrs. Claire Campbell, of Montreal. The minister has read the following part of her letter:

A vote for the Liberals last June was not a vote for the liberalization of abortion. The Campbell family ... voted for your party but it did not vote for the liberalization of abortion.

The Minister of Justice has that letter. Mr. Speaker, there are, of course, some people who are not pleased with the position we have adopted. But it is not the people of Canada who have asked the government for the bill on abortion. Who was it that urged the government to introduce this legislative proposal? Who is interested in having abortion legalized in Canada? The Minister of Justice is unable to tell us. Yet, he must know who is pushing the government to adopt such a measure. Others attack us by saying that we are trying to make political capital out of this. That is not our intention. The Liberals could say the same.
I am deeply convinced that the great majority of the Liberal members think exactly as we do, but partisanship prevents them from rising and saying so straight out.
One can detect a certain support on the government side as regards this bill. The Creditiste members are blamed, for instance, for delaying the work of the house on account of abortion. It is said that they are wasting the time of the house which is valuable.
This bill on abortion will not be with us for two days only once it is passed by the House of Commons. Once the principle underlying the legalization of abortion is established, future generations, in 50 or 100 years from now, will have to put up with its consequences.
The danger will not be felt tomorrow, but in 5 or 10 years from now. The impending downfall of a people through abortion will soon be legalized.
I have in my hand an article published in the Monday May 5 edition of the newspaper he Droit, and written by Mr. Marcel Gingras:
The Omnibus Bill and the Creditistes.
Mr. Gingras said a while ago that this has nothing to do with morals. Mr. Gingras takes it upon himself to lecture us by saying that we are delaying the work of the house, that
we are repeating the same things with respect to abortion, that we are fighting in vain, that we should allow the whole thing to be passed at full speed and enable the government to introduce other measures.
Mr. Speaker, we would see no objection to the government postponing consideration of Bill C-150 to six months from now and introducing a new piece of legislation tomorrow in order to help the unemployed and the unfortunate families in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Gingras accuses us of wasting the time of the house and we hear commentators on the C.B.C. who blame us. However, they do not think of the future generations. They look at the tip of their noses and they can hardly see as far as that.
Fellows like Marcel Gingras and others like him will not prevent us, Mr. Speaker, from taking a stand, whether they like it or not. We have a duty to perform, as federal members, and we do perform it conscientiously, with conviction and with determination, and nobody will prevent us from doing our duty.
Mr. Speaker, the member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) said: You object to abortion because you are not doctors. We know we are not doctors, but we are intelligent enough to use documents supplied to us by doctors to appeal to the Minister of Justice and we have not only, as I said before, testimonies from religious organizations. I have here a text from the "Centre de liaison des Equipes Serena" written by two doctors, Mr. and Mrs. Serge and Suzanne Carreau, where it is said, and I quote:
Abortion is a direct aggression against the life of a human being which is developing-
The problem of abortion has not been studied with the seriousness it deserves by the government of Canada-
This was said by doctors and we have the right to repeat it in the house, to fight against the provisions of clause 18 in Bill C-150. I continue the quotation:
-that the members are placed in an unacceptable situation since they are refused a free vote on this question.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that members are not free to vote according to their conscience. To hell with the country as long as the party is safe, that is their guiding principle.
We will again be called demagogues. But they are the demagogues, Mr. Speaker, those who want to impose abortion upon the Canadian people, even if Canadians do not want it and have never asked for it from any government.

May 8, 1969
Criminal Code
Mr. Speaker, the 250 Serena monitors who held their convention in Sherbrooke on May 3, 1969-just three days ago-urged the Canadian government to withdraw clause 18 of Bill C-150 on abortion and to establish a Royal commission to study this important matter.
That is a responsible organization. It is not a Creditiste, a Conservative, an N.D.P. or a Liberal organization. It is an honest, non-partisan, separate organization which has considered this question seriously before making its recommendations to the government.
The Minister of Justice sits unconcerned when some of his colleagues are calling us demagogues because we do not want to modernize Christian morality in Canada, by allowing our women to be aborted.
Mr. Speaker, here is a letter from an Englishman, it comes from Ottawa, Ontario- Harding Road-and deals with abortion; those people oppose abortion vehemently.
Mr. Speaker, here is a letter from the Alliance for Life, 13, Boulay St., Hull-in the riding of my hon. friend from Hull (Mr. Isabelle), also on abortion and I quote:
In Poland too abortion was legalized first of all for vague "medical" reasons-
-exactly what is going on in this house.
In 1956, those reasons were extended to Include social reasons; to-day Polish laws on abortion are amongst the most permissive in the world.
They made a fiasco of it; so, apparently, it would seem that we in Canada must walk in the footsteps of those who led their nation to the most total and complete fiasco.
Mr. Speaker, here is a letter from Oshawa-I do not even know in which federal riding Oshawa is located-
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)

Dear Sir,
I have read your comments, along with others pro and con about this abominable omnibus bill now before Parliament, and admire your stand re the abortion section but add to it the other revolting sections.
Mr. & Mrs. D. F. Douglas, Oshawa, Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, we have dozens of ways.
I have another one here that comes from Vancouver and says:

Congratulations indeed on your fine fight in Commons against the disgraceful Trudeau government abortion bill.
[Mr. Caouette.l
It is at least a little consoling that we have at least one party in the House fearless enough to stand up for Christian principles which, despite all the cheap manoeuvring of "just society" politicians, never change.
Abortion, camouflage it as they will, is still just plain, cold child murder.

Mr. Speaker, to come back to the province of Quebec here is a letter from the Sacre-Coeur presbytery of McMasterville near Montreal:
A humble parish-priest wishes to express his profound admiration for the exceptional courage you showed with your 14 Creditistes members in your fight to the finish against the abortion bill.
You are not afraid to take a stand. Congratulations! It is all too rare nowadays.
Sincerely,
Pierre Paul Mongeau, parish-priest, McMasterville.
He is not a Creditiste, Mr. Speaker, but a man who would like Christian principles to be respected.
A Christian from another parish in Saint-Leonard de Port-Maurice in Montreal-I do not even know in which federal county this parish is located-sent us the following letter, and I quote:
Though I do not share at all your opinions on monetary reform, let me congratulate you and your gallant colleagues on your magnificent fight to save the honour of Canada and the rights of God in the matter of abortion. Rest assured that many people back you and would like to join you in protest against this manipulation of public opinion and of the vote of the members in order to legalize crime. Stand fast and may the Lord protect you.
J. Parenteau, priest,
Saint-Leonard de Port-Maurice.
Mr. Speaker, similar messages have been pouring in from all parts of Canada. The minister also gets his share of representations and I want to repeat what I said a while ago: I am strongly convinced that the Minister of Justice, who is a Catholic as well as a Christian, knows that we are right, but all sort of schemes and intrigues political or otherwise, compel him to remain seated and to try and defend that infamous abortion bill.
Mr. Speaker, nobody has asked that such a legislation on abortion or section 18 of the bill be introduced in the house. Let the government assume its own responsibilities.
A while ago, my colleague from Shefford stated so rightly, that once that bill is passed and becomes law, once abortion is legalized, its sponsors would incur the odium of it for the rest of their lives. Even within a few years, they might be cursed by the following
May 8, 19G9	COMMONS
generations. Why? Because then people will witness a definite, complete and evident deterioration of the Canadian population. We should encourage a high birth rate instead of advocating abortion, as proposed in clause 18 of Bill C-150.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


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


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Badanai):: Has the
hon. member the consent of the house to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


David Réal Caouette: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall not abuse the generosity of my hon. colleagues on both sides of the house who are giving me the opportunity to conclude my remarks.

The stand we shall continue to take on this bill is well understood, I think, and I hope it will be by the Minister of Justice, the government and members of all parties. We have at heart the people's well-being.
Before you interrupt me, Mr. Speaker, to tell me that my time has expired, I should like to say that instead of bringing in legislation to legalize abortion, the minister should introduce a measure to encourage births in Canada and create economic conditions which would enable parents to raise their children properly, make families happy rather than disrupt them, since abortion will have positive effects once it is legalized and within the reach of the whole population.
Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak any longer tonight on this matter, but I am appealing to the minister before this bill or this clause 18 is passed. Let the minister discuss with the Prime Minister and the cabinet the wording of clause 18.
Up to now, nothing prevented a doctor from resorting to such a method if a mother was going to die. But today, they want to legalize it without reservations, not only if her life is in danger, but even when her health may be impaired. I say that this bill does not serve the best interests of the Canadian nation. This clause 18 runs counter to the rights of the human being. It does not respect the identity of the human being.
DEBATES	8503
Criminal Code
We ask parliament to delete it. I appeal to all members of other parties, so that we all assume our responsibilities as members of parliament, and not as servants of a political party, whichever it is. Let us have at least a free vote with respect to this clause 18. The vote being free for all members, I firmly believe, Mr. Speaker, that hon. members have enough morals to fight this clause 18, and delete it forever from bill C-150.
Mr. Speaker, we are not being discriminating. We merely ask that morality be respected, even if some hon. members believe that we should not attach any importance to morals when it comes to passing a clause like this one, dealing directly with abortion. We fight against this principle. We are against legalized abortion in Canada, because other countries that made the experiment bitterly repented it. Today, in our so-called civilized countries, our civilization rather prompts us to destroy the nation. It is not civilization any more, it is extreme barbarity.
Before concluding my comments, I say that our position as federal members was aimed at drawing the attention of the government and enlightening the Minister of Justice on several points of which he was perhaps unaware. My colleagues have quoted profound and responsible testimonies. The Minister of Justice learned something from my colleagues of the Ralliement creditiste when they spoke of that very thorny and serious question of abortion.
I am asking parliament to authorize a free vote and to let each member deal with abortion as it must be dealt with, in order to get rid of abortion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief, as I was last evening. I should like to make sure that the house understands the mood of what is before it. Basically, this motion would wipe out the amendments in respect of abortion which are included in the bill. We have read in the newspapers that the passage of this bill has been delayed. We have read in the newspapers that this delay is preventing the house from considering those matters which I believe the government should be dealing with at this time, namely, coming to grips with the most important economic problems which this country has ever faced.
It is most relevant at this time to discuss for a few moments exactly what has happened. Tonight, a great nation is bleeding. It

May 8, 1969
Criminal Code
is bleeding because the government insisted, because of the antagonism of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), on bringing in this bill, no matter what other important questions were facing the nation, and ramming it through the house. I am not one of those who are critical of my hon. friends to the left. That little group has fought and stood for the principles in which it believes. These hon. members are content to have their names publicized and to be accused of filibustering. They feel deeply about this question. The minister knew this when he introduced the bill. The Prime Minister knew it. We are now engaged in a debate on this contentious issue. The bill contains many worth-while amendments. The minister knows how I and my party feel about amendments to the Criminal Code.
When we rose in our places almost a month ago we asked the minister to divide this bill so that the consciences of members of parliament and of Canadians could better be expressed. However, the minister expressed the antagonism of the Prime Minister and would not divide the bill. The minister knows that the promise was made, without any equivocation, that the bill would be divided. The president of the Liberal Association of the minister's own constituency has resigned because he believes, as do many of us, that the minister promised the bill would be divided. The only reason the bill was not divided-and the minister knows this-is the fact that he is a member of a tight cabinet, in which one minister has already resigned, and which is getting pretty shaky.
As one hon. member said the other night, the minister is a man of integrity. If he had kept his promise and that of his party, he would have divided this bill. If that had been done, we would not be having this kind of debate that has been criticized, and properly so, by the newspapers. The criticism should not be directed toward the Ralliement Creditiste, because they are men who believe they are expressing the will and the conscience of the people who elected them. The onus is strictly on the government because they intend to ram this bill through, irrespective of the consequences. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) can shake his head. He cannot sell wheat but he agrees with the fact that when this bill goes through we will have another confrontation in respect of the language bill.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
This nation is crying for action on economic matters. Canadians are looking for direction

and leadership from a government which they thought would give them a "just society". Today, I asked a question of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) which was relevant to this subject. I asked the Prime Minister what he intends to do for the old age pensioners who now have to live on less than $80 a month. He is doing nothing, so he would not get up and answer my question. Yet we are now engaged in this debate, and the onus for this situation lies directly on the minister, the Prime Minister and the whole cabinet.
I do not think for one moment that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) really endorses this debate or this filibuster, but he knew it was going to come. As a great trial lawyer, as the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada he has sufficient intelligence that he must have known this would happen. A month ago he said this bill should be divided so that Canadians could speak as their consciences dictate. Tomorrow morning, when the press and all the communication media that form public opinion in this nation inform the Canadian people of the filibuster that is taking place in parliament, I will remind the minister that the onus is not on those members who are carrying on the debate because of their deep religious conviction and the dictates not only of their consciences but of the consciences of Canadians throughout the land, including Canadians in the area which I represent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I say to the Ralliement Creditiste that they can be a proud little group. Whether or not I agree with their methods, they have stood for what they believe. But I ask the minister in all sincerity this question: Is he standing for what he believes and did he do so when he told the Liberal party in his own riding that he would divide this bill? Was he standing for what he believed when he said to his own executive "this party should have a free vote"? Where is the free vote? The fact is that we are now tied up in a debate which I described the other night as nonsense, because the minister will not measure up to his responsibility and the Prime Minister's ego is being expressed through the minister. The minister has become a slave of the Prime Minister. He knows the Prime Minister is wrong. Why does he not stand up in the House of Commons tonight and say he will delete this section from the bill and allow the rest of this reform bill to be passed? If he does this, at 9.30 tonight we will be able to get back to serious business.
May 8. 1969

Criminal Code
This small group which is keeping the debate going is expressing the conviction of the people of this nation. They are right and the government is wrong. I ask the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, to tell the government to take their responsibility seriously. What is that responsibility? As a Canadian from western Canada, I think of our wheat sales which do not amount to anything. I do not know what the Minister of Agriculture really feels about that situation, but I feel sorry for him. There are no petroleum sales to speak of, or at least they are being cut back. The cost of living is rising constantly. All these things are eating into the heart of the nation. And what do we do? We spend our time debating.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, order. I hope the nation will be brought to order and the cabinet members brought to their senses. Clause 18 is the cause of the delay in the passage of this bill. Why does the minister not agree to divide the bill? Why does he not agree to set that clause apart for debate in the future? Let us allow the rest of the bill, with its many good reforms, to go through. The only reason homosexuality and abortion were wrapped up in the whole package of other reforms was to permit those provisions to be passed along with the others and also to bring together the whole Liberal party. That is why we are now engaged in what I say is the most useless debate that ever took place in this nation. It is not useless in the sence that these people are not expressing their convictions, but because the minister knew such a debate was inevitable. He might be able to control his own people who have the same religious background and the same convictions, but he cannot control all the people all the time. This is the reason we have an opposition.
Finally, I should like to plead with the minister to take a realistic look at the situation. This group of people who have been debating the issue are serious. We are all part of our environment, whether it is a spiritual environment or a sociological environment. Basically, this group of people feel strongly on this issue. I am sure the minister has in his own midst many people who feel just as deeply about this subject as members on this side of the house do. As the legal spokesman for my party on this bill, may I ask the minister to consider the fact that if he had accepted the recommendation of the Conservative party and of the opposition as a whole to divide this bill, which he promised the
nation he would do, we would not be wasting the time of parliament. We might now be engaged in a meaningful debate on matters of importance to this nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I say to you, Mr. Speaker- and I hope that tomorrow it is reported correctly-that surely the people who should be taking the blame for this debate in the House of Commons are the government. They should take the blame for wasting time and for trying to thrust something on a group of people who do not want it.


Mr. Gundlock:: Dear John.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not know what the hon. member means by "Dear John" but I do know that what is happening is the result of the Prime Minister's egotism expressed through the minister.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


André-Gilles Fortin: I thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also warmly and sincerely thank the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) for his eloquent and courageous comments. He is one of the most brilliant members of this house who is not ashamed of his convictions and who can say what makes common sense and what issues should be fought against.
I would like to congratulate him and tell him that we appreciate his testimony.
We are glad to fight for those principles, not beside him or behind him, but with him, hand in hand, to show clearly to this government, during this debate which has been dragging on and on through its own fault, that this is a serious matter which is worth looking into and that, therefore, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) certainly deserves to be seriously considered by my colleagues and by every member.
The hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette), the devoted head of the Ralliement creditiste, has just set forth with eloquence some of the reasons why we want clause 18 of the omnibus bill to be deleted to permit a referendum and a fuller study, because we sincerely feel that clause 18 is not valid and is not in accordance with the wishes of the Canadian people. It does not meet a need of the Canadian population and, therefore, it is not fair to introduce it in the house, thus delaying uselessly the business of the house,

May 8, 1969
Criminal Code
whereas several other matters and problems command our attention. It would be pointless to list them here but we all know what they are anyway.
The purpose of the amendment is to amend Bill C-150 and, more particularly to delete clause 18 therefrom. And clause 18 says, first that medical practitioners should perform abortions in an accredited hospital. Clause 18 would permit doctors in general to receive the patients and carry out abortions without any consideration as to the consequences of that act which I think is despicable.
Secondly, clause 18 would enable a pregnant woman to get an abortion. If we allow abortion in all cases, for any given reason, serious or not, we are not being wise because, and we have said it time and again in this house, it is not giving security to the person involved, to the therapeutic committee and to the legislators.
Thirdly, this same clause 18 provides for a therapeutic committee to approve cases that are submitted to it and, consequently, tends to the establishment of such therapeutic abortion committees. Well, Mr. Speaker, on what criteria will the doctors base their recommendation to carry out an abortion? On what criteria do pregnant women base their requests for abortion?
On what serious and precise criteria will the therapeutic abortion committee provided for in clause 18 base itself to allow an abortion to be carried out? The answer to these vital questions, having regard to doctors, women and the therapeutic abortion committee, lies in this sentence, a short one but heavy with consequences, which reads as follows in clause 18:
-the continuation of the pregnancy of such female person would or would be likely to endanger her life or health-
Immediately, we see that the serious criteria on which doctors will have to base themselves, on which cases will be examined and on which the committees will have to reach a decision, are too broad, that they will give rise to every abuses, under all pretences, and abortion will be granted in all cases. Therefore, if we adopt this clause, instead of deleting it from the bill, we are opening the door to homicides, to murders, because it is an established fact that the living thing which is in the mother's womb is a human being and tomorrow maybe it will develop into a person, like everyone of us. We must have reverence for life. This is a basic principle and the speeches made a little while ago by the hon.

member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau), the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) and the hon. member for Temiscamingue prove beyond doubt that there is life in the woman's womb, that the foetus is a human being, and this legislation is solely aimed at killing that life.
Mr. Speaker, that is what we are fighting against, and we have no electoral or other axe to grind.
As for the rest of clause 18, an odious one in our opinion, it defines the word "board", the words "Minister of Health, as if we did not know what is meant by a minister of Health, that is, a man paid $18,000 a year and more to do absolutely nothing for the people of Canada.
It defines also a "qualified medical practitioner" and a "therapeutic abortion committee", and all that is said about the latter, is that it will have three members. But the essential words that should be defined to allow for valid criteria that will enable the committee to arrive at a serious and intelligent decisions, words such as "likely", and "health", are not defined in clause 18.
Not only that, but the Minister of Justice himself (the hon. Mr. Turner), his parliamentary secretary (Mr. Cantin) and his colleagues are unable to give us a definition of those words, those crucial and fundamental words that will allow abortions, tens and hundreds of abortions, that will allow murders. Why? Because those words are too evasive, too vague, and the government refuses to clarify them. Those words are criminal and if they are not clarified, if they are left in the bill, those who let this happen will themselves be criminals.
The words "likely" and "health" must be defined if the legislation is to be applied in a proper manner-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member will agree with me, I think, that the house has already dealt with the question that the hon. member is discussing. As for the terms "likely" and "would" the house has already decided on those amendments, and I ask him to kindly limit himself to the amendment now before us.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I accept your remarks gladly.
However, I would point out that in clause 18, on page 42 of the omnibus bill, amended version-clause to amend section 237 of the Criminal Code-"health" is mentioned and
May 8. 1969

also "likely", as well as the following terms, on page 43, paragraph (c), subsection (4):
(c) has by certificate in writing stated that in its opinion the continuation of the pregnancy of such female person would or would be likely to endanger her life or health,
This is the most important phrase of the whole clause, those are precisely the most important and the most far-reaching words of the whole bill; the words "likely", "health" and "would" are the words who will allow abortions by the hundred, without reason, and I am perfectly in order when I deal with them.
This clause means legalization of abortion. I am against abortion, AGAINST in capital letters-and I am going to tell you why.
My first reason is not stated for election purposes: legalization of therapeutic abortion, in my humble opinion, did not bring about a decrease in the number of criminal and illegal abortions in any of the countries who adopted this type of legislation. Absolutely nothing is being proposed in this bill to control clandestine abortions, which are most nefarious and dangerous.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
That is the main reason why I oppose to the inclusion of clause 18 in the bill. It opens the door to all kind of abuses, while the hon. Minister of Justice knows very well that, after the bill has become law, in Canada, as in all other countries where such legislation was adopted, the number of illegal abortions will not diminish but keep on increasing. The hon. Minister and the government party are aware of that, but they do not submit any positive measure to check this rising tide, this problem of illegal or clandestine abortions, which have nefarious and highly dangerous consequences for the woman to whom incompetent people procure abortion by inadequate and mechanical means.
Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no provision in this bill to stop this curse, this problem of clandestine abortions. Not only does the bill provide nothing offers nothing to solve the problem of clandestine abortions but more than that it is precisely designed to open the doors even wider to legalize illegal abortions to increase ten fold, a hundredfold the killings of human beings like you and me.
The second reason why I am-AGAINST- in capital letters, is that the doctor often feels embarrassed; and this is not stated by the Ralliement creditiste, nor by the Progressive Conservatives, nor by the Liberals nor by the members of the N.D.P. It is the doctors, them-
Criminal Code
selves who say they are embarrassed by having to apply this legislation, which is absolutely inadequate to the needs, thoroughly incomplete and quite insufficient.
The doctor is embarrassed in a role which gives him too much freedom. He said it himself: the Medical association say it and there a flood of evidence shows us that this bill brings too much freedom, and this is why the doctors will be embarrassed to apply this legislation, to interpret it, since these physicians feel that the medical science is progressing on this question and that the decisions of the medical group will often be linked to a system of strictly personal values.
This legislation, is so loose precisely because of the words "health" and likely that the doctors themselves admit they are incapable to apply it intelligently and in accordance with the code of professional ethics. But it is precisely the doctors who will have to apply this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I think that these are interesting and plausible arguments that may weigh heavily in the balance and on the vote on this question.
Here is the third reason for which I oppose clause 18 of the bill and support the motion of the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) to delete clause 18. Abortion, is a crime that does not solve in any way the problems of the patients who request it; on the contrary it compounds these problems. If at least statistics could prove that legalizing abortion would solve the problem of the patients, we might be concerned about our stand; we might then admit that it is a solution to the problem.
But, according to the testimony of various medical boards in the province of Quebec, of specialists in that field, gynaecologists, pediatrists, and others, in short, according to all the testimonies we were able to gather, it is proved beyond a doubt, with self-explanatory figures-not only for Canada, but also for all those countries where this type of legislation was passed-that the abortion of a pregnant woman does not solve her problems but compounds them instead.
Mr. Speaker, in the face of such regressive legislation, we quite honestly cannot allow ourselves to be drawn into this nasty business, just to please the government, for if we gave in, we would condone heinous crimes and encourage the legalization of abortion.
There is another reason why I am opposed to keeping clause 18 in the bill. Abortion is not a solution.

May 8, 1969
Criminal Code
It is only a small part of the population which is asking for abortion. The majority of women who ask for an abortion are doing so because their contraceptive means have failed them. One day they find themselves with a human being on their hands-or rather in their belly, and they want to get rid of it.
So, for such women abortion becomes the 100 per cent effective last resort contraceptive means but they do not know that the government will be their accomplice, that they are themselves being the accomplices of a murder, and that they are only compounding their problems.
Abortion is not a contraceptive method. Abortion can be a solution in the case where the life of a woman is undoubtedly in danger, but certainly not in the case where her health is only likely to be endangered.
This is why in all cases where abortion could be considered permissible if her health is likely to be danger, the therapeutic abortion committee, the doctors and the patient want an abortion, because in their eyes it is the best means of contraception.
Mr. Speaker, such sex education is unbalanced, evil. It is not on such wrong values that we are going to build a society and give good examples to our children.
Mr. Speaker, as legislators, we have the responsibility to build a country on solid grounds or on solid values, not only moral but human values. I think that to respect the life of others is basically a question of humanity.
That is why we must respect the life of the tiny being who is in the mother's womb, who has no means of defending himself, who is absolutely innocent, who has committed no crime and who has not asked to be born, and whom some would be ready to kill.
Mr. Speaker, if the government members persist in their untenable position, they will become accomplices in all such murders committed in Canada. Let them rise and say that it is not so, let them prove that it is not so. Abortion is truly murder, murder of a poor and innocent victim who has not asked to be there. Mr. Speaker, we have some responsibilities, let us discharge them.
There is another reason why I am in favour of deleting this clause, this stupid clause 18, and it is as follows: Abortion is an indication of a deep-rooted problem, it results from a lack of understanding of sexuality. Used more as a last resort where contraceptives have failed, abortion, in my humble opinion, belongs to the socialist and communist theo-
ries favouring such extremes as birth-control, the killing of the disabled and euthanasia.
If one investigates and reads up, as I have done, about the different problems facing the socialist countries that have adopted similar measures, one finds that one thing inevitably leads to the other in such socialist and communist theories. This action is based on the opinions of extremists who support it and whose basic values are contraception, elimination of the disabled and euthanasia.
Any member willing to deny this is invited to do so, but I would not like to be in his shoes and to have to defend that position, because we have not only historical but also scientific evidence from the testimonies and books at our disposal.
Another reason why I object to maintaining clause 18 in the bill and why I am 100 per cent for deleting clause 18 from the bill, is the following, and this is quite an important one:
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
The whole world is making an all-out effort to bring down the infantile mortality rate and the mortality rate in general. Tremendous efforts are being made all over the world to achieve heart transplants, to fight cancer-


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


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, at this stage of the bill, I should like to give my opinion and to show what kind of bill this is. I should like to demonstrate that this is an anti-social, anti-human, anti-respectable and anti-responsible bill.
Mr. Speaker, under no consideration can we accept this bill. I do not see why the government, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), have introduced such a bill, in a country like Canada, in a developing country in search of a growing and homogeneous population.
I should like to endeavor to argue that the bill that has been presented is anti-moral, unthinkable, criminal, unjustifiable, incompatible, inconceivable and mortal, for the people.
This is a fatal measure for citizens to be, because, with its infamous rules, it is imposed upon the nation despite their will and good intentions. The bill that is imposed is anti-conceptional, anti-moral, anti-Canadian-I would say-anti-medical, anti-Christian, antiDemocratic, anti-legal, anti-infanticide, anti-
May 8, 1969
fundamental, anti-doctrinal, anti-political, anti-parliamentary, anti-legislative, anti-theological, anti-respectful, anti-spiritual, anticommon, anti-protective, anti-dialogue, antiunderstanding, anti-educational, anti-press, anti-pagan, anti-majority, anti-scientific, antibiological, anti-individualist, anti-personalist, anti-vital, anti-clandestine, anti-professional, anti-pedagogical. In fact, no words are big or eloquent enough to describe the misdeeds of this bill.
At the same time, the bill is anti-historical, anti-proportioned, anti-imperative, anti-relative, anti-myth.
Mr. Speaker, I would have much more to say, because there is an endless stock of words to qualify the bill. It could be said it is anti-infamous, anti-immoral, anti-Christian and anti-anything-you-can-think-of, to indicate it is not presentable to the nation.
Mr. Speaker, faced with this bill and with a civilization that honours and despises man, our most urgent and imperative task is to defend man in order to save him. Such a bill is not a means of defending man, of saving the nation, of saving mankind. It is anti-respectful of the nation, and it will also raise fundamental problems to our generation. On account of this bill, man is denied all his rights.
The birth of a human being is not allowed, because infamous laws are passed to prevent the reproduction of our citizens. The right to be born is denied, because there will be a direct interference with the life and conception of human beings.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I think that the Minister of Justice should look and listen. I think that he is a conscientious and logical man who should rise and tell us immediately that he is withdrawing that infamous negative and anti-social bill.
Mr. Speaker, it rests with society to change that larva in a man, because an unborn child is simply a larva.
It is the duty and the obligation of society to make a human being out of this larva. This is a primordial obligation, because the question of man's survival in society is raised much later when he has become an adult.
Mr. Speaker, at the present time, some fanatics are allowing themselves free scope, they are unconvinced and without remit; as violence breeds violence, fanaticism aggravates fanaticism. It is a terrible spirituous which leads mankind and nations to extremes. It kills the soul, before killing their body, be-
8509
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion cause the unborn child has a soul. It is not yet a human being, it is a living soul to which the breath of life has been given by divine Providence and we have no right to attack it.
Thus, the two great modern philosophies have only brought new myths to man. What have we, what are we getting from man since the last century, in Canada as well as in other countries? Only myths. For three centuries now, humanity has been fighting for myths. Millions are suffering and dying in every generation for myths.
Then, they are imposing a myth even at birth, even in the life of society and this bill, Mr. Speaker-clause 18 particularly that we want to delete-is anti-mystic, anti-fanatic, anti-mental, anti-liberal, anti-suicide, antiexecutive, anti-preventive, anti-contemporary, anti-philosophical, anti-characteristic, anti-new-born-I would say-anti-maternal, antisignificant and ironical.
Then, Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


Henry P. Latulippe: May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Slanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I had planned to open my remarks this evening by saying that there is one thing I like about the Minister of Communications (Mr. Kierans). He is always here at this time, but tonight-oh, he is now entering the house.


An hon. Member:: He is late but he is here.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It
will now be possible to begin my remarks as I had intended. One of the things I like about the Minister of Communications

and he will be glad to know there are some things we like about him, few though they may be-is that he is always here when questions addressed to him are posted for the late show. I am glad to see him here tonight. That is a reasonable beginning to my remarks and I intend to stay in that frame of mind for these

May 8, 1969

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion few minutes because I wish to address my appeal to the minister as seriously and earnestly as I can in the hope that he will consider it.
1 have the floor tonight because on Thursday, April 24, as recorded in Hansard on page 7900 I addressed this question to the Minister of Communications:
Since there are now only three days in the week, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, when we can mail letters with any assurance they will be delivered promptly, will the minister take a new look at the entire question of the five-day delivery week and review the possibility of re-establishing a six-day delivery?
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
Hansard reports some hon. members as saying, "Hear, hear." Then, there is this entry:


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Minister of Communications) :: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.
That was quite definite and I suppose I will not fare much better tonight because, after all, this is a brand new idea in Canadian life as we know it to have postal delivery only five days a week. I assume it is the idea of the minister, and since it has been in effect for only a few weeks or few months at most, he will say that it should have a longer period of trial before any consideration is given to altering it. But even while he is asking the country to try out this system, I hope he will keep a close watch on what is happening.
I submit that the premise which I used for my question on April 24 is a correct one, namely, that there are now only three days of the week, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, when we can mail first class letters with any assurance that they will be delivered promptly that week. When we mail letters on Thursday their chances of being delivered on Friday are not good. There is no delivery on Saturday and Sunday, so it is Monday at the earliest when they are delivered. Of course letters mailed on Friday and Saturday are not delivered until the next week in any case, and when Monday is a holiday the situation is that much worse.
I have noticed with my own correspondence-and like all of us in this place correspondence is a major part of our life-that it has definitely slowed down. One receives a letter on Monday that was written the previous Tuesday. If you do not get the answer away for a couple of days the net result is that it can be two weeks between the time a person sends a letter and gets a reply.
I have the notion, and I suspect I am right, that this pile up over the week end is slowing
[Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).!
the mail down generally. Many hon. members have already brought experiences of theirs, to the attention of the Postmaster General. I have in my hand an envelope that contained a rather important letter which was sent to me from Winnipeg. When the person who sent it did not hear from me within a few days the result was a long distance phone call to find out why I had not answered. The only reply I could make was that I had not received the letter. It came a day or two later and, as I say, I have the envelope in my hand. It is postmarked Winnipeg, 9.30 p.m., on April 30. It is correctly addressed to me as a member of parliament at the House of Commons, and on the reverse is the cancellation of the House of Commons Post Office, and the date is May 6.
In this modern age of communication satellites, speed and explosions, with everything being instantaneous, it is pretty hard to comprehend why it takes six days for a letter to come by air mail from Winnipeg to Ottawa. In fact I could have gone out by train, got the letter, and come back in less time than that.
I have had many complaints from people who send me their own envelopes showing the extra time taken. I submit that the effect of this is not good. It is slowing down the service. It is taking away the concept of service altogether. The minister is engaged in other activities, in satellite communications, in computerization and so on, and he contends that we have got to speed up life in many respects. But what is the good of getting instant communication with a man on the moon when we get one there if we cannot get a letter from Winnipeg to Ottawa in less than six days? What is the use of air mail service, if the time saved in transit is lost in delivery?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret I have to interrupt the hon. member son temps de parole est expire.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is fine, Mr. Speaker. I hope I get a reasonable reply.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, I realize that my original answer was too abrupt, but the hon. member ended on a note about the word service. I would like to emphasize that all of the 48,000 people who work for the Post Office are loyal employees determined to give the very best service they possibly can. However, I think we must look at the word "service" in its largest aspect. One can often compare the productivity of a large supermarket and say
May 8, 1969

it is very much more productive than the general store, but this is by no means proven. What happens is that when a person goes to a supermarket he gives up many services. He gives up the credit that was furnished to him by the general store and the personal attention that was furnished him. Why? Because service as we have traditionally considered it has become too expensive and people are now going without service in order to reduce their cost.
I say to you frankly that if we continue to handle five billion pieces of mail in the same way we handled one billion pieces of mail, the burden on the taxpayers of this country will be such they will revolt against it. So, they did ask us to measure just what service they could do without to reduce the tax burden.
The Saturday delivery is not the necessary service it once was. We are sensitive to what Canada is today. Canada is working on the basis of a five day week. The Edmonton Chamber of Commerce polled its members. I may be out four or five, but the order is correct. Three hundred and two seem to be satisfied and have no objection whatsoever to the five day week. Fourteen said they did. It did not seem proper, at a cost of between $10 million and $13 million, to provide service for something in the order of roughly less than 4 per cent of the total population of Canada. With all the rearrangements, the walk evaluation, the rezoning, the settling down process and I am certain with the devotion of the young people in the post office, we will come out with a better service at lower cost to all.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Finish the sentence.



COMBINES-FAILURE BY SUGAR REFINERIES TO OBEY COURT ORDER

Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, on April 23 I directed a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford). I asked him whether he had received a formal complaint charging Canada's big three sugar refineries with failure to obey a court order restricting them from monopolistic practices and, if so, what action the government proposed to take. In my opinion the minister evaded the question. He said it was not the practice to reveal names of those who lodged complaints with the department. This, of course, was not an answer to
DEBATES	8511
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion the question I put to him. I pointed that out to the minister but I received no satisfaction.
The situation in respect of the three major sugar refineries in Canada is one of long standing. They have been accused of monopolistic practices. They have been taken to court and orders have been issued against them. The minister, in my opinion, does not seem to be taking this matter seriously. What is involved here is the whole question of the Combines legislation in Canada and the attitude of the government toward this legislation. If the minister is reluctant to indicate that he does not think these companies should be prosecuted or that this collusion represents a threat to the country, then he should say so. If he thinks it does represent a threat, then he should also say so and indicate that he intends to take some significant action.
1 suggest that the Combines legislation in this country has become futile and phony; it just is not working. We are pretending there is some protection when in reality there is not. First of all, the prosecutions which have taken place have been inconclusive. There is no evidence that after an action the situation has improved in the least. Secondly, in order to get action under this legislation one virtually has to put the evidence in the hands of the government. It is rather instructive to look at some of the recent cases which have come before the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
With regard to the street paving tenders for the city of Hull, a slip of paper fell out of the tender sheets which indicated that collusion had taken place. This information is contained in a booklet issued by the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. In the case of ready-mix concrete, the companies had their accountants sitting in at the meetings. These cases seem to be the only type brought before the Combines Investigation Branch.
The evil of the present situation is simply that if these companies are going to collude and pretend on the surface that there is competition, we will be getting the worst of all worlds. If there is collusion, I think the time has come to take action other than that taken under the combines legislation. I suggest the type of action which should be taken is strict regulation and the removal of tariff protection in these areas. Certainly, we should enact legislation which has teeth in it, something which has not been the case for a long time.
It may be that in some industries a monopoly situation is inevitable. If this is the
May 8, 1969
8512	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
case, let us face up to it and do something about it rather than pretend we have an act that is effective in avoiding the worst effects of collusion and the phony competition which exists in this and other industries.


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to assure the hon. member that there is no reluctance on the part of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) to take whatever action is necessary under his jurisdiction. Since the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) raised this question in the house on April 23, which question my minister answered immediately in the light of the information he had available, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) put a similar question on the order paper. This question was duly answered on April 30, and the answer can be found in Hansard at page 8162.
The minister then stated that an application had been received under section 7 of the Combines Investigation Act, signed by Roberta Gray and others. He also stated that the general practice with regard to inquiries under the act is that no information is given out as to whether a particular inquiry is being pursued, unless and until a report is published, or as the act may require. This policy is adopted because section 28 of the act states that all inquiries shall be conducted in private unless the chairman of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission orders that any or all portions shall be conducted in public.
My minister, nevertheless, acknowledged that the application to investigate sugar companies had been received, because a Montreal counsel having knowledge of the application wrote to some members of parliament informing them about it. With respect to all other aspects of the inquiry, however, the minister's reply of April 30 indicated the necessity of observing the privacy provision of the statute.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION-SUGGESTED REPLACEMENT FOR &quot;DON MESSER'S JUBILEE&quot;-

Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, on April 29, as reported at page 8101, I asked a question in the house regarding the discontinuation of the program "Don Messer's Jubilee".
I am happy to note tonight the presence in the house of the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelle-
IMr. Saltsman.]

tier) and I shall begin by thanking and congratulating him for the work he has done to promote culture throughout Canada.
I am convinced that had he been called upon to make a decision regarding the discontinuation of that program, his decision would have been different from that of the C.B.C.
I should like to thank him tonight-because this is the first opportunity I have of doing so-for the very generous grant he has awarded to the Petits Chanteurs de Granby who are part of our culture, because tonight the subject under consideration is also related to culture.
I also know the minister understands that Canadian culture is not only popular music, or opera. I like opera, personally, and I believe the minister appreciates it too. I also have a taste for classical music.
On the other hand, the purpose of my intervention is to know from the minister who made the decision within the CBC to cancel this program so popular with millions of Canadians. I do not consider folklore as the only means of Canadian culture, but it is part of it. If we take into account the numerous letters and representations received by hon. members generally, we should recognize that the arbitrary decision made, not by the minister but by the C.B.C., was a thoughtless one which is arousing protests from all quarters across the country at the present time.
Now, I believe that the minister is well placed to realize that the program has been very popular in the past and still is with millions of Canadians. And that is why, tonight, I would like to know from the minister whether the C.B.C. could not earnestly reconsider its decision. In various circumstances, he showed that he wanted a sound culture for Canada. We do not want a culture based on folklore exclusively. On the other hand, folklore is part and parcel of our culture. In fact, that program was authentically Canadian and contained no element imported from the United States or other countries. It faithfully reflected the culture prevailing in our rural areas and appealed to millions of Canadians.
That is why the minister understands our representations, I believe, and why we do not intend to blame or raise a general outcry. Instead, we would like to get a decision more logical than that which was made by the C.B.C., and I rely entirely on the minister's good judgment.
May 8. 1969


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I believe everything has been said on the abolition of that program.
I should simply like to remind the hon. member, who is perfectly aware of it since he mentioned it-that the minister, qualified as responsible for the C.B.C., is not responsible for its programming; he is merely a spokesman for the C.B.C. in Parliament.
Therefore, he does not have to pass judgments and still less to interfere with the programming. The C.B.C.'s reply, which was given after due consideration by the Corporation of the numerous protests received, is to the effect that this program had lost a great part of its audience, having been listed for 11 years on the schedule and that, so as to

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion ensure a living programming, one must change programs from time to time.
Finally, I should like to say that the hon. member would be wrong to get worried about the folkloric point of view, because on the English national network, the program he and several other members referred to has been replaced by another which is also of a folkloric character, but on the value of which I do not believe it appropriate to pass personal judgment.


Mr. Speaker:: It being past ten o'clock, the house stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.22 p.m.

Friday, May 9, 1989