1969-04-28

[Stage Direction]
Monday, April 28, 1969

Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wish to bring to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of a group of distinguished United States parliamentarians, namely members of the Vermont state legislature, accompanied by the Governor of that state.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: The visit of these distinguished colleagues to Ottawa and to the House of Commons is a clear indication of their interest in our Parliament, and their friendship with Canada and Canadians. On behalf of the House of Commons I extend to them a most cordial welcome to the Parliament of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



NEW MEMBER

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer certificate of the election and return of Thomas Speakman Barnett, Esquire, for the electoral district of Comox-Alberni.



NEW MEMBER INTRODUCED

[Stage Direction]
Thomas Speakman Barnett, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Comox-Alberni, introduced by Mr. T. C. Douglas and Mr. Harold E. Winch.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 60(1), I wish to table notice of a ways and means motion to amend the Income Tax Act.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table a paper containing explanatory material concerning the paragraphs of this notice of motion relating to insurance companies and policyholders.



DESIGNATION OF OPPORTUNITY TO DEBATE WAYS AND MEANS ORDER, PURSUANT TO S.O. 60(2)

Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 60(2), I would request the designation of an order of the day for considering the ways and means notice of motion just tabled by the Minister of Finance.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Coates: 1.	How many employees of the Public Service of Canada today qualify for the special bonus made available to bilingual employees?
2.	What was the total cost to the federal government for the 1967-68 fiscal year and what will be the estimated cost for the fiscal year 1968-69?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: 1. 1,951.
2.	1967-68, $468,663.99; 1968-69 (estimated), $565,670.89.


NEWFOUNDLAND-ALLOCATIONS FOR ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Marshall: Under Regional Economic Expansion Vote 10, what amounts are allocated to the Province of Newfoundland under the following (a) payments in respect of projects and programs under ARDA (b) payments in accordance with development agreements entered into with the provinces on shared cost programs (c) payments to the provinces to assist in financing programs related to Industrial Research and Development Services to Industry and Development of Industrial Infrastructures (d) incentives to Industry for the development of employment opportunities in designated

April 28, 1969
Questions
areas of Canada (e) federal share of costs of trunk highway program for the Provinces of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick In accordance with agreements entered into with the Provinces?


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: (a) Provincial allotment under the Federal-Provincial Rural Development Agreement 1965-70 for 1969-70 is a maximum of $1,378,638. No specific amount is allocated to any province until provincial requirements are known; (b) No specific amount is allocated to any province until provincial requirements are known; (c) $4,260,000; (d) No amounts are specified on a geographical basis. Each application submitted by an industrial firm is assessed on its individual merit; (e) Nil (The trunk highway program is a statutory provision and is not part of Vote 10, but includes $3,327,000 allocated for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.)


SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS IN YUKON AND N.W.T.
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Who are the Regional Superintendents of Schools in the Yukon and Northwest Territories?
2.	What are the educational qualifications of each Regional Superintendent?
3.	How long has each Regional Superintendent been employed by the government?
4.	How many schools does each Regional Superintendent supervise?
5.	How many days did each Regional Superintendent spend supervising in each school in each of the past three years?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. The
Yukon Territory does not have Regional or District Superintendents of Schools. Dr. R. L. Shields is Superintendent of Education, and W. C. Rongve and J. Ferbey are Assistant Superintendents.
The Regional Superintendents of Schools in the Northwest Territories are currently J. A. Coady, H. J. Darkes, N. J. Macpherson, J. McArthur and W. W. Buell.
2.	The educational qualifications of the Regional Superintendents are as follows: J. A. Coady, B.A., B.Ed., 23 years teaching experience; N. J. Macpherson, B.A., B.Ed.,
M.Ed., 25 years teaching experience; H. J. Darkes, B.A., B.Ed., 35 years teaching experience; J. McArthur, M.A., B.Ed., 16 years teaching experience; W. W. Buell, B.A., B.Ed., 20 years teaching experience.

The qualifications of the Yukon Territory Superintendents are: R. L. Shields, B.Ed., M.A., Ph.D., 32 years teaching experience; W. C. Rongve, B.A., B. Ed., 12 years teaching experience; J. Ferbey, B.Sc., B.Ed., M.Ed., 6 years teaching experience.
3.	Mr. Coady has been employed by the Federal Government for 20 years; Mr. Macpherson, seven years; Mr. Darkes, seven years; Mr. McArthur, eight years and Mr. Buell, six years. Dr. Shields has been employed by the Government of the Yukon Territory for two years; Mr. Rongve for ten years, and Mr. Ferbey for two years.
4.	Mr. Coady supervises 11 schools; Mr. Macpherson 12 schools; Mr. Darkes 13 schools; Mr. McArthur 8 schools, and Mr. Buell 12 schools.
The 21 Yukon Territory schools are not allocated to individual Superintendents.
5.	The following table indicates the number of days spent supervising in Northwest Territories schools by the Regional Superintendents in each of	the past	three	years.Region	1966	1967	1968Fort Smith (1)	51	43	29Inuvik (1)	47	49	75Yellowknife	110	128	140Keewatin	19	20	61Baffin	27	44	15
(1) Figures quoted are for 1966/67, 1967/68 and 1968/69 fiscal years respectively.
Each school in the Yukon is visited by a representative of the Superintendent's office at least once a month, with the exception of the isolated Old Crow school which is visited quarterly, weather conditions permitting.


IMPLEMENTATION OF BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM RECOMMENDATIONS
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	How many recommendations of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism has the government implemented to date?
2.	What are these recommendations?
3.	Has the government estimated the cost to date of the implementation of each and, if so, at what cost?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: 1 and 2. The recommendations made by the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism and contained in Books 1 and 2 of the Commission's report are under study by the government. Implementation will require, in some cases, federal legislation, in others action at the provincial level and for many
April 28, 1969



recommendations, federal-provincial co-operative action. At present an Official Languages Bill is before Parliament. Additional proposals were presented to the recent Constitutional Conference and there have been and will be meetings with the provinces to determine effective ways of implementing bilingualism programs across the country. Certain measures in this area can be taken by administrative action within the compass of existing legislation, as with the language training program in the Public Service on which the government has already embarked.
3.	No.


P.E.I.-SHARED COST HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION
Mr. MacLean: 1.	What was the amount spent in cost-shared highway construction programs administered by the federal Department of Public Works in the Province of Prince Edward Island for each of the fiscal years from 1964-65 to 1968-69 inclusive?
2.	What is the estimated amount to be spent in Prince Edward Island under such programs in the fiscal year 1969-70?
3.	Is this amount included in the amounts proposed under the Comprehensive Development Plan?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Department of Public Works and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion as follows: 1. The total federal contributions under the cost-shared highway construction programs administered by the Department of Public Works, i.e., the Trans-Canada Highway Agreement, the Atlantic Development Board Trunk Highway program, and the Roads to Resources program of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, amounted to: 1964-65, $1,623,074.10; 1965-66, $2,408,205.80; 1966-67, $2,097,770.79; 1967-68, $3,799,904.18;	1968-69,	$3,055,166.00 (estimated).
2.	The estimated amount for 1969-70 is $1,813,878.
3.	The Comprehensive Development Plan for Prince Edward Island shows no funds to be administered by the Department of Public Works.


P.E.I.-ECONOMIC IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION PERSONNEL
Mr. MacLean: 1.	(a) Has the federal government agreed to pay part or all of the cost of salaries, living expenses,
Questions
etc. of persons employed by the Economic Improvement Corporation of Prince Edward Island (b) if so, what is the percentage of such cost to be borne by the federal government (c) is there a ceiling on the contribution to be made by the federal government and, if so, what is it?
2.	(a) Has the federal government placed a ceiling on the number of persons employed by this Corporation and, if so, what is it (b) how many persons are employed by the Corporation at present (c) what is the salary range of persons employed by the Corporation?
3.	Has the Economic Improvement Corporation of Prince Edward Island power to borrow money and, if so, are such loans guaranteed in any way by the federal government?
4.	What amount was contributed by the federal government to the Economic Improvement Corporation of Prince Edward Island in each of the fiscal years to date?
5.	What are the estimated amounts to be paid by the federal government to the Economic Improvement Corporation of Prince Edward Island in the fiscal year 1969-70?


Russell Clayton Honey: 1. (a) Yes; (b) 100 per cent;
(c)	Yes; $1,201,000 to March 31, 1969.
2.	(a) No; (b) 92;	(c) This information
would have to be obtained from the Economic Improvement Corporation.
3.	Yes. Loans are not guaranteed by the federal government.
4.	1967-68, $117,000; 1968-69, $1,084,000.
5.	Payments will be made to the Province in respect of programs under the terms of the development agreement; there is no provision specifically for the Economic Improvement Corporation.


D.D.H. CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
Mr. Forresiall: What was the original cost estimate including all components of the present DDH Construction Program and what is the present cost estimate including all components and sea trials?


Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: The first cost estimate for the D.D.H. Construction Program which brought together all its components was $170,240,000 in September, 1966. The final estimated cost of the same program, unchanged during the past year, is expected to fall between $220,000,000 and $225,000,000.

April 28, 1969
Questions


CLOSING OF RURAL POST OFFICES
Mr. Soulham: 1.	Is it the government's intention, for economic reasons, to phase out or close 3,500 post offices in rural areas of Canada?
2.	Has a study been made to analyze the economic hardship on the people and small businesses concerned if such a plan is carried out?
3.	What alternative employment or compensations would be provided for the postmasters so affected in any such move on the government's part?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Minister of Communications):: In so far as the Post Office Department is concerned: 1. Under a program inaugurated in February 1967, 553 Post Offices have been closed, 217 will be closed shortly, 404 are being retained and 2,851 have yet to be examined to determine whether they should be closed because of their limited usefulness. With improved population mobility, limited shopping facilities in the smaller communities, the movement of people from rural areas to large urban centres and a widespread centralized school system, it became apparent that a re-examination of the usefulness of these small Post Offices was imperative. The situation with respect to each individual Post Office is examined separately.
2.	Consideration is given to the effect of the closing on individuals and on the community. Basically, the policy is that if equivalent service can be provided-and often improved service-through rural mail delivery to individual or group mail boxes, a post office that has outlived its useful purpose will be closed. If rural mail delivery is not practicable, service should be available through an adjacent post office. Failing an adequate alternative service, the post office in question will be kept in operation.
3.	No alternative employment is offered by the Government but those postmasters under superannuation would receive benefits in accordance with the Public Service Superannuation Act.


P.E.I. CAUSEWAY-FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION
Mr. Mather: What was the estimated federal contribution to the projected Prince Edward Island Causeway on a per capita basis re the people of Prince Edward Island?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: On an estimated capital cost of $180 million $1,627 per capita.


LACHUTE, QUE., INDIAN RELOCATION
Mr. Simpson: 1.	Did the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development undertake a program of relocation and retraining for Indian students from the James Bay region in Lachute, Quebec?
2.	When did the program begin?
3.	How many students enrolled at the beginning?
4.	How many students are now enrolled?
5.	If any students left, who were they, and what were the reasons given?
6.	What screening procedure was followed in selecting the students?
7.	What special steps were taken in Lachute
(a)	with local citizen groups to provide accommodation or hospitality (b) with the manpower training courses to modify courses of instruction?
8.	Was this a pilot project?
9.	If so, will there be a full report prepared and released to the public?
10.	Is it the intention of the government to bring more Indian students to this training centre at Lachute?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. In
November 1968, a departmental counsellor made a survey of Indian people in the James Bay area who were interested in upgrading. This information was relayed to the Department of Manpower. We have been informed by the Department of Manpower that several English speaking upgrading classes at the Grade 8 to 10 level at Lachute were organized. Since this was the nearest location where English speaking courses were available in the province of Quebec in relation to the James Bay area, the Department of Manpower approved admission for those Indian people from the James Bay area who met entrance requirements.
2.	The Indian students arrived at Lachute on Friday, January 24 and commenced training on Monday, January 27. They were several days late due to weather conditions.
3.	Fourteen students enrolled at the beginning.
4.	Two students were enrolled as of March 31, 1969.
April 28, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES	Questions5. Name of Student	Reason for Leaving	Date of LeavingWilliam Salt	Involved with law	February 11, 1969Matthew Rat	Homesick	February 11, 1969Jimmy Gilpin	Homesick	February 11, 1969Donald Gilpin	Homesick	February 11, 1969Isaac Matches	Homesick	February 25, 1969Stuart Matches	Homesick	February 25, 1969George Sealhunter	Did not like Lachute	February 25, 1969Bobby Rat	Hospitalized as a result of fight. Went home on discharge	February 22, 1969Jimmy Kanatewat	Unable to adapt to Lachute	February 24, 1969Andrew Napash	Illness at home	March 10, 1969Louis Kanatewat	Hunting season started	March 14, 1969George Lameboy	Hunting season started	March 14, 1969.6.	Prime selection standard was an expression of interest in further training as indicated to the Department of Indian Affairs Counsellor at the time of the survey in November1968.	Candidates were screened on the basis of satisfactory academic prerequisites and a stated desire to follow up with skill training.7.	(a) (i) Local people were involved in helping to find suitable boarding homes, (ii) On arrival students were met by Department of Manpower representatives and taken to boarding places. At this time they were also given a brief orientation to the community of Lachute. (b) (i) Because of the students language handicap, supplementary English instruction was provided to assist them in their studies; (ii) Special instruction in French was provided since the Lachute community is predominantly French speaking; (iii) The Department of Indian Affairs employed an Indian teacher from Oka to counsel and tutor the students three hours an evening, three evenings a week; (iv) The Anglican Minister of Lachute was made aware of the students coming to the community, since they were all of that religious denomination; (v) A social worker from McGill University showed interest in the group and accompanied the special teacher to assist in counselling the students.8.	This was not considered a pilot project. It is one of the regular type of programs conducted by the Provincial Department of Education, where the Department of Manpower buy spaces on behalf of students who meet their regulations.9.	Since this is not a pilot or special program, no report as such is planned to deal with this particular class.10.	The government is not contemplating bringing more Indian students from the James Bay area to the training center at Lachute.


DR. BORIS DOTSENKO
Mr, Muir (Cape Breton-: The Sydneys):
1.	Has Dr. Boris Dotsenko of Edmonton applied for the status of a landed immigrant in Canada
(a)	if so, has that status been granted (b) if not, what is the present status of Dr. Dotsenko and what are the reasons for the failure to grant him status as a landed immigrant?
2.	Has the case of Dr. Boris Dotsenko been the subject of discussion between the Government of Canada and the government of any other country
(a)	if so, what was the other country (b) what was the nature of the discussion (c) what was the result of the discussion?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Department of Manpower and Immigration and the Department of the Secretary of State for External Affairs as follows: 1. Yes, Dr. Dotsenko has applied for landed immigrant status. His application is still under review and pending its approval he is permitted to remain in Canada under nonimmigrant status. This is normal practice in cases of this type.
2.	Yes. (a) The Government of the USSR;
(b)	On September 4, 1967, on learning of Dr. Dotsenko's intention to remain in Canada, the Soviet Embassy approached the Canadian Government in order to arrange an interview with him; (c) Dr. Dotsenko agreed, and an interview took place on September 6, 1967. During the following month there was an exchange of correspondence with the Soviet Embassy on matters arising from the interview. In the course of that correspondence the Department of External Affairs had occasion to confirm to the Embassy that Dr. Dotsenko was free both to meet again with Embassy representatives and to leave Canada if he wished to do so. He was likewise free to remain in

April 28, 1989
Questions
Canada provided he could satisfy the requirements of the Department of Manpower and Immigration.


ACQUISITION OF COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION
Mr. Schreyer: 1.	Has an investigation been made by the Restrictive Trades Practices Commission or by any other federal agency, into the recent acquisition of the Computer Sciences Corporation of Canada by Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Telecommunications Ltd.?
2.	If so, what is the finding and what action, if any, is now being contemplated?


Yves Forest: 
PROSECUTIONS FROM CONSUMER COMPLAINTS
Mrs. Maclnnis: 1.	What prosecutions if any, have resulted from the more than 4,500 complaints that have been written into the Department of Consumer Affairs, Box 99?
2.	Have any of the complaints received been referred to the Director of Combines Investigation and, if so, how many?
3.	Have there been any recurring complaints and, if so, what steps has the Department taken to publicize them?
4.	Are any changes to existing legislation or is any new legislation contemplated as a result of complaints already received?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. Two. Cana (House) Ware; Anglo French Carpet Co. Ltd.
2.	Yes. All complaints, replies to which may require reference to the Combines Investigation Act or to section 306 of the Criminal Code which Bill C-150 proposes to transfer to the Act as section 33D, are referred to the Director of Investigation and Restarch. 87 complaints have been so referred.
3.	Yes. By means of a publication entitled "Consumer Communique", speeches, and media reports.
4.	Yes.


COLLECTIONS ON 1,274 DEBTS
Mr. Hales: Of the 1,274 debts due, and claims by her Majesty amounting to $19,037,920 which were deleted from the accounts by authority of Treasury Board Vote 7c, Appropriation Act No. 1, 1968, how many have since been collected in whole or in part and what is the total amount since collected?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Presideni of fhe Treasury Board):: Repayment	Amount

1	2,727.77
54.59
1,557.64
534.17 Total $8,071.17

April 28, 1969	COMMONS


DIGBY, N.S., WHARF CONTRACTS
Mr. Comeau: Have contracts been awarded for the construction of the new wharf at Digby or for preliminary testings for the proposed construction of the new ferry wharf (a) if so, to whom were these contracts awarded (b) if not, when will such contracts be awarded?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: No construction contracts have yet been awarded. Responsibility for preliminary tests and necessary soil data, now being obtained, is with the department's consultants. (a) Not applicable; (b) A contract for the construction of the spur wharf for the Department of Fisheries is expected to be awarded this summer and late this year for the new ferry wharf.


PUBLICATION OF HOUSE DEBATES
Mr. Rodrigue: What was the cost of publication of the House of Commons Debates for the years 1966 and 1967 in (a) the French edition (b) the English edition.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Supply and Services):: Insofar as the Canadian Government Printing Bureau-Printing and Publishing Office-is concerned:
(a)	(b)
French	English
1966	$384,477.46	$582,638.461967	$371,889.93	$569,007.87


SHEFFORD, QUE., POST OFFICES
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,908
Mr. Rondeau:: 1.	What post offices were built in the federal constituency of Shefford during the last ten years?
2.	What requests were made for the construction of post offices in the federal constituency of Shefford during the last ten years?
3.	What was the cost of each post office built in the federal constituency of Shefford during the last ten years?
4.	(a) What requests for the construction of post offices in the federal constituency of Shefford, made during the last ten years, were not accepted
(b)	and for what reasons?
DEBATES	8039
Questions


Arthur Laing: 1 and 3:
Year	Location	Cost1962	Abbotsford	$20,307.88Valcourt	19,051.451965	Roxton Falls	22,918.251967	Ange Gardien de Rouville 28,797.711968	St. Cesaire	74,852.77Ste. Christine	22,268.072.	Seven requests.4.	(a) St. Joachim de Shefford; (b) Cancellation of 1968-69 winter works program.


CANADA CORPORATIONS ACT REPORTS
Mr. Sallsman: 1.	How many Canadian companies have failed to file annual reports to the government as required under the provisions of the Canada Corporations Act for the following years: 1950, 1955, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968?
2.	How many corporations have failed to file their annual reports since their incorporation?
3.	Has the federal government imposed penalties on those corporations who have failed to file annual returns to the government and, if not, for what reason?


Stanley Ronald Basford: 1. Subject to what is said below in reply to part 3 of the question, there are no figures available on the number of companies in default of having filed the Annual Return due on June 1st of every year. These Annual Returns are received before, and in many instances, after June 1st and it is known only weeks after that date, when all the Annual Returns have been examined, whether a company is in default or not.
2.	A list of the corporations that have, for any year since their incorporation, failed to file the Annual Return does not exist. The number of existing companies, however, that were, on April 18, 1969, in default of filing the Annual Return that was due on June 1st, 1968, was 1396.
3.	There are two means available to the government under the law for the enforcement of the provisions requiring companies to file the Annual Return. The prosecution of the defaulting companies before the Court is one; the other is the dissolution of the company which can be effected when the company has failed to file the Annual Return for three consecutive years. It has always been felt that the important objective here

April 28, 1969
Questions
was to force compliance with the Act. Since 1965, when the Act was amended to provide for the dissolution of companies in default for three consecutive years, the rate of compliance has substantially improved. In 1967, 603 companies were dissolved under these new provisions, and, in 1968, 643. As of this date, 542 companies have been in default for two years and, unless they comply upon receipt of a notice of default to be sent shortly after June 1st, they will be dissolved.
income multiplier, the employment multiplier and the spatial multiplier.
3.	This economic assessment was contained in the Higgins report, which has been tabled. Both benefits and costs of alternative locations were compared.
4.	Not applicable.


PLAINCLOTHES R.C.M.P. OFFICERS
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,923-Mr. Robinson:

Mr. Broadbent: .1 Did the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion agree to the selection of a new airport site at St. Jerome, Quebec, as announced by the Minister of Transport?
2.	If so, what factors were taken into consideration by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion in the selection of that site with regards to the general problems of regional economic disparities in Quebec?
3.	Was a cost-benefit study prepared with regard to the selection of the airport's site in the Province of Quebec and, if so, would the Minister Table the study?
1.	How many plain clothes RCMP Officers are located at (a) Ottawa Airport (b) Toronto Airport
(c)	Montreal Airport and what kind of work are they engaged in?
2.	How many unmarked motor vehicles are used by the RCMP at/or about the airport at (a) Ottawa
(b)	Toronto (c) Montreal and how are they utilized?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Solicitor General):: 1.	(a), (b) and (c), Nil.
2.	(a) and (c) Ottawa and Montreal Airport R.C.M. Police Detachments have no unmarked motor vehicles; (b) Toronto Airport R.C.M. Police Detachment has one unmarked motor vehicle.
4. If no cost-benefit study had been undertaken, why was the Treasury Board's P.O.B.S. not followed?


Russell Clayton Honey: 1. The selection of the site was made by the federal cabinet of which the Minister of Regional Economic Expension is a member. 2. The factors taken into account, in


PRE-DOCTORAL N.R.C. GRANTS
Mr. Saltsman: 1.	In the academic years 1965-66, 1966-67, 1967-68, 1968-69, 1969-70, how many applications for predoctoral National Research Council grants were received?
2.	In those years, how many were granted?
3.	In those years, how many were turned down for lack of funds rather than lack of merit?
assessing relation	the effect of different locations in to economic disparities, were the			Hon. C. M. ury Board):	Drury (President of the Treas- 1 and 2. Predoctoral Awards:	
		Applications			Awards	
Renewals	New	Total	Renewals	New	Total1965-66	331	1797	2128	315	839	11541966-67	473	2594	3067	473	1177	16501967-68	700	3004	3704	700	1480	21801968-69	931	2849	3780	931	1831	27621969-70	951	2780	3731	949	1713	2662Total	3386	13024	16410	3368	7040	10408The application figures for 1968-69 and	versity are considered	first by a special uni-
1969-70 are incomplete. In 1968 a new method of selection was introduced. Under the new selection procedures the applications of candidates currently attending a Canadian university committee and are placed in three categories, as follows: A list: Highly Recommended; B list: Recommended (in order of merit); C list: Not Recommended.
[Mr. Basford.l
April 28, 1969

Students in the A and B lists receive further consideration by the N.R.C. Scholarships Selection Committee. Those on the A lists normally receive awards and those on the B lists receive awards to the limit of the availability of funds. Students on the C lists are those who are not recommended by the university committees and their applications are not forwarded to the N.R.C. The total applications for 1968-69 and 1969-70 does not include C list students.
Because of a limited budget for 1969-70 universities were requested to reduce the size of their A and B lists. This explains why there were fewer applications in 1969-70 than in 1968-69.
3.	It is not possible to say with any degree of accuracy the number of candidates who were turned down for lack of funds in recent years. This information has never been recorded. However, from 1965 to 1968 inclusive, most of the worthy candidates, by N.R.C. Scholarship standards, received awards.
As a result of a substantial increase in commitments in connection with post-graduate scholarships and postdoctorate fellowships previously awarded there was less money available for new awards in 1969 than was available in 1968.
The increased commitment was as a result of an increase in the number of (a) renewals, and (b) awards for which final payments had to be provided out of the 1969 budget.
Renewals are not awarded competitively; they are renewed on the basis of certified reports of satisfactory progress.
The scholarships and fellowships for which money for final payments must be provided out of the 1969 budget are 1968 awards. The academic year does not coincide with the government fiscal year and out of each year's budget provision must be made for the final payments of the previous year's awards. The rather large increase in the number of awards offered in 1968 resulted in a greatly increased commitment in 1969 over that which was required in 1968 for final payments of 1967 awards.


APPROVAL OF BROADCAST ADVERTISING
Mr. Monteiih: 1.	Is there a regulation that the Department of National Health and Welfare must approve, In advance of broadcasting radio or television advertising, relating to food, drugs, or cosmetics for (a) human use (b) animal use?
Questions
2.	If so, who are the officials in the Department who have the responsibility of assigning or withholding approval, and what are their qualifications?
3.	In the last six months, have any proposed advertisements been denied approval and, if so, how many?
4.	Are there some classes of food, drugs or cosmetics the advertisement of which, does not require advance approval and, if so, what are these classes, and why are they exempt?
5.	Does the same, or an equivalent, regulation apply to advertising in newspapers or media other than radio or television and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Regulations under the Broadcasting Act require that no station shall broadcast any advertisement for any article to which the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act or the Food and Drugs Act applies unless the advertisement has been approved by the Department of National Health and Welfare. This requirement relates to drugs for human and animal use and to foods and cosmetics for human use.
2.	Radio and TV commercials are reviewed at Ottawa by officers of the Bureau of Operations, Food and Drug Directorate, all of whom are university graduates in science, are Food and Drug inspectors with many years of experience and have a thorough knowledge of the Food and Drugs Act and Regulations and the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act and their interpretation. Since July, 1968 the review of radio and TV commercials for food has been the responsibility of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. These officers have the same background as outlined above.
3.	In the six-month period ending March 31, 1969, approximately 170 commercials for drugs and cosmetics were denied approval (out of some 3,446 commercials reviewed). Some 300' commercials for foods were rejected (out of a total of 9,618).
4.	Radio and TV commercials which do not contain any claims and mention only the name of the product, the name of the place where the product may be obtained and the price of the product, do not require clearance prior to broadcast. The reason is that no promotional claims are made. Advertisements for perishable food products such as fresh fruit, vegetables, fish, meat, and some bakery products, which make claims as to quality, flavour, etc., may be given temporary clearance by the local Food and Drug inspector. This exemption is granted because of the

April 28, 1969
Questions
nature of the product and the need for immediate clearance without the necessity of submitting the commercial two weeks in advance of broadcast.
5.	Preclearance of advertisements in newspapers or media other than radio or TV is not required since these advertisements do not come under the authority of the Broadcasting Act and there is no authority for prereview under the Food and Drugs Act or the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act.



HALIFAX-DARTMOUTH WATER SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,954
['1. Yarmouth County, Nova\nScotia; Kings County, P.E.I.; Prince Albert, Saskatchewan; Lac la Biche, Alberta.\n2.\tUntil March 31, 1971.\n3.\tBetween $3,000,000-$4,000,000.\n4.\t(a) Two; (b) The Pas, Manitoba and Richibucto, N.B.; (c) Priorities are determined by the nature of the problems confronting the disadvantaged people of the area in relation to the opportunities for stable and rewarding employment which may be available.']
Mr. McCleave:: 1.	Did the Atlantic Development Board make any recommendations with regard to the water supply for metropolitan Halifax-Dartmouth and, if so, what is their gist?
2.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the government reached a decision as to a federal role in the development of such a supply system and, if so, what is this role to be?


Russell Clayton Honey: 1. Yes. The board made a recommendation for financial assistance on a shared-cost basis for a water system for the area; such assistance to be subject to selection of a water development scheme agreeable to the parties concerned and to have regard to the question of appropriate water rates.
2. No.



Mrs. Maclnnis: 1.	What is the distribution of the Consumer Communique issued by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?
2.	What is the breakdown of the distribution between (a) private individuals (b) newspapers
(c)	magazines, and (d) other business concerns?
3.	How frequently has the Consumer Communique been issued since the first one in July, 1968 and what topics have been dealt with in each issue?


Stanley Ronald Basford: 1. 28,000.
2.	(a) 26,134; (b) 1,597 (includes 409 radio and television stations); (c) 171; (d) None as such; all requests included in over-all mailing list.
3.	Twice; buying carpeting; misleading price advertising.


ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILE SYSTEM
Mr. Brewin: 1.	Has the Department of National Defence or the government employed or secured the services of any groups or individuals outside of the Public Service for the purposes of advice, consultation or information in respect to the deployment of an anti-ballistic missile system in the United States of America or its implications for the security and defence of Canada?
2.	If so, are any such studies under way (a) when were they begun (b) what are the names and qualifications of those involved in the studies?
3.	Will the results of such studies be made available to the public or to Parliament through the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence?


David Walter Groos: Mr. Speaker, the answer to parts 1 and 2 of this question is as follows: In 1967, the Chairman, Defence Research Board engaged Dr. R. W. Nicholls, Professor and Chairman, Department of Physics, Centre for Research in Experimental Space Science, York University, Toronto, to prepare an informal unclassified report entitled "The Physical Phenomenology of Nuclear Explosions in the Atmosphere and in Space." This study, which was commenced in July and completed in August, 1967, was not concerned with the deployment of an anti-ballistic missile system but it was concerned with the effects of nuclear explosions at various altitudes.
The answer to part 3 is: Yes, if requested.


VISITS BY HIGH COMMISSIONER TO ZAMBIA
Mr. Lewis: 1.	How many times did the Canadian High Commissioner in Tanzania visit Zambia in the year 1968?
2.	Has the Canadian High Commission in Tanzania ever informed the government of Portuguese military incursions into Zambia?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. The present Canadian High Commissioner to Tanzania visited Zambia four times in 1968. His predecessor as the accredited Canadian representative also visited Zambia once in 1968.
2. Reports of Portuguese military incursions into Zambia have been transmitted to the government by the Canadian High Commission in Tanzania.
April 28, 1969


AMHERST, N.S., ECONOMIC EXPANSION OPERATIONS
Mr. Coates: Is the Department of Regional Economic Expansion considering the closure or any reductions in the operations of the Department at Amherst, Nova Scotia and, if so, what are its intentions in this regard and for what reasons?


Russell Clayton Honey: In accordance with agreements
made with the three Maritime provinces in 1966, these provinces will next April assume the operation and maintenance of all works undertaken under the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act. There will accordingly be some adjustments in the work of federal staff located at Moncton and Amherst. This is currently being reviewed in relation to the other responsibilities of the Department.


NEW START PROGRAMS
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Where are the present New Start programs located in each Province and Territory of Canada?
2 How long is it anticipated that each will continue in operation?
3.	What is the estimated cost of each project?
4.	How many New Start projects are pending and where will each be located and what is the criteria for priorities of each proposal?


Russell Clayton Honey: 1. Yarmouth County, Nova
Scotia; Kings County, P.E.I.; Prince Albert, Saskatchewan; Lac la Biche, Alberta.
2.	Until March 31, 1971.
3.	Between $3,000,000-$4,000,000.
4.	(a) Two; (b) The Pas, Manitoba and Richibucto, N.B.; (c) Priorities are determined by the nature of the problems confronting the disadvantaged people of the area in relation to the opportunities for stable and rewarding employment which may be available.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Caouelte: 1.	What amounts were allocated by the federal government, over the past five years, to assist Canadian universities?
2.	What amounts were loaned to each Canadian university?
Return tabled.
Questions


DEPUTY MINISTERS-NAMES AND SALARIES
Mr. Coates: 1.	What are the names of each of the individuals who hold positions of Deputy Minister in the federal government and what is the salary of each and on what date was this salary determined?
2.	What are the names of the individuals who hold positions of the rank of Assistant Deputy Minister and what is the present salary of each and on what date was the present salary determined?
Return tabled.


CROWN CORPORATIONS-NAMES AND SALARIES OF PRESIDENTS
Mr. Coates: What are the names of the individuals who hold the rank of President of Crown Corporations of the federal government, what is the salary of each, and on what date was the present salary determined?	.
Return tabled.


TOBACCO-REVENUE FROM AND EXPENDITURE ON RESEARCH
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How much revenue has the federal government received from the sale of (a) cigarettes (b) cigars (c) chewing tobacco (d) pipe tobacco (e) snuff, in each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?
2.	How much subsidy and/or support has the federal government paid to tobacco farmers during each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?
3.	How much revenue has the federal government received from the advertising of tobacco in any form during each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?
4.	How much money has the federal government spent on research on the health hazards resulting from the use of tobacco in each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?
5.	How much money has the federal government spent on research on tobacco farming and tobacco growing in each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?
6.	How much money has the federal government spent in advertising the hazards of smoking and/or evils of tobacco in each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?
Return tabled.


AREA DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION COST
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	How much money was granted under the Area Development Administration, each year, from its inception until the end of 1968?
2.	What are the names and locations of the companies that received such grants?
3.	What was the amount of the grant in each case and in which year was it extended to the various companies?
Return tabled.

April 28, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of this matter to the country, I ask the Minister of Labour whether he can report on the status of the Air Canada negotiations with its employees.


Hon. Bryce S. Mackasey (Minisier of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the negotiations between Air Canada and the International Association of Machinists broke off last evening. At the present moment there are no meaningful talks going on between Air Canada and this particular group of employees. I have no way of predicting how long it will be before the employees and employer resume negotiations, and I can only point to the fact that there are alternative methods of transportation in this country.


Mr. Woolliams:: Whom are you fooling?


Howard Russell MacEwan: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister whether he will take it upon himself to try to get the parties together. This matter is very important to transportation in this country.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When I returned from a short holiday a week ago yesterday I did precisely that and succeeded in getting both parties to resume negotiations. I believe they began negotiations a week ago yesterday. I am rather pleased in one respect, namely that the parties were able, particularly on Friday of last week in Ottawa, to clean up all non-monetary issues which were at that time hampering the discussions of the monetary issues and which, according to both parties, had priority. These items have been cleared up, and when the negotiations broke off last evening there remained only the monetary clauses.
I will be very pleased to take the suggestion of the hon. member into consideration, and when both sides request the assistance of the Department of Labour or even of the Minister of Labour and are prepared to ask for that assistance jointly I will be happy to give it.


Mr. David Lewis (York Souih):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether he has been able to inform Air Canada

on behalf of the government that the corporation is not tied to any official or unofficial guidelines with regard to the limits which they are permitted to offer to the negotiating union, so that the two sides may negotiate and bargain for a settlement in the normal way.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman has raised a very important point. This morning I reviewed Hansard, and from this I see that the Prime Minister made it quite clear last week that Air Canada has the right to bargain with its employees independently of government intervention. I could not continue my role as Minister of Labour if I thought there was government interference in any Crown corporation.


David Lewis: I hope there is not.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: have a supplementary question for the Minister of Labour. Has the government received any information from the International Association of Machinists that it might instruct its members working for other airlines either to observe picket lines, or to come out in a sympathy strike, because it felt that the government was imposing certain guidelines with regard to wages?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I think the point should be clarified, Mr. Speaker. The International Association of Machinists has not been negotiating with the government but rather with Air Canada, which happens to be a Crown corporation, but which, in my view, has been given no special preferential treatment any more than, say, Ogilvie Flour Mills Company or other companies which come under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. I consider Air Canada to be completely free to negotiate with its employees and to establish wage rates as they see fit, and which they are capable of paying.
With regard to whether or not the International Association of Machinists have advanced that particular suggestion, the answer is no, because at no time have they dealt directly with the government, certainly not through the Minister of Labour; and I doubt if they negotiated or discussed their problem with the government through any other minister.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I have a supplementary question, to clear up the point. There is no suggestion that the union has to
April 28, 1969

deal with the government. My question was whether it has informed the government either directly or indirectly that this might happen.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: To the best of my knowledge the answer is no, Mr. Speaker.



AIR TRANSPORT


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. As several groups of employees of Air Canada during the past two years have demonstrated on several occasions that they have the ability to deny air transportation to the great majority of Canadians who want to use that mode of transportation, and this has been denied for considerable periods of time, as appearsi to be the case today, has the Prime Minister or the government given consideration to expanding significantly the air transport licences of Canadian Pacific Airlines and other air transport carriers in Canada, and in this way reducing the monopoly position enjoyed by Air Canada?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: May I take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: have a supplementary question which I should like to direct either to the Prime Minister or to the Minister of Labour. In view of the numerous strikes in Canada in these essential industries, has the government given serious consideration to implementing the recommendations of the Woods report.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The basic philosophy of the Woods report is that there should be a minimum of government interference with labour relations in this country. I should like to remind the hon. member that the official labour spokesman for his party, as well as hon. gentlemen on the front bench opposite me, endorsed the philosophy of the Freedman report, again a very pro-labour report, showing a progressive attitude on the part of the opposition. I
Inquiries of the Ministry hope no one will suggest reactionary solutions to this strike since strikes are inevitable under free collective bargaining. This sort of strike has taken place before in Canada and I think will take place periodically in the future. If we want to live in a democracy we shall have to get used to the idea. I do not think we are faced with a national emergency. It is true the strike is disruptive and unpleasant, but I repeat that there are alternative methods of transportation available and Canadians will have to use them in the interval.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, with respect to another Crown corporation called Devco. Why, then, did the minister support the plan for the compulsory retirement of these employees at the age of 60?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



WATER RESOURCES


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister regarding the confidential report which has been submitted to the International Joint Commission on the subject of the pollution of Canadian-United States boundary waters? In view of the fact that Mr. Arnold Heeney, the chairman of the Canadian section of that commission, has described the situation as worrisome, pointing out that the conditions in Lake Erie are bad and that conditions in Lake Ontario are far from satisfactory, may I ask the Prime Minister when this report will be made public and available to members of the House of Commons?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. gentleman refers to a confidential report. He has probably had access to it before I have, so I will take the question as notice.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. No one minds the Prime Minister's

April 28, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry trying to be witty from time to time, even when he only half succeeds. But I do not have a copy of the report. I am referring to an item which appeared in the newspapers containing the remarks of the chairman of the Canadian section of the International Joint Commission, and I am simply asking when this important report, which the chairman describes as being the most comprehensive yet compiled, will be made public, because it will be of great interest to the people. I submit I should be allowed to ask that question without any facetious interjections.



COMBINES


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the serious implications for all federally and provincially sponsored drug programs arising from the decision of the B.C. Professional Pharmacists Society to make a one dollar surcharge on prescriptions for welfare patients, and in view of the request a week ago by British Columbia's welfare minister that the combines investigation branch be asked for a speedy decision in this connection, may I ask the minister what has been the result of this request to date?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure whether this is not the type of question which should be discussed at the time of adjournment or placed on the order paper.


Donald MacInnis: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I think this is an important question because the welfare minister stated that druggists already receive no lower-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The matter may be important but I suggest the hon. member is, rather, looking for an argument with the minister, and I do not think in its present form the question can be accepted. If there is urgency, the hon. member knows that under the rules she can give notice and the matter will be considered at the time of the adjour-ment.


Donald MacInnis: There is one final point I should like to make, Mr. Speaker. I believe the minister was rising to answer my question.


Mr. Speaker:: He can rise just as easily at ten o'clock.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: A supplementary question


Mr. Speaker:: There cannot be a supplementary. The hon. member could ask a related questions, perhaps.


Gerald William Baldwin: It is a related and equally non-argumentative question. Has the minister yet had a productive meeting of minds with the Prime Minister so that the names of those who are to be members of the prices and wages board can be announced?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Our minds are in the
process of meeting, Mr. Speaker.



RESEARCH


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. Is the minister now in a position to answer the question I directed to the Prime Minister on Friday last and which he said the Secretary of State would answer when he was next in the house? My question is: What procedure does the government intend to follow to deal with the wide-ranging recommendations of the Macdonald report on scientific research?


Gérard Pelletier: I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that this report has been available long enough to expect from the government a detailed and immediate policy. Its content has been known to us since last Thursday only. I could not even say how this report affects the responsibilities of my own department.



COMPANY OF YOUNG CANADIANS


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State, of which I have given him notice. In view of the fact that the statute that three years ago set up the Company of Young Canadians provided that there be a
April 28, 1969

permanent council, partly elected by volunteers, and the further fact that such council has not yet been established, will the minister inform the house whether election procedures for the purpose are in process of being prepared, and when the election of the permanent council may be expected?


Gérard Pelletier: Quite willingly, Mr. Speaker. The Company of Young Canadians sent us draft regulations which are now under consideration and which will have to be submitted soon to the cabinet.


David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I also ask the minister whether he received a letter from the volunteers association of the Company dealing with this matter. If so, what reply has he given the association; if he has not yet given a reply, will he be able to assure them of the election of the council within the next month or two?


Gérard Pelletier: I have in fact received representations and I intend to reply when I am better able to foresee how long it will be before approval is given to the election procedure needed to establish the permanent council.



GOVERNMENT REACTION TO SUGGESTED DISBANDMENT

Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State. In view of the wide spread disfavour with which the work of the Company of Young Canadians is held by a large number of people in Canada, is the government now considering the disbandment of this organization?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, like everyone else, I am aware of the criticism, at times quite severe, to be found in the newspapers against the Company of Young Canadians. I hope that the hon. member is also aware of the very good things that are often said about it.
There is absolutely no question at the present time of putting an end to the activities of the Company.
Inquiries of the Ministry
I English]



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Fundy-Roy-al: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister advise the house of any plans for solving the problems in the passport office occasioned by the resignation of five staff members due to unsatisfactory working conditions?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I had a report I could have given the house but I was not satisfied that it answered all of the questions that were in the minds of hon. members. I am sure that one of the reasons for the resignation of some of these members of the staff of the passport office is the great burden of overtime work they have all had to bear. We have increased the staff of the passport office by many, many scores. Notwithstanding that, 7,500 hours of overtime have been worked. We are asking the staff to work Saturdays on a regular basis. I hope the members of the house will realize what a tremendous job the passport office is doing, notwithstanding the fact that some passports have not been issued as quickly as they would have liked.


Mr. Fairweaiher:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would it not be possible to augment the government's very sensible plan to open regional offices, as announced some months ago?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, if it were as easy as that we should have done it yesterday. The trouble is that we have to have trained personnel. The purpose of the passport office in part is to see that unauthorized persons do not obtain passports. I do not think we ought to reduce security provisions in order to increase volume.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the government considered increasing the staff of its office in Ottawa so that applications may be processed more quickly. Also, will that staff be payed at a higher than usual rate for any overtime it puts in?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the staff has already been augmented by 90 persons in recent weeks. We brought them in to deal with the overload. One of our problems of course is lack of space. Perhaps I should not

April 28, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry complain about Treasury Board, but it is very difficult to have new buildings built.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmonl):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister tell us when the passport service will return to normalcy? Will this be in the near future, so that people applying for passports may be assured they can obtain their passports soon; and if not in two or three weeks, then whether in fact they will be informed it may take two or three months or longer for people to obtain passports.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, within the next few days I intend to embark on an advertising program which I hope will help to clarify the situation. I expect that the peak of passport applications-more passports than anticipated have been applied for-will be over by the middle of June.


Mr. Ed Schreyer (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, what has the minister to propose with respect to those Canadians who lose financially because of long delays in obtaining passports? Will there be any repayment of fees to persons who cannot obtain requisite service, or who cannot obtain their passports?


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. The hon. member has asked a question. I do not think he should pursue the matter further.


Some hon. Members:: Answer.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, when making a statement I hope to deal with this question, among others.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In his statement would the minister please advise if there will be special provisions to take care of Canadians affected by the Air Canada strike? I am thinking of Canadians who wish to obtain passports, and in particular I have in mind several people who in the next day or two will wish to obtain passports to travel east. Will there be some provisions to enable them to obtain passports in Canada House in England? They might pick them up there, hopefully


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think the complications brought about by the Air Canada strike are greater even than those suggested by the hon. member. But I will look into his suggestion.


AGREEMENTS WITH QUEBEC CONCERNING
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Warren Allmand (Nolre-Dame-de-
Grace): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Considering the statement made recently by Gabriel Loubier, Minister of Tourism for Quebec, that the federal minister had reneged on certain agreements with Quebec relating to grants having to do with sports and recreation, will the minister state whether any agreements have been reached with Quebec on this subject and whether he in fact reneged on them?
John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, no, I have not reneged on any agreements. We had several discussions with the Quebec Minister of Tourism and although he made many suggestions relating to Quebec's participation in the amateur sports program, I indicated that we would entertain what was suggested. No commitment has been given. Before the Quebec minister went to the press I endeavoured personally to reach him on several occasions to talk to him about this, but was unable to do so. He was unavailable.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Sianley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. It is supplementary to one I asked him two weeks ago today concerning the Woods report and the time of its reference to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. Can the minister say whether this will be done soon?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the answer I gave two weeks ago still stands. As soon as the white paper is ready we shall refer it to the appropriate committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister assure us that this will be done in sufficient time to permit this matter to be dealt with during the present session?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Speaker, it is still my hope that it will be done as quickly as possible. I am afraid that is all I can say at this time.
April 28, 1969	COMMONS


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Was the Postmaster General expressing the view of the government when he said in Edmonton last night that the government is paying far too much to have its mail transported by Air Canada? I ask this question, particularly in view of his statement to the effect that he had not revealed this to his cabinet colleagues and that he really should not have said anything about it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister take steps to promote more dialogue between members of his government?


INCOME TAX
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the Air Canada strike and the failure of the Post Office Department to accustom itself to the five day week delivery of mail, will the minister consider extending the deadline for the return of income tax payments from midnight of Wednesday, April 30 to midnight of Monday, May 5?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the facts the hon. member has referred to, there is nothing to prevent our people from mailing their income tax returns before April 30.


Alfred Dryden Hales: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister talk to his colleague, the Postmaster General, and ask him to make provisions for stamping in an appropriate manner all mail posted before midnight on April 30.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
As the industrial milk producers are not satisfied with the milk policy for 1969, has the minister received recently representations
DEBATES	8049
Inquiries of the Ministry from the Quebec C.F.U. or does the minister intend, in the next few days, to meet with representatives of Quebec agricultural organizations with a view to considering the industrial milk policy?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minisier of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we have received a number oi communications from farm organizations, including the one the hon. member mentioned. The minister and the department will be happy to meet with representatives of organizations to explain the reasons for making adjustments with respect to the new dairy year.


DAIRYING-COMPLAINTS FROM WESTERN PRODUCERS
Edward Richard Schreyer: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister say whether he is taking any action to deal with representations of western Canadian dairy producers who allege that present Canadian Dairy Commission Policies militate against dairy production in western Canada?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, we do not accept the preamble to that type of question.



[Stage Direction]
RESIGNATION OF GENERAL DE GAULLE Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalt-Saanich):
Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Prime Minister.
I wish to know whether the Prime Minister has sent a telegram expressing our condolences to General de Gaulle, the former President of the French Republic, who resigned this morning. If so, can he advise us of the text of this telegram?
['The question asked by the hon. member is of a very general nature. I doubt whether it should be asked at this time.']
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not sent any such telegram. In my opinion, anyone engaged in politics knows that a politician's career is somewhat short-lived and I think the General is no more surprised than I am myself.


Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the government received a message of condolence from the government of France on the resignation of the Minister of Transport?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.

April 28, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry MAINLAND CHINA-U.S. REACTION TO CANADIAN RECOGNITION


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breion-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the minister now prepared to table the statement he referred to on Wednesday last by the Secretary of State of the United States expressing concern about Canada's statement on Red China. Can the minister at the same time say whether Canada received a note on this matter and also what Canada's reply was?


Mitchell William Sharp: Well, Mr. Speaker, when I answered that question the other day I had reservations about it. I said that if the house considered it necessary, I would make public the statement. If the hon. member really wishes me to get hold of Mr. Rogers' statement, I shall be happy to do so. Our answer to the United States, and I cannot recall now whether there was a note, was that we intend to proceed.


Robert Muir: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker. On Wednesday last when the minister replied to this question he spoke rather casually about the statement made by the United States Secretary of State, intimating it was published many weeks ago. He said he would get it for the house and table it if necessary. I hope he does get it, and that he tables it.



Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: My
question, Mr. Speaker, is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I ask him through you, Mr. Speaker, if his attention has been called to a study or report of an influential group in the United States which has called on its own government to take the lead in working for a standing force of 40,000 men to be used by the United Nations for its peacekeeping operations? Will the government of Canada consider this report and discuss it with the United States government?


Mr. Speaker:: The question asked by the hon. member is of a very general nature. I doubt whether it should be asked at this time.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has there of recent date been any meaningful consultation with the United States regarding crime prevention? Have any anti-crime measures been taken in view of the fact that the director of the Montreal police force, Jean-Paul Gilbert, has predicted there will be a wave of criminals entering Canada from the United States?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minisier of Justice):: Approximately three or four weeks ago the Solicitor General and I were in Washington, where we had personal discussions for two days with the Attorney General of the United States, John Mitchell, the Deputy Attorney General, Dick Kleindienst, and most of their senior officials, including the crime investigation branch. We spent about four hours discussing the anti-crime network. The officials gave us advance information about the new strike force announced recently by the President of the United States.



HAL BANKS-POSSIBILITY OF RENEWING EXTRADITION PROCEEDINGS

George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In the discussions with these gentlemen, did the question of the extradition of Hal Banks come up? If so, what view did the government express?


John Napier Turner: Neither side brought up that question during the discussions,


George Harris Hees: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Did both feel that politically this is a very sensitive matter?



INDUSTRY


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Now that the compulsory aspect of the Devco early retirement plan is in effect, will the government move quickly to assure that Devco carries out that part of the legislation which compels them to provide for former miners?
April 28, 1969


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Perhaps the hon. member would like to ask this question of the minister responsible for Devco.


Donald MacInnis: If the Prime Minister will examine the question I asked, he will see that the government move to give assurance that Devco carries out that portion of the legislation which compels them to look after the miners, is a question for the Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister would only realize that he is leading the government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



TRAIL, B.C.-ACTION TO CONTROL EMERGENCY SITUATION

Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Last Friday I directed a question to the Prime Minister regarding federal assistance to the flood damaged city of Trail. At that time the Prime Minister indicated that later in the day he would be contacting both the Premier of British Columbia and the Mayor of Trail. May I inquire what assistance the federal government has offered to the city of Trail to assist in rehabilitation of the flooded areas?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I did answer these telegrams on Friday and I said that after we had further reports of the damage we would be prepared to discuss this matter with the relevant authorities.


Randolph Harding: May I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Public Works? Has the Department of Public Works any plans to assist in the rehabilitation of the Trail area? If so, would the minister indicate what has been done to date and what assistance, if any, his department can offer to the Trail area?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, as a result of a great number of representations, including the representations made by the hon. member for Okanagan-Boundary and others, a commitment was made by the Prime Minister that someone be sent to this area. The Department of Public Works has co-operated and Mr. Stevens has been to Trail, has now returned to Vancouver, and is making a report.
I have been in touch with the Mayor of Trail. When the report is received an
Inquiries of the Ministry announcement will be made by the government as to its responsibility or otherwise. There are estimates of damage in the area of $1 million or $1J million. In light of the fact there is provincial legislation covering such disasters, it might be construed this misfortune is within the financial capacity of the province of British Columbia.



FINANCE


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: My
question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs on the subject of the proposed national securities commission. Will the minister advise whether he has made any progress since I last inquired about his negotiations with the provinces, or are these negotiations still stalled?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, discussions are continuing within my department, within the government, and with appropriate provincial officials.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. My question is with regard to the statements made by the Secretary of State in London, Ontario, on Friday last, with reference to the methods of presentation of government propaganda. He said:
Nowadays you can leave the written press free if you can manipulate the radio and television facilities.
I ask the Secretary of State whether this is a statement of government policy in this area?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member the question as asked is argumentative and cannot be asked in that way at this time.


Robert Simpson: In view of the fact that the Secretary of State is the minister responsible for one of the largest news media in Canada, the C.B.C., and is expressing opinions of this nature, does the Prime Minister intend-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is being argumentative and I suggest the matter should not be pursued.

April 28, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. Was the minister stating government policy when he said in London, Ontario, that the press no longer has much importance except to himself and other members of the upper middle class?


Gérard Pelletier: Of course I said no such thing, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question cannot be asked of the minister.


Edward Richard Schreyer: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order is that you allowed the Secretary of State to answer the question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I did not allow it. I believe the Secretary of State got up a little too quickly. I suggested that the question should not be asked. Perhaps I should have moved a little faster, but perhaps after 40 minutes of questioning the Speaker does not move as quickly at the end as he does at the beginning.



AIR CANADA


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: My question is supplementary to that asked the Minister of Labour with regard to the Air Canada strike. Will the minister elaborate on his statement that alternative modes of transportation are available? Does the minister mean between Montreal and Ottawa or between western Canada and eastern Canada? If he means the latter, I wish he would get up to date information.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to leave the impression that the strike is not inconvenient. It is certainly more inconvenient in some parts of the country than in others. I say there are two major railways running across the country as well as Canadian Pacific Airlines, Transair, Nordair, Royalaire and I believe other charter airlines. They are doing the best possible to take up the slack caused by this particular strike. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, this is a dispute between Air Canada and a certain group of key employees. It is not the time for the government to be stampeded into reactionary statements or action.


John (Jack) McIntosh: A further supplementary to the minister, Mr. Speaker. Possibly the minister is not aware that when you try to get reservations in any of the modes he suggested, the best they can guarantee right now on travelling from western to eastern Canada is May 7. I ask the minister if he will prevail on the existing railways, Canadian National and Canadian- Pacific, to make available additional rolling stock to facilitate the demands that are prominent right now in western Canada, so that innocent people will not suffer?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the crisis in the passport department, will the minister give consideration to reissuing passports- for an additional five years, rather than issuing new passports, asi a solution to a problem which seems to be out of hand at the present time?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. I do not think that would be a wise thing to do. I believe we should continue as we have been doing to increase the security underlying Canadian passports. These are very valuable documents, and it was not doing Canada's reputation any good to have them issued as loosely as in the past.



THE MINISTRY


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister has now had an opportunity over the weekend to consider the events of late last week flowing from the resignation of the minister, and having read the many speeches resulting therefrom, is he now giving some consideration to the setting up of a separate ministry of housing and urban development?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, the many speeches I heard were mainly concerned with constitutional problems. I do not remember reading any that suggested that this kind of department would increase the constitutional power of the government.
April 28, 1969



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Would he tell the house and the people of this country what measure his government proposes to alleviate the conditions which today in the town of St. Paul, Alberta, have brought more than 800 farmers out to a mass rally to protest depressed farm incomes? Can he indicate to the farmers of Canada when the nation's agricultural community might be included in the just society?



SASKATOON, SASK.-PROTEST AGAINST FARM INCOMES

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the wire received from the Saskatoon Board of Trade regarding the serious situation which faces agricultural communities in western Canada would the Prime Minister inform the house concerning the nature of his reply.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am not aware of having received such a telegram, Mr. Speaker.



CANADA COUNCIL


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. Now that he has explained to his own satisfaction the granting of a Canada Council award to one student radical leader, could he now look into the $3,500 Canada Council scholarship granted to one Jon Bordo, self-described student radical leader at the University of Alberta.



CANADA PENSION PLAN


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I should like to ask him whether he has discussed with representatives of the provinces the possibility of obtaining an exemption for the Old Order of Mennonites from the provisions of the Canada Pension Plan, and if so what has been the result of those discussions?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please, I suggest this is the type of question which should be placed on the order paper.
Inquiries of the Ministry IMMIGRATION DELAYS IN HEARINGS


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to diret my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Will the minister undertake to investigate reports of an inordinate delay in granting hearings to immigrant applicants who apply for special inquiries or other proceedings?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Yes. I would be glad to investigate this in general, and if my hon. friend has any specific cases I would be glad to consider those also.



ADMISSION OF DRAFT DODGERS AND DESERTERS

John Stratford Burton: Could the
minister inform the house how soon we might expect a report on immigration policies respecting United States military deserters?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No. I am not ready yet to make any such statement.



RUDOLPH HOLATA-PROTEST AGAINST HOLDING IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

Steve Eugene Paproski: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since I had been recognized just before the previous point of order I wonder if I might ask a question which I believe is very urgent.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member cannot do this on a point of order. He might be allowed to do it with the unanimous agreement of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs based on his statement of Thursday, April 24 regarding the imprisonment of Rudolph Holata. My question is the same as the one I asked previously. Has the Canadian government protested the arrest and imprisonment of a Canadian citizen and employee of the Canadian government and if not why not?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I gave a full answer to that question.

April 28, 1969
Business of the House



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether the government house leader would consider calling a meeting of house leaders perhaps later today to see whether we might have a discussion about the time to be spent on the matters we are about to begin to debate. I am not suggesting any over-all time limit in view of certain positions which have been taken, but I wonder whether the house leader would consider calling a meeting so that we might discuss the time we would spend on the first eight or ten amendments which are now before the house.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned to the member and to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) I should like if possible to arrange a meeting this evening. I hope just as soon as the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) returns to the house we might be able to arrange a meeting for possibly after eight o'clock this evening. I think it might be useful to work out a procedure, in view of the fact that we have used up the equivalent of 12 full sitting days for the second reading and report stages, and since there are only 25 sitting days remaining for legislation at this session.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, April 25, consideration of Bill C-150, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Gérard Laprise: amendment No. 15:
That Bill C-150, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act, be amended by inserting

in clause 15, after the words "person who" on line 11 on page 35, the following words:
"being unavoidably prevented from finding a medical practitioner".
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, I moved that amendment to clause 15 on page 35 of reprinted Bill C-150 in order to clarify the meaning of subsection (2) of the section 209, so as to prevent any misunderstanding in the implementation of this legislation.
First I shall read the new section 209 which clause 15 of Bill C-150 would substitute to the present section. I quote:
(1)	Every one who causes the death, in the act of birth, of any child that has not become a human being, in such a manner that, if the child were a human being, he would be guilty of murder, is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for life.
(2)	This section does not apply to a person who, by means that, in good faith, he considers necessary to preserve the life of the mother of a child, causes the death of such child.
So the amendment I move Mr. Speaker, would add after the words "a person who" the following words:
"being unavoidably prevented from finding a medical practitioner."
Mr. Speaker, this amendment would prevent any person from killing a child in the act of birth if it is possible for such a person to find a qualified practitioner.
I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that the proposed amendment to Bill C-150 would open the door to any quack who could say afterwards he acted in good faith and thus would not be prosecuted for criminal negligence.
The amendment I am introducing would oblige the woman seeking abortion, under section 209, to take all possible practical steps to find a qualified doctor to perform the abortion. Thus, in case of practical impossibility, the woman concerned could go to another person she feels is qualified enough to perform the abortion.
I am thinking, in particular, of areas very far from medical centers, hospitals, or qualified doctors. Were the case to arise in such places, it would become necessary to request to help of a person who, though not a doctor, could provide the help needed by the woman or girl whose life is endangered.
Mr. Speaker, according to the Model Penal Code of the American Law Institute, abortion will be justified only when performed in an
April 28, 1969

accredited hospital, except in cases of emergency, when hospital services are unavailable.
I would like to point out here that this section from the Model Penal Code of the American Law Institute has not yet been adopted everywhere in the United States; it is simply suggested that with its inherent restrictions it should become part and parcel of the American law.
In my opinion, we should here in Canada enforce the same restrictions in the case of persons likely to perform abortion, I mean doctors. Mr. Speaker, if I have introduced this amendment to the Criminal Code, it is with a view to throwing some light on paragraph 2, section 209, so that persons lacking the qualifications to perform abortion would do so only if it were truly impossible to find a qualified doctor or if the services of a duly accredited hospital were not available.


Mr. Rene  Malle@Champlain: Mr. Speaker, the time has now come to study the amendments to the clauses of Bill C-150 dealing with abortion.
With regard to the first amendment proposed to us, I feel it would be well to consider the importance of the specification suggested by my colleague, the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise).
When the doctor is not at the bedside of a woman about to give birth or to have a miscarriage, it is absolutely normal for the persons closest to her to try and help her. However, Mr. Speaker, this type of situation seldom occurs. Indeed, considering modern progress, the number of public clinics and [DOT] means of communications, it is practically impossible for that type of situation to occur.
That is why we want to make the legislation more specific with regard to the intervention of another person. This would make the legislation even more efficient.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that all those things should be considered. It would be extremely easy for clever people to use some means to an end that would not always be good.
By proposing this amendment, we want to prevent-and we take this opportunity to say so-in the event where it is really impossible to find a doctor, that the one who lends a hand should be accused of homicide or infanticide. It would be completely in order for that person not to have to suffer the consequences of an inadequate law.
We all agree on that. I insist on the fact that those cases do not occur. I fail to see
Criminal Code
how anyone other than a doctor could be authorized to procure an abortion.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
The legislation even states specifically that these are cases which will be decided by a board of doctors. Therefore, is it possible that a person would have to provoke abortion? This will never happen.
What can happen is a birth, as mentioned in the section. Therefore, at the time of delivery, even if it is premature, there is of course a birth. The birth can be normal. I cannot possibly imagine that the person who would give this service would provoke the death of the child during birth. In other words, it is practically impossible that a person could be accused of having provoked the death during the process of birth. I cannot see how such a situation could occur.
Last week, or two weeks ago, here, in Ottawa, a woman gave birth to a child on her way to the hospital, in a taxi or in a police car.
Mr. Speaker, even if I have never had the opportunity of seeing such things, I feel that, in these circumstances, I would know what to do. This situation does not occur very often. That is why we want to bring in this legislation a particular provision in order to avoid illegal abortions and to prevent unscrupulous people to prevail themselves of this clause to work in a field exclusively reserved to doctors.
That is why we want to add in section 209 the following words:
-being unavoidably prevented from finding a medical practitioner.
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, there are some isolated areas where no physician is available. Therefore, one could presume that the legislation was devised having regard to such situations. In general, when a pregnancy evolves normally, no serious complications occur. But when difficulties crop up, pregnant women go where they can easily be treated by physicians or where the physician is willing to make house calls.
By adding to that clause the words "being unavoidably prevented from finding a medical practitioner", we might limit the number of possible cases and run the risk of making the legislation applicable to unforeseen situations.
As everybody knows, the interpretation of statutes is always emphasized, especially by those who wish to use them for improper purposes. It is unfortunate, but it is common

April 28, 1963
Criminal Code
knowledge. People often say that nobody is more familiar with the law than a thief. Nobody is better acquainted with the law than a person bent on mischief.
Therefore, we must be explicit and not be content to say:
This section does not apply to a person who, by means that, in good faith, he considers necessary to preserve the life of the mother of a child, causes the death of such child.
Indeed, if we find it good enough to say:
-by means that, in good faith-
-several individuals will come and prove their good faith after having procured abortion, caused the death of a child almost fully developed, and then, abnormal and criminal acts will again be justified.
This is why we ask that these words be added, and the clause would then read:
This section does not apply to a person who,... being unavoidably prevented from finding a medical practitioner-
By so doing, we specify a most important point since it excludes, as my colleague said a while ago, the quacks and other unscrupulous people that are always ready to render a service to persons in trouble. It often happens that a pregnant woman is momentarily depressed and she sometimes feels compelled to resort to the services of individuals who will appear willing to help her while their sole intention is to extract money from her.
Then they will try to do something which only a doctor is allowed to do. This is why the clause should be amended to read:
This section does not apply to a person who, being unavoidably prevented from finding a medical practitioner, by means that, in good faith, he considers necessary to preserve the life of the mother of a child that has not yet become a human being, causes the death of such child.
Mr. Speaker, I will sum up my views by saying that such a case almost never happens because nature already does things rather well and, generally, there are no particular difficulties.
Thanks to the progress of medicine, a woman who becomes pregnant knows it after a few months. At that time she is already under medical care, and since it almost never happens that a person other than a doctor is called to help a pregnant woman, let us not allow shady individuals to take advantage of the vagueness of this clause to counter precisely the principle we want to incorporate in this legislation.

I think we should then add, if this section is approved:
-being unavoidably prevented from finding a medical practitioner-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question on the amendment moved by Mr. Laprise?

Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those a 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. I declare the motion negatived on division.
Amendment No. 15 (Mr. Laprise) negatived on division.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. McCleave-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I move this motion on the hon. member's behalf? The hon. member is not here at the moment; he is away on other business.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: amendment No. 21:
That Bill C-150, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act, be amended by inserting in clause 18 after subsection 7 of section 23T on page 44 the following subsection:
"(8) Nothing in this section shall be construed as obliging any hospital to establish a therapeutic abortion committee or any qualified medical practitioner to procure the miscarriage of a female person."
He said: I shall be very brief on this point, Mr. Speaker, because the amendment speaks for itself. It reads:
Nothing in this section shall be construed as obliging any hospital to establish a therapeutic abortion committee or any qualified medical practitioner to procure the miscarriage of a female person.
In other words, there shall be nothing in the Criminal Code that would force a hospital
April 28, 1969

to set up a special therapeutic abortion committee or to compel a doctor to perform the operation. The amendment is that simple. I think it merely clarifies the law. The witnesses who appeared before the committee- the minister will verify this-pointed out that the rules and regulations which govern hospitals are within the jurisdiction of the provinces; most hospitals come under the jurisdiction of the provinces.
Basically, the suggestion is that the Criminal Code does not and should not require a hospital to set up a committee to deal with this question. A hospital may set up a committee to deal with it, or ask a doctor to carry out the operation, but there should be nothing in the act that forces a hospital to do so. This matter is really clarified by the provincial law, but it is thought that the hon. member's amendment would clarify the position so that hospitals will understand what is intended and that provincial law governs in this regard There is nothing more I need to say. That is what it really means.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker there are just a couple of questions which I should like the minister to answer. The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) has touched on them. I refer to the distinction between civil and criminal law, particularly the implication here with regard to the responsibility of hospitals and medical practitioners. I think this is quite important, not only for us. The value of the amendment put forward is that it would make the position of the government in this respect more clear. As the minister knows, there is a general section in the Code, I believe it is section 107, which provides that anyone who fails to obey any act or regulation of parliament is, by inference, guilty of an offence. This would be of some consequence to medical practitioners who are concerned with what their duties are under the law.
Inasmuch as we in this party have taken it upon ourselves to vote on the various clauses and amendments in Bill C-150 as our consciences dictate, I believe that medical practitioners should have a similar freedom. I know what most of them would probably do, but I think they should have that right and freedom. Therefore it becomes incumbent upon the government to indicate what opinion has been given to the minister by his legal officers as to the responsibilities, not only under the criminal but under the civil law, because one
Criminal Code
of these amendments is obviously drafted in the belief that there may even be a civil responsibility falling upon a hospital or upon a doctor in the case of abortions.
I want to remind the minister of a case of which he may not be aware because the section is not now in the Code. Some years ago there was a provision in the Criminal Code that no civil proceedings could be launched against any person who had been charged with common assault and had suffered a penalty or had been acquitted of the charge. This was distinct from proceedings in respect of charges of grievous or actual bodily harm where civil actions could follow. That particular section dealing with common assault, which no longer appears in the Code, was the subject of varying interpretations by the appellate division in the province of Nova Scotia and, I think, in one other province. The Supreme Court of Canada gave no authoritative decision on the point. It was held in one of these judgments that the federal parliament had no jurisdiction to enact legislation under the guise of the Criminal Code, attempting to amend or change the Criminal Code by saying that civil proceedings could or could not be taken in cases of a possible infraction of the Criminal Code. In other words, the criminal law was to be considered by itself and it was not possible for the federal parliament to go outside the criminal law and to say that once an act had been declared to be a criminal act it should or should not be the subject of civil proceedings.
I am quite confident that a great many medical practitioners and hospitals in this country will be most concerned as to what their legal position will be and what the government is purporting to do in this bill. For example, there is an implication in clause 18 that there is a statutory duty falling upon a medical practitioner or upon a hospital and that the refusal by a medical practitioner or by a hospital to permit to be carried on within the precincts of that hospital or by that medical practitioner the act of abortion, which has been made legal under certain circumstances by amendments to the Criminal Code, might subject either the medical practitioner or the hospital to certain penalties either in the civil law by an action for damages or under the criminal law.
I have my own views on this matter but I bring it up to permit the minister to indicate the government's position. Under the rules under which we operate, what the minister

April 28. 1969
Criminal Code
says in the house is not binding upon any court, but I am sure it will be of some interest to us, and certainly to myself, to know what his view is before I come to a decision on which way I intend to vote on this amendment.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, amendment No. 21 on the order paper and the related amendments, 22, 23, 31, 39, 40 and 41, purport to exempt from any civil liability hospitals which may fail to set up a therapeutic abortion committee, or a doctor who may refuse to perform a therapeutic abortion, or any practitioner who may refuse to participate in this type of operation. I may say that a therapeutic abortion is only one of a number of situations where conscience may preclude a doctor or a nurse from participating in an operation which is lawful. I might bring to the attention of the house the question of blood transfusion in the case of a doctor who is a Jehovah's Witness. There is the case of a doctor faced with the problem of administering a blood transfusion to a child whose parents refuse consent on the ground that such an operation is contrary to their religious belief. In other cases doctors are often faced with a problem of conscience when they may be called upon to perform a hysterectomy or a tubal ligature following several Caesarean deliveries. There are also other grey areas where questions of conscience arise, even though conflicting views or doubts exist as to the law, for example, in the case of sterilization generally and also organ transplants. So this is not a unique situation for the medical profession.
Also, I should like to draw to the attention of the house the fact that the substance of these amendments does no more than recognize what has actually been happening already in a number of hospitals with respect to therapeutic abortions. We have no evidence that questions of conscience have posed a practical problem.
Getting down to the question of criminal obligation or liability or civil obligation and liability arising from this amendment, let me say briefly that according to the advice I have received there is nothing in clause 18 to which these amendments relate which would in any way impose a criminal obligation or criminal responsibility on a hospital which refused to set up a therapeutic abortion committee or upon a doctor who refused, for reasons of his own personal conscience, to perform such an abortion, or upon a nurse or 
any other person involved in the medical services who refused to perform or participate in a therapeutic abortion. So there is no additional criminal obligation or liability attaching to the medical profession as a result of clause 18.
Turning now to civil liability, the civil liability of doctors, nurses or hospitals is based on negligence, that is to say, the failure to meet the standard of care owing to the patient. Although the phrase "standard of care" is a common law expression, the same standard of care is required within the civil law as well, and although the philosophical approach to negligence is different from that of the law of delict, in effect a reasonable standard of care is required in both cases. Obviously this standard of care is to some extent affected by legislation, including the Criminal Code, in the sense that a doctor would not be held civilly liable for failure to perform an act which the law prohibits him from performing. Where, however, the act may lawfully be done, as is the case under the proposed amendment to section 237, one of the factors to be taken into account in the event that the question of civil liability arose would obviously be whether or not the patient had been fairly and properly advised of the limitation imposed by conscience on the range of treatment available to the doctor and to the hospital.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Section 237 as amended imposes no duty on the board of a hospital to set up a therapeutic abortion committee; it imposes no duty on any medical practitioner to perform an abortion; it imposes no duty even on a medical practitioner to initiate an application on behalf of a patient. In these circumstances it is not considered necessary to purport to exempt them from duties which are not imposed by the criminal law. On the other hand, if we were to purport to grant such an exemption it might be misleading to the medical profession and unfair to patients, because such a conscience clause, so far as the medical profession is concerned, might tend to obscure the civil obligation of the profession to the patient to ensure that a patient is able to make a free choice as to both her medical adviser and hospital, untrammelled by the limitations on the conscience of her medical adviser or by the policy of a particular hospital. In other words, it is clear that under civil law, in the case of a
April 28, 1969

hospital not having the facilities or not choosing to have the facilities, or of a doctor precluded by his own conscience from performing such abortions, there might be civil liability attaching to both to advise a patient of her right to go to another hospital and ask for another doctor. But certainly there is no civil liability attaching, as far as we can see, as a result of the operation of the Criminal Code itself.


Gerald William Baldwin: Am I to take it there is no intention on the part of the government, particularly by this amendment, to vary the rules as to civil responsibility which normally exist between an individual and a hospital or an individual and a doctor, or to prevent provincial laws from operating? This is a sensitive area, as has been illustrated by the events of the last few days and the exchange which took place between the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer). The minister seemed to think the Prime Minister was trying to lock the country into a constitutional chastity belt despite the fact that the provinces lost their jurisdictional chastity a long time ago. I want to be sure we are safe here.


John Napier Turner: The hon. member suggests there is a constitutional aspect to this as well. The relationships in civil law between the patient and the doctor, between the patient and the nurse, between the doctor and the hospital, the nurse and the hospital, are relationships falling within the operation of provincial law, the civil law and the constitutional responsibility of the provinces-the subject of statutes which regulate hospitals and the professions. These are properly provincial matters, and this is another reason not to trespass on any of these civil relationships which may be accessory but which are not directly affected by this legislation.


Mr. Matte:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister.
In that case, if a constitutional matter is involved, would it not have been advisable to let the provinces adopt some legislation relating to abortion, and has any consideration been given to such a course of action?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I do not deem it right to use the Criminal Code to infringe upon the constitutional or civil law of a province. According to legal experts, clause 18 does not impose any criminal obligation or responsibility, nor any civil
Criminal Code
liability. Civil liabilities are determined rather by the civil law and I do not find any advantage in using the Criminal Code to affect civil relations between parties. Such matters come exclusively under provincial jurisdiction.


Mr. Rene  Malle@Champlain: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the minister.
Since this obviously relates to the social aspect, to health, would it not be preferable, before amending the Criminal Code, to hear the views of the provinces on the matter?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat that, since civil relations come under another aspect of the law, they are not directly affected by the amendment to clause 18. I see no reason to wait until the provinces have been consulted.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I wish to support amendment No. 21, proposed by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. Mc-Cleave), because I myself presented an amendment along those lines. In fact, it is amendment No. 31, which reads as follows:
Nothing in subsections (4), (5), (6), and (7) shall apply to any group of medical practitioners nor to any medical practitioner, who has refused to proceed with an abortion nor to any member of the hospital staff of a hospital who has refused to take part in an abortion on purely medical grounds or on any other grounds, so that no judicial proceedings may be instituted against them.
Mr. Speaker, the amendment means that no judicial proceedings may be instituted against any group of doctors, any member of the hospital staff of a hospital, or any doctor who has refused to perform an abortion or to take part in one.
The fact that six amendments proposed relate to the same subject shows how important it is to clarify Bill C-150, and particularly clause 18.
There were many questions raised on that point? Gynecologists and physicians have feared that if clause 18 were passed as proposed by the government, the bill could on some occasions coerce those who, for reasons of principles or any others, refuse to perform an abortion.
Then, if a woman asked for an abortion and died during the operation, some legal proceedings could be brought against the hospital or the physician. Such a situation could be quite embarrassing and since they would be liable to legal proceedings, the physicians or hospital authorities would be in a dilemma.

April 28, 1969
Criminal Code
On one hand, there is the conscience and on the other the law which compels us to ignore our beliefs and our conscience. This is dictatorship.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that if, under section 18, women are given all possible freedon to obtain an abortion, the same freedom should be granted to the physicians or the personnel of any hospital.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Many are concerned about that amendment. Indeed, the Catholic bishops of Canada have recently made a few suggestions, after having thoroughly studied the bill. It is no secret that since the government has proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, especially in connection with abortion, the Catholic bishops of Canada have on several occasions throughly examined that problem.
As for our amendment, the Canadian Bishops' Conference renewed their request to the government and to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) a few days ago, so that the amendment to the Criminal Code would at least respect the freedom of all physicians and hospitals, because this bill could allow proceedings to be taken against them or make them liable to public prosecution.
In my opinion Mr. Speaker, this is of great importance, since the question is whether or not the doctors' and hospitals' freedom is to be respected. I think that such a question should not be put in the house, and least of all be subject to an amendment to the Criminal Code.
This is why, Mr. Speaker, the government should, I think, pass the amendment before the house in order to permit a vote on the matter because I hope that the minister would not want to take this responsibility alone and for his government. He should in that regard respect the freedom of doctors, hospitals and their personnel to perform or not to perform abortions on request.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I have been in this house for ten months, and I am still at a loss to find a way to have our arguments taken into consideration.
And what is even more discouraging is to realize that everything has been decided in advance. Nothing is more depressing for us than to realize that all we do is bring forward, for posterity, arguments which we did not make up ourselves, but found by referring to appropriate sources.
[Mr. Laprlse.I
Since this matter deals first of all with medicine and the first signs of life, we consulted scientists and gynaecologists who explained to us what is a human being and at what time it appears in the human foetus.
Medical practitioners explained to us why they objected to abortion, and that is why we ask, in this amendment which I fully support, that gynecologists, whose opinion we must take into serious consideration, are not subjected to such an obligation.
We did not invent our arguments. We consulted the Association of the Hospital Medical Boards of the province of Quebec Inc., whose opinion should not be taken without due consideration.
Its submission was made to us in January 1969, and it reads as follows:
You will find herewith the opinion of the Association of Hospital Medical Boards of the province of Quebec on the matter of abortion, now being considered in the house.
This report represents the general opinion of medical practitioners in the hospitals of the province.
We hope that this will enlighten you so that you may take a fair and equitable position towards every citizen of our country.
Mr. Speaker, an argument based on such an opinion deserves consideration, it seems to me.
In this brief, the Association requests, and I quote:
The Q.A.H.M.B. agrees:
-that an amendment to the existing text of the Criminal Code be submitted.
Mr. Speaker, we moved many amendments. To prove that this is an important matter, we moved seven amendments on this subject. The minister said a moment ago, that this is not a problem, since we are enacting a legislation based on an established situation in hospitals. As a matter of fact, I do not know where the minister has obtained this information, but when an association of hospitals makes a statement like the one I just quoted, I suggest the minister should think about it seriously. Perhaps he has considered only the whole country. As far as I am concerned, I am not speaking here for the whole country, although the documents we have received prove that the situation is almost the same throughout Canada.
But as regards the province of Quebec, the Association of Hospital Medical Boards of the province of Quebec agrees:
-that the procedure for the consideration of cases by therapeutic abortion committees in every hospital be accepted.
April 28, 1969

-that the doctors who decide, after serious consideration within their hospital committee, to approve a therapeutic abortion be no longer considered guilty of that act under the Criminal Code.
In effect, it is the safeguard of their integrity and of their profession that it is sought to ensure. I go on quoting:
We believe that scientific medical research alone can bring the true solution to this problem, and we favour the setting up of any study committee.
One can see, Mr. Speaker, that these are not ordinary men speaking, but real professionals. And they are telling us that medical experts alone can express their views on that question. But if we decide to pass a legislation, even though the doctors themselves ask that we should not legislate now, because scientific and medical research are still not advanced enough, we will be disregarding the advice of these experienced men.
The report goes on, and I quote:
-that abortion, in the present state of medical science, is still considered killing a human being; that every doctor or hospital should be free to refuse to take part in that medical practice.
That is the very purpose of the amendment before us. After having studied this bill, doctors considered all that had been said on the subject for the last few months. This is the reason why they thought fit to advise those who will have to make a decision on the course to follow. I am reading on:
-that this technique where the life of a human being (foetus) is at stake, the decision must not be left to the patient alone.
*-We are against a bill which would give rise to false hopes among the population.
We furthermore ask that hospital, authorized to perform therapeutic abortions, be appointed by medical associations in every province to ensure the quality of the established standards.
Mr. Speaker, the question I was putting earlier to the hon. minister was precisely presenting the same view point. We are dealing with the public health, which is a provincial responsibility. And if this legislation is contrary to the set standards, the mentality and the established rules according to the views of the doctors of a particular province, especially in the case of Quebec, it is undoubtedly going against current opinion.
This is another reason for doctors to object, and of course I fully support such an attitude.
And the Association concludes as follows:
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
This is why the Q.A.H.M.B. is against the present text of the amendment C-195 and wants it to be amended in order to restrict its provisions to the cases where the mother's life is seriously jeopardized.
Criminal Code
Mr. Speaker, when we examine the amendment requiring that nothing in the clause be construed so as to make compulsory for a hospital to establish a committee dealing with therapeutic abortion or for a qualified medical practitioner to procure the miscarriage of a female person, we can see the tremendous importance of that amendment. Why? Because it deals with the individuals who are most intimately involved in the problem. I refer, of course to the medical practioners themselves. When physicians demand to be protected by us, we should consider their request seriously.
I am told that the situation never arises, that an accomplished fact is merely being sanctioned; that the attitude of Catholic hospitals is being explained; that we live in a pluralistic society. We recognize all that.
Mr. Speaker, we are not dealing here with a matter of religion, but one of conscience. It is a question of mentality. Why not respect the various ways of seeing things? I repeat that we should follow the advice given to us, almost pathetically, by the doctors themselves who are trying to make us understand that we are trespassing on their grounds.
We have dealt only with the social aspect of the question, when the only thing that really matters in fact is whether or not one should approve abortion.
It is imperative that we should know whether we are dealing with a human being or not, whether or not there is murder when the foetus is killed. Doctors or scientists only can tell us that.
Now, they themselves tell us to be careful. They say that the progress of medicine is such that we must prevent major errors being committed by legislating on matters which, not only do not concern us, but concern only the doctor and his patient.
To go back to the Quebec Association of Hospital Medical Boards, and more specifica-ly to the brief it presented on the omnibus bill. For over 20 years now, that Association has represented hospital doctors in that province. We are therefore not dealing with just anybody, not with the members of the Rallie-ment creditiste, nor layment in this regard. The medical board is the organization which, in every hospital, groups all the doctors who practice there.
Recently, following the introduction of the government bill on abortion, this Association consulted all its members, by writing to them, or on the occasion of meetings called to
8062

April 28, 1969
Criminal Code
discuss this bill. The directors of the Association studied all the opinions expressed and they would be glad to submit their conclusions on abortion and on this bill.
We do not base them on the opinions of a couple of doctors, or on those of a small group but on that of all the doctors of a province as a whole, which is, in itself, a nation. Are we going to disregard all that? It would be far better, Mr. Speaker, to grant the provinces the right to legislate on that matter, in spite of the Criminal Code. Let Quebec become independent, if it has to! If we are to accept everything that is going on here, within this chamber which is on the way to becoming a modern Sodom and Gomorrha, I understand better still those who promote the independence of Quebec and want all the Quebecers to be sole judges of what they have to do, according to their own way of thinking.
Such are, Mr. Speaker, the arguments that come to my mind following this brief submitted by all the doctors of Quebec as a whole, a brief simply pooh-poohed by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner).
The doctors of the Quebec hospitals believe that any abortion is a homicide, that the foetus is a human being. Should therefore people who hold such a belief be compelled to perform abortion? That is what we want to prevent by the proposed amendment. I cannot help thinking, Mr. Speaker, how strange it is that something which appears to me so logical, so sensible and so clear will of course be rejected. Nothing could be more stupid.
I revert to what I said at the beginning, Mr. Speaker, namely, that the problem is to find means to convince those people. I have been wondering about that for ten months, for we refuse to believe what the newspapers said last week, to wit, that most people favour abortion. We have received indications to the contrary as late as this morning, at least from the province of Quebec.
I am more and more convinced that sooner or later those opposing the controversial sections of Bill C-150, even those who, at the present time, yield to Trudeau madness, Tru-deaumania or anything that issues from Trudeau this or Trudeau that, and who, for that very reason, have up to now deemed it appropriate to approve abortion, will in the end endorse our opinion.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said earlier about the resignation of the French president that politicians' careers were short-lived.

It seems that a political career is not so shortlived! For him a 10 year period is short, because he expects himself to remain in office for at least 10 years. Mr. Speaker, I do not think he will do so because, before 10 years, we shall already have noticed the disastrous effects of the decisions we are about to take in the house. It will take much less time to realize we were mistaken in legalizing abortion, on which we did not have enough information, and in failing to follow the advice of great scientists.
That is why we will be accused of playing politics, of filibustering and of making a political football of this issue. They are all wrong because, in fact, all our arguments are based on medical science. Let us stop shifting the problem and considering only its social aspect. By legalizing abortion it is sought to safeguard the practitioners' prerogatives, rather than discuss the social aspect of the problem.
It is sad to see a young girl pregnant. It is not very interesting either to find that a mother with too many children has not enough money to raise them properly. Such considerations are reasonable but they have nothing to do with the subject now under discussion.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
What we want to determine now is, whether abortion is something normal or whether it is homicide. In our opinion, of course, it is homicide. We did not consider exclusively, however, our religious beliefs. We wanted to find out what the greatest authorities had to say and we know now that medicine and science are entirely on our side.
According to the present teaching of the medical science, the foetus is a living human being which has the right to live, like every other human being. Even from the legal point of view, the foetus is already considered as a full human being, since it can become an heir and since the State still considers non therapeutic abortion as a crime punishable by life imprisonment.
It is admitted by all serious gynaecologists that the cases where therapeutic abortion would really save the life of the mother have become extremely rare thanks to the progress of science in this field.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.
April 28, 1969

Criminal Code


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the principle of this amendment, it is to protect the position of people who may be involved with a request for an abortion, and to protect the position of those people who have a conscientious objection to carrying out abortions.
Amendment No. 21, which is before us at the present time, deals with the position of hospitals as institutions and also with the position of medical practitioners. On the basis of the rulings handed down by Your Honour on Friday, as set out in the Special Notice Paper, I note that consideration of amendment 21 will dispose of amendments 22, 23, 31, 39, 40 and 41. Several of these amendments which will be covered by amendment 21 make reference to the position of hospital staff and personnel and make some attempt to protect them. The point was noted on Friday when the procedural ruling was under discussion that in effect amendment, 21 did not cover the hospital staff and personnel who were referred to, particularly in amendments 31, 41 and one other.
I am sorry that I did not hear all of the remarks of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) with respect to why he maintained that there is no need for this amendment No. 21. I am not in a position to comment on his remarks with regard to this point. While there may be some cause for protecting hospitals as institutions and also medical practitioners who may have conscientious objections to carrying out a therapeutic abortion, there is a third class of people who are in a more vulnerable position than either hospitals or medical practitioners. I refer, of course, to hospital staff. These people have no protection under the law, either in terms of professional status or employment, if they have a conscientious objection to participating in a therapeutic abortion. I feel that complete coverage should be provided to all groups of people under the proposed law. And that there should also be reference to hospital staff. Consequently I move the following amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey (Mr. Mather), who has agreed to second this amendment as a courtesy:
That the proposed subsection (8) be amended by adding thereto the following words: "or any member of a hospital staff to assist in procuring such miscarriage."


John Napier Turner: I would like to make a few remarks regarding the admissibility of this amendment, Mr. Speaker. I wish to direct your attention to the new Standing Order. I think it is important for the 29180-5111
house to receive some guidance from Your Honour, particularly since this constitutes the first real test for the Standing Order affecting the report stage of a bill. I draw your attention to Standing Order 75 (5) which appears at page 80 of the new Standing Orders. It reads as follows:
If, not later than twenty-four hours prior to the consideration of a report stage, written notice is given of any motion to amend, delete, insert or restore any clause in a bill, it shall be printed on a notice paper.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
It is in accordance with that rule that 44 amendments were set out on the notice paper. Then if we go on to Standing Order 75(8) we see that it reads as follows:
When the order of the day for the consideration of a report stage is called, any amendment of which notice has been given in accordance with section (5) of this order shall be open to debate and amendment.
As I read this Standing Order its purpose would seem to be to limit debate to those amendments of which notice has been properly given in accordance with Standing Order 75(5). I recognize that 75(8) says, "shall be open to debate and amendment". This seems to imply that an amendment to an amendment under 75(5), of which notice has been given and which has been placed on the order paper, may be in order. I would submit to Your Honour, however, that there is another part to this Standing Order, 75(7), which contemplates an amendment as to form only. It reads as follows:
An amendment, in relation to form only in a government bill, may be proposed by a Minister of the Crown without notice, but debate thereon may not be extended to the provisions of the clause or clauses to be amended.
Then there is the following note:
The purpose of the section is to facilitate the incorporation into a bill of amendments of a strictly consequential nature flowing from the acceptance of other amendments. No waiver of notice would be permitted in relation to any amendment which would change the intent of the bill, no matter how slightly, beyond the effect of the initial amendment.
My submission to Your Honour is that that note underlines the purpose of Standing Order 75, namely, that once all relevant amendments have been placed on the order paper, once the debate has begun under Standing Order 75(8), and once the Speaker has listened to argument in respect of admissibility and relevancy, the house is precluded from going beyond the scope of those amendments. The obvious reason is it would be open to hon.

April 28, 1969
Criminal Code
members to move subamendments and thereby escape the provisions of Standing Order 75(5).
I would urge Your Honour to interpret this rule strictly. Otherwise the full import and purpose of the rule could be circumvented and amendments made on the floor of the house to any amendments which Your Honour has already seen on the notice paper. I would think the only freedom the house and, with respect, the Speaker have, is to look at consequential amendments as to form resulting from a prior amendment.
For these reasons I would urge Your Honour to refuse this amendment and hold it to be out of order. Otherwise it will be open to hon. members to speak to every subamendment of every amendment. If that were to be the case I suggest that the desire to proceed on an orderly basis would be defeated.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I speak to this point, Mr. Speaker. I think the difficulty Your Honour may have is in respect of Standing Order 75(8) which states:
When the order of the day for the consideration of a report stage is called, any amendment of which notice has been given in accordance with section (5) of this order shall be open to debate and amendment.
The interpretation of this would seem to be that an amendment may be amended without notice, but if we look at what is before us it is an amendment that proposed section 8 be amended by adding thereto certain words. This is one occasion when I am on the side of the Minister of Justice in respect of the interpretation of the rules. This is not a motion that the amendment be amended but that subsection 8 be amended. It would be like bringing in an amendment to any clause at this stage.
If the hon. member had wished to move that amendment 21 be amended, he would have to move a substantive amendment to the amendment, but at this time he is seeking to amend a clause of the bill. I do not believe the rules were ever intended to be interpreted in this manner. I think Your Honour would be stretching the point very far if you permitted this. In fact, if you did I believe that by changing a few words I could move the amendment which was ruled out the other day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I happen to be one of those who do not think that either the main amendment now before the house or the subamendment that has been moved is really necessary. I do
[Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) .1
contend, however, that the hon. member for Regina East has the right to move an amendment at this time and that the amendment he has proposed is in order under the rules. I would point out the fact that on Friday of last week, when the whole question of procedure was debated at some length, the hon. member for Regina East specifically asked His Honour whether it would be possible to move an amendment at this stage and was told by the Speaker that provided amendments were in order they could be moved.
Although the relevant citations have all been read I think they should be emphasized. I draw attention in particular to section 8 of Standing Order 75, which is very clear and very explicit. It states:
When the order of the day for the consideration of a report stage is called, any amendment of which notice has been given in accordance with section (5) of this order shall be open to debate and amendment.
What is before Your Honour at this point is the consideration of amendment No. 21 of which notice was given as called for under section 5 of Standing Order 75. What the hon. member for Regina East is endeavouring to do is to amend amendment No. 21.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He does not say that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is
perfectly true he could have added a few words. He could have said that the amendment be amended by adding words to the proposal section 8 which is set out in the amendment, but surely it is not always necessary to multiply words when the meaning is clear. There is not before us something simply called section 8. There is before us an amendment which happens to have in it a proposed new section 8. The wording of my hon. friend's amendment proposes that the proposed new section 8, which is part of amendment 21 that we are now debating, be amended by adding certain words to it. I submit that is completely in line with the provisions and requirements of section 8 of Standing Order 75.
May I say to my hon. friend the Minister of Justice that I think he is on thin ice when he tries to rely on section 7. Section 7 does not relate to amendments that are on the order paper. It relates to a possible amendment to the bill itself made necessary because of something that has been done on the floor of the house in relation to other clauses. I do not like trading on the fact that I was on the committee and therefore know how much we went over all of this, but I may say we did
April 28, 1969

feel that if we did not put in something like section 7 a situation could develop whereby amendments could be moved to various clauses of a bill, one of which might pass-it would be a red letter day if it did-and then it would be clear that certain other clauses in the bill would have to be changed slightly in consequence of the first change. If we did not provide for that situation I think we would be stuck with the impossibility of doing this because we have a rule which says that at the report stage we cannot debate or discuss any clauses except those concerning which notice of amendment has been given.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
The purpose of section 7 of Standing Order 75 is simply to permit consequential amendments to other parts of a bill. It has nothing to do with the rule set out in section 8, namely, the right when an amendment is properly before the house, as amendment No. 21 is, to move an amendment to the amendment. That is what my friend the hon. member for Regina East has done, and I submit his amendment is in order.
I sympathize warmly with the Minister of Justice when he says that if this kind of thing can be done we will probably be here until August or September, but that does not invalidate the rule. Let me say to the minister that under the new rules there could have been a dozen amendments put down at the report stage to every one of the 120 clauses in this bill. This would mean something like 14,000 amendments and we might be here for a very long time.


Robert Jardine McCleave: It would amount to 1,400.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It
would be 1,400, I am sorry. I did my arithmetic very quickly.


Robert Jardine McCleave: It sounds better.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It
seems to me this is clearly what we provided in the rules. The rule of relevancy must also apply. My hon. friend's amendment has to be relevant to what has been proposed in the main amendment before us, but certainly his right to move an amendment is something we anticipated when we drew up these rules, and I think they are quite clear on that point.


John Napier Turner: If you will recognize me again on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker-
Criminal Code


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The minister has already spoken. If he wishes to add further arguments I think he would have to do so by consent. I see one or two others who wish to enlighten the Chair. Perhaps the minister feels his remarks have been misunderstood. There is provision for an explanation on that ground.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Apparently there is agreement on the part of the house to allow the minister to speak.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for that agreement, but I do not want this taken as meaning I waive the right of an hon. member to speak more than once on a point of order. I accept the agreement on the part of the house and thank hon. members.
On this: point of order I have three short arguments. Let me first underline what the hon. member for Calgary North said so ably. Even with a liberal interpretation of Standing Order 75(8), surely by the wording of the amendment it must be clearly an amendment to the amendment, in this case to amendment No. 21. What this subamendment tends to do is to amend the bill itself. It goes beyond amendment No. 21 even on a liberal interpretation of Standing Order 75(8), which suggests that the amendment must be an amendment to amendment No. 21. This is an amendment to section 8 as proposed in the bill, and it goes well beyond the scope of the Standing Order.
The second point I wish to draw to the attention of Your Honour is the seriousness of the ruling you will have to make. Standing Order 75(5) taken together with 75(8) limits the debate to any amendment printed in the order paper and submitted 24 hours before the debate begins. If amendments to amendments are to be allowed, then the limiting effect of Standing Order 75(5) and 75(8) would be completely bypassed. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has admitted, we would then be completely out of control. I suggest to Your Honour that Standing Order 75(5) is restrictive and taken together with 75(8) must limit the debate to those amendments on the notice paper.
My third argument is that if you look at the wording of the hon. member's subamendment you will see it really proposes to include the members of hospital staffs. These words are in fact included in some of the other amendments which have been grouped by

April 28, 1969
Criminal Code
Your Honour for disposition at the same time. You will notice that amendments Nos. 21, 22, 23, 31, 39, 40 and 41 are grouped together. On reading them you will see that what the hon. member is trying to do by tacking on this amendment is already proposed in several of these amendments grouped together with amendment No. 21 for discussion and voting purposes. I would think it is redundant on this' ground.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about the point of order concerning the amendment moved by the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) and, with his approval, I would like to point out that six amendments have been put together for the purpose of the discussion dealing with the amendment No. 21 moved by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave).
But if we read carefully the amendment moved by the latter, we realize that the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Regina East is not included in the amendment No. 21 which we are discussing at the present time. This is one of the reasons which, I think, justify the amendment proposed by the member for Regina East.
Now I should like to raise another point. There is no subsection (8) in clause 18 of Bill C-150. Therefore neither the hon. member for Regina East nor any other member could move a subamendment thereto.
Mr. Speaker, one can read the following in Standing Order 75(8), and I quote:
When the order of the day for the consideration of a report stage is called, any amendment of which notice has been given in accordance with section (5) of this order shall be open to debate and amendment.
The hon. member's subamendment is therefore quite in order in my opinion and so as to allay the fears of the Minister of Justice, who denies the right to move that subamendment, I would say that he seems to want to have his bill passed as soon as possible, at any cost and without accepting any amendment. And what he fears the most is to see a filibuster, as he precisely said when he spoke the first time.
Mr. Speaker, I had myself moved a similar amendment, which I quote:
-any member of the hospital staff of a hospital who has refused to take part in an abortion on purely medical grounds or on any other grounds, so that no judicial proceedings may be instituted against them.

As a matter of fact, among the six amendments we are studying at the same time, I have one which includes hospital staff, but the same cannot be said of the amendment before us.
That is why I believe the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Regina East is in order.


Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia):: Mr. Speaker, I feel that what I am really doing is reiterating the third argument put forward by the Minister of Justice. It is important that we should look at Standing Order 75 (10) because in relation to this specific amendment it states:
Mr. Speaker shall have power to select or combine amendments or clauses to be proposed at the report stage and may, if he thinks fit, call upon any member who has given notice of an amendment to give such explanation of the subject of the amendment-
I suggest that in essence this determination has already been made by Mr. Speaker in that he has grouped amendment No. 21 with, among others, amendment No. 31 which contains the specific wording referred to by the hon. member for Regina East. I suggest, with respect, that so far as this amendment is concerned Mr. Speaker has already made a ruling under Standing Order 75(10).
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Mr. Andre Forlin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I want to support the proposals of the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise), the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) who intend to propose a subamendment to sub-section (8) that the government wants to add to section 18 of the bill now under study.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the reasons referred to by the hon. minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) are not valid as far as procedure is concerned and the reason is quite simple. It is because we have to discuss a bill which contains 120 clauses and we have come to the report stage of the committee.
Like several other members, we moved amendments to modify the bill and make it acceptable. However, Mr. Speaker, as the debate proceeds, we can see the facts in their true light, at least on this side of the house, and that enabled the hon. member for Regina East to see that there is still a gap even in the amendments designed to improve the bill.
April 28, 1969

Consequently, in the light of the debate, the hon. member for Regina East, pursuant to standing order 75(8), moved an amendment to improve the bill.
However, Mr. Speaker, it belongs to you to take a most important decision since the minister wants to speed up the debate, not caring what the members of the opposition have to say, rejecting any amendment and referring to clause which have nothing to do with the amendment. However, Mr. Speaker-


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With respect, I do not want to allow that remark to go unchallenged on the record. My purpose in intervening was not to limit debate in any way but to ask for an interpretation of the rules of the house. I would appreciate it if the hon. member would stay on the point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I would like to say at this point that I think we should limit the discussion to the specific point of order raised by the Minister of Justice, which has subsequently been commented on by other hon. members. I think that as much as possible we should avoid going beyond that point of order and the reasons why it should or should not have been raised. An important point is now before the house. I might point out to hon. members that I have given this matter a great deal of thought and am almost on the verge of giving a ruling. I do not want to curtail discussion, but I think any discussion we have should relate to the point of order originally raised.


André-Gilles Fortin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for being so lenient. I was just coming to this, in order to explain our point of view.
On the one hand, we can see the minister's position and, on the other, Standing Order 75(8) clearly states the bill shall be open to debate and amendment.
Mr. Speaker, there are about 44 amendments before us-that was foreseen-it seems to me that we were free to move a motion under Standing Order 75(5) which reads:
[DOT]-any motion to amend, delete, insert or restore any clause in a bill, it shall be printed on a notice paper.
Now, Standing Orders do not indicate that once the motions have been presented, and a twenty-four hours written notice has been
Criminal Code
given and put on the Order paper, that any amendment may be accepted. I think that on the contrary sub-section (8) specifies that it is permissible to move amendments in the light of the debate.
Therefore I think, Mr. Speaker, for this reason among others, that this amendment is most acceptable and will be approved by the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I say just a brief word with respect to two points that have been made from the other side of the house. First, may I deal with the point emphasized by the hon. member for Sarnia when he argued that Mr. Speaker's grouping of a number of amendments, as he did on Friday, ruled out this kind of subamendment. May I point out that on Friday, as recorded in Hansard on page 7972, at the very time when Mr. Speaker said that amendments Nos. 21, 22, 23, 31, 39, 40 and 41 were being grouped and marshalled, the hon. member for Regina East rose and asked Mr. Speaker a question on this very point. As a matter of fact, he said that these amendments deal with the position of medical practitioners, staff and other personnel who may be involved in abortions. In other words, at that very point, when it was relevant, he asked Mr. Speaker whether it would be possible to move an amendment to deal with one of these points. Mr. Speaker's reply was:
Of course, this will have to be considered when the hon. member suggests these changes to the house. It may be possible to move subamendments provided that they are in order.


John Napier Turner: "It may be
possible", and it is decided when the question is raised. Mr. Speaker did not decide it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: course he did not decide it, because the amendment had not been drafted; he did not have it in his hands. My point is that it is in order generally, because of what Mr. Speaker said, to decide that a particular amendment, because of its form, may or may not be in order. But to assert that it is not in order is, I suggest, quite false. I submit that the hon. member for Regina East protected himself by making that point on Friday.
The other point is that the Minister of Justice and the hon. member for Calgary North said two or three times that the hon. member is trying to go behind the bill amending the Criminal Code by seeking to amend subclause 8 of the bill. There is no subclause 8 in the

April 28, 1969
Criminal Code
bill. Clause 18 of the bill has only seven subclauses. Amendment No. 21 has been ruled in order, which permits the attempt to add a subclause 8 to the clause that is in the bill. The hon. member for Regina East is not trying to go behind the amendment or the bill; he is not trying to get something into the Criminal Code through the back door; he is dealing specifically with an amendment that is before the house under the provisions of section 5 of Standing Order 75. The hon. member is claiming his right under section 8 of Standing Order 75 to propose an amendment. I think his right to propose an amendment at this stage is beyond question. The only question that has to be decided is whether the form and the substance of his amendment are in order, and in particular whether his amendment is relevant. I for one think it is.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, without adding to the discussion needlessly, I would just like to note-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I was just going to recognize the hon. member for Champlain. I will then recognize the hon. member for Regina East..
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss briefly, the usefulness and the wisdom of sub-section (8) now under discussion.
Indeed, amendment No. 21 might not be entirely acceptable to the minister unless it were slightly amended. Therefore, I believe that the possibility of amending the bill has been considered, as pointed out a while ago by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin).
In the past, I have seen the house clarify some particular matter. An amendment has been moved; it was slightly amended and the government agreed to it. So it was quite appropriate to consider the possibility of slightly amending an amendment under subsection (8), in order to make it perhaps more acceptable.
In my opinion, we should not make the mistake of creating a factual situation for the duration of the debate on this bill, whereas standing orders provide that any amendment, and I quote:
-shall be open to debate and amendment.
The rules could not be any clearer.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I should like to mention one point.
As recorded on page 7963 of the official report for Friday last, April 25, Your Honour suggested a slight change to amendment No. 28 in order to improve it, and it was agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. That point has already been raised.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, in drafting this subamendment I attempted to keep the wording as simple as possible in order to concentrate on the purpose of the subamendment. However, if weight is given to the proposition of the hon. member for Calgary North that this is in fact an amendment rather than a subamendment, I would certainly be prepared, with the permission of the house and the consent of my seconder, to add a preamble to my subamendment so that it would read:
I move that amendment 21 be amended by adding the following words to proposed subsection (8) -
I would be prepared to do that if that is in fact the difficulty involved in accepting the subamendment I have moved.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. If there are no further submissions to be made I think I can deal with this question. I have considered the two points raised, the original point of order raised by the Minister of Justice whether or not an amendment to a motion moved under the provisions of Standing Order 75 is admissible, and the point raised by the hon. member for Calgary North whether in fact this amendment meets the criteria long established for the admissibility of amendments, namely, whether it is consistent with and relevant to the motions. My ruling on whether or not the amendment is admissible as an amendment, namely, whether it is consistent and relevant to the motion, is that it is. On those grounds I do not think it would be necessary to make any changes in its wording.
On the other point, I realize the importance of the point raised by the Minister of Justice. It seems: to me that Standing Order 75 is very specific. It does provide for debate and amendment. I listened to the Minister of Justice with a great deal of care, as I always do, but I feel that this Standing Order is declaratory and is perfectly clear. Under the circumstances I am bound to rule that the amendment is admissible. Is the house ready for the question?
April 28, 1969


Robert Jardine McCleave: Perhaps I could say a few words on my amendment and the subamendment just accepted by Your Honour. First, I should like to thank the hon. member for Calgary North for filling in for me with an explanatory speech when I was not able to be here at the time when this amendment was called. My concern arises out of the fact that a good many of the witnesses' who appeared before the committee or who made submissions had raised the point in committee or in correspondence with the members of the committee. They expressed a fear that since abortions will become legal under certain circumstances, some duty will lie upon hospitals' or medical personnel to carry out abortions.
I heard the minister's argument in committee and I have been given the gist of his argument earlier this afternoon. But an ounce of caution is sometimes worth a ton of cure, and I believe that the words I have suggested will allay these fears and make it absolutely clear that these institutions and doctors cannot in any way be forced to perform abortions. I think the strongest argument I have in that regard is the definition of the word "board" in new subsection (6) (c) at page 43 of Bill C-150. It reads as follows:
"board" means the board of governors, management or directors, or the trustees, commission or other person or group of persons having the control and management of an accredited or approved hospital;
This debate has so far proceeded on the assumption that control and management would be vested in local hands, people aware of the conditions in the community. But I suggest that the definition of "board" as proposed in this legislation is broad enough so that a provincial body such as a hospital commission could assume control of all hospitals in a province. Therefore my fear is that while we have tried to put in the legislation some safeguard against hospitals being required to carry out therapeutic abortions if it is against the beliefs of those who have established or are running the hospitals, it could be circumvented by the definition of the word "board". I suggest that it would be perfectly possible for any provincial government, through a hospital commission, to assume over-all direction of accredited or approved hospitals. I think this fear can be overcome by the house adopting the subamendment proposed by the hon. member for Regina East and my own amendment.
One of the facts of life regarding Canadian hospitals is that many of these institutions are
Criminal Code
established by groups whose religious principles are very firmly against abortion. I would not want to see them in any way inhibited from establishing even more hospitals as our nation develops and our northern areas are opened up. In the past they have been very good in sending religious groups to provide services that it was otherwise impossible to provide. But unless we adopt some safeguard such as I am suggesting the future development of hospitals, particularly in our northern areas, might be inhibited.
I believe generally in the principle of abortion because I think an individual should be free to choose whether or not she wishes an abortion to be performed on her. If by spiritual inclination she is opposed to it, then the remedy is entirely within the hands of the unfortunate woman. But when we move to the broader field involving hospitals, doctors and medical personnel, we have to add something to the legislation to establish clearly that a person cannot knock at the door of a hospital or at the door of a doctor asking that an abortion be performed.
Finally, when I drafted the amendment I made it parallel to new subsection 7 as it appears in the legislation before us. I also think the constitutional aspect is not affected. Subsection 7 does not eliminate any other steps that would have to be taken before an abortion could be procured. I am carrying it a step farther and ensuring that no hospital or medical person can be put in the position of being legally required to carry out or procure the abortion of a woman. For these reasons I have presented the amendment, and I gladly welcome the subamendment proposed by the hon. member for Regina East.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Mr. Roland Godin (Porineuf):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to support the proposed amendment to the clause on abortion.
In my opinion, any measure to promote the family deserves careful consideration. I know that there are nowadays a great number of wives who accept their role as a mother and who endeavour by all possible means to preserve the life of their unborn child.
Now, as the family is the foundation of society, some special action should be taken to help it, because in my opinion, human beings, human resources, are the greatest wealth of our country.

April 28, 1969
Criminal Code
So much so that we rightly ask ourselves what would be the value of any other material resources of the country, if there were no human beings to use it.
Society spends huge sums in order to save and protect human life. In universities, scientists are carrying out research to discover some ways to cure fatal diseases.
Mr. Speaker, a man can conceive all sorts of projects in all kinds of fields, but he will never succeed by himself in reviving a dead person. And if we are here as human beings, it is not on account of our own power, but as the result of the respect which our parents have shown for life, in spite of the difficulties and hardships which they experienced.
Mr. Speaker, if we become conscious of the material advantages which science makes available to the nation, it is obvious that clause 18 of Bill C-150 now before us is based on wickedness or falsehoods.
It is true that families and children have less and less place in modern society, but I am convinced that life has an exceptional value, one that cannot be measured, and that all necessary means must be taken to preserve it even for those who cannot be seen but who are known to exist.
And I must congratulate the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) who proposes the following amendment:	.
Nothing in this section shall he construed as obliging any hospital to establish a therapeutic abortion committee or any qualified medical practitioner to procure the miscarriage of a female person.
Mr. Speaker, amendment No. 21, proposed on April 14, 1969, is most appropriate, if we refer to some excerpts of the 880 pages of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the standing Committee on Health and Welfare.
From page 46, we refer to an article of Dr. Isabelle, on the inefficiency of therapeutic abortions.
Dr. Gaston Isabelle: -Those committees (for the study of abortion eases) were tested in the United States in the last four or five years.
And Dr. Isabelle quotes:
A few years ago, a number of hospitals set up Abortion Review Committees which were normally composed of specialists, in order to examine such requests of abortion. Generally, the committees produced unsatisfactory results for the following reasons:
In the same line of thought, Dr. Patrick Beirne, states at page 504, and I quote:
Just as individuals may have liberal or conservative views on assistance, the same applies in

the case of abortion committees. And the general public quickly perceives the difference between liberal and conservative committees.
In New York, two hospitals, a few streets away from one another, have abortion committees. In the first one, there is one therapeutic abortion per 16,000 deliveries. In the other, there is one abortion per 20 births. So committees are not guaranteeing us that our own interpretation of what seems a step for the public weal will be respected. One committee is not enough. I think that clearer information should be given.
Mr. Speaker, here is a text we received in January 1968 from the Quebec Association of Hospital Medical Boards regarding the bill under consideration. It is not recent, as can be seen. I quote:
At our inquiry we noted that most of the medical offices and boards of directors of hospitals in Quebec officially and formally protested against the establishment of therapeutic abortion committees in their own hospitals. Because of professional ethics and of the tendency constantly recorded in their profession, hospital doctors are greatly reluctant to belong to such committees and moreover they refuse themselves to make any therapeutic abortion.
It must be noted that such legislation does not take into account religious and moral convictions of a great many doctors and hospitals afraid of becoming liable to legal prosecution for not having committeed what they consider a crime against their professional ethics. But are doctors not always trying to save their patients from death?
And on page 2 of the same report, one can read:
-any abortion purporting to improve the health or the well-being of the mother or to prevent the birth of a malformed baby becomes a social act of mercy killing. If it is permitted to kill such a baby when he is in his mother's bosom, why should it not be allowed when he is out of it. However, if abortion is performed when the life of the mother is endangered by pregnancy, it can then be considered not as euthanasia but as a case of self-defence. Self-defence does not imply necessarily the presence of an unjust aggressor. To warrant self-defence, however, there must be some proportion between the method of defence and the act of aggression, and the offensive act must be the only possible method of defending oneself. But specific medical information pertaining to cases when, in order to save the mother's life, it is obviously necessary to kill the foetus is extremely rare, according to all medical practitioners. Since such cases are unfrequent, one can even wonder whether a permissible legislation is warranted.
A further excerpt on page 3 of the same brief reads as follows:
Because this legislation may lead to abuse, the Association of Hospital Medical Boards of the province of Quebec objects to the legalization of therapeutic abortion when the only ground is the health or well-being of the mother.
April 28, 1969

[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Moreover, the Association is unreservedly against Bill C-150 on abortion as introduced by the government.
On page 4, among the reasons given, we find this one, and I quote:
Psychiatric symptoms
Psychiatric symptoms justifying abortion are rejected by the majority of medical practitioners and psychiatrists; however, some psychiatrists find some limited indications. The effects of abortion on a woman are often nefarious and may cause feelings of guilt and hostility. We should ask ourselves if by trying to solve one problem we are not creating another.
The conclusion of the submission says; and I quote:
Faced by these considerations the Quebec Association of Hospital Medical Boards still has the impression that the federal government wanted to solve this complex problem by quick legislation which seems to solve everything but which in fact aggravates the problem of illegal abortion.
The Q.A.H.M.B. considers that this problem must be studied from a medical point of view and finds it necessary to approach the abortion question only after careful scientific studies .. . and before any other government proposal is introduced.
In their view only a royal commission of inquiry could make an adequate study.
Dr. Robert Lavigne, 1010 Tasse Street, Ville St-Laurent.
Mr. Speaker, the medical profession of the province of Quebec has clearly taken a very careful stand in this regard. I hope that having heard the opinion submitted by the Association all hon. members will decide in favour of this amendment which I gladly approve without reservation.


Mr. Romuald Rodrigue (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment moved by the member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) as well as amendments Nos. 22, 23, 29, 31, 39, 40 and 41 on the same subject.
In an article published in L'Action on April 19, one could read the following:
Under the amendments proposed by Bill C-150 known as the omnibus bill, abortions will be allowed when the medical board of a State approved hospital feels that the physical or mental health of the mother is endangered unless the operation is performed.
The argument of pluralism is often put forward. Throughout those countries where abortion has recently been discussed, whether it be in England, in the United States, in France or in Canada, the arguments are much the same. Those who favour relaxing the law do so in the name of the pluralism of the given society and of social convenience.
Criminal Code
I am not against giving as much freedom as possible to everyone, against respecting all creeds, and the conscience of everyone, but it seems to me some consideration should be given to respecting the conscience of doctors, their religious and moral beliefs, for there are still doctors who work in hospitals who have professional conscience.
To my mind, the purpose of this section would be to protect the doctors, and other persons who work in hospitals and help the doctors perform their operations, who refuse to participate in abortions.
Because of professional ethics and the constant orientation of their profession, many doctors will refuse to perform that type of operation for several reasons. Many doctors are afraid to be exposed to legal proceedings for having refused to perform what they consider as murder and contrary to their professional ethics.
It should also be noted that the bill does not take into account the personal convictions of many doctors and hospitals. We believe all doctors always strive to protect the life of their patients. It is no secret that doctors constantly receive requests which, very often, are contrary to professional ethics and the constant orientation of their profession.
By legalizing therapeutic abortion in those cases where the pregnancy might endanger the health of the mother, the government gives the impression that one can procure an abortion for any personal reason.
In any case, applications will increase.
Psychiatric symptoms as a ground for abortion are vetoed by most doctors and psychiatrists. A few of the latter, however, have accepted them on a limited basis. The aftereffects of abortion on a woman are very often harmful and arouse in her mind feelings of guilt and hostility. By alleviating one problem are we not simply giving birth to another one?
Such are the reasons for which a great number of doctors are against abortion.
There is also another aspect to consider: what will be the approach of the doctors toward the committees established in hospitals? Will they have to abide by the decisions of the committee to comply with cases where application should be made with a social purpose in mind?
I believe that doctors as well as all those whose duties are of a medical nature should be protected against any prosecution, for the sake of the society and for the advancement of medical science.

April 28. 1969
Criminal Code
Incidentally, I would like to quote an excerpt of a file concerning therapeutic abortion, and drafted by the organized medical staff of the Laval Hospital, one of the most famous hospitals in Canada, formerly specialized in treating tuberculosis and now dealing with heart disease and others. There is the quotation:
On the other hand, Mr. Roy Hefferman, a famous American obstetrician declares that doctors who perform a therapeutic abortion are either ignoring the modern methods of treating pregnancy complications or do not bother to waste their time applying them. The inefficiency of therapeutic abortion is demonstrated, besides, by an American study which shows that out of 1,600,000 deliveries, the mortality rate is of 0.98 for 1,000 in hospitals where it is performed and of 0.87 for 1,000 in the hospitals where it is forbidden.
Considering the progress of science for the past decade, the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code are not justified, in my opinion. Today we are in a better position to treat some diseases. In the next few years, we shall witness even more important developments in science and the cases where it might be necessary to perform a therapeutic abortion will seldom occur.


André-Gilles Fortin: I thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think it is my duty to take part in this debate on abortion on which deal amendments Nos. 21, 22, 23, 31, 39, 40 and 41, that the Chair has grouped together for a more orderly discussion.
Mr. Speaker, having read the amendments which I have just listed as well as the omnibus bill itself, especially clauses 14 and 15 which deal with abortion, we find the bill very "weak".
When one takes the time to go carefully over the very few speeches made in favour of abortion, one realize the weakness of the reasoning which tends to legalize abortion as proposed in this bill.
I think we are forgetting some basic facts while discussing this famous omnibus bill and more particularly the clause on abortion.
Mr. Speaker, it is clearly established one cannot put aside this basic principle, this great truth, that birth is not the beginning of a human life but one of its stages.
Mr. Speaker, it is clearly acknowledged by every intelligent being that birth is only the answer to nine long months of expectation. Birth is really but a coming out into the world which has been prepared by the mother, the father and the child in the womb of his mother during nine months.
Everybody admits, Mr. Speaker, that the foetus in the womb of his mother has got life.

The scientific knowledge available to us in 1969 allows us to believe that foetal life exists. The fact is of course recognized by everybody.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, childbirth is not the beginning of life but only a stage in life. This stage is really minor importance really, since what is most important is precisely the birth or the progress of life in the mother's womb.

[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I
recognize the Minister of Justice on a point of order.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect to the hon. member who has the floor, we are debating a fairly narrow amendment which is related to whether a hospital shall be obliged to establish a therapeutic abortion committee, etc. The general philosophy of the subject should be left to amendment No. 19 which deals with the deletion of clause 18. Here we are dealing with a specific point and perhaps Your Honour might suggest that the hon. member should confine his remarks to that point.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. As the Minister of Justice suggests, we are dealing with a specific amendment and subamendment, and the debate ought to be confined as much as possible to that amendment and subamendment. I may also say that sometimes it is difficult for the Chair to restrict debate. It is impossible sometimes to prevent hon. members from expressing opinions or viewpoints which may go beyond the strict framework of the amendment being considered. Nevertheless I suggest to the hon. member for Lotbiniere that he should try as much as possible to confine his remarks to the amendment and subamendment now before us.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, with all respect, this time I cannot accept the remarks addressed to me through you by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner). I think he is going too far.
Mr. Speaker, we are not dealing with trucks, asphalt, etc. but with the life or death of a child who will decide about that? A therapeutic committee. Now before knowing whether to be for or against an amendment, or for or against a therapeutic committee, one must know first on what we legislate. I feel,
April 28, 1969

from the remarks just made by the Minister of Justice, that he is completely unaware of it. I should like to tell him that we are not legislating about trucks but about human beings, who do not grow like mushrooms and that there is no such thing as spontaneous generation. We are deciding about their life: grow or die, or die or live, according to the decision of the Minister of Justice.
It is not a question of starting or stopping a truck. Since we are discussing life itself, I do not mind being called to order, but there are limits. When we talk of abortion, I agree that we should stick to the subject. However, we should at least be given the chance to speak on the amendment itself.
I was saying that birth is not the beginning of life, but only a stage. Therefore, when we want to establish therapeutic committees in the hospitals, impose no restriction and adopt a law which will oblige the doctors to practice abortion with the approval of this famous therapeutic committee, not only do we contribute to the murder of a human being but we also violate the freedom of the individuals who will have to commit that crime.
Mr. Speaker, this is a serious situation. The Medical Association of the province of Quebec spoke categorically against the bill, not as a whole, but on that particular point. The Canadian Medical Association also spoke against it, all of it. The medical practitioners want to practice freely. I feel it is obvious that nothing more is being proposed in this amendment. But, on the other hand, since we must consider the subject itself, I feel I was not out of order when I said that birth was not the beginning of life, but a stage.
Mr. Speaker, there are so many things we could say that I do not know where to begin.
A statement on abortion made by the Canadian episcopate and published in L'fcglise de Montreal reads as follows:
Consequences of the proposed amendment
The proposed amendment is well known. According to it, those who will perform an abortion will be, as in the past, liable to life imprisonment, but a qualified medical practitioner will be able to perform an abortion when the continuation of the pregnancy of a woman would or would be likely to endanger her life or health, provided it is performed in an accredited hospital and provided a certificate in writing has been obtained from the therapeutic abortion committee of that hospital. This proposed amendment urges us to make the following remarks.
Not only does this amendment allow for a direct and voluntary interference with an innocent's life, but it opens the door to the broadest interpretations.
Criminal Code
This is exactly the purpose of this amendment and amendments Nos. 22, 23, 31, 39, 40 and 41, which are meant to clarify this legislation, and not to object to it, so as to enable any qualified medical practitioner of an accredited hospital to perform or not to perform abortion as he decides. I quote again the same article:
As can be noticed in the press and on the air, our people are already expressing opinions which reveal an obvious and alarming decline in the respect due to a child's life before his birth.
For instance, some merely see in the proposed amendment now under consideration a first step towards the official recognition of the "right to abortion" at will. Others see already in the amendment itself the possibility of making abortion available in a great many cases.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal separately with two points.
First, "the official recognition of the right to abortion at will."
The bill, according to clauses 14, 15 and others dealing with abortion, do not specify in which case abortion should be authorized.
There are a great many cases that can be foreseen, after discussing the matter with several doctors. I think we cannot pass a legislation to allow abortion in all cases, or every woman who requests it.
Mr. Speaker, the legislation we are going to pass must be restricted to certain cases where abortion is necessary, since, according to briefs submitted by the Canadian Medical Association and by the Quebec Medical Association, such cases are becoming increasingly scarce, due to the scientific progress of medicine.
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, the bill is only a first step towards the right to abortion at will. In other words, if a mother asks a doctor for an abortion, the doctor procures it.
If another mother who does not have the same illness as the first and whose pregnancy does not have any ill effects on her health asks the doctor for an abortion, the doctor will have to do the abortion whatever the motives the patient may have in asking for it.
Another mother may tell a doctor, she is sick, when actually her sickness is psychological and temporary, and ask for an abortion even if neither her health nor her life are in any way endangered. The doctor will then have to do the abortion.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
The minister will say: There is always the hospital's therapeutic abortion committee. If that is so, then that committee should be free

April 28, 1969
Criminal Code
to use its discretion otherwise I shall have to conclude that the therapeutic abortion committee also, in accordance with the Act, would be compelled to allow the abortion.
In other words, if a mother or a pregnant woman asks a doctor for an abortion, whatever her reasons, the doctor does not have to consider those reasons. He can only make a note of that person's name and say: Madam, we shall have to submit your case to the therapeutic abortion committee. The only course open to the latter would then be to give its consent.
Now, what about the study of special cases? What about psychological troubles? What happens if there is no illness? Indeed, pregnancy-everyone admits it-is not an illness. It is merely a natural condition peculiar to women. The mother bears her child and is delivered nine months later. It is a privilege granted to women by nature itself.
Incidentally, a pregnant woman is not sick. It is suggested by this bill that pregnancy is an illness. In addition, the physician is considered as a robot or an abortion machine. It is apparently believed that he is unable to think, to consider, to reason and that he will be compelled to perform an abortion.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, I challenge the minister to rise and prove to me on the basis of the bill itself and not with a far-fetched argument that the physician is free to perform an abortion and that the therapeutic committee enjoys as much freedon in this connection. I challenge him to prove it to me, not by stating an obscure argument as lawyers alone can put forward, but by clearly telling me so. If the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian episcopate and most Canadians have failed to find out that the bill grants such freedom to physicians, I feel that the minister himself will be unable to do it.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with another aspect of this problem. For some people, the clause of the bill proposed by the minister will make abortion possible in a great number of cases. It is not necessary to develop that aspect, since it supplements the first, in the sense that here again no distinctions are made.
Mr. Speaker, it is impossible not to grab this opportunity to plead in favour of doctors and their freedom. The amendments were introduced not because we are against the principle of therapeutic abortions, but rather because we want the law to state that a doctor will be free to perform abortions or not.

At this stage, Mr. Speaker, I wish to read something very interesting to the house. It is a letter from Mrs. Marjorie Ruwald, Secretary of the Ottawa Committee for the Protection of Unborn Children, dated February 19,
1969.	It reads as follows:
Dear Sir:
Now is the time to honestly face the facts regarding the amendments to the abortion legislation that are proposed by the government.
Is the government really anxious to protect the life and the health of women?
I shall only read part of it, Mr. Speaker. Since there is only a limited number of women in the house, it may be interesting to know their viewpoint on this subject, since they seem to know something about medical matters. And it goes on:
If such is the case, what evidence do we have that the proposed changes would achieve that aim in any way?
This is more or less what I asked the minister a short while ago.
Never has the health of Canadian women got as much protection as today.
I then wonder on what grounds could a woman want to be aborted?
Canada has one of the lowest rates of mortality in the world for expectant mothers-about three deaths per 10,000 births. Is it really possible to believe that the proposed changes could bring about an even greater improvement?
She ask questions. I now come to what is more particularly related to the amendment, and I quote:
We must sympathize with the liberal M.P. who lost his wife because he turned down the abortion alternative.
She now refers to a former speech:
Such a tragedy cannot be blamed on the Canadian legislation. And the tremendous advance of medicine since then must also be kept in mind. The mortality rate of expectant mothers has been reduced from 10 to 1 in one generation.
Since medicine has advanced to such a degree that the rate of maternal mortality has been greatly reduced, why then compel a doctor to make abortions whereas, by his knowledge and the technical facilities at his disposal, he could save that child, give him a right to live, allow him to live?
Instead of forcing a doctor to kill a human being, let us make it a right and a duty for him to save that human being-
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.
April 28, 1969

Criminal Code



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
SUBJECT MATTER OF QUESTIONS TO BE '	DEBATED
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis)-Combines-drugs-price fixing by B.C. pharmacists; the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Schreyer)-Air Canada-Winnipeg -transfer of base to Northwest Industries Ltd.; the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert)-Air Canada-strike of mechanics-inquiry as to matters in dispute.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of Bill C-150, to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice, and Legal Affairs, and amendment No. 21, Mr. Woolliams (for Mr. McCleave), and the amendment to the amendment (Mr. Burton).
Mr. Henry Lafulippe (Complon):: Mr. Speaker, we are faced with abstract realities.
The bill under consideration should never have been introduced as a logical, human bill that is likely to fit in our human and democratic society.
This bill is illogical and contains provisions that are not only beyond our grasp but go much further than what is permitted to advocate. Consequently, I believe that we are not sufficiently qualified to impose such a bill on the Canadian people, because it has to do with the very essence of life which is something divine and so great that we do not have the right to tamper with it. The procreation act is so sublime, so noble, that we would not be able to find adequate words to describe it.
We have in hand several reports that have been sent to us by the Canadian episcopate.
The bishops are not taking a stand from the Roman Catholic point of view, but from a Christian point of view, and we support wholeheartedly the amendment moved by the hon. member, because this amendment fills-


Gérard Laprise: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I believe that a count of hon. members present would indicate there is not a quorum, and that the house cannot continue to sit.


John Napier Turner: On this
point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether it is proper for a member on the other side to bring this matter to the attention of Your Honour in such a remarkable way and interrupt so abruptly one of his confreres who is making a particularly conscientious and serious speech.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: I must advise that it is the right of the hon. member to rise and request a count. I shall proceed to ask the Clerk to take a count.
(On the count being made, 21 members were declared to be present.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: A quorum is present; the sitting will proceed.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
When I raised my point of order, there were only 16 members in the house, but the minister's speech prompted others to return.


John Napier Turner: With the greatest respect, I think that is a slur on the integrity of the Chair. Perhaps the hon. member would like to reflect on that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Possibly we could listen to the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe).


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, here I should like to quote a statement on abortion made by Canadian bishops:
The bishops devoted the second part of their statement to the legal aspects of abortion and more precisely to the proposed amendment to the Criminal Code by the government. First of all, they lay down the principle that to the State, the guardian of the common good falls the "sovereign duty of protecting effectively the human lives and in particular the weaker ones." At the present

April 28, 1969
Criminal Code
time, the role of the State is ail the more necessary since the "complexity of modern life", in a world that is dominated by organization and techniques, makes the individuals live under heavy threats and since, under the guise of progress, some are ready to relax the laws to the point where they would no longer ensure life the thoughtful respect and the effective protection it deserves.
Let us say firmly that the progress of civilization resides in the ever increasing recognition, both theoretical and practical, of the dignity of the human being, of its sacred character and its absolute inviolability.
Besides, in the field of ethics, all things hold together; evil breeds evil; it is the first step which is most painful. We were discussing contraception yesterday; today we are talking about abortion; tomorrow it will be sterilization, euthanasia, infanticide. Every battle lost is fraught with a still worst defeat. Between civilization and barbarism the road is shorter and the slope is even more slippery than one could imagine. Another step, one step too many, and it is the Fall, and as Pascal wrote, "Earth is rented to the very depth of the abyss".
According to the bishops, the government bill, in its present form, should be rejected as a whole for three main reasons.
The first one deals with the very purpose of the legislation. According to the proposed amendment, the therapeutic abortion becomes legal every time that, upon the experts' advice, the mother's life or health are endangered or liable to be endangered by pregnancy. The legislation aims therefore at permitting "direct and voluntary attempt against the life of an innocent child", and that is immoral. Inasmuch as morality must affect legality, the government project, at the very outset and in its essential content, is therefore vitiated. In denying the principle of absolute inviolability of an innocent life, it strikes a blow to the core of civilization, it shakes it right to its foundations.
The government legislation, under its present form, opens the door to serious abuses.
I think that those who have a little sense of justice and humanity, are conscious of what they can achieve, who are aware of the dignity of human life and who know to whom this life belongs, will ask themselves the right questions on this very essential legislation. I quote further:
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
If the bill is so imprecise, it is perhaps because the government was not quite ready to legislate. "The parliamentary committee on this question recognized in its report of December 1967 the inadequacy of the studies and inquiries on which the new legislation should have been normally based. Why is it then that its decision was so prompt on the substance of the debate and why has it submitted to the government preliminary recommendations, binding our whole future? Above all, why was the government so quick to include in the bill conclusions which, according to the committee itself, could only be hypothetical and premature? Have they both given in to the pressures of the so-called Liberal opinion? Did they

want to stay one jump ahead of their opponents, and specially of the Roman Catholics? The bishops, it goes without saying, are not accusing anybody. They are even careful not to point out that the parliamentary committee and the government saw fit to introduce their amendment proposals before having heard those who on the religious level are supposed to speak on behalf of 50 per cent of the Canadian people. They are simply wondering if, in this hour of decision, the Canadian people have really before them all the necessary information and if parliament has the right to venture into new legislation of such significance. "For people and for civilization", without weighing by means of appropriate research the moral, psychological and sociological consequences". That is also the question we are asking ourselves and that, when the day comes, we shall ask the government.
The new legislation will not solve the problem of secret abortions and death caused by childbirth.
Mr. Speaker, according to those logical warnings approved by very competent lawyers, I believe once again that we even have no right to legislate on this matter the way we are doing it today and I ask the minister to withdraw from Bill C-150 the subsection dealing with abortion and to postpone the consideration of that matter until the time we have the necessary information and are sure of acting for the common good, according to a Christian point of view and in a logical way.
Then we may perhaps introduce a similar bill, provided full freedom is granted every member to vote according to his conscience, his common sense and his sense of justice.
The Department of Justice must live up to its name. In fact, its function is not to pass unjust legislations. Now I believe the legislation we are getting ready to pass is one of the most unjust we have ever brought out in Canada, and we have no right to pass unjust laws that go against the will of most people.
I go on quoting the statement of the bishops:
Does that mean that the Church, at this very moment and for that sole case, is going beyond the limits of the role to which, following the last council, it had consigned itself by announcing that, from now on, it would only interfere in temporal matters when public interest was at stake? Certainly not. We need only point out, in this respect, that the statement makes a very clear distinction between the moral and the legal aspects of abortion. When, dealing with the latter, it rejects the government approach, it does not do so on behalf of catholic morality as such, that is clear enough, but just in the name of morality itself, for the sake of the dignity of the human person, that is, once again, for the sake of the common
April 28. 1963

Criminal Code
weal which it has undeniably the right, as well as any other group of citizens, to conceive and to defend according to its own views.
The bishops, in the present case, are deliberately addressing the catholics. If they feel they should abide by their views, the latter have henceforth to trace the line, where abortion is concerned, between moral and civil law. As in any temporal matter, and whether they support or oppose the intentions of the government, they should, as citizens, trust their own conscience, trust their own private judgment on what they feel the common good requires according to their experience and inner thinking, and not necessarily according to whatever wording the bishops have deemed advisable to draft.
In practice, the foetus should be always considered as a human person; abortion, from the standpoint of morality, is always the murder of an innocent being.
Mr. Speaker, we would yet have many a thing to say on the subject. There were, for instance, lively discussions in the committee; but the members who sat on it did not adopt a stand directly. Highly competent men come before the committee as witnesses, among others, Dr. Benoit Legare, a gynaecologist from the Saint-Frangois d'Assise Hospital in Quebec City. He appeared before the committee. He expressed his point of view; he spoke as a Christian and spoke conscientiously. He did not stake his conscience; he entrusted it to the Almighty and spoke laconically, logically, humanely and like a Christian on that situation;
We have not come here as Catholic doctors. We would, indeed, be ill-advised to try, through legislation, to impose our moral code on those who do not share our religious beliefs. Any argument based on those principles would weaken our plea considerably.
We have come here this morning as doctors concerned with helping our legislators to formulate a law that is just and respectful of human life. Accordingly, we will remain strictly on the level of natural law. We therefore intend to convince you that the foetus, from the instant of its conception, is a human being, albeit imperfect. If we achieve this, I feel that our testimony will have been very useful.
Doctor Rene Jutras, pediatrist, basing himself on genetics, will take care of the technical aspect of what we have to say to you.
I admit that doctors and biologists have yet to agree unanimously on this point.
I know that there are some who will maintain that at the start the foetus matter is too imperfect to be classified in the category of human beings. But, where is the one so learned he can decide whether this perfection appears in the eighth or twelfth week of life?
Mr. Speaker, all the evidence given by serious, competent and responsible men who want the good of the nation, who understand the very essence of life shows clearly that
they oppose the clause now before us and that they do not think it should be agreed to for any reason whatever because it runs contrary to the respect that every person in his right mind should have for human life.


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


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments on this particular clause. It is interesting to note that while I may not confine myself strictly to legal interpretations, I am glad to adopt that course because there are certain moral and social principles involved in a bill like this. The situation could not be otherwise.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Why we do not practise preventive medicine in this field, rather than draw up clauses that pretend to treat the problem after it has been created? Sex used to be taboo; now it is a consumer item. Books by the score are written on sex. Television portrays sex almost every night. I am sure the Minister of Justice watches television and must have seen this program the other day on which a lady was introduced who was not even wearing coloured glasses-


John Napier Turner: I turn that kind of stuff off now.


Philip Bernard Rynard: The minister says he turns that kind of stuff off now. I think that by the introduction of this bill the minister is giving encouragement to the publicizing of sex. This is the sad part of it. I have a very high regard for the minister and did not think he would be led into the position of not protecting the public better than he is. All the minister is doing by means of this bill is an indirect way, by permissiveness of stimulating the rapaciousness of the sexual appetite, when he should be preventing it. Why ask the doctor to murder? Why not prevent this situation from arising?
The promotion of sex goes on and on. Let us stop and take a good, clean look at this question. Knowledge and science have arrived at the point where almost complete birth control is possible. Why should the medical profession be put in the position of treating something which can be prevented? The minister talks about hospitals in this regard. I am sure that many hospitals will not want to

April 28, 1969
Criminal Code
carry out this type of operation. When this bill passes, perhaps they will have to do it. How does the minister propose getting around this? I can name hospitals that will not carry out abortions. It is only fair and proper that the minister tell us how he proposes to get around that problem.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, under the rules I can only answer that question by asking the hon. member a question. Will the hon. member accept a question?


Philip Bernard Rynard: I am always glad to receive a question from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), Mr. Speaker.


John Napier Turner: Was the
hon. member here earlier in the day when I spoke directly on this question and assured the house that, within the terms of what I said, there was no criminal obligation or responsibility on the medical profession to force them to participate in or perform a therapeutic abortion? I also said that in so far as there was any civil obligation or liability, this did not arise in any way from clause 18. In other words, the bill does not purport to encroach in any way upon the relationship between the hospital and the doctor, the doctor in a hospital and the patient, the nurse and the doctor, doctor and the nurse, and so on. Is the hon. member aware of the fairly full treatment I gave to that question earlier in the day?


Philip Bernard Rynard: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am also aware of the abortion cases that are sent from one hospital to another. It is in this respect that I think the minister is closing the door. I ask, what is he going to do about it? Does the minister propose that this be paid out of medicare hospitalization? In Russia, only about 4 per cent of these cases are eligible for that type of treatment. The next thing will be the licensing of prostitution.


John Napier Turner: Oh, no.


Philip Bernard Rynard: The minister does not believe that. Would the minister like me to tell him what the score is in England? I do not think he has read what the situation is there. I will put it on the record so he will understand the problem. The extract I shall read to the house illustrates very effectively what the problem is in this regard.
This article was written by Dr. Lewis and is to be found in the British Medical Journal for January 25, at page 241. Dr. Lewis writes about an angry lady who wanted a hysterectomy for prolapses and could not get one.

There is no exaggerating, she could not get a hysterectomy because the hospitals were filled with patients requiring abortions. This article reads:
Lewis points out that when the abortion law was changed the gynecologists did not expect a very great change in their practice. They thought that there would be a slightly more liberal attitude to the problem. He continues: "How wrong we were. I am afraid that we did not allow for the attitude of, firstly, the general public, and, secondly, the general practitioners."
I suggest to the Minister of Justice that he, also, can be awfully wrong in this respect. The article continues:
In 1958, 1,600 abortions were notified in England and Wales; the estimated number for 1968 is 35,000.
I hope the minister listened to those statistics.
One curious feature of the present pattern is that only 45 per cent of the patients are married. Since far more married women become pregnant than single ones, it is hard to see why medical indications should be so much more frequent in the unmarried.
That is the type of permissiveness to which the minister is opening the door by this bill.
The whole character of the gynecologist's work in outpatients has changed, says the author, because he has to deal with two, three or four requests at every session; often it takes longer to refuse than to grant the request. "And I have made no mention of the large numbers of pregnancies that are being terminated in registered nursing homes for reasons of convenience and financial gain, masquerading as legal operations under the new act." He feels that this state of affairs will continue, and that it is unrealistic to expect a small section of the community, the gynecologists, to adopt a moral attitude completely at variance with that of society as a whole.
This is the area in which society is sick. That is why I point out to the minister that we should be dealing with prevention rather than trying to cope with the problem after it has been created.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but it is six o'clock. Prior to calling it six o'clock, in view of the fact that the hon. member will be continuing his remarks after the dinner adjournment I might remind him that we are dealing with a specific amendment and subamendment which ask that no hospital be obliged to establish a therapeutic abortion committee. I invite the hon. member to restrict his remarks as much as possible to that specific matter. It being six o'clock, the sitting stands suspended until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
April 28, 1969



COMMONS DEBATES AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Philip Bernard Rynard: I was saying when the house rose at six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, that the pressure which will be brought to bear on hospitals and on the abortion committees of those hospitals-if they have one and they likely will have-will be great, indeed. If any arguments are needed to substantiate this assertion they will be found clearly set out in the report of Dr. Lewis on B.M.J. which I placed on record.
This is what will happen: a certain clause of this bill, once adopted and passed into law, will gradually be the subject of wider interpretation. This is what has happened elsewhere. Today, in Europe, I believe probably less than 4 per cent of abortions performed there are carried out for valid medical reasons. In the long run, the pressure of the affluent society, or of the just society-which, in effect, means "do what you want to do whether it is morally right or not"-may be great enough to break down the moral conscience of abortion committees and hospitals. This is what I fear. Where they have not had abortion committees on religious grounds, they will be made to create them.
If proof of this is required, hon. members need only look at today's Ottawa Citizen where an article appears by Karl E. Meyer concerning social conditions in the Baltic countries. He says:
Moralists would become discouraged in visiting Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands. Not only are these countries allowing permissiveness to become a way of life, but nearly everybody seems incorrigibly relaxed about it, even those who may have their doubts .. . The sky is the limit as long as nobody gets hurt. Or, as Irene van der Weetering, who holds the Provo seat on the city council, complains: "They smother us with tolerance."
This seems definitely the trend in Europe today. I wonder whether the Minister of Justice would continue to follow his present course if he felt he was setting a similar trend in motion here in Canada. They certainly did not set out with that intention in Europe, and I warn hon. members that with the permissiveness contemplated here we might well be starting on the same road.
I am one who feels that television can be singled out as a primary agent of change. The author of the article I mentioned quotes a Swedish journalist as saying "Television has
Criminal Code
the power of legitimizing things." The article goes on to say:
As a result of all these factors... the Dutch, Danes and Swedes are on the way to creating societies where anything goes.
These things go on in communist countries, but these are atheistic in their thinking.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
In Denmark and Sweden, there are new forms of marriage, social acceptance of homosexuality, abolition of censorship, permission to use soft drugs, compulsory sex education and easy access to contraceptives. All of these things exist in one or other of these countries. It may be that when the limits of permissiveness are reached the Dutch, the Danes and the Swedes will find that they have not solved any of the age old moral problems but have simply transferred them to a different plane. Their experience has a certain fascination for the rest of the world, and they should not complain, as some of them do, when we curiously peer and prod.
I intend to speak on some other clauses, Mr. Speaker, but I will conclude now by saying that anything that denigrates the spiritual and moral forces of a nation destroys the power of that nation to choose between right and wrong. This could very well happen to the abortion committees and our hospitals when the pressure is on.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, we are studying amendment No. 21 which reads as follows:
Nothing in this section shall be construed as obliging any hospital to establish a therapeutic abortion committee or any qualified medical practitioner to procure the miscarriage of a female person.
However, Mr. Speaker, in my opening remarks I would like to point out to the house, if other hon. members have not done so already-for I have not had the opportunity to listen to all the speeches delivered on that important matter-that the end of the text of the amendment refers to "the miscarriage of a female person".
During the debate of the committee on justice and legal affairs, when Bill C-150 was under study, I had the opportunity to remind the minister who, with much patience, sponsors the bill, that several pages of the bill, in particular pages 42 and 43, and a score of other pages, are devoted to "the miscarriage of a female person". I asked him whether, as

April 28, 1969
Criminal Code
far as he knew, persons of another sex could undergo abortion?
I see that the bill was reported without any amendment and I find it strange to want to amend at this stage by making it clear that abortion should be practised only on a female person.
I would like to know whether according to the scientists of the Liberal party, there exists a third, a fourth or even fifth sex that we do not know. To the best of my knowledge, the house has not had the privilege of meeting any worthy specimen of those various sexes. To my knowledge, we have only known in this house two sexes: the male sex and the female sex. In fact there is only one person of the female sex here. We do not know people of the third, fourth, of fifth sex.
Therefore, why make a bill even more ridiculous by inserting the words: "the abortion of a person of the female sex"? What other sex can undergo abortion apart from the female sex? I find that absolutely stupid and ridiculous, and I demand why the legal advisors, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the experts who drafted this bill tried, through the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), to get the Canadian people to swallow it? How is it that in a text of law, reputedly serious, we read that we are to procure the miscarriage of a female person only?
Mr. Speaker, I find in at least twenty different places in the bill these terms: "miscarriage of a female person".
However, the minister has not yet answered this question: How many sexes are there in Canada?
Mr. Speaker, at least the spirit of this amendment is1 in keeping with our beliefs when it provides that an hospital should not be obliged to establish a therapeutic abortion committee. In the name of the freedom which some members want to preach in the house so that a woman may feel free to have an abortion if she so wishes. We should ensure to hospitals and doctors unwilling to perform abortion the same liberty not to have to submit, for some reason or other, to the legislation which they do not want to be part of our statutes.
Mr. Speaker, in expressing my opposition to the provisions of Bill C-150 regarding abortion, I shall not deal tonight with the moral problems involved in abortion.
We have merely brought in arguments based on common sense or provided by medical authorities condemning abortion, even therapeutic abortion, a practice that this bill

is trying to impose on our hospitals and medical practitioners.
The main argument against abortion is that this small being, as such, has the right to live. Consequently, society must do every possible thing to ensure him this right.
Mr. Eugene Quay, an American professor, wrote a study which was published in the Georgetown Law Journal. Here is what he said:
The protection of the life of an unborn child has always been a major concern in the oldest laws known. This matter has continued to form the subject of laws in all civilizations right through to the present time, because this thought springs from a universal sentiment that foresees the decline of civilization when this right is no longer protected.
Unfortunately, we have to realize that at the present time Canada's civilization is decadent, for rather than protecting the right to life, we do everything possible to eliminate such a right.
Section 3 of the United Nations Universal declaration of human rights, passed in 1948, stipulates that, and I quote:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Paragraph (a) of section 1 of the Canadian Bill of Rights, passed in 1960, recognizes that: -the right of the individual to life-
-exists in Canada and will continue to exist. However, in 1969, we are already willing to question that principle and to pass legislation to abolish it.
The convention to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms, signed in Rome in 1950 by the members of the European Council, states the following in paragraph (1) of section 2, and I quote:
The right of the individual to life is protected by law. Death cannot be inflicted intentionally, except in the carrying out of a death sentence passed by a court of justice in the case of an offence punishable by death under the law.
In his book entitled "The Right to Live" Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas wrote in New York in 1964:
Respect for human life is part of the moral consensus of western civilization-such consensus emanating from intuitive wisdom of a really human society.
It then appears that the right to life is universally recognized and the voluntary and intentional destruction of a living foetus in the body of its mother, or of a child at its birth, constitutes a practice which is universally prohibited.
April 28, 1369

[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Whatever the authors of the Criminal Code may say, life begins before the birth of the child and the severance of the umbilical cord.
The physicians who came to testify before the standing committee on justice and legal affairs, on March 25-and others before them-especially Drs. Legare and Justras proved, without doubt, that life exists well before birth.
The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wooliams) asked the following question of Dr. Legare, a gynecologist at the St-Frangois d'Assise Hospital, in Quebec City:
From the medical point of view, do you agree with the definition given in the Criminal Code?
And the physician replied:
From the medical point of view, no ... but the unborn child is definitely a human being. The slides of Dr. Jutras-
-will give you a medical proof.
Doctor Jutras, head of the Pediatrics Department of the Arthabasca hospital, showed a series of slides which proved beyond doubt that life exists, imperfect maybe but real none the less, because when the foetus is 24 days old its heart starts to beat. Some Swedish physicians have ascertained that a foetal heart was still beating one or two hours after an abortion.
Thanks to the transparencies of Dr. Jutras, it was possible to observe that on the twelfth week, a foetus sucks his thumb.
Mr. Speaker, there are even some members who have been doing the same since they have been here and who continue to do so.
On the sixteenth week, the eyes of the foetus are developed and on the twenty-sixth week, it is viable.
Life is by then so well established that in the Model Penal Code approved by The American Law Institute, paragraph 3 of section 230, dealing with abortion, it is stipulated, and I quote:
When the abortion is performed after the 26th week of pregnancy, it is murder in the second degree.
This referred to illegal abortions.
What shall we think now of therapeutic abortion. This is what I want to talk about, Mr. Speaker. It is precisely the problem that we study tonight. What shall we think now, I say, of medical abortion which the Minister of Justice wants to include in the Criminal Code in order to justify abortion?
Criminal Code
This is what was said on this subject by Dr. R. Gordon Douglas, professor of obstetrics and gynecologist at the Medical College of Cornell University in the United States. This is no idle talk; we are not dealing here with back-street butchers or with blue-stocking gossips:
If we make use of all our therapeutic armamentarium, we can put an end to all the troubles that can arise, for a mother, from the birth of a child.
In other words, thanks to medical knowledge in this field, the life of the mother is no longer in danger when she is bearing a child or when she gives birth to a child.
Professor Quay, in the book which I quoted a while ago, proves, from pages 181 to 220, that appropriate prenatal care and attention can practically always save the life of the mother without resorting to therapeutic abortion.
At this stage, I should like to say to the supporters of abortion that it is almost an insult to medicine to try and make believe that doctors are incapable to cure illness except by killing the foetus, while doctors have proved in the committee that therapeutic abortion is futile today, because treatment can help to cure the diseases that can sometimes attend pregnancy.
On the other hand, Dr. K. P. Russell, from the county hospital of Los Angeles, writes in the Journal of the American Medical Association and I quote:
For the past ten years, we have grown more and more aware of the fact that several indications-
-and here, he is of the same opinion as Dr. Legare who was a witness to the committee of justice and legal affairs-
-we have grown every day more aware of the fact that many an indication in favour of therapeutic abortion is no longer valid ... in the light of continuing improvement in the field of medicine and surgery.
Professor Quay, on the other hand, believes that if therapeutic abortion is to be legalized, it will hamper research in the field of gynaecology, with the purpose of saving human lives and that doctors will do it the easy way by destroying the foetus.
He also makes no bones about stigmatizing the mothers who seek therapeutic abortion.
A mother who sacrifices the life of her child in order to protect her own health is lacking something somewhere . .. and if there were to be some authority to decide whether to destroy an innocent life for social reasons, the interests of society would command to sacrifice the life of

April 28. 1968
Criminal Code
such a mother rather than that of her child who might one day become extremely useful to society. Some, even, go as far as to say that. .. "health of the mother" ... should also cover ... "mental health."
According to doctors who have conducted studies on the problem, the mental troubles about which some women are complaining to justify their application for therapeutic abortion, are just subterfuges in order to get rid of their child.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Moreover, nothing shows that mental disorders are cured by ending pregnancy. And finally, therapeutic abortion could in some cases heighten mental disorders in a pregnant woman, when they give rise to feelings of frustration, hostility and shame.
For instance, Dr. Perlmutter of New York Bellevue Hospital, in his analysis of therapeutic abortion, which appeared in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, volume 53, 1947, page 1014, said the following:
There does not appear to be a single neurological or psychiatrical condition which could justify ending pregnancy.
Even the threat of suicide resorted to by pregnant women to get an abortion cannot be a valid argument, according to Dr. Lawrence C. Iolb, director of the New York State Psychiatric Institute.
He wrote in 1958, in his book Abortion in United States the following:
There is an interesting report from Sweden about 344 women who were refused a therapeutic abortion, 62 of whom had threatened to commit suicide if their request was not granted. So far, none has committed suicide. The threat of suicide is frequently used for intimidation purposes.
As for "eugenic" abortion, designed to prevent the birth of children who are abnormal, crippled or affected by hereditary diseases, or simply to improve the human race, we find it equally unacceptable.
Let us keep in mind that our soldiers fought against Hitler who practised eugenics in order to preserve the integrity of the German race. Would we, today, include such a provision into our Code, or simply allow, because no mention is made of it, doctors to practise eugenics?
Professor Norman St. John-Stevas, on page 16 of the book entitled "The Right To Live" and previously quoted, tells the following story, and I quote:
A doctor is discussing with a colleague: "With regard to terminating a pregnancy, I should like

your opinion. The father suffers from syphilis and the mother, from tuberculosis. What would you have done? I should have terminated it, replies the other. In that case, you would have killed Beethoven!
Finally, a few words on the argument raised by the supporters of therapeutic abortion whereby the fact that abortions are common in certain hospitals is an argument in favour of adopting the amendment to the act.
Mr. Speaker, thefts and crimes are increasing in Canada as in every other country in the world. The efforts of the police to check crime are becoming less and less efficient. But who would suggest that our present legislation against crime be abolished? Who would suggest that our police forces, the R.C.M.P., and municipal forces should be abolished?
And last, the arguments whereby therapeutic abortions lead to a decrease in clandestine abortions-


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


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, would the
house allow me to continue my remarks for one minute only?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
honourable member is aware that he must have the unanimous consent of the house. Does the house allow the hon. member to go on with his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, Professor Quay whom I quoted earlier, states the following:
The section on abortion proposed by the American Law Institute corresponds to the 1939 Danish law. Now while the number of legal abortions increased in 12 years to 5,000 per year, the number of criminal abortions, instead of decreasing or of disappearing, increased to 9,000 per year.
For all the reasons I have just listed, I do not think any hon. member, whatever his party-we have only heard from those objecting to the legislation-could put forward any argument supporting the bill because there is none.
I had the opportunity a few weeks ago to visit four western provinces and I was able to realize that opposition to abortion is as strong over there as it is here.
I believe all hon. members regardless of their faith should unite to ask the government to withdraw the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code relating to therapeutic abortion.
April 28. 1969

Also, I am in favor of the proposed amendment to the effect that hospitals and medical practitioners unwilling to procure a supposedly therapeutic abortion which, doctors say, no longer exists could at least be free not to abide by the provisions of this bill providing for the creation of an abortion committee in hospitals.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, this part of the debate on this bill is different from that part of the debate that dealt with gross indecency. This is not just, shall we say, a mere truism. The amendments before us come as a result of representations made by various organizations, organized groups, pressure groups and individuals. They have been discussed in the public press, on radio and on television, and there has been a good deal of public debate on this matter. Therefore, even though I may not agree with these amendments, I feel they are much more legitimate than the ones contained in clause 7, for which there was no call from the public. They were not debated by the public, there has been no public demand for relaxations on gross indecency and therefore they seem to be a gratuitous offering on the part of the original author of the bill to some factions in the public interested in that type of activity.
Representations made favouring the adoption of clauses in this bill dealing with abortion have been made first of all, I suppose, by a lot of social workers and well meaning people. Many of them were naive do-gooders to the extent that they believed adoption of this provision would reduce illegitimacy as the result of conception by young unmarried women or by married women who participate in extramarital affairs. It is thought that if such a young woman can go along to a hospital very quietly and have an abortion, this would eliminate the number of illegitimate children. Mr. Speaker, I do not think for a moment that that will be the case. It will be known when a woman goes to hospital. Women resort to the back street quack or to what is known as the abortion butcher because of the moral stigma attached to a woman carrying a child as a result of an illicit sexual connection. This is the reason for resorting to the quack and no amount of, shall we say, making abortions easier will reduce the immorality of the initial act and the immoral stigma. We will have to change society and say that a woman can conceive a child from whomsoever she wishes, and bear
Criminal Code
it. But society will not accept that. Society does not say that, nor does society pretend at any time to sanction illicit sexual connections which may result in a pregnancy. Therefore, I think the argument that adoption of this provision will reduce illegitimacy is sheer fantasy.
Furthermore, I doubt that it will reduce the number of so-called butchers. Why do I say that? I say it because there is that social stigma attached to an illicit pregnancy. Here again, I think there are naive do-gooders who suggest that liberalizing the abortion provisions in our Criminal Code will reduce illegitimacy and drive the abortion butcher out of his back room.
On another occasion, I think I shall have the opportunity to speak on the principle of abortion at will or on request, or on proposals which would make abortion much more permissive than at present. At this time I should like to limit my remarks to the purpose of this amendment. I am pleased to see this amendment being put forward. Anything said to me by medical practitioners about the government proposals dealing with abortion has been said in an endeavour to protect practitioners who would refuse to perform an abortion on instruction from any therapeutic abortion committee. The medical practitioner might be either on the staff of the hospital or be connected with the hospital and be entitled to practice in that hospital. Also, many of those doctors who have had a great deal to say to me limit their practice to some of the hospitals within the city of Edmonton where abortions will not be carried out. There will not be an abortion committee in those hospitals as long as the directing staff and the doctors of those hospitals maintain the same view. It is their freedom of practice that we are attacking.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
I say it is absolutely wrong. It will be failing morally. I trust the provinces will take some appropriate action to prohibit any undue pressure, either on a hospital or a doctor practising in a hospital, to carry out a therapeutic abortion against their will. Hospitals today have no freedom with regard to their financing. They are directly controlled by the provincial authorities. If it is the view of a provincial hospital authority that all hospitals, regardless of the persuasion by the board of management or directing staff, shall carry out therapeutic abortions under penalty of some financial or other type of restriction,

April 28, 1969
Criminal Code
that will be wrong. It has been suggested the remedy does not lie in the Criminal Code. Now, is the time to speak out against any undue pressure.
It is the government's proposed amendment to the Criminal Code which sets up the therapeutic abortion committee. Bill C-150 will entitle a doctor to perform a therapeutic abortion under certain conditions, therefore it is now that we must raise the protest against any undue pressure being exerted. If the abortion committee is not set up or if a doctor does not wish to carry out a therapeutic abortion. There may have to be accompanying legislation from the provinces because no hospital may be able to found a claim in contract or otherwise under these sections against any provincial hospital authority that brought undue pressure. There might be a possibility of a claim for damages, but I think the grounds might be rather tenuous.
When dealing with this bill, we in this house cannot provide that there shall be a civil remedy against any provincial hospital authority that brings undue pressure on either a hospital authority or practising physician or any legal action being brought against either or both of them because of their refusal. I support the spirit of the amendment. I think it has its place at this point.
As my colleague the hon. member for Sim-coe North (Mr. Rynard) stated, this is the point where we, as legislators, should indicate there must be no penalty on any hospital or physician refusing to carry out a therapeutic abortion as may be permitted under this act. I wish to reiterate the therapeutic abortion committee will be a creation of this act now before us. If there are to be any consequences arising out of the conduct of this potential committee, they should be expressed in the Criminal Code.


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, my comments will be similar to those made by the previous speaker on the amendment before us, which reads as follows:
"Nothing in this section shall be construed as obliging any hospital to establish a therapeutic abortion committee or any qualified medical practitioner to procure the miscarriage of a female person."
The hon. minister of Justice, Mr. Turner, has probably received some time ago a written memorandum from the Medical Association of the province of Quebec, stating the
[Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West).)
clear opposition of its members to the obligation for the medical committee of a hospital to procure what is called a therapeutic abortion.
Like the hon. minister and other members, I have received a request from the medical doctors asking that we oppose that provision in the bill. To date, the hon. minister has not heeded the appeal made by the Medical Association of the province of Quebec. I wonder whether all the doctors making this appeal to the hon. minister and to the members of this House can be wrong.
According to the bill, doctors refusing to procure therapeutic abortion would be penalized. I do not believe that such is the intention of the hon. minister. His Parliamentary Secretary (Mr. Cantin), signals1 that it is not. I would like the parliamentary secretary or the hon. minister himself to give the house a clear and definite answer about the intentions of the legislators with regard to the provisions of this act.
If a person goes to the hospital for a abortion and if the hospital or the doctors there refuse to grant the request, will they be punishable under the act? That was not explained and that is why I am speaking about the Medical Association of the province of Quebec this evening. I ask the hon. minister to clarify the bill for us.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
It is obvious that Catholic hospitals in the province of Quebec did not allow abortions until now. Even when the mother's life was endangered. I do not believe the law can established a criterion, permitting to determine whether the life of a pregnant woman is in danger because her pregnancy does not progress normally. I say the minister fails to do his duty by refusing to give on this bill clarifications that could protect doctors in Catholic hospitals who would refuse to perform an abortion.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, I am completely opposed to the party in power legislating on what concerns the mother's health in the case of a difficult pregnancy or premature birth. I believe legislators have no right neither on life nor on the effects of a difficult abortion. They must not substitute themselves to Providence.
The object of my contribution in this debate is to tell the Minister of Justice that the provision concerning abortion is so complex, entails so many after effects and creates so many difficulties that the legislator is
April 28, 1969

wrong in my opinion by interfering with the plans of Providence.
The hon. members opposite may gloat over my references to the Canadian bishops who recently vigorously denounced those provisions of the legislation. They asked the Minister of Justice to clarify the legislation so that doctors who refuse to perform an abortion will not be liable to prosecution.
We know that recently, in the United States, certain doctors were prosecuted by hospitals for having refused to perform abortions. We would not want, especially in the province of Quebec, that such proceedings be instituted against doctors. I insist on that point.
I beg the Minister of Justice to look at me. He is talking at present with one of his colleagues. I beg him to clear up the matter. I know the minister is taking advice from his parliamentary secretary and that he could not follow my speech. His parliamentary secretary will give him the message as usual. I say to the minister that he should make the legislation more explicit.


John Napier Turner: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I am closely watching what the hon. member says. It is impossible to ignore him.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I did not hear what the minister said. Could he, please, repeat it?


John Napier Turner: I said, Mr. Speaker, that "I was closely watching what the hon. member was saying because it is impossible to ignore him."


Martial Asselin: I thank the Minister of Justice for giving so much importance to my remarks, but before we vote on this amendment, I should like to know whether the Minister of Justice is going to comply with the request of the Association of doctors and also of the bishops who have asked him whether these doctors would be subject to prosecution or to penalties under the Criminal Code.
I think the question is very ticklish and very important and the hon. Minister should at least give the members of the province of Quebec the assurance that doctors will not be prosecuted under the section on abortion.
On April 23, 1969, Claude Ryan published in he Devoir an article under the heading "Conscience, medecine et avortement" in
Criminal Code
which he warned the hon. Minister of Justice against all the possible consequences of his bill on abortion. The minister must have read that article. I do not claim that Mr. Ryan is an authority on abortion and medicine. The hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Gervais) and the whip of the Liberal party are shaking their heads ...


Mr. Gervais:: All depends on the subject.


Martial Asselin: The fact remains that this editorial of Le Devoir raises, in my opinion, a very important question and I fail to see how the minister can reject amendment No. 21, without giving the Quebec Medical Association some safeguard to the effect that its members will not be subject to legal proceedings under the law when they refuse to perform abortion.
I greatly admire the minister's courage and eagerness. He accepted to sponsor the legislation of the former Minister of Justice, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). We know that when the minister introduced this legislation in the house he felt-and I think that he was right-that the bill should be divided in order to enable-


John Napier Turner: No.


Martial Asselin: The minister says no! But he did say that the bill should be divided in order to enable the members to express their views freely and according to their conscience. At that time, I think the hon. minister was quite right and, some time after the Prime Minister turned him down and told him that the bill would not be divided but would be considered as a whole, and that the members would have to vote only once.
We know that it was made into a vote of confidence for the government, and we noticed it on the last vote. Indeed, not one member from Quebec, not even the hon. member for Sherbrooke, voted against the government. Thus, on the 54 or 55 members from Quebec who think like those of the opposition and do not favour the omnibus bill, nor would want-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member at this time, but I would like to ask him to confine his remarks strictly to the amendment now under consideration.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Martial Asselin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I shall heed your advice.

April 28, 1969
Criminal Code
With regard to the possible consequences oi the amendment now under study, I think that I have a right to ask the members from Quebec-but not you, since you are Deputy Chairman of committees and Deputy Speaker-to follow the dictates of their conscience on the matters of abortion and homosexuality.
Finally, we have not heard any Quebec member oppose this bill, and yet, I know that in their inner conscience, some of them wished they belonged to the opposition so that they could vote freely, as was proposed by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield).
Before this amendment comes up for a vote, I should like the Minister of Justice to explain clearly what the situation of the government is with regard to the request of the bishops that doctors and hospitals not be required to procure abortion or to set up abortion committees. I should like the Minister of Justice to give us specific information and commit himself with regard to this problem, so that the doctors who refuse to procure abortions for reasons of conscience and professional ethics can be protected against resulting legal proceedings.
The Minister of Justice cannot, to my mind, go against the designs of Providence. When one fights nature, nature fights back.
At times, pregnancies are difficult; but doctors have from time to time met the difficulty by performing an operation to relieve the mother.
In closing, I therefore ask the Minister of Justice to clarify the situation and give hon. members some information, so that when the time comes to vote they will know how best to protect natural laws.
I trust the Minister of Justice can give us some details within a few moments and also tell us whether he has replied to the doctors of the province of Quebec who have requested that the act on abortion be amended. I am convinced that the minister of Justice will set forth for us the position of the government, after which I shall be able to decide on how I must vote on the proposed amendment.


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


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I asked the Minister of Justice whether he could give us some further information on the question I put tonight and that was put by other members. I want to direct it again to the minister. Will the doctors who refuse to procure miscarriages, as provided

by the law, be liable to prosecution? Even if I alone in the house tonight, I am going to object to the debate being carried on before the minister answers my question.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I must say to the hon. member that I am not allowed to repeat my remarks of this afternoon, in which I sincerely answered all the questions he asked this evening. If he reads Hansard, he will find there the answers to all his questions. As for me, I am not permitted to repeat my remarks.


Martial Asselin: Is the minister of the opinion that amendment No. 21 now before us answers the request of the doctors of Quebec and Canada that they not be liable to prosecution after refusing to procure an abortion?


John Napier Turner: I have already answered that question, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
question is on the motion Mr. Woolliams (for Mr. McCleave) No. 21 which reads:
That Bill C-150, to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act. the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act, be amended by inserting in clause 18 after sub-section 7 of Section 237 on page 44 the following sub-section:
"(8) Nothing in this section shall be construed as obliging any hospital to establish a therapeutic abortion committee or any qualified medical practitioner to procure the miscarriage of a female person."
And the amendment to the motion (Mr. Burton):
That the proposed subsection (8) be amended by adding thereto the following words:
"or any member of a hospital staff to assist in procuring such miscarriage."
All those in favour of the amendment to the motion 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):: Call in the members.
April 28. 1969


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. The question is on the main motion. Is it the wish of hon. members that we ring the bells?


Some hon. Members:: No.


An hon. Member:: On division.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: amendment No. 24, as follows:
That Bill C-150, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatory Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and National Defence Act, be amended by deleting in clause 18 the word "and" on line five on page 43 and the "period" after the word "practitioner" on line 8 on page 43 and inserting the following words: "and, (e) that those means are employed before the period of implantation."


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I hear some hon. members calling for an explanation of this motion which I am moving on behalf of my hon. friend. Judging by the way so many of them have voted on the other clauses and amendments, I can understand why they believe these things should be explained to them.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
Seriously, as I understand my hon. friend's motion the effect is to change certain words in clause 18 and add a provision for the setting up of a therapeutic abortion committee in accredited hospitals. According to the Criminal Code amendment, if the committee gives a certificate, then any medical practitioner can go ahead and perform an abortion providing it is to preserve the life or health of the mother. This brings me to the point I want to argue in dealing with this section. I want to try to explain what Professor Mewett recommended to the committee, though Your Honour, with the greatest respect, ruled out 
the word "unlawfully" that I wanted to add to section 237 which is being amended by this bill.
First of all, and despite what the minister has said, I ask the house to consider section 209. Section 209 of the Code which is in two parts, commences:
Every one who causes the death of a child that has not become a human being, in such a manner that, if the child were a human being, he would be guilty of murder, is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for life.
That is subsection (1) of section 209. My good friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) says that this has nothing to do with abortion. Mr. Speaker, it is beyond me how he makes that deduction. The minister says he has consulted the law officers in this regard.
Let us see what section 195 of the Criminal Code has to say about when a person becomes a human being. That section provides:
A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother whether or not
(a) it has breathed,
(b) it has an independent circulation, or
(c)	the navel string is severed.
I ask the house to keep that section in mind and to go back to the provisions of section 209 to which I have just referred. In other words, an abortion of the foetus at that stage would be a criminal offence under section 209. However, there is an exception made in subsection (2), which reads:
This section does not apply to a person who, by means that, in good faith, he considers necessary to preserve the life of the mother of a child that has not become a human being, causes the death of the child.
Yet, the Minister of Justice and his officers claim that section has nothing to do with miscarriage or abortion. Their definition of miscarriage or abortion must be far different from that of the House of Lords.
I should like to know why this exception is made if the section has nothing to do with abortion. If it has nothing to do with abortion, all I can say is that for the last 25 years lawyers have argued this section in defending abortion cases when they should not have done so.
Let us see what Professor Mewett has to say. I cannot believe that a person like Professor Mewett, who teaches criminal law at the University of Toronto, would not understand what is meant by a miscarriage or a simple abortion within the definition in the Criminal Code. I should like to put on record
April 28, 1969

Criminal Code
a quotation from the "Criminal Law Quarterly". I don't mind saying that although the government added another eight clauses, I was not allowed to add one word, the word *"unlawfully', to section 237. My amendment was ruled out of order. This is beyond my comprehension, and not only beyond my comprehension but the comprehension of many professors teaching criminal law in universities in Canada.
I should like to refer the house to page 385 of the Criminal Law Quarterly, volume 10, for 1967-68:
Under section 209 of the Code (with the proposed amendment) causing the death of a child that has not become a human being in the act of birth is not illegal if the person causing the death considers it necessary in good faith to preserve the life of the mother.
Surely, those words refer to miscarriages and abortions.
The Bourne principle clearly applies, allowing the medical practitioner to exercise his own judgment in the act of birth. If, however, the pregnancy is to be terminated prior to the act of birth, apparently totally different, incredibly complex and dubiously constitutional provisions apply.
Then, Professor Mewett goes on to deal with section 209, the section that my good friend the Minister of Justice and the law officers of the crown say has nothing to do with a miscarriage or an abortion. We are dealing here with doing away with the foetus prior to its becoming a human being. If that is not a miscarriage, then there never was a miscarriage. He says:
Procuring a miscarriage (or, to be precise, using any means with that intent) will be lawful if a therapeutic abortion committee, by a majority, certifies that in its opinion the continuation of the pregnancy would be likely to endanger the mother's life or health. Apparently the miscarriage is lawful with or without the consent of the mother, though subsection (8) states "Nothing in subsection (4) shall be construed as making unnecessary the obtaining of any ... consent that... may be required, otherwise than under this Act..." I assume that that means, if it means anything at all, which I doubt, that the doctor is guilty of assault but not of procuring a miscarriage. This hardly scratches the surface of the abortion problem, and probably makes no difference to the present situation (apart from complicating it) in which most doctors will already perform therapeutic abortions, on the understanding that the Bourne principle applies not only to section 209 but also to section 237.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, to understand what the Criminal Code means by an abortion and by a miscarriage ,sections 209 and 237
must be read together. Then, Professor Mewett goes on to say this:
It will leave entirely untouched the problem of an unmarried pregnant woman, the victim of rape, or the respectable married woman who just doesn't want a child. If that is all that it really does, a pregnant woman would be advised to wait until the onset of labour and have the child disposed of under section 209 without the rigmarole provided for by section 237.
What is the Professor talking about, Mr. Speaker? Very simply this. He says that section 209 makes an exception. When in their great wisdom the minister and his officers added the words "in the act of birth", it enabled a doctor in good faith to cause the miscarriage of an unborn child only after the onset of labour pains. I want to be fair to the law officers and say the amendment to section 237 was made in light of the fact that the abortion committee would have to give a certificate for the performing of an abortion. The committee would recommend that a doctor in an accredited hospital perform a miscarriage after the onset of labour pains.
What would be the position if doctors were really ruthless about this? My good friend- and others apparently agree with him-says that the section does not apply to a miscarriage or an abortion. But what would happen in fact? If a woman wanted an abortion she would forget about the abortion committee, the accredited hospital and the committee's certificate. She would wait until she experienced labour pains, then the unborn child could be destroyed and that would be a miscarriage. This was the very reason section 209 was amended. I had suggested removal of the words "in the act of birth" from section 209 and the insertion of the word "unlawfully" in section 237. In that way, the public and the doctors would have been protected.
This party was elected, so it says, in order to bring in this legislation. Hon. members opposite say they have a mandate to introduce amendments concerning homosexuality and abortion, and that no one will stop them from doing so.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
Section 209 is applicable only to the death of a child in the act of birth. Where would you be left if you take out the words, "in the act of birth", from section 209 and add the word "unlawfully" to section 237? Perhaps I should put it this way. If you added the word "unlawfully" to section 237, you might then have some protection under our law. When amending the Criminal Code in 1953 another

April 28, 1969
Criminal Code
Liberal minister of justice, Mr. Garson, said that the changes he was proposing would protect the public and the doctors. Doctors must be protected. It must be presumed they are acting in good faith. As a matter of fact, the crown must prove in any prosecution that a doctor has not acted in good faith. If you added the word "unlawfully" to section 237 and removed the words "in the act of birth" from section 209, you might have a reasonable abortion law in this country.
Really, the government has put some beautiful drapes over windows here to satisfy those people in Canada who want wholesale abortions and to satisfy those who, because of various convictions and religious scruples, do not want abortions at all. You see here the same old Liberal practice of pointing in both directions; the government is using both arms to point in different directions to satisfy all the people. I know that people will not like me for saying this, but this must be said. It is time we exposed this great fiction of double talk. Whether it is dealing with a language bill or the Criminal Code, this Liberal government manages to talk out of both sides of its mouth at the same time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Some people in this country want wholesale abortions, and others want no abortions at all. Each group thinks this bill is the answer. Some think that anyone wanting an abortion simply has to go to a committee, obtain a certificate and have the abortion performed. This bill does not mean that at all.


An hon. Member:: I hope you are right.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I hope I am, too. The only thing we need to be worried about is if doctors become so ruthless that they interpret the law to mean that any action they take may be considered necessary to protect the health of the woman. If they interpret the wording of the law ruthlessly we shall see wholesale abortions in this country. I know the hon. member is intelligent and understands what I mean.
Naturally, any young girl who gets pregnant will be upset. But I do not think doctors and the courts will say that such a young woman must have an abortion because the abortion is necessary to protect her health or to preserve her life. I do not think the doctors of this country will go that far.


Mr. Flemming:: But it only takes the opinion of one doctor, does it not?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I agree. We are developing into a permissive society and cannot see what is ahead of us.


An hon. Member:: Be careful, or we shall be having some resignations.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I would not wish to see that. Basically, this law does nothing for girls who have been raped and do not want to bear the child resulting from that offence. That is, unless it is shown that bearing the child will in some way endanger the life or the health of the mother, the girl will have her child. I do not think the courts will go so far as to say that if a girl is pregnant as a result of being raped that that endangers her life or health. So, basically, the act in this regard is left alone. One can say that the law has not been changed. Certainly, if the courts interpret the law as they have been interpreting it since 1953 in this regard, one could well say that the present provisions do not change the law.
Clearly this government is talking out of both sides of its mouth. To those who want abortions it is saying, "Look at what a great reform party we are," and to those who do not want abortions it is saying, "We are really not that kind of party after all, we just want to be very careful in this area." I suggest that if we had left section 209 alone and added the word "unlawfully" to section 237, we should have arrived at basically the same sort of the law the government proposes to have. In addition, our doctors would have been afforded a little protection.
If my suggestion were adopted, doctors would be protected. Abortions would be performed to preserve the life or health of the mother. Also, the law would be more realistic, and we should not wind up playing games, as we are here.
May I now read some questions and answers given before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I am reading from page 349 of volume No. 10 of those proceedings. This is what I asked Professor Mewett, as reported at page 348:
May I ask you to pause there, so that this is on record? You are dealing with the Canadian Section 209. I think it should be read in at this time.
I will not read section 209 at this time. Having read it, I went on to say, as reported at page 349:
And I take it from conversations I had with you this morning, that you feel that the Bourne case principle that interprets the preservation of the life has been applied in Ontario, and I
April 28, 1969

believe it has been applied elsewhere in Canada. It does not mean to save her from violent death, but it means to preserve her life, in a case where she might otherwise be left impaired physically or emotionally. Then, of course the doctor in good faith who performs such a therapeutic abortion would fall into the saving and exception clause of Section 209.
Speaking of the saving and exception clause of section 209, there is no indication as to whether it applies to miscarriages and abortions. That is, there is no indication that it does not apply to miscarriages and abortions. At any rate, that is my understanding of the matter. I continued to ask:
-with the strength of section 237, if the word "unlawfully" were put in you would be obtaining the same result basically

I said in so many words that the law would remain the same, with the added proviso that you would have some protection under it. And what did the professor say to that? He agreed. That is why we have moved this amendment. It is basically relevant to what we are talking about.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being ten o'clock, the house will proceed, pursuant to the provisions of standing order No. 40, to debate certain questions to be raised.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, on April 16 I drew to the attention of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) a situation in which, as from April 15, the British Columbia Professional Pharmacists' Society was charging each welfare patient $1 for a prescription. I asked what action the minister proposed to deal with this matter and, specifically, if such apparent price fixing would be referred to the investigation branch for combines investigation.
It seems to me that the Minister's answer contradicted itself. On the one hand, he said that the practice of pharmacy comes under provincial jurisdiction, inferring he could do nothing about the situation; then, he added that such apparent price fixing in respect of professional fees has for some time
DEBATES	8091
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion been before the Combines Investigation Branch.
Since then quite a lot of water has gone under the bridge. On April 24 my colleague, the hon. member for Surrey (Mr. Mather) asked the minister whether the Combines Investigation Act was being used in this instance. The minister replied that he had no knowledge of any request from the government of British Columbia for an investigation but that he might have received it without knowing about it. Since the provincial Minister of Welfare on April 21 wrote to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, asking for an inquiry under the Combines Investigation Act and since he called a press conference two days later, on April 23, to talk about it, there is only one possible explanation about this state of affairs. The explanation lies with our new mail service. The letter sent on the 21st did not manage to arrive on the 24th.


An hon. Member:: That is a disservice.


Donald MacInnis: 
Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I share the concern of
[Mrs. Maclnnis.l
DEBATES	April 28, 1989
the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) with respect to the high cost and availability of drugs and proper medical care for these people who need it most. That is why the government has introduced the Canada Assistance Plan and, in this session, Bill C-102 to meet these problems.
In the present case, as my minister indicated to the hon. member on April 16, the department is aware of the British Columbia situation. Since then, the minister has received a letter from the Hon. Dan Campbell, minister of social welfare for British Columbia, asking for a combines investigation. This has been referred to the combines branch. The director has the matter under review at the present moment to ascertain whether it provides reason to believe that the act has been violated. The minister also stated that the practice of pharmacy is within provincial jurisdiction under their provincial licensing authority. When Bill C-102 was introduced in the house last October, the minister informed the house of our five point program to tackle the high cost of drugs. The fifth step in that program involves discussions with the province designed to tackle the problem of the high cost of the retail distribution of drugs, important aspects of which are within provincial jurisdiction. Arrangements have already been initiated to bring the provinces and our department together for the purpose of these discussions.
The minister has already outlined to the house a very clear and cogent program for dealing with the high cost of drugs, and I can assure the house that any supplementary measures which are available to him will be given full consideration. Certainly any infractions of the Combines Investigation Act will be dealt with firmly. I should like to add also that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) has been informed by the Director of the Investigation and Research Branch under the Combines Investigation Act that many reports have been received over the past several years about the adoption of some kind of formula pricing by druggists, usually by way of relationship to cost plus prescription fees. Whenever such reports have come to his attention he has been in touch with the pharmaceutical associations concerned and has indicated to them that the adoption of such a system by agreement would give rise to a question under the Combines Investigation Act, unless the system has been adopted pursuant to valid provincial legislation.
April 28. 1969	COMMONS



AIR CANADA-WINNIPEG-TRANSFER OF BASE TO NORTHWEST INDUSTRIES LTD.

Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, many people probably have the impression that the people of Winnipeg are resentful and jealous of the people of Montreal because Montreal has had the good luck to have Air Canada expand its jet overhaul facilities at Dorval and also has succeeded in obtaining an effective international airport at Ste. Scholas-tique just a few miles away. If people have that impression, I suggest they have missed the point. What the people of Winnipeg resent very much is not that something has been taken from Winnipeg and placed in Montreal; what is resented above all is the fact that in all the inquiries that have been made over the past years in an attempt to find justification for Air Canada taking its jet overhaul plant out of Winnipeg there has been a long and sad history of deception.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Osier), who is a colleague of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) who I presume will be answering, has himself used words to the effect that the executives of Air Canada in testifying at the Thompson inquiry, for example, were lying-I repeat "lying". It is precisely the use of that kind of word that I want to endorse. I want the minister, or whoever is responsible for his department at the present time, to give some good reason why there should not be an inquiry into the testimony given by the Air Canada officials in an attempt to find out whether their testimony was accurate and truthfully given. I wish to state, as categorically and as truthfully as I can, that after going through the evidence of the Thompson inquiry and after having received from the Department of Transport an order for return only a few weeks ago, I find there is a contradiction between the words used by the executives of Air Canada before the inquiry commission and the information received through the order for return.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
This is a clear indication that there has been a deception perpetrated on the people of Canada, the people of Winnipeg and the people of Manitoba by those officers who hold positions of responsibility with this Crown corporation, namely Air Canada.
In addition to the economic effect all this has had on Winnipeg and the western part of Canada, there is something equally important and sinister about it. It is indeed foreboding if we cannot, as members of parliament, be
DEBATES	8093
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion absolutely confident in the high-ranking civil servants we employ. Let me suggest that no administrative official in the United States would dare give the kind of misinformation to members of Congress that has been given to members of parliament in Canada by officials of Air Canada.
What I should like to hear from whoever is in a responsible position in the Department of Transport at this time is an indication as to why there should not be some kind of full inquiry into this whole sorry episode resulting from the testimony given by Air Canada officials to the Thompson commission. Some explanation should be given to reconcile this testimony with the information included in the order for return tabled in this house a few weeks ago.
In concluding, I want to say that all these charges of deception revolve around certain facts, given in 1964 when Air Canada spokesmen were testifying before the Thompson inquiry. At that time they said the main reason the jet overhaul base should be pulled out of Winnipeg and transferred to Montreal was that the Dorval facilities were not being utilized, and that it was uneconomic to maintain the two plants. Within a very short period of time steps were being taken to ask the Treasury Board to approve amounts to institute a multi-million dollar extension of the facilities at Dorval. This request amounted to some $20 million to $30 million. That was the magnitude of the extension to the jet overhaul plant facilities at Dorval.
A few short months before Air Canada asked for money to extend the facilities, officials of this corporation were saying to this inquiry commission that the plant in Montreal was being utilized to half its capability and was therefore uneconomical; that it was necessary to close down the plant at Winnipeg. It is impossible to reconcile that testimony with what has transpired since then.
Even though it is easy to say in retrospect that this was not the case, there is sufficient evidence to convince many of my colleagues including the hon. members for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Osier), Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) and anybody else from almost any other part of Canada, that we cannot be completely confident of the evidence given by these officials to the committee. There is sufficient evidence to raise a doubt as to the veracity of the statements made by these senior officials of this Crown corporation.
April 28, 1969
8094	COMMONS DEBATES
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Mr. H. E. Gray (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have been asked to reply to this question on behalf of the Minister of Transport. I can certainly understand the concern of the hon. member and I shall make certain that his eloquent remarks are drawn to the attention of the minister and to the attention of the management of Air Canada. I suggest that this is a matter the hon. member may well wish to pursue when the senior management of Air Canada again appears before the transport committee of this house.



AIR CANADA-STRIKE OE MECHANICS- INQUIRY AS TO MATTERS IN DISPUTE

Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the point I wish to discuss this evening relates to a question I raised initially on April 23 and again on April 24 with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey). It arose as a result of the strike of machinists with Air Canada. My question was reported at page 7858 of Hansard. At that time I asked the minister directly to tell the house in general terms what might be the issues. The minister's reply was a simple "no". In other words, the minister refused to give the house any indication of what, in general terms, might be the issues in this dispute. I had asked whether it was a matter of seniority, fringe benefits-and fringe benefits cover all sorts of sins of omission and commission-or wages. The minister said that the hon. member, meaning myself, had described the problems.
I wanted the minister to take the house into his confidence a little more than that. After all, the minister said today that the country is undergoing grave inconvenience because of this strike. Therefore, we should know why we are being put to this grave inconvenience. For the second time this union has struck Air Canada, which has an unblemished record in regard to labour relations. We want to know why these people are holding this country to ransom. This is not a case of their trying to get more money out of Air Canada; this is a hold-up of the country. This is a small union, an international union, and there is no indication that they are not taking instructions from elsewhere. As I say, they are holding the country to ransom.
My complaint is not so much about the actions of the union, but the fact that the minister has given us a clear example of what he and his colleagues have been doing in respect of answering serious questions in the

house. First of all, there is the notorious roster system which means that members cannot ask questions on certain days because the minister concerned is not here. There is a very moot point as to whether the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is empowered, under the rules of the house, to have a minister deliberately stay away from the house. Standing Order 5 says that members shall attend this house. Members do excuse themselves from the house, but if they do it is not because the leader of the party has said: You shall not appear in the house. I think this practice is wrong.
Also, Mr. Speaker, on many occasions questions and grievances have been raised about the practice of ministers saying one thing in the house and then running out into the foyer and saying something different into a microphone. This is precisely what the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) did the other day. After his categorical refusal to tell us what were the issues, other than a vague reference to those matters which I had enumerated as casual examples-and there are more-the minister went outside the chamber and said something that was entirely different. I have seen the transcript of what he said. I do not have it with me, but I can tell the house that it makes interesting reading. The minister went into considerable detail outside the house, so much so that members of the press who were present at that interview called me later in the afternoon and said: Did you hear what the Minister of Labour had to say outside the chamber? He gave us the answers that he refused to give you inside the chamber.
I do not think we should put up with this sort of thing. This is what we are complaining about. I have had many instances, starting with the Prime Minister who is one of the worst offenders, of ministers giving no answer, or a partial answer, and then going outside the chamber and adding to or glossing the answer given in the chamber. Ministers are human; they suffer from foot-and-mouth disease. They go outside the house and correct what they have said inside it, after one of their executive assistants or advisers have told them what sort of fools they have been. This happens. The minister then corrects outside the house the answer that he gave inside the house, and to the public and he looks like a well-informed, intelligent individual. No one is in the foyer to question him; no one is there to bring him up short. He can make any sort of misrepresentation, innocent or otherwise, in that interview.
April 28, 1969

[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is a bad practice, and the only way we can get it curbed is by protesting with any means at our disposal. I myself, raised the point very briefly having been Speaker, so that I wonder if this practice outside the chamber should not be overseen and proper facilities made available for interviews instead of this catch-as-catch-can practice which we see outside these quarters.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I will refrain from discussing the roster system which the hon. gentleman has raised in his seven minutes. I must also refrain from endorsing or rejecting his suggestion that the machinists union is responsible for the breakdown in labour relations with Air Canada. This is a matter of opinion to which the hon. gentleman is entitled. If he feels that labour is to blame, he is entitled to that opinion. However, I, as Minister of Labour, am not in a position to state who is to blame until this very disruptive strike comes to an end.
I do not think the hon. gentleman would expect me to get up here and blame the unions any more than he would expect me to blame Air Canada. But I might say that there is a pattern of labour unrest in Air Canada. I do not think this is an isolated case. It is an isolated case only in the sense that there has been strike action. But after having been involved in negotiations of this nature, let me tell you that the relations between Air Canada and unions in general leave much to be desired.
In so far as making statements outside the house is concerned, I must plead as guilty to it as are other ministers. In all honesty, 1 think I was rather short in my answer the
DEBATES	8095
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion other day, but this is a welcome change because I am usually accused of and constantly being admonished by the Speaker for making my answers into statements.
With regard to television facilities outside the chamber, may I say that I think the hon. gentleman, being a fair individual, will admit that the use of television is not restricted to cabinet ministers, Liberal backbenchers or members of the government in particular. If he were to review the time spent before television cameras in the centre block or outside these doors he would find, I am sure, that the time is justly apportioned between all parties. I am sure that when the hon. gentleman has something of importance to say he is always welcome before the television cameras and, I am sure, takes full opportunity to express his words of wisdom over television. I am sure that most Canadians, knowing the hon. gentleman's reputation as former Speaker and a seasoned member of the House of Commons, always listen to his television interventions with a great degree of interest, certainly greater than to anything the Minister of Labour would say.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: May I say, Mr. Speaker-


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: But as former Speaker of the House of Commons, he also knows he is not supposed to interrupt the speaker at this particular time. I will also say that the next time he asks a question in the House of Commons I will be as expansive as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As the existing Speaker I must interrupt the minister. The motion to adjourn the house is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this house stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.25 p.m.


Tuesday, April 29, 1969