1969-01-27

Mr. Speaker:: As hon. members know, last Thursday the government house leader announced the anticipated order of business for this week and, in accordance with his forecast, Wednesday and Thursday were set aside for the purpose of considering an opposition motion.
A question of procedure has arisen in that under a special order of the house the sitting is suspended tomorrow, Tuesday, January 28, in order to enable hon. members to participate in the work of the various standing committees.
Subsection 4(a) of Standing Order 58 provides as follows:
Twenty-four hours' written notice shall be given of an opposition motion on an allotted day or of a notice to oppose any item in the estimates.
The question that has arisen is whether or not the notice referred to in the Standing Order can be filed on a day when the sitting of the house is suspended. In my opinion it is open to hon. members to file their notices tomorrow or, indeed, on any day when the sitting of the house is suspended as distinct from being adjourned. I would advance the following reasons for adopting this attitude.
In the first place, the Standing Order itself states that 24 hours written notice shall be given. A similar provision is also to be found in subsection 5 of standing order 75 for the filing of notice of amendments to be considered at the report stage of bills. It seems to me it should be open to hon. members to file notices of their questions for the order paper and notices of motions or bills they may have in mind; and, generally, it should also be open to the government to file their notices without losing the day. There is also the desirability of placing hon. members'
questions on the order paper, so that it may be circulated to the various government departments concerned without unnecessary loss of time.
In reaching this conclusion I would make the general observation that the house is not in adjournment; its sitting is merely suspended so that hon. members may attend to their committee responsibilities.
In order to conform with the proposed changes Votes and Proceedings will be printed tomorrow in a revised format. There will be no order paper on Tuesday, but Wednesday's order paper and Hansard will be renumbered to reflect the new procedure.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-161, respecting Human Rights.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Winona Grace MacInnis: This act applies to every person engaged in any work, undertaking or business that is within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada. Its purpose is to ensure him complete equality of treatment as a person regardless of race, creed, colour, sex, nationality, ancestry or place of origin, whether in employment, in residential or business accommodation or in access to other facilities or services customarily available to the public.
This act is designed to further, in Canada, the Declaration of Human Rights determined by the United Nations and marked by Human Rights Year in 1968.
A human rights commission should be set up to administer this act. It should consist of two divisions, one to consider complaints and studies on the basis of sex, the second on the basis of the other listed headings. However, as it is not within the rights of a private member to propose measures involving government expenditures, such a proposal cannot be included in this act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time, and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
January 27, 1969
Questions

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

Mr. Howard (Skeena): 1.	Does the Department of Industry issue documents which are of the nature of press releases, press communiques, news releases or the like and, if so, how many such documents have been issued since July 1, 1968?
2.	What has been the cost of (a) printing headings or cover sheets (b) typing the stencils (c) mimeographing or other form of duplicating (d) collating and stapling (e) addressing and mailing the said documents?
3.	With respect to the paper used for the said documents, what is (a) its quality (b) the quantity used and the cost thereof?
4.	What is the estimate of the number of manhours consumed in the preparation, production and distribution of such documents?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. Yes; 18.
2.	(a) $30; (b) Nil; (c) $153; (d) $189; (e) $89.10.
3.	(a) White Bond, Substance 32M, 16 pound; (b) 102,000 sheets; (c) cost $255.
4.	106 estimated.


TRADE AND COMMERCE PRESS RELEASES
Mr. Howard (Skeena): 1.	Does the Department of Trade and Commerce issue documents which are of the nature of press releases, press communiques, news releases or the like and, if so, how many such documents have been issued since July 1, 1968?
2.	What has been the cost of (a) printing headings or cover sheets (b) typing the stencils (c) mimeographing or other form of duplicating (d) collating and stapling (e) addressing and mailing the said documents?
3.	With respect to the paper used for the said documents, what is (a) its quality (b) the quantity used and the cost thereof?
4.	What is the estimate of the number of manhours consumed in the preparation, production and distribution of such documents?


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1. Yes. 59.
2.	(a) $666; (b) Nil; (c) and (d) $2,052.32; (e) $1,168.20.
(3) (a) No. 7 bond; (b) 307,355 sheets 8i x 11 cost included in 2 (c and d).
4. 840.


LEASE AGREEMENTS WITH PRIVATE DEVELOPERS
Mr. Schreyer: 1.	Were any premises leased since January 1, 1966, in the City of Ottawa for use by departments of the Government of Canada, left unused for a period greater than one month during the term of the lease?
2.	If so (a) what was the term of the lease and for what length of time were such premises left unused (b) in what buildings were such leased premises left unused, what area was involved and what was the lease price per square foot?
3.	Has the Government of Canada, either through the Department of Public Works or otherwise, entered into lease agreements with private developers for the leasing of buildings in the Ottawa area yet to be constructed?
4.	If so (a) what number of buildings are thus involved, what is the area in square feet thus contracted for, and what is the price per square foot agreed upon (b) what are the names of the buildings involved either under construction or planned for construction, and who are the owners in each case?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: So far as the Department of Public Works is concerned: 1. Yes.
2.	Listed on next page.
3.	No.
4.	Not applicable.

January 27, 19B9	COMMONS DEBATES			4815 Questions
	Term		Rental rate P.S.F. per annum	
Building	Commenced	Expires	Vacant AreaOld Canada Permanent.... Trust Building 42-48 Sparks St.	. Oct. 1/67 Apr. 1/67	Sept. 30, 1971	$ 2.40	approx. 12,000 square feet vacant-two months.Booth Building	
165 Sparks St.	Apr. 14/1967	Feb. 29, 1972	3.87	approx. 6,000 s.f. vacant July 67 to May 1/68. 1,000 s.f. May 1/68 to Nov. 15/68.Rideau Club	
10 Metcalfe St.	Oct. 1/68	Sept. 30, 1969	2.25	approx. 5,088 s.f. vacant 2 months at old rate $1.99 per sq. ft.Canada Life Building	
75 Sparks St.	. May 1/66	Apr. 30, 1967	3.00	Approx. 600 sq. ft. vacant 2 months.National Building	
130 Slater St.	Dec. 15/67 Apr. 1/67	Mar. 31, 1977 Mar. 31,1977	2.50 4.62	Approx. 3,000 s.f. on 6th fir. for 6 months.Burnside Building	
151 Slater St.	Apr. 29/67	Apr. 30 ,1969	4.95	approx. 700 s.f. since lease commencement to May 31/68.Copeland Building	
294 Albert St.	. July 1/67	June 30, 1977	4.18 5.00 2.50	Total space approx. 50,000 s.f. progressive occupancy from June 1967 to Aug. 1967, fully occupied Aug. 30, 1967.Sir Wilfrid Laurier Bldg.,... 340 Laurier Ave.	June 1/1967	Sept. 30,1980	3.15	Average vacancy of 70,000 s.f. for four months. 5,200 s.f. on 3rd & 8th firs. May 1968 to 15 Nov. 68.Grant Unsworth	
322 Catherine St.	Oct. 16/67	Oct. 31,1972	2.05 3.75	approx. 2,363 s.f. office area since lease started.Beamish Building	
1501 Carling Ave.	Nov. 10/1967	Nov. 30,1972	3.22	approx. 22,558 s.f. vacant April 30/67 to July 26/67 at old rate of $2.36.Sperry Gyroscope	
45 Spencer St.	Jan. 1/67	Dec. 31,1970	2.69	approx. 22,000 s.f. vacant Jan. 1/67 to Aug./67 400 s.f. vacant Aug. 15/68 to Nov. 15/68.Royal Ottawa Sanatorium.. 1145 Carling Ave.	Jan. 1/68	$1.00 per annum plus cost of services.	2,730 s.f. vacant until Sept. 1,1968.Kent-Albert Bldg	
150 Kent St.	, Jan. 1/68	Jan. 31, 1968 M to M	4.00	approx. 7,325 s.f. on 9th fir. vacant September 30/68 to Nov. 15/68.Nicol Building	
331 Cooper	Dec. 5/66	Nov. 30, 1967	3.89	approx. 4,850 s.f. 7th fir. May 1/68 to Aug. 16/68 approx. 2,224 s.f. 7th fir. Aug. 16/68 to Nov. 15/68.Jelnor Building	
175 Nepean	Apr. 1/68	Mar. 31, 1978	3.50	approx. 4,788 s.f. ground fir. June 1/68 to Nov. 15/68.Holden Building	
147 Albert St.	Jan. 1/68	Mar. 31, 1973	3.16	approx. 7,968 s.f. in basement 1st, 3rd, & 6th firs. Aug. 1/68 to Nov. 15/68.Molot Building	
168 Charlotte	July 14/1966 Dec. 12/1966	July 31, 1968 July 31, 1968	3.15 3.25	approx. 800 s.f. June 1/68 to July 15/68.
January 27, 1969
Questions


CRIMINAL CODE-PRESSURE RESPECTING BILL
Mr. Malle: 1.	Are any organizations exerting pressure upon the government to promote adoption of the omnibus bill?
2.	If so, what are the names of these organizations?
3.	On which of the three points, homosexuality, divorce or abortion, are the pressures strongest?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: 1.	No. A number of submissions have been received from various organizations expressing either support for or opposition to particular provisions of Bill C-195 which was given first reading on December 21, 1967.
2.	Examples of organizations which supported in principle the provisions of that Bill relating to drinking and driving are: Greater Winnipeg Safety Council; Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police; Royal Automobile Club of Canada; Corporation of the City of Winnipeg; Resolution of Legislature of Province of Manitoba; Manitoba Medical Association; Saskatoon Committee for Better Legislation re Driver Impairment; Women's Auxiliary of the Alcohol Research and Education Council; Ontario Women's Christian Temperance Union; Alcohol Education Service (Manitoba); Saskatchewan Conference of the United Church of Canada; Ontario Temperance Federation; United Church Women (Hamilton Conference); Saskatoon Central Women's Christian Temperance Union; Lutheran Ministerial Association of Saskatoon; Robert E. Malkin, Vancouver.
An organization which supported the provisions of Bill C-195 relating to homosexuality is the Religious Society of Friends, Vancouver Monthly Meeting.
Examples of organizations which made submissions in regard to abortion are: Emergency Organization for the Defence of Unborn Children, Toronto; Medical Students Society, McGill University; Ontario Women's Christian Temperance Union; Foyers Notre-Dame Canadiens, Montreal; Knights of Columbus (various regions across Canada); Filles d'lsa-belle (various regions in Quebec); L'Association feminine d'Education et d'Action Social, Montreal; Association for the Modernization of Canadian Abortion Laws, Ottawa; Catholic Women's League of Canada (various regions across Canada); Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association; Le Club de L'Age d'Or de Longueuil, Quebec; Sisters of St. Joseph, Ottawa (supporting brief of Catholic Bishops of Canada); Ottawa Committee for the Defence of Unborn Children, Ottawa; Mouve-ment des Femmes Chretiennes (various re-

gions across Canada); Canadian Abortion Law Reform Association, London, Ontario; L'Asso-ciation Feminine de l'Union Nationale du comte de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, P.Q.; Association des Bureaux Medicaux des Hopitaux de la Province de Quebec Inc., Montreal (various local councils); Le Groupe d'Action Catholique Rurale de St-Boniface, P.Q.; Association des Parents Catholiques, St. Romuald, Levis, P.Q.; Martha Circle, Knox Presbyterian Church, Ottawa; University Women's Club, Edmonton, Alberta; Saskatchewan Council of Catholic Nurses; Board of Evangelism and Social Service, United Church of Canada, Toronto; Hull-Gatineau Action Committee Against Abortion; Humanist Association of Canada, Montreal; The Penta-costal Assemblies of Canada, Toronto; Mou-vement des Travailleurs Chretiens, Secteur de Grand-Mere, Grand-Mere, P.Q.; Federation de l'A.F.E.A.S. de Nicolet & St. Malo, P.Q.; Alliance for Life, Hull, P.Q.
Examples of organizations which made submissions in regard to the provisions of Bill C-195 relating to firearms are: Shooting Federation of Canada; The Dominion of Canada Rifle Association; The Canadian Wildlife Federation; Canadian Affiliation of Gun Owners; Ontario Revolver Association; Quebec Handgun Association; Alberta Arms and Cartridge Collectors Association; South Vancouver Island Rangers, Inc.; Canadian Historical Arms Society; Nova Scotia Handgun Association; New Brunswick Rifle Association; British Columbia Wildlife Federation; Manitoba Provincial Handgun Association and various local shooting and game and fish organizations.
3.	Divorce was not dealt with in Bill C-195. More submissions were received in regard to the matter of abortion than in regard to the matter of homosexuality.


ALOUETTE 1 CANADIAN SPACE SATELLITE
Mr. Schreyer: 1.	What was the cost of construction of the Alouette I Canadian space satellite and what was its launching cost as paid to NASA?
2.	What was the total cost of construction of Alouette II and of this amount, how much was paid to private contractors and to whom?
3. What was the cost of launching Alouette II?
4. What was the cost of Canada's purchasing a 3J% interest in INTELSAT and since 1964 has Canada spent additional sums in this venture?
5.	If so, how much?
6.	What was the cost of construction of the Canadian communications ground receiving station at Mill Village, Nova Scotia?
January 27, 1969

7.	Does Canada receive any revenue from renting any of the foregoing facilities to domestic or foreign corporations?
8.	If so, how much in each case?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General):: 1.	The construction of the Alouette I satellite cost $3,100,000.
The UjS.A. paid for the launching of Alouette I; hence the Canadian government does not know the precise cost; but it is estimated at about $9,500,000.
2.	The total cost of construction of the Alouette II satellite was $3,932,400, of which $1,206,000 was paid to private contractors. The prime contractor was RCA Victor, Montreal with DeHavilland Aircraft Ltd. of Toronto as associate contractor.
3.	The U.S.A. paid for the launching of Alouette II, hence the precise cost of the launching of Alouette II is not known to the Canadian government but it is estimated at about $10,500,000.
4.	Based on original estimates of $200,000,000 U.S., as made by the parties to the agreement signed at Washington on August 20, 1964, Canada's 3.5 per cent investment share in INTELSAT could increase to $7,000,000 U.S., depending on the capital requirements for the system as it evolves. Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation is Canada's designated operating entity and its investment in the project as at September 30, 1968, amounted to $4,025,484 Canadian.
5.	See answer above.
6.	Construction costs of the experimental communications satellite earth station at Mill Village amounts to $11,785,240.95.
7.	Yes, to a foreign entity, namely, the Communication Satellite Corporation, Washington, D.C.
8.	As a temporary measure, pending the introduction of a new earth station in the U.S.A. which is now completed and the launching of a further satellite over the Atlantic Ocean in the near future, Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation, which has custody of the station, is leasing facilities at Mill Village to the Communications Satellite Corporation of the U.S. and, up to September 30, 1968, received rental on that account amounting to $1,602,800 Canadian.


DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES PRESS RELEASES
Mr. Howard (Skeena): 1.	Does the Department of Fisheries issue documents which are of the nature of press releases, press communique, news releases or the like and, if so, how many such documents have been issued since July 1, 1968?
Questions
2.	What has been the cost of (a) printing headings or cover sheets (b) typing the stencils (c) mimeographing or other form of duplicating (d) collating and stapling (e) addressing and mailing the said documents?
3.	With respect to the paper used for the said documents, what is (a) its quality (b) the quantity used and the cost thereof?
4.	What is the estimate of the number of manhours consumed in the preparation, production and distribution of such documents?


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries):: 1. Yes; 159.
2.	(a) $219.88; (b) nil; (c) $176.64; (d) $676.74; (e) $2,813.
3.	(a) No. 7 bond; (b) 101,000 sheets at a cost of $234.16.
4.	1170.


CAPITAL MURDERS SINCE PASSAGE OF MEASURE
Mr. Fairweather: Since the Criminal Code amendment abolishing capital punishment for a five year trial period was assented to 21 December, 1967 (a) how many capital murders have been committed in Canada (b) how many persons have been sentenced to life imprisonment?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: The
Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports that murders are tabulated according to the year in which they are reported by the police to the bureau.
From December 21, 1967 to November 30, 1968 (latest date for which information is available), 233 murders were reported by police to the bureau. Two of these were capital murders involving the killing of police officers and have not yet been disposed of by the courts. Of the remaining 231 murders nine persons have been sentenced to life imprisonment, up to November 30, 1968.


AID TO OFFSET CAPITAL COSTS
Mr. Robinson: Is the federal government contemplating any direct financial aid to municipalities to offset the capital cost of (a) hospitals (b) facilities (c) equipment?


Yves Forest: No.


EDMOND JOLY, LOTBINIERE-PURCHASE OF PROPERTY
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Did the federal government, before September 1, 1967, make an offer of purchase to Mr. Edmond

January 27, 1969
Questions
Joly, of Lotbiniere, for his property located in the constituency of Lotbiniere and consisting of a large area of forest and, if so, what was the amount offered?


Eugene Whelan: Yes. $700,000 was offered for the large tract of forest land plus several smaller adjacent parcels.


C.B.C.-FREE POLITICAL TIME
Mr. Fortin: 1.	How much free time on the two National networks did the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation grant to each political party during the official period of the 1968 Federal Election?
2.	What was the total value of that time, based on the rates then in force?
3.	How much free time did the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation grant to the candidates of each party during the 1968 Federal Election?
4.	What was the total value of that time, based on the rates then in force?
5.	What was the CBC's policy concerning political broadcasts during the 1968 election campaign?
6.	Will the CBC submit a report on political broadcasts made during the 1968 election campaign and, if so, will this report be laid before the House?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the CBC as follows: 1. The CBC allocated free time for political broadcasts by federal political parties during the federal election campaign as follows on each of the English and French TV and radio networks:
TV	RADIO
Liberal 1 hr. 30 min.	1 hr.
Progressive	
Conservative 1 hr. 15 min.	50 min.
Social Credit 15 min.	10 min.
Railliement	
Creditiste 15 min.	10 min.
New Demo-	
cratic Party 45 min.	30 min.
TOTAL 4 hrs.	2 hrs. 40 min.
2.	The CBC does not sell time for political broadcasting and does not normally attempt to place a monetary value on such broadcasts. However, if commercial rates in effect at the time of the last federal election campaign were applied to the network free time allocated, the cost to each party would have been approximately as follows:

CBC-owned		Privately- owned
	Stations	Affiliates
Liberal	$25,177	$ 39,263Progressive Conservative	20,980	32,720Social Credit	4,196	6,544Ralliement Creditiste	4,196	6,544New Democratic Party	12,588	19,632TOTAL	$67,137	$104,703
CBC-owned	Privately-owned
Stations	Affiliates
$ 5,074	$11,366
4,228	9,472
846	1,894
846	1,894
2,537	5,683
$13,531	$30,309
3. Free time for political on individual CBC stations is allocated to the parties active in the area served by each station and the parties arrange for their local candidates to appear. The total time allocated locally during the 1968 election campaign was as follows:
4.	If commercial rates in effect at the time of the last federal election campaign were applied to the local free time allocated on individual CBC stations, the cost to each party would have been as follows:

Liberal 13 hrs.
Progressive Conservative 14 hrs.
Social Credit 1 hr.
Ralliement Creditiste 1 hr.
New Democratic Party	10	hrs.
TOTAL 41 hrs.
33	min.	RADIO 16 hrs. 49 min.	TV Liberal $12,362	RADIO $ 780	2	min.	15 hrs. 20 min.	Progressive Conservative 11,985	738	28	min.	15 min.	Social Credit 2,567	28	22i	min.	15 min.	Ralliement Creditiste 1,793	- FM (Commercials	594	min.	15 hrs. 55 min.	N.D.P. 9,789	733	not accepted)25	min.	48 hrs. 34 min.	TOTAL $38,496	$2,279	
[Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse) .3
January 27, 1969

5.	CBC policy for network free time political broadcasts, agreed upon by each of the parties, was for 40 per cent of the available periods to be allocated to the party in power and the balance to be divided by all-party agreement. This resulted in the following breakdown of periods on each of the English and French TV and radio networks:
Liberal	TV 6	RADIO 12Progressive Conservative	5	10Social Credit	1	2Ralliement Creditiste	1	2New Democratic Party	3	6TOTAL	16 periods 3 2 periods	
In addition to the network periods individual CBC stations provided free time locally to political parties active in the areas served by these stations, the time being divided by agreement among the parties.
6.	A CBC report has been prepared for the Canadian Radio-Television Commission, in accordance with CRTC circular letter No. 149 dated May 16th, 1968.


QUEBEC-REFORESTATION AGREEMENT
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Has an agreement been signed between the federal government and the Government of Quebec on reforestation programs in which people on welfare would participate and, if so (a) has the date on which these programs will begin been set (b) in what part of the Province will these programs be carried out?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: Yes. (a) October 1968; (b) In various areas of the nine eastern counties of the Lower Gaspe and Ile-de-la-Madeleine.


COMPANY OF YOUNG CANADIANS- RESIGNATIONS FROM COUNCIL
Mr. Schumacher: 1.	How many persons have resigned from the Provisional Council of the Company of Young Canadians, since the establishment of that Council?
2.	What are their names and, in each case, what were the reasons given for resignation?
3.	Has the Government established a Permanent Council for the Company of Young Canadians and, if not, for what reasons and when is it proposed to establish a Permanent Council?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Company of Young Canadians as follows: 1. 12.
Questions
2.	Mr. Alan Clarke; Mr. Duncan Edmonds; Mr. Richard Thompson; Mr. Lloyd Shaw; Mr. Normand Asselin; Miss Juanita Westmoreland; Mr. Arthur Pape; Mr. Rodolphe Lafresnaye; Mr. William Rompkey; Mr. Marc Lalonde; Mr. Roger Tessier; Mr. Gordon Selman.
The letters of resignation were submitted in confidence and as such it is up to the individuals concerned to indicate their reasons for resignation. The Company will be happy to provide addresses if requested.
3.	No. Discussions have been held concerning the move towards a Permanent Council and it is hoped that the necessary steps will be taken this year according to the agenda of the Company.


PERSONNEL ON EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION TASK FORCE
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	What are the names and addresses of those serving on the first stage of the Task Force on Educational Television?
2.	What functions do they perform on the Task Force?
3.	Have provincial representatives been appointed to the Task force and will all provinces be consulted?
4.	What is the schedule of the Educational Television Task Force, specifically when will the "first stage" procedures be concluded?
5.	Will legislative action to establish a Canadian educational broadcasting agency be introduced before the report of the Educational Television Task Force is received?


Gérard Pelletier: 1.	Mr. Jules Leger, Under Secretary of State, Ottawa, Chairman; Mr. Gilles Bergeron, Post Office Department, Ottawa; Mr. D. S. Thorson, Ottawa; Mr. Michael Pitfield, Privy Council office, Ottawa; Mr. Ivo Krupka, Privy Council office, Ottawa-Secretary; Mr. George Mied-zinski, C.R.T.C., Ottawa, head of the study group.
2.	The task force is to study all aspects of this subject in order to assist the government in fulfilling its undertaking to facilitate the development of adequate broadcasting facilities to meet provincial requirements for the transmission of educational programmes.
3.	(a) No; (b) Yes.
4 and 5. It is the intention of the government to introduce legislation during the present session. The research and work programme of the task force will be proceeding

January 27, 1969
Questions
in line with the policy objectives outlined in the statement which I made to the house on October 24, 1968.


EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY FORECASTING
Mr. Broadbent: 1.	Does the Department of Manpower and Immigration undertake economic forecasting on employment opportunities in Canada?
2.	If so, (a) what are the Department's forecasts for employment opportunities in Canada, and in the five main regions of Canada, i.e., British Columbia, the Prairies, Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic Provinces, in the next three months, six months and twelve months (b) what are the Department's forecasts of unemployment rates, seasonally adjusted, for Canada and for the five main regions of Canada, i.e., British Columbia, the Prairies, Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic Provinces, in the next three months, six months and twelve months?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. Yes. These forecasts are for internal purposes only and are not released to the public.
2. N/A.


ACCESS TO NATIONAL GALLERY
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Is the National Gallery open to the Public seven days a week?
2.	Has a decision been taken to close the Gallery to the Public on one day each week (a) if so, on what day (b) for what reason?


Gérard Pelletier: 1.	Yes. It is closed on Christmas Day.
2.	No. (a) Not applicable; (b) Not applicable.


ACCESS TO NATIONAL MUSEUM
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Are all branches of the National Museum open to the public seven days a week?
2.	If not, which branches are on less than a seven day program and on what days are they closed?
3.	What is the reason for the part-time operation?


Gérard Pelletier: 1. All branches except the Museum of Science and Technology operate on a seven day week, closing only on Christmas Day.

2.	The Museum of Science and Technology is closed on Mondays.
3.	The heavy program of public participation, including that of the schools, requires a free day a week for maintenance of plant and exhibits.


REQUEST FOR WHEAT BY IVORY COAST
Mr. Godin: 1.	When was the Canadian Government visited by the representative of the Ivory Coast who submitted a request for a shipment of wheat?
2.	Did this visitor have identification papers?
3.	Has there since been any official correspondence between the two countries on this matter?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The Canadian government was visited during late November by a representative of the Ivory Coast (of whose credentials the government was satisfied) who submitted a request for a quantity of wheat as food aid. Subsequently there were exchanges between representatives of the two governments concerning the details of this request.


WHEAT SHIPMENTS TO NIGER
Mr. Godin: Did the Canadian Government recently send 20,000 tons of wheat to Niger on one of that country's ships?


Mitchell William Sharp: The vessel which carried 18,705 metric tons of wheat for Niger was of Norwegian registry and under charter to Saguenay Terminals Ltd. of Montreal.


INTEREST RATES AND PROFITS OF CHARTERED BANKS
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	What were the interest rates of each of the chartered banks, for each year since 1956?
2.	What were the net profits declared by each chartered bank, for each year since 1956?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: 1. The rates of interest charged by each bank on its loans and paid by each bank on its deposits are not available for the period 19561968. The average rates charged on all loans
January 27, 1969

and the average	rates paid on	all depositswere as follows:	Rate of	Rate ofAverage	AverageLoan	DepositIncome	Interest%	%1956	4.84	1.081957	5.25	1.481958	5.11	1.521959	5.34	1.641960	5.59	1.811961	5.43	1.811962	5.42	1.991963	5.42	2.121964	5.56	2.231965	5.59	2.351966	6.01	2.631967	6.17	2.831968	6.99	3.45
Questions
tween individual banks. These two rates have been reported as follows at the end of each year in the period:
Prime Personal Savings Loan Rate	Deposit Rate
% %
end 1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1967
5J	24
54	23
5?	23
5i	23
53	23
54	23
5| '	3
53	3
5f	3
6	3
6	3
6|Chequing Non-chequing 3	4J
6f 3	5
The interest rate on prime commercial loans 2. The Balance of Profits (i.e. after taxes in Canada and on Canadian personal savings and provision for losses) declared by each deposits do not usually vary significantly be- chartered bank in 1956-1968 was as follows:
Balance of Profits
		(thousands of		dollars)			
1956	1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962Montreal	8,976	9,650	10,357	12,191	14,227	14,579	16,014Nova Scotia	3,790	4,744	5,241	5,903	6,825	7,873	8,466Toronto-Dom.	3,656	4,082	4,746	5,463	6,652	7,561	8,245Provincial	710	799	875	1,231	1,450	1,540	1,951Commercet	7,892	8,553	10,212	11,118	12,600	17,700	19,190Royal	12,467	13,920	15,868	17,119	19,504	20,760	21,492Nationale	1,897	2,081	2,268	2,636	3,069	3,242	3,484Imperialt	2,676	2,788	3,084	3,691	4,134	Mercantile	53	50	35	-	1	1	11963	1964	1965	1966	1967	1968	Montreal	16,747	17,855	18,730	19,906	20,720	18,061	Nova Scotia	8,724	9,728	10,447	11,700	12,910	15,537	Toronto-Dom.	8,755	9,080	9,915	10,893	12,285	14,597	Provincial	1,985	2,140	2,203	2,265	2,386	2,697	Commercet	20,385	21,403	23,304	24,474	26,576	32,929	Royal	22,580	23,757	23,239*	27,432	30,279	35,324	Nationale	3,705	4,080	3,872*	4,273	4,636	5,019	Mercantile	1	2	2	2	B.C.	-	-	-	-	-	41	
Notes: * 11 month period, t These banks amalgamated in 1961.


REDUCTION OF INTEREST RATE BY CHARTERED BANKS
Mr. Robinson: Does the federal government intend to influence the Bank of Canada in urging the chartered banks to reduce interest rates to borrowers?


Edgar John Benson: Under the Bank Act each chartered bank is free to set the rates it pays on deposits and the rates it charges borrowers. These rates are affected by competition from other banks, other financial institutions and by

January 27, 1969
Questions
general conditions in financial markets at home and abroad. The Government of Canada, and governments in many countries, are taking vigorous action to reduce the inflationary pressures which are among the chief reasons for current high levels of interest rates in financial markets. Meanwhile the banks know well enough that Parliament and the government are concerned about the high level of interest rates and will want to be satisfied that competition is effective in ensuring that borrowers are charged no higher rates than are needed in order to pay depositors an appropriate return on their savings.


SEAL KILLING PISTOL
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	Has the Minister of Fisheries received any information from Mr. T. I. Hughes, General Manager of the Ontario Humane Society, concerning a humane seal killing shot pistol?
2.	Did the Department of Fisheries test such a gun during the 1968 seal hunting season?
3.	If so, what decision has been made requiring the use of such a gun or a similar weapon in the seal hunt for the 1969 season?


Eugene Whelan: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Regulations will not require the use of such a gun or similar weapon during the seal hunt in 1969; further testing is felt necessary.


WHEAT DRIED IN ELEVATORS
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	What is the estimated number of bushels of wheat that have been dried in elevators or on the farm (a) in line elevators (b) in government elevators at the Head of the Lakes (c) by farm producers in (i) Saskatchewan (ii) Alberta (iii) Manitoba, in each of the months November and December, 1968, and to the latest date available in January?
2.	How many bushels have been dried during said months in interior government elevators?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the reply to this question is as follows:
1. (a) No information is as yet available on the amount of grain dried at fine elevators;
(b)	There are no government elevators at the head of the lakes;
(c)	This information is not available on a monthly basis. As of January 3 it is estimated that the following quantities of grain have

been dried on farms: Saskatchewan 16.9 million bushels, Alberta 12.9 million bushels, Manitoba 12.3 million bushels.
The answer to the second part of the question is as follows: November 372,000 bushels, December 1,042,000 bushels, January 833,000 bushels up to January 17.


SASKATOON, SASK.-ESTABLISHMENT OF TELEVISION STATION
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	Will the Secretary of State ascertain from the officials of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation whether favourable consideration is being given to the establishment of a CBC TV station in the City of Saskatoon?
2.	If consideration is not now being given, will immediate consideration be given thereto?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the C.B.C. as follows: The C.B.C. looks most favourably upon establishment of a C.B.C. television station in Saskatoon and filed an application for such a station some time ago. However, the C.B.C. has asked the Canadian RadioTelevision Commission to hold this application in abeyance pending the outcome of current negotiations for the purchase of CHAB-TV, Moose Jaw and CHRE-TV, Regina, which could affect the total C.B.C. service in Saskatchewan.


ARMED FORCES SUPERANNUATION ACCOUNT
Mr. Anderson: 1.	How frequently does the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act require a valuation of the Armed Forces Superannuation Account to be laid before Parliament?
2.	When was a valuation of the Armed Forces Superannuation Account last made to Parliament?


Edgar John Benson: 1. At least once in every five years.
2. September 12, 1968.


USE OF GRUMMAN &quot;ALBATROSS&quot; AIRCRAFT
Mr. Anderson: 1.	How many Grumman "Albatross" aircraft are in use in the Canadian Armed Forces?
2.	Are all these aircraft being used for search and rescue purposes?
3.	What is the total all up weight of these aircraft when fully loaded with search and rescue equipment, crew and fuel?
4.	What is the maximum operating ceiling when fully loaded?
January 27, 1969

5.	What is the climb rate of the aircraft, when fully loaded, on one engine?
6.	What is the maximum ceiling of the aircraft, when fully loaded, on one engine?
7.	How many engine or propeller failures have been experienced by these aircraft during the past twelve months (a) in flight (b) on takeoff or landing?
8.	What is the operational readiness figure (expressed as a percentage) of these aircraft for the past year?


Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 1. Nine.
2.	Yes.
3.	From a prepared runway-36,500 pounds. From water or snow-32,000 pounds.
4.	19,400 feet above sea level.
5.	190 feet per minute.
6.	5,900 feet above sea level.
7.	(a) six; (b) three.
8.	1968-53.2 per cent.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Southam: 1.	How many Charolais cattle were imported into Canada from France in 1966, 1967 and 1968?
2.	How many permits for importation of Charolais were issued, and who were they issued to in the years 1966, 1967 and 1968?
3.	How many permits were issued to Canadians for the export of Charolais cattle to the U.S.A. or any other country in the years 1966, 1967 and 1968 and to whom and how many permits were issued in each case for the years mentioned?
4.	How many temporary permits and to whom were they issued in the years 1966, 1967 and 1968 for the purpose of showing Charolais cattle in U.S.A. show rings and for breeding purposes?
Return tabled.


SUBSIDY PAYMENTS TO FARMERS
Mr. Douglas: 1.	In each of the latest ten years for which figures are available, how much was paid to farmers in subsidies and other forms of assistance by the federal government (a) in Canada, and (b) by provinces?
2.	What was	the gross	income of	farmers	forthose same ten	years (a)	in Canada,	and (b)	by
provinces?
3.	What was	the total	number of	farmers	forthose same ten	years (a)	in Canada,	and (b)	by
provinces?
Return tabled.
Questions


WESTERN NEWFOUNDLAND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURES
Mr. Marshall: 1.	Of the $7,565,000 scheduled to be expended under Regional Development 1969/70 programs in Western Newfoundland, what is the breakdown as follows (a) listing each project (b) the amount to be expended on each?
2.	Of the amount $12,304,280 scheduled to be expended in 1968/69 in the Province of Newfoundland what is the breakdown as follows (a) listing each project (b) the amount to be expended on each?
Return tabled.


JOB VACANCY MONTHLY SURVEY
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Since the Dominion Bureau of Statistics announced by press release that a "New Job Vacancy Monthly Survey" would commence in September, 1967, on behalf of the Department of Manpower and Immigration (a) did the job vacancy survey commence on that date (b) if not on that date, when did it commence?
2.	How are vacancies obtained through this survey conveyed to Canada Manpower Centres of the Department of Manpower and Immigration?
3.	How many employers does the job vacancy survey cover each month?
4.	To date, how many of those vacancies have been passed on to the Canada Manpower Centres?
5.	How long does it take the Dominion Bureau of Statistics to notify each Canada Manpower Centre when vacancies from employers are received through the job vacancy survey?
6.	Since the job vacancy survey started how much money has been spent on this project by (a) the Dominion Bureau of Statistics (b) the Department of Manpower and Immigration?
7.	Is there any duplication between the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and the Canada Manpower Centres in conducting the survey?
8.	Are officers from the Canada Manpower Centres participating in the job vacancy survey and, if so, to what extent?
9.	Do officers from the Canada Manpower Centres, Department of Manpower and Immigration, call on employers to secure vacancies and, if so, does this conflict with the job vacancy survey conducted by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics?
10.	How does the Dominion Bureau of Statistics conduct the job vacancy survey (a) visit to employers (b) mailing of questionnaires to employers (c) both?
11.	How long does it take the Dominion Bureau of Statistics to process the monthly survey on job vacancies?
12.	What length of time does it take the Dominion Bureau of Statistics to notify the Canada Manpower Centres after the employers have notified them of job vacancies?
Return tabled.

January 27, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry RICHMOND, QUE.-ARDA PROJECTS

Question No. 1,064-Mr. Beaudoin:
1.	What projects were undertaken under the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act in the province of Quebec and in the federal Constituency of Richmond since 1965?
2.	What are these projects?
3.	What is the share of (a) the provincial government, and (b) the federal government in these projects?
4.	Have requests for further projects been received from the province of Quebec on behalf of the federal Constituency of Richmond and, if so (a) where will these projects be carried out (b) what is the purpose of each program?
5.	What amount will be allocated to each of these projects?
Return tabled.


RICHMOND, QUE.-SUBSIDIZED ACCESS ROADS
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	How many access roads to forests did the government subsidize in 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968 in the federal Constituency of Richmond?
2.	How many miles of road were built (a) in each province (b) in the Constituency of Richmond?
3.	How much was spent for this purpose (a) in the province of Quebec (b) in the Constituency of Richmond?
4.	How much does the government intend to grant in subsidies during 1969 (a) to each province (b) for the Constituency of Richmond?
Return tabled.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister advise if the ambassador of Nationalist China from Formosa has just called upon him and if he has delivered any message in connection with the decision of the Canadian government to persuade the government of mainland China to enter into closer relations?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the ambassador of the government of the Republic of China called on me on Friday to inquire about the meaning of various statements that [Mr. Orlikow.l
had been made recently by the government in which the government indicated its intention to have negotiations with the People's Republic of China leading toward mutual recognition.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Fundy-Royal: Would not the minister and perhaps the Prime Minister too-a helpful combination on agreement-agree that discussion of this sensitive issue would be considerably enhanced if the government were to issue a short white paper outlining the options that are open to the government on this issue of recognizing continental China?


Mitchell William Sharp: The government had stated its intention on a number of occasions. The matter is now before cabinet. I expect a decision one way or the other dealing with the modalities of the subject will be made shortly. At that time I think it might be very useful to have some discussion, perhaps before the Committee on External Affairs, although I should add that I would not want to see so many matters discussed before the External Affairs Committee that none of them receives the attention it should.


Mr. W. B. Nesbili (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, has the government of Canada communicated to the government of the United States of America its intentions concerning the People's Republic of China? I ask this question in view of the remarks made this morning by the President of the United States at his press conference.


Mitchell William Sharp: Shortly after taking office as Secretary of State for External Affairs I acquainted the Secretary of State of the United States with the policy of the government. No further decisions have yet been taken. As soon as they are I will of course be in communication with the Secretary of State of the United States, and with representatives of other friendly countries.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also supplementary, although I could state it as a related question. Will the minister assure the house that he informed the ambassador of the Taiwan government of the Canadian government's intention to proceed with negotiations with mainland China, despite the protests which I assume the ambassador laid before the minister?


Mitchell William Sharp: I said in reply to the original question that the ambassador came for an explanation, not to protest.
January 27, 1969


David Lewis: Did the minister during the explanation make clear to the ambassador from Taiwan this government's intention to proceed to negotiate toward recognition of mainland China?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I informed the ambassador of the nationalist government of China exactly what I have told this house, and what has been made known to the public; that is, it is the policy of this government to bring about a mutual recognition between Peking and Ottawa. I told him we had made no change in our policy, and also that the matters of timing and procedure were still before cabinet for decision.


David Lewis: Would the minister inform the house whether he informed the ambassador of the Taiwan government of the same thing the minister was reported to have said on television, if I understood it correctly, namely that if recognition of Peking should mean some break with Taiwan, the government was prepared for that.


Mitchell William Sharp: It was one of the questions with respect to which the ambassador came to me to seek clarification.


David Lewis: We are in the dark, too.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the questions and answers which have gone before, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether in his view it is necessary for him, the Prime Minister or the government of Canada to consult with or seek the advice of the United States in respect of any decision they are making in connection with diplomatic relations	with any country or any
government.


Mitchell William Sharp: I think it is very much in the interests of Canada that we should inform our friends in advance of such an important matter.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, speaking of information from friends, my question is with reference to a question answered by the Prime Minister which I had asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs concerning the Paris talks. Will the minister say if he has obtained advice as to whether or not communications fall under the umbrella agreement of 1965, particularly in reference to the announced
Inquiries of the Ministry intention of France and Quebec to exchange technicians and engineers in connection with the symphonie satellites project, which is an international undertaking? Would the minister undertake to make a statement on this important matter.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have now received copies of the letters that were exchanged between the government of Quebec and the government of France. I am not yet in a position to comment on them, but I suspect there will be other occasions by way of a statement or by way of answers to specific questions when I will be pleased to do so.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasl-ings):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the Postmaster General was expressing the view of the government during the week end when he said that he believed Canadian participation in NATO was completely useless?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: No, Mr. Speaker. The Postmaster General was stating a case for withdrawal from NATO, but it was in the context, perfectly explained by him, of the debate in respect of the review which is going on regarding foreign policy. He was stating, shall we say, the antithesis of the thesis being stated at this moment by the Minister of National Defence in a speech he is making here in Ottawa today to the Rotary Club. We, as the government, will have to make a synthesis of these two points of view, and I am sure all ministers will contribute.


George Harris Hees: In view of the statements that have been made both by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Prime Minister to the effect that Canada intends to continue its present participation in NATO, is it the intention of the government that ministers shall be free to express views contrary to government policy in this regard?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence said today, when addressing the Rotary club of Ottawa:
-continued participation In NATO is essential to Canada's security interests at the present time.
Was he expressing government policy?

January 27, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Trudeau:: Mr. Speaker, as I said in answer to the previous question, both ministers said that they were stating a point of view. The Minister of National Defence said to the audience:
I am not going to tell you what the policy will be-we have not decided that yet. It is with the desire to stimulate discussion on matters of serious national import, that I am speaking to you this afternoon.
The Postmaster General used equivalent language. Both ministers are, as we said much earlier in this parliament, asking the Canadian people to reflect on these matters. We realize that these are very important matters and, as I just said, the government will have to arrive at a policy which will be the expression of this government, to which all ministers will then adhere and gladly support.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, in view of the answer of the right hon. gentleman, and the speech made by the military expert who doubles in brass as the Postmaster General, does the Prime Minister intend to alter the guide lines which were laid down earlier to permit the uninitiated to distinguish between cabinet dissension and participatory democracy?


Mr. Speaker:: I have the impression that on a number of counts the question should not be allowed.


Mr. Roberl McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, arising out of the previous questions asked I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs which way he is facing on this "push me-pull you"?


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he would consider setting up an opportunity for debate in the House of Commons in the near future on these important matters of defence, so that official statements could be made by the government as to what the policy is, at least for the time being?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there are two points I could make here. The first is that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has stated on a previous occasion that we will be publishing a white paper on our external policy, from which defence policy follows. I must also remind the opposition that this subject is before the committee now and we are very anxious to hear once again the opposition speak with one voice. Apparently they 
are not conducting a review: They know the truth, and we would like to hear it.
While I am on my feet-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the Prime Minister wish to make a statement relating to the question now before the house? I understand there is at least one more supplementary question. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.


Mr. J. Edward Broadbenf (Oshawa-Whit-by):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Following his marxian dialectical process of reasoning, would it be reasonable now for us to infer that the government's synthesis would be for Canada to remain half in and half out of NATO?


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister not think that this kind of kite-flying is confusing and frustrating to our friends in NATO?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps this would be the right moment for the Prime Minister to make a statement about another matter.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE-ATTENDANCE OF PARTY OBSERVERS

Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, this is by way of answer to a question asked by the leader of the New Democratic party on Friday about the participation of observers at the dominion-provincial conference. I told him I would check on it. I now have. I want to report that the situation will be as follows.
We will have the same number of observers at this conference as we had in February last year, that is, 28 seats. One will be made available to each province. Therefore that will leave 18 for federal use. We would want to apportion these 18 seats on the same lines as last year. There would be one seat for each of the opposition party leaders, making three seats. There would be two seats for the Speakers of the two chambers, and one seat for the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.
That would leave 12 seats remaining, which would be given to the parties according to their strength, more or less, in the House of Commons. It would be on the basis of six to the Liberals, four to the Conservatives, one to the New Democratic party and one to the
January 27, 1969

Creditistes, over and above, of course, the seats to their leaders. Each party, of course, will determine who within its party will be the observers.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, during the Prime
Ministers conference the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Prime Minister had not heard of the incarceration in Peking of Anthony Grey. Now that the government is aware of this, in any representations to the communist government in Peking will the Canadian government point out the horrible and unjustifiable incarceration of Mr. Grey and ask that his release be provided for?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mitchell William Sharp: I am sorry. I think the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert is mistaken. I have already expressed in the House of Commons, in answer to a question, our concern about this matter. At the time the Prime Minister was asked the question in London, it was put in a rather different context.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Prime Minister should have had any difficulty answering the question. The question asked was not obtuse in any way. The Prime Minister turned to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and the answer was in the negative. Will he answer my question now? In these discussions will he point out to the communist government the total disgust of the western world at the imprisonment of Anthony Grey?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minisier: Mr. Speaker, I must point out that when the question was asked of me I did not say I knew nothing about it; I said the matter would be studied. The truth is that I did know about the matter.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not what you said at the time.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: But I also knew full well that perhaps the best way to obtain the release of such a gentleman from another government was not to demand publicly that that release
Inquiries of the Ministry be obtained, because this very often is counter-productive. The other government, in order to show that it does not bow down to this great request-from Canada, keeps the gentleman in prison for another few weeks or months. It was for this reason that I did not think it very useful to make this kind of public statement on the matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the Secretary of State for External Affairs wants to improve on the Prime Minister's statement, I will sit down until he has finished.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I just thought I should draw the attention of the house to the reference I made, so that it is on the record. I answered a question about Mr. Grey on December 10, 1968, and it appears in Hansard.


John George Diefenbaker: But in London the Prime Minister said he did not know anything about it. I ask him whether, now that he knows, he will adopt some of his very soft-stepping diplomacy and let the government of communist China know that what has been done is shocking to Canadians as a whole?


John Angus MacLean: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Did the Prime Minister at any time consider exchanging for Mr. Grey one of the newsmen travelling with himself.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In a serious vein, Mr. Speaker, the opposition should know that one of the reasons why Mr. Anthony Grey is being held is precisely because the Peking government wants to make such an exchange for the Chinese journalists who are being imprisoned in Hong Kong. Perhaps this matter of exchange is something that can be settled between themselves, without our having to ask for volunteers from among our people.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister make this statement. Before anything is done in a unilateral way with the government of communist China, with regard to the serious question of the British journalist, will equivalent pressure be brought to bear on the British government for the release of the Chinese journalists being held in Hong Kong?
January 27, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the advantage of having different parties in the opposition is that if you give them sufficient time, you hear the whole truth. I am glad to hear the other side of the question.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: That is more than we get from the government side.


REQUEST FOR REPORT ON CULTURAL AGREEMENTS BETWEEN CANADA AND FRANCE
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the assurances given by the Prime Minister on Friday last, which have no doubt been brought to the minister's attention, will the Secretary of State for External Affairs give to parliament at an early opportunity a report on the implementation of the Canada-France cultural agreements, touching on the extent of federal contributions, the amounts rendered by France in the form of assistance, and the number of personnel exchanged between Canada and France, with particular regard to the duties and functions of such personnel? At the same time, will the minister deal with the supplementary question which I posed relating to the present status of the France-Canada agreements and their possible renewal?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, my attention was drawn to the question asked by the hon. gentleman and I gave instructions to have a report prepared on the operation of the agreement. I have the agreement before me now. It was concluded for a period of five years, and since it was signed in November, 1965, it presumably goes on until November, 1970. It is also renewable automatically, and can be denounced by either party thereafter six months in advance.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, my question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand that the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys has a supplementary question.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, would the minister mind answering the rest of the question at the first opportunity?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Vancouver East.
(Mr. Broadbent.]


HARBOURS
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Minister of Transport, but as he is not here and in view of the importance on the question may I ask it of the Minister of Public Works who, being a cabinet member from Vancouver and holding this portfolio, has some connection with harbour development?
In view of the statement made yesterday by Captain Johnson of the Vancouver Harbour Board, that the National Harbours Board officials here in Ottawa have been informed and are aware of the need for a fast decision on the construction of a second container berth in the Port of Vancouver, can the minister inform us whether any decision has been made on this matter; and if not, when will a decision be made and announced to the house?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A question can be asked of the minister only in his ministerial capacity. It cannot be asked of him as a member of parliament for Vancouver.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Public Works handles construction for the National Harbours Board in Vancouver; therefore I think the question is in order.
Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public
Works): In this case an indication was given in Vancouver some months ago by the Minister of Transport that active investigation was under way toward putting equipment into Vancouver to handle this type of freight. Then I think there was an invitation to Japan to see what the requirements might be. The Canadian group was led by Captain Johnson who has now returned to this country, and I think some advice will be available to the department from this source. But my colleague the Minister of Transport certainly made it clear that Vancouver would not be behind in installing the type of equipment which is necessary. That is the policy of the department, and I think it is being pursued.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me the minister is now replying on behalf of the Minister of Transport, and I suggest this cannot be done, according to the rules.
January 27, 1969


ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: I have a question for the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development, Mr. Speaker. Having regard to the concern felt in the Atlantic provinces, is it the intention of the government to appoint a chairman, a vice chairman and two directors to fill the present vacancies on the Atlantic Development Board?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, there will probably be a delay before the members of the Atlantic Development Board are appointed because the structure of the board might be changed when the basic act of the department is examined.


IMPOSITION OF CONTROLS ON AMPHETAMINE TYPE STIMULANTS
Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: My question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. For what reason did Canada refuse to support the efforts of students to impose strict controls in respect of the United Nations narcotics commission on amphetamine type stimulants?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking for information which should be given on motions in the form of a statement.


MEDICAL CARE ACT
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare? In view of the fact that the Medical Care Act was amended in order that special services could be included under its provisions at the request of the provinces, and in view of the fact that five or six provinces have requested that optometry be included, will the minister be making an early statement with regard to the government's intentions in this regard?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I am not aware that the degree of consensus with reference to this matter is as the hon. member has stated, but I would be pleased to look into it and consider the requests.
29180-30S
Inquiries of the Ministry


Stanley Howard Knowles: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the amendment to the act said nothing about consensus, is it not possible for the government to give consideration directly to the requests which have been made?


John Carr Munro: That may be legally possible, but we have decided to proceed in connection with this legislation, through co-operation and consultation with the provinces. As a result of conferences between federal and provincial health ministers a formula for this consultation has been devised, and it has been agreed there should be at least some type of consensus reached before additional services would be provided under the act. This is the procedure we are following at the present time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister check to see if my information is not correct-that five or six provinces have made such a request?


John Carr Munro: Yes, I will, Mr. Speaker.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Is consideration being given to the allotment of dairy quotas to people who are interested in entering the whole milk or cream field, having regard to the fact that the present dairy policy is now under review?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I announced in Quebec city to the conference of the dairy farmers of Canada held last Wednesday that we would entertain applications from producers who had a quota covering between 420 and 1,750 pounds of butter fat and who continued to produce, but who failed to re-apply for the current dairy year. The question of additional applications is under consideration, but no announcement has been made.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Can he indicate to the house when he plans to meet with the ministers of the three prairie provinces to discuss further the charges set out in the Batten

January 27, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry report that excessive prices were being charged by chain stores on the prairies.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: We were hoping to get together on the occasion of a meeting between attorneys general in Saskatchewan at the end of this month, because the date coincided with that of another meeting which we had expected to take place. Some of my staff are in touch with the staffs of the provincial ministers to arrange a date for a future meeting, because the previous arrangements fell through.


Stanley James Korchinski: In view of charges by the Consumers Association of Canada that the federal combines branch did not have all the necessary information at the time of its findings on the basis of a study of the Batten report, is a further review of the situation being undertaken, or is such a review contingent upon the results of the discussions to be held between the minister and his provincial counterparts?


Stanley Ronald Basford: The allegation to which the hon. member refers is not correct.


ESTABLISHMENT OF JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRICE STABILITY
Winona Grace MacInnis: Can the minister tell us when the standing joint Senate-Commons committee on price stability, incomes and employment, will be established?


Stanley Ronald Basford: The suggestion to set up this committee was outlined in the policy for price stability which I tabled in the house on December 20. As I stated at that time, I am consulting with various interested economic groups to obtain their views on the white paper, which I expect will be completed next month.


Winona Grace MacInnis: That is not the answer to the question I asked, Mr. Speaker. I asked whether the minister could tell us the date when this committee will be established.


Stanley Ronald Basford: The white paper made it clear that the policies outlined there were for the purpose of forming a basis for consultation, and that process is now under way.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister agree to make a statement in the house, in view of the interest in this matter,

after he has held the meeting with the provincial ministers of the three western provinces to which he referred in his earlier answer?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I would have to consider that after I have met with them.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Ralph Siewari (Cochrane):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Normally I would make use of other means of obtaining information, but since the people involved at Moose Factory, Ontario, chose to have this subject aired over the C.B.C. last night, I feel I must ask whether or not the minister intends to follow the advice sent to him by the petitioners at Moose Factory to replace the medical director of the hospital, a Dr. Bridge, who is termed by them as a colonial master, with a Canadian doctor who understands the problems of the people in the area.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I did not see the television program to which the hon. member referred, so I cannot immediately say whether this is a matter of urgency or not. However, it seems to me it is the type of question which lends itself to discussion at ten o'clock.


VOCATIONAL TRAINING
Percy Verner Noble: I should like to address this question to the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister say whether some of the applicants for the 29 vacant places in the eight weeks retraining program at George Brown College, Toronto, are being refused on the ground that they have an imperfect command of English?


Mr. Speaker:: Here again, if the hon. member thinks this is an urgent question it might be discussed at the time of adjournment this evening.


PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Is the government planning to alter the Confederation Room in the
January 27, 19S9

West Block in any way for the specific purpose of making it into a series of committee rooms?


Arthur Laing: I cannot believe that this would be possible, although I heard some rumour to that effect the other day. That room however has special uses. I think it will be in use in February, again, and we must keep it as it is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. Ed Schreyer (Selkirk):: My question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of a statement by the national director of northern health services to the effect that the most elementary medical facilities are lacking in the north country, can the minister say whether any specific program or course of action is being contemplated by his department to provide these basic facilities?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the premise of the hon. member, but I do acknowledge that there is room for improvement. We have been working for several months now to improve the situation. A greater allocation of moneys is being set aside for that purpose. We are improving and increasing our facilities, and doing so as a matter of urgency. We are also trying to recruit additional and more adequate personnel.


Edward Richard Schreyer: A supplementary question. When the minister says that he does not accept my premise, is he wishing to indicate that he does not accept the statement that was made by-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is debate, of
course.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that the government has enabled Canadian judges to hold a yearly seminar to permit judges to update themselves on the changes in the law, would the minister consider a similar seminar for 29180-306J
Inquiries of the Ministry lawyers, so that the lawyers may know what the judges are talking about, and a similar seminar for the Canadian public so that the public may know what the judges and the lawyers are talking about?



AGRICULTURE


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. At the conference on agriculture which is to be held in March will provision be made for observers from all parties in. the house?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I think the answer is yes. In any event we are working on this, and we hope it will be possible to make the suggested arrangement.



OPIUM AND MARIJUANA-CONTROLS UNDER INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION

Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Are present Canadian controls on opium and marijuana in accord with the International Narcotics Convention and, if so, is the government considering the amendment or withdrawal of Canada's support of that convention?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The first question leaves me in doubt as to its validity, in that the hon. member is asking for an interpretation of a statute or law. Perhaps the minister may want to reply to the second question.


John Carr Munro: No, Mr. Speaker, not that I am aware of.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Secretary of State. In view of some questions which were put to him earlier, and also to the Prime Minister, with regard to commissionaires whose jobs and hours have been changed, and some of whom may have been let go-the Prime Minister said the other day he thought not, but I am informed that there may have been lay-offs-would the minister consider making a statement to the house in

January 27, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry the very near future on what has happened and what is the government's policy in that area?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I now have the required information; I got it this morning. However, I may have to consult with you. You may find the answer rather lengthy, but with your permission, I could give it now.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister is asking me to rule in advance whether his answer is going to be too long. If the minister wants to revert to motions for the purpose of making a statement, which will be subject to comment and discussion by representations of parties in opposition, then it would be up to the house to decide.


Gérard Pelletier: Then, Mr. Speaker, I shall risk reading it as it is, without fear of your strictness, and you can always interrupt if you find the statement too long.

The Canadian Corps of Commissionaires is a private organization, and commissionaires are not members of the public service of Canada but employees of the corps. The government of Canada contracts for the services of commissionaires through the Department of Defence Production, and individual departments and agencies arrange for their requirements through that department. In the fiscal year 1969-70 the National Museums of Canada has arranged for the services of 54 commissionaires for duty in the National Museum of Man, which includes the Canadian War Museum, the National Museum of Natural Sciences, and the National Museum of Science and Technology. The National Gallery of Canada, whose requirements are somewhat special, has a separate contract for security services with National Protective Service Company Limited.
In October, 1968, officials of the National Museum discussed with the commandant of the Ottawa division of the corps the feasibility of supplying bilingual commissionaires for duty in the areas of the National Museums of Canada which are open to the public during the hours they were open. Air Vice Marshal-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must interrupt the hon. minister at this time to suggest that the statement he is delivering must normally be

made on motions, unless all hon. members are willing to hear the hon. minister's statement as a reply to a question. I do not think the hon. minister is entitled to continue any further.


David Lewis: A supplementary question. I ask this question of the Secretary of State, particularly in view of your ruling, Mr. Speaker, in regard to the answer that he attempted today. In view of the disquiet that there is about this matter, and particularly in view of the fact that the people concerned were not public servants, and therefore had none of the security and protection that a member of the public service has, or is alleged to have, would the minister seriously and favourably consider answering this question in the form of a statement on motions on Wednesday? If the situation is as good as his face suggested it might be, is there any reason for him to fear comments by opposition spokesmen?


Gérard Pelletier: I am not afraid of comments, Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, but you will excuse my lack of experience. So many questions have been asked on that subject that I will not so to speak make any statement but rather reply in turn to the several questions that have been put to me and that have piled up.



EXTERNAL AID


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmonl):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the imminent shipments of foodstuffs for Nigerian and Biafran relief, would the minister inform the house whether it is still the plan of the government to send a major portion of this relief to Fernando Po, as originally planned?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this was a decision that was made by the International Red Cross. After discussions with us they decided they would divide their shipments into two parts. I am not sure what the position is now because, as the hon. gentleman knows, the International Red Cross has been having some difficulties with the government of Equatorial Guinea. Until those matters are settled probably the International Red Cross itself does not have a view.
January 27, 1969


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A further supplementary question. I wonder whether the government or the minister have had any consultations with the International Red Cross or their representatives here in Canada-because they have representatives both here and at Sao Tome-to consider the possibility of diverting part of the necessary foodstuffs to the island of Sao Tome?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have been in touch with the Red Cross, but up to the present time they have not indicated any such preference.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, January 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) for the second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs 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.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, after reading the various speeches delivered during the course of this debate I felt there were a number of suggestions I might make which, on the basis of experience, may be helpful. During the 50 years since I was called to the bar I have followed the practice of always appearing in court, regardless of fee, when anyone was able to show me that he was in danger of being subjected to a grave injustice. Although my appearances as defence counsel constituted only about 5 per cent of my practice, I appeared in some cases which the press reported in a manner not unfriendly to me.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
My first words now must be to congratulate the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) on an honour done to him in the last few days. We were in Barbados together and the hon. gentleman there received the distinction of being admitted to the distinguished bar of that country. Should the hon. gentleman decide in the years ahead that he prefers the salubrious climate of the Caribbean the barristers of Barbados will encounter strong opposition if the hon. gentleman appears at their bar.
Criminal Code
Sir, I was interested in certain references he made to me in connection with the Berube case. The minister said that on the basis of representations that were made as a result of that case the law is being changed so that never again will a person innocent of any offence be incarcerated for a number of months. The Berube case came to my attention in a personal way. When I visited the prison in which Berube was confined a senior official there said he could not understand why I would become interested in an ordinary man 20 years of age. Imprisonment would do him no harm even if he were guilty of nothing-an unusual viewpoint, to say the least, for anyone to hold.
On the other hand, the minister has said that in his view this bill is one of the most comprehensive reforms of the Criminal Code ever undertaken in our country. On page 4717 of Hansard the minister is reported as saying:
I speak this afternoon with the confidence that this legislation is the most important and allembracing reform of the criminal and penal law ever attempted at one time in this country.
I remember when the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) introduced this bill originally. At that time he was minister of justice and held different views. Reporting his views, U.P.I. said on December 21 1967 that "the minister at no time suggested the bill was a radical revision of Canada's criminal law." The report continued to the effect that the 46-year old bachelor said that the changes only "tidied up" the act. There is a wide discrepenacy between the fulsome description of the bill given by the Minister of Justice and the description given by the former minister who now is Prime Minister. But that is not unusual with this government, sir.
We had an example of inconsistencies in connection with the Grey case. When asked at a press conference in London questions regarding Grey's incarceration in Peking the Prime Minister said he had no knowledge of the matter. It had never been brought to his attention and he had no idea what the press was speaking about. He then fell back on that reed, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), inquired what that minister knew about the matter. He received no information whatever. The Grey incident in London made many pressmen abroad realize that all wisdom did not reside with the two leading members of the present government of Canada.
In his speech the Minister of Justice also said that this legislation had received the approval of the Canadian people. All I can

January 27, 1969
Criminal Code
say is that I never heard it discussed. It may have been discussed in the hon. gentleman's constituency, but elsewhere nothing was said about it. I have searched and had the records searched to discover when the amendments contained in this bill became a cardinal matter of consideration by the Canadian people. My inquiries left me in the dark; the records have no information on this matter.
We have a strange situation here. At one time the minister made a clear statement to the effect that since certain portions of the bill had social and religious connotations he would expect the bill to be divided so that hon. members could vote according to their consciences. Now the minister takes a different position. His present position is the Prime Minister's. In effect he says, "This is a government bill; it must go through. Members supporting the government will have to line up behind it. If they do not they will know the consequences."


John Napier Turner: On a point of order, sir, may I dispose of the right hon. gentleman's point. He has referred to a statement I made just after I had received my portfolio. I said it was important for the will of the House of Commons to be tested on each clause. I never said the bill ought to be split.


John George Diefenbaker: The will of the House of Commons will not be tested on each clause under the present situation. Although I believe in the necessity of implementing many of the bill's recommendations I cannot and will not support a bill that contains two or three items with which I disagree thoroughly and in all conscience. No Member of Parliament should be required to support an entire bill of this nature which is to be submitted to a committee overwhelmingly Liberal in the make-up of its members. I will not allow myself to be led into a position of supporting an entire bill when I am irrevocably opposed to two of its clauses dealing with sex and abortion. I want to make that clear.
The minister also said in so many words that we would not be handed an omnibus bill. I have looked at what he said and I am sure that my interpretation of his remarks is correct. Yet we have been presented with an omnibus bill which, after second reading, is to be submitted to a committee composed overwhelmingly of Liberal members. Those members cannot call their souls their own if they disagree with the Prime Minister. Never during my period of office did the government

take the stand that a bill connected with the criminal law ought to be determined on the basis of a party vote instead of on the basis of a non-partisan vote.
[DOT] [3:10 p.m.)
Now I take the bill as a whole and summarize it in a very few words. The section dealing with passports is excellent. As a matter of fact Canada has been a type of communication centre for international passport fixing all over the world. You can get a Canadian passport with almost the same ease that you can walk into the House of Commons, provided you are elected. This is something that was overdue.
The next section deals with firearms. I know how difficult it is to bring about amendments in connection with firearms without denying the bona fide use thereof, but in view of the serious conditions existing in our country I can accept these amendments. The next section has to do with gaming, horse racing, parimutuels and lotteries. With all the difficulties confronting this government, just imagine section after section dealing with these problems and the minister designating what is to be done. This is almost the greatest thing that has happened since Hammurabi's codification of new principles.
Then follows the drunken driver section. I agree that action in this regard is long overdue. Week after week there is a massacre on the roads of Canada, a great portion of which would not take place were it not for drunken drivers or those under the influence of liquor. However, I think we should go a little further. There is nothing that a person operating an automobile fears more than the loss of his licence for a period of time. If you really want to put the fear of the Lord into drivers under the influence of liquor, make provision that those convicted under these several sections will not be in the position of being subject to a suspension of their licence but will actually have their licence suspended for a period of two years. This method has been successful in one or two states. It has had a tremendously beneficial result in preventing those who have been drinking from driving.
The headings, "automobile master keys" and "possession of instruments for breaking into coin operated device", are not very serious matters. They scarcely can be dignified by being expressed. The like of these matters has not been seen in amendments to the Criminal Code since 1892. Then there is the subject of harassing telephone calls. The only
January 27, 1969

Criminal Code
way to get around this is to not have your telephone listed. Then you are not subjected to those telephone calls to which some people are subjected.
Then there is the question of juries, court jurisdiction, trial by magistrate by consent, evidentiary value of certain documents and the way proof may be made in the courts. These are all matters of little or no consequence except in so far as an accused is concerned who, not knowing his rights, consents to have a summary trial to save time, which is often the explanation given to him, the result is often a longer sentence than otherwise would have been the case. Then there is the matter of proof of previous convictions, which is simply a matter of a certificate, and the directing of a new trial in the case of a sentence of preventive detention. I think this is a good principle and I would like to see the minister go a little further. I find that among those who are habitual criminals there is a loss of hope on their part once they have qualified to be designated as habitual criminals. They lose hope. I would like to see the addition of a condition by way of an incentive to rehabilitation whereby after a period of five or six years the individual might look forward to a review of the order made and an opportunity for rehabilitation provided the individual in question has shown this desire. The rehabilitation and Parole Act amendments are also worthy of support.
I think that pretty well covers the matters before us. I have scarcely been able to join with the minister in the hallelujah chorus about the wonders of the amendments that have been provided in this bill. Never in my lifetime have I felt the degree of fear regarding current conditions that I feel today. There is public concern in the United States and Canada over the expanding and tremendously developing field of crime. The number of convictions aside from traffic infringements shows a marked increase in our country. In 1957 the number of convictions in Canada, excluding traffic infringements, amounted to 387,437, and in 1966, the last year for which figures are available, 548,533. Crime is increasing two and a half times faster than the population.
Indictable offences increased from 31,000 in 1956 to 45,607 in 1966. In a period of 17 years the number of juvenile delinquents increased by 14,000 or roughly three times. Population in the same period increased by 30 per cent. One is concerned about the disregard for the law. We live in an age when various people join together and become
power groups, and law-abiding citizens are in the dangerous position of being subject to the power of a visual minority who deny and defy by force that which the law proclaims to be wrong.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
We live in an age in which there is an increase in mob conduct. I believe in the right of individuals to agitate for change, but there is as vast a difference between agitation for change and contempt for the law as there is between liberty and licence. Organized anarchy, which is not being punished within our country and except on very odd occasions is not being punished in the United States, is dangerous to freedom. The right to dissent must be preserved but the right to civil disobedience must be frowned on. It is dangerous to a nation when groups, relying on their numbers, contend that the rule of law must be abrogated for them because it is unacceptable to the groups to which they belong. This has become epidemic. It is epidemic in the United States. We can no longer say it is restricted. That spirit of lawlessness, that spirit of contempt toward police officers is becoming epidemic in Canada. We see it on every hand, in the refusal of passers-by to participate in any way in the assistance of policemen carrying out their responsibilities. This is something that requires the best efforts not only of the minister, not only of the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith) but of the Attorneys General of the various provinces and of law officers generally. What are we going to do about it?
At this very time when these things are happening in our country we are permitting second-hand revolutionaries and prophets of political dissolution to come into our country. We have opened the doors to them. Recently in answer to a question on my part the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen) said that even if they come to Canada to advocate changing the government by force, as long as they speak to selective groups and do not make their message one to all Canadians there is no reason they should not be admitted. The United Kingdom has found out otherwise. It has closed the door to several of them. The republic of France has followed the same course. But we have opened the door.
We let these professional agitators come here, people like Jerry Rubin, Rapp Brown and Stokely Carmichael. We allow them to speak openly in Canada about bloodshed, and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration

January 27, 1969
Criminal Code
says, "Let them in, don't interfere with them; this is freedom of speech." This is not freedom of speech, Mr. Speaker. Freedom of speech does not permit libel, treason or sedition. And yet they have the blanket approval of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration which might almost be interpreted as, "Come unto us all ye that want to destroy the democratic system and we will let you in." We do not need these infesters of society, these perverters of free democratic institutions.
I suggest that instead of interfering with immigration officers who are trying to do their job by inquiry to keep these people out, the government of Canada should give them every support in making it clear to these individuals who stir up revolution in their own countries that they are not going to find a welcome mat when they come into Canada. To do otherwise is to allow these people to make their speeches to groups of young men and women across the country, incendiary speeches, seditious speeches which if made by Canadians would result in prosecution. I hope there will be some co-operation by the Department of Justice and the Solicitor General with the immigration authorities to let it be known that this type of individual coming into our country to stir up trouble is not welcome.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Throughout my life I have believed in the freedom of the individual. I do not have to mention this. The law reports record that when the freedom of individuals was interfered with and it was brought to my attention I tried to secure justice for the person involved. But to take the stand that apparently is the official stand of the government of Canada, that this type of individual is welcome here, is to lay the foundation for further and greater trouble, indeed, to permit what the Prime Minister warned about some time ago at Queen's University as I recall his speech-the danger of there ultimately being internal disorder and worse.
What are some of the things I suggest might be done? I am rather surprised that there is nothing in this bill in connection with obscenity and pornography. I have made a lengthy study of the law on this subject and I am ready to introduce a bill provided I will not find myself in the position that so many do when they introduce private bills in this house: everybody gets on the bandwagon,

says they are all for it, and then talk it out. If the minister is prepared to take a draft bill, submit it to a committee and give his undertaking that if the committee recommends action the government will bring in a bill in this regard, there will be no delay in the introduction of my bill. It is not only my personal view.
One has only to watch television today, or go into stores which specialize in pornographic literature, crime and horror magazines and the like, to know of their detrimental influence on the youth of our country and, indeed, on the minds of all. As of today, according to the latest judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the meaning of obscenity there is actually a field day of opportunity for distributors of pornographic filth. Today there are no teeth in the law in view of the interpretation that has been given.
In the magazine and book field I think the proper course is to strike at the person who offers these things for sale. This has been found more effective than anything else in the United States. Some of the dealers contend that they have been prevented from refusing to accept this type of thing because of the rule in the trade that unless they accept a certain number of these pornographic books and magazines they will be denied the opportunity to operate as a retail outlet for the magazines they want to sell.
What kind of law would I suggest? There is a very fine balance between what is wrong and what is right within the purview of the expression freedom of speech, freedom of the press. I think that the British act goes a long way to meet the situation. Under the Obscene Publications Act of 1959, which incidentally put an end to the old Obscene Publications Act of 1857, provision is made as follows:
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
For the purposes of this Act an article shall he deemed to be obscene if its effect or (where the article comprises two or more distinct items) the effect of any one of its items is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied therein.
The other day I asked a question about the C.B.C. and some of its TV performances. I have not yet received an answer. It is as difficult to get information out of the C.B.C. in parliament as it is for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. They just simply do not give information. We pay and they
January 27, 1969

advertise. Two or three people in the corporation believe they are above the law and they place before the people of Canada the kind of stuff that can only pollute the mind. If you destroy the physical being you are guilty of an offence. If you destroy the inner soul of the young men and women, boys and girls, of this country by this type of thing there is no offence under the present law as I see it.
In order to ensure that freedom of speech shall be maintained there is a saving clause which is an assurance to all those who desire to uphold freedom of speech. At least it is vocally whenever pornography is discussed. The section reads:
A person shall not he convicted of an offence against section two of this Act... if it is proved that publication of the article in question is justified as being for the public good on the ground that it is in the interests of science, literature, art or learning, or of other objects of general concern.
That section will protect. The state of Michigan brought in legislation which has been beneficial. If you cross the line from Windsor to Michigan and go into a book store there you will see there is a great deal less filthy crime literature than there is in the average Canadian book store. I suggest we must take action in this regard. Day after day men and women across this nation, on their own broadcasting facilities which they pay for, have placed before them sordid things that under no circumstances can be justified as art. They have no recourse. If this matter is raised in the house the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) says he will get an opinion from the C.B.C. I understand that very recently the C.B.C. has been approached to the effect that they ought to be careful about the publicity they give to certain members of parliament, that is, that they are giving too much.
Then we have the revelation made by the former secretary of state regarding separatist control of facilities in the province of Quebec and I think elsewhere. I would like to see her appear before the committee so that we would have not only the benefit of her experience as secretary of state and as a parliamentarian but as well her knowledge of the C.B.C. and its activities. A revelation such as she made deserves that she be given the opportunity to clarify what she meant and to support her contentions. I am sure there is nobody on the government side of the house who would ever suggest she would say anything that was not correct, because she was the head of the truth squad. Who would 29180-307
Criminal Code
suggest that this lady would exaggerate? I know none sitting over there would; they sat with her, they know.
Now, sir, I have one or two other suggestions I should like to make. I think it can be said that the minister is trying to the best of his knowledge and his great ability to bring about changes in the criminal law for the benefit of the people of Canada. I am interested in this school for judges. There have been several occasions when I have lost cases that I concluded that a school would have been in order. But I am surprised to read of the enthusiasm with which the judges have embraced this idea. It is a novelty for judges to admit that they have something to learn or to unlearn. If the minister has succeeded in bringing about that attitude on the part of the judiciary, he will have done something that no one has ever done since the same thing was tried on Sir Edward Coke in the reign of Queen Elizabeth.
I should like to see a little action with regard to international crime. This is something that neither this minister of this government-it is the same government with a different face-nor his predecessor have wanted to investigate. I ask that a royal commission be set up on organized and international crime in co-operation with the provinces and with the Attorneys General of the various provinces joining. I suggest that the royal commission be appointed on the basis of joint recommendations federally and provincially for, if what we read is true, two or three cities in Canada are today becoming major sites for international crime and international gangsters.
Second, we hear so much about the need to have a conference of the people interested in public affairs. I think we would learn a great deal regarding these matters if the government would convene a national conference with federal and provincial representatives. A gathering could be convened which could include the Attorneys General and representatives of the Royal Canadian Legion, the service clubs, the women's organizations and church organizations. In this way we could launch in our country a national movement, a crusade if you like, to arouse Canadians to a realization that the spirit of lawlessness rampant in this nation will, unless checked, inevitably lead to a reduction in the moral fibre of the nation and constitute in time a peril to the nation's destiny.
Criminal Code

January 27, 1969
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Third, by co-operation between the federal and provincial authorities there has to be, I believe a very considerable increase in the number of police officers. In two or three states of the United States in which crime was rampant, as a result of an increase in police personnel there has invariably followed a decrease in crime.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the right hon. gentleman, but I must bring it to the attention of the house that his time has expired unless he has leave to continue. Is it the pleasure of the house to extend the right hon. gentleman's time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to see consideration given by the minister, together with the provincial Attorneys General to, the passing of a federal or provincial law, or a conjoint one, to protect honest businessmen from the intrusion by organized crime in legitimate business by means adopted today in too many cases of extortion, threat and intimidation.
Those are but a few of the recommendations or suggestions I wish to make. What we are trying to do in this house is to bring about improvements. I regret very much that I conclude where I started. So far as the provisions for the legalization of adult homosexuality are concerned, I am opposed. The Prime Minister for a long period of time has advocated that this law is necessary. He said at one time that the law had no place in the bedrooms of the nation. He had some ideas, too, about the subject of freedom of the press. They were uttered in London but they were contrary to that principle. I cannot quite understand why the Prime Minister of Canada would feel it necessary to have the police search and seek out members of the press in regard to their extramural relations.
I find it equally difficult to understand how the Prime Minister could set up-at least I thought this was the suggestion-an order of the crumb. To me that was most unusual. Members of the press were divided into two classes, crumbs and non-crumbs. That is the way famous organizations begin. I would think there would be a widespread desire, in the event that such an order were officially set up, on the part of those in the press for membership in the organization. In any event, that is just an aside.

What shall I do? I am opposed to these homosexuality amendments. I think they are wrong. I have read the Wolfenden commission report backward and frontward. I know there is no individual more subject to intimidation and threat by the U.S.S.R. as it endeavours to obtain information detrimental to the security of Canada than those who are believed to be homosexuals.
On the ground of conscience I cannot accept the expansion of the law regarding abortion. When it was originally mooted I took it to be much the same as the law which has existed through the years, but it is not. It actually seems to be based on the concept that many abortions are taking place and therefore we ought to legalize them. That is also one of the arguments being advanced regarding homosexuality.
So far as the amendments regarding lotteries are concerned, all of us have our own views. I think the minister has tried his best to bring about suggested amendments which will be generally accepted. In saying that, I cannot personally support the right of the provinces or the dominion to operate lotteries.
Why do we not have a free vote? I cannot understand this. The minister says this is a government measure. Is it something unchangeable like the laws of the Medes and the Persians? Members on the government side know that they do not dare oppose the bill. If they did and the bill was defeated the result would be dissolution unless there was a revamping of the revamping of the constitutional procedure of last February. I read one hon. gentleman's statement yesterday. He said he was in favour of this measure. Another hon. member from Hamilton said that as a result of his Christian teaching he could not accept it. As between those two people, one has qualified to be a minister.
The Prime Minister and the minister say in effect: Support this bill; it is a government measure. To follow that course would be to have legislation by intimidation. Members of this house are not robots to be pushed around and to have their sacred feelings and views of the heart set aside. Members of parliament are not computers into which the Prime Minister puts the message and the computer gives the reply.
Even as I conclude I say to the minister, in the effort he is making to improve the criminal law of our country, do not place the House of Commons in the position that its members will become, as the members of the
January 27, 1969

Liberal party we described in 1957, almost the peons of parliament.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Mr. Hyl Chappell (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, I support the amendments and other changes to our criminal law proposed by this bill. I also wish to compliment the minister particularly on declaring it a government bill. There are many contentious issues, and because of this I believe the government should take the responsibility for leadership rather than leaving it to the uncertainty of a free vote. Since its predecessor, Bill C-195, was given first reading in December, 1967, the subject matter has been discussed, at least in part, I believe, by almost every adult Canadian. Because the content involves our moral and social beliefs, the entire nation has had to revalue its attitude toward individual behaviour and rethink the basis or ground rules for legislative interference with individual freedom.
Many people have made their views known to hon. members and we have had an opportunity to pass our suggestions to the minister. Seldom has proposed legislation stimulated so many to become involved in the legislative process. I have received hundreds of representations with respect to lotteries, control of firearms, the compulsory use of the breathalyzer and other subjects of the bill, and have communicated my thoughts to the minister. Because I have received so many representations, both personal and by mail, in respect of abortion I shall give my views here in this house.
The amendment respecting abortion has raised the greatest conflict. Why is this? Some regard the foetus as a human life. Needless to say, if one accepts this premise it would indeed be difficult to pass judgment as to which life should be saved as between the foetus and the mother. Personally I cannot accept this premise and do not believe it to be a life, certainly not at the stage when therapeutic abortion is possible.
There is no agreed-upon definition of when, if ever, short of birth, the foetus becomes a human life, but by inference the law does not accept the foetus as a human life and regards it as a potential life only. The difficulty arises when individuals and groups adopt their own, and thus differing, definitions as to what the foetus is. Religious and philosophical discussions do not help much. Medicine recognizes there is a life of a kind in the foetus but it is, of course, a wholly dependent life. The law 29180-307$
Criminal Code
recognizes a potential life which warrants protection and for which one may make provision, but at the same time it clearly recognizes the foetus as only a potential human life. At the other end of the scale, and from a practical point of view, many regard the existence of the foetus as only a physical condition of the pregnant female and that the life and health of the female stand paramount and should be the only consideration.
In the new British act, abortion is referred to as the induced termination of pregnancy, that is, the termination of a condition, which lends support to the view that pregnancy is only a condition of a female. Obviously, if the foetus is not a human life, our only concern from the social or legislative standpoint is the life and, less directly, the health of the mother, the pregnant female. To be diverted from this stand through a prolonged and indefinite discussion concerning the validity of the belief that the foetus is a human life merely prevents us from directing our minds to the real issue, namely, the preservation of the life and health of the pregnant mother.
If the purpose of the legislation is to put the life and health of the pregnant woman first, the age or moral status of the female in question should not make any difference; it is simply a matter of health science.
Until last year the relevant provision of the British legislation read as follows:
-whosoever, with intend to procure the miscarriage of any woman, whether she be or be not with child, shall unlawfully administer to her or cause to be taken by her any poison or any noxious thing, or shall unlawfully use any instrument or any means whatsoever with the like intent, shall be guilty of felony.
This section came into existence in 1861, and as interpreted by the courts it means that in England since 1861 a therapeutic abortion to preserve the life or health of the mother has been lawful. That was also the law in Canada, as expressed by a court in Saskatchewan in 1909, until by a drafting error the word "unlawfully" was omitted from the Canadian section which was similar to the English section. Did this drafting error throw us back and beyond the law of 1861 in respect of therapeutic abortion?
Since then, although the law in England remained constant until further clarified in 1968, there has been a cloud of uncertainty in respect of the Canadian law. Judicial pronouncement in England recognized that health could be depressed to such an extent that life was shortened, and the continuance

January 27, 1969
Criminal Code
of the pregnancy could make the woman concerned a mental as well as a physical wreck. Again, until the change in England in 1968 it would appear that any abortion in England, if done in good faith for the purpose of saving the life or health of the mother, was not a crime.
This could have been the subjective test of a doctor and possibly others. The change in England in 1968 spelled out the need for two doctors to agree, in good faith, that the continuance of the pregrancy would involve risk to the life or health of the pregant woman, which includes her physical and mental health and also the health of any existing children.
What has been and, particularly, what is now the law in Canada? Some take the view that the courts would read into the section the word "unlawfully" so that our law would be the same as it was in England until 1968, and was here for so long. Others are of the view that any abortion would be illegal and the doctor could be charged, no matter the justification from a medical standpoint. In fact, a doctor could find himself in the impossible situation where he could be charged criminally if he performed an abortion and sued civilly if he failed to do so, if such operation might reasonably have saved the mother's life. But even worse is the moral conflict in the doctor's mind. Medically and privately he may feel a duty to end the pregnancy to preserve the life or health of the woman but is faced with a possible criminal charge or at best the public charge of practising close to the line. This would also apply to those assisting the doctor, and the patient could be embarrassed.
One thing is certain, that under Canadian law the uncertainty is such that the medical profession and all its patients have a right to demand that we, the legislators, make the law clear and positive. The amendment would restate the law as it was in England as of 1861, was here for so long and may in fact still be the law here, but it goes a little further. Whereas in England there were no safeguards until 1968, the amendment would provide adequate safeguards similar to those now in force in England, namely, the termination of the pregnancy must be carried out by qualified medical persons, in accredited institutions, after approval by more than one doctor. This, in my opinion, puts the subject where it belongs, in the hands of the medical profession, in hospital, as with all other matters of health.

I have received hundreds of representations arguing with much force indeed that there should not be any restriction, that because it is a matter of health it should be left to the woman in question and her physician, as is the case in all other matters of health. However, this is not only objectionable but offensive to a large portion of our population. Therefore we are faced with two opposing philosophies, those who wish complete freedom and those who would deny abortion under any circumstances.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
At times, and on some issues, compromise is essential. The proposal in this case, though not completely satisfactory to either group, should be acceptable to both. Those who wish greater liberty in making individual decisions would obtain clarification of the law, enabling abortion to be carried out under control. Those who are against abortion under any circumstances would succeed in obtaining a reasonable restriction.
May I remind those who are still reluctant to support the proposal that the law as it now stands is uncertain and confused, and that should abortion be denied when the life and health of the mother are at stake, that is to say, should the mother be denied protection from death because the medical profession is prevented from acting, we would be maintaining a law so inconsonant with today's view of individual rights as to bring it into disrespect and force people not only to hold it in contempt but to disregard it.
We cannot allow personal philosophical interpretations to deprive those who have satisfied their own consciences, and seek protection for their own lives or health, of the benefit of today's medical science. In conclusion, may I point out that no one is required to submit to, or participate in, any termination of pregnancy against her or his will.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy Royal: Mr. Speaker, members of parliament are now discussing a matter which, for some of us, goes to the very depths of our consciences. I wish to say at the outset that I am not here to exchange consciences, and perhaps that is a good admission to make. Neither am I here to choose sides about quality of consciences, although I myself will have no difficulty in supporting all these proposals but one which I shall discuss in a minute and tell hon. members, if they care to listen, why I find it unattractive.
January 27, 1969

The United States has just been engaged in an election campaign during which many of those who sought solutions to the social problems of that great country took refuge in simplistic slogans. One of the slogans which was trotted out was "law and order". If one reflects upon it, Mr. Speaker, there is presumably a good deal of law and a fair amount of order in any federal penitentiary or in any jail. In other aspects of institutional life, too, there is presumably a good deal of law and order. But those who had the wit and the ability to criticize oversimplified views with regard to the crushing social burdens of our great neighbour, some of which, unfortunately, we share, were quick to point out that law and order without justice is a concept repugnant to civilized man.
Although at times I think our optimism can be challenged by events I do, on the whole, share the view of one who is not always optimistic about the human condition, Mr. Philip Toynbee, when he says the general level of morality is higher than it has ever been in the past. He bases this statement on a general improvement which he has discerned in our concern for others. This is a statement which the minister in his preoccupation with certain aspects of this legislation would, I believe, approve. Certainly I would. I might refer at this point to an aspect of the legislation which has not been discussed very much, the changes in the provisions governing the national parole board. I, for one, welcome these changes.
If improvement is measured on the basis of our concern for others, let us get right down to the tough question, that of abortion. We have been flooded with extreme statements on this issue by those who in their concern or alleged concern for life are so immoderate in their views as to make one doubt whether they really have a fair understanding of the issues which parliamentarians have been asked to face. In the December 7 issue of the Saturday Review I came across what I submit to be one of the fairest statements on this subject that I have read for a long time. It was written by Dr. Robert E. Hall and is one of a series of articles entitled "The Child- What Science Is Learning about Human Personality and Growth". This particular article is entitled: "His Birth Without Permission".
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Before I read the paragraph I have in mind, may 1 reflect on something that puzzles me in connection with this issue. It seems odd
Criminal Code
that it is always men who appear most preoccupied with discussing this question. I hope, with great respect, that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) will enter the debate shortly. I wish there were 50 or perhaps 150 women members of parliament who could discuss this subject. It smacks of vanity for a man to discuss a topic which concerns something that womanhood should decide. Everyone is hung up on the issue of abortion, although methods of dealing with it represent a relatively new encrust-ment on both ecclesiastical and civil law. Until 1801 in Britain there was no law on abortion; the right to terminate pregnancy was left with the woman. In the Roman Church until 1865 there was no dogmatic rule concerning abortion. What we are discussing is the so-called civilized man's aspect of a problem that is really a problem of the woman. Having entered that caveat, I find that I can override my own concern for presump-tiousness and discuss the issue. A paragraph from the article is as follows:
Abortion is a medical issue only because it is the doctor who wields the necessary instrument. He is no better able to judge who qualifies for an abortion than the patient's minister, the patient's lawyer, or the patient herself. Who of these four principals would you deem best suited to make such a decision? I would argue that the pregnant woman, with the counsel of her doctor and the concurrence of her husband, should be allowed to decide for herself. Realistically, of course, she cannot. In the final analysis the decision rests with the politician and the priest.
Although I feel that the provision in the bill is too restrictive, a view that remains unaltered having heard not only the minister's speech but other speeches, speaking as one politician I am prepared to shift that decision to the pregnant woman.
As to the issue of homosexuality I have had, as I am sure the minister and other hon, members have, some extraordinarily cruel letters about what is a psychiatric and medical problem. It appears from some letters that the nation as it is about to deal with this problem is headed down the road to hell. I am prepared to take my chance, though that may be a rather profane thing to say. Nevertheless the issue has to be faced. The government of the United Kingdom faced it. The United Kingdom faced it, first of all, in the House of Lords, because it was from there that a committee was formed to study the issue, as a result of which the Wolfenden report made its recommendations.
I for one would have no difficulty with my conscience, if that is the way one judges a

January 27, 1969
Criminal Code
vote, in supporting the change proposed here by the minister. I believe that homosexuality or homosexual acts between consenting males, unpleasant as that is to contemplate, are nevertheless a case for the most compassionate, sympathetic understanding on the part of civilized men and women. I think that this bill has that objective in mind.
With regard to gun control, the other day the National Rifle Association Journal contained a message to the widow of the late President John Kennedy saying that they had noted with regret that he had died, and then in an editorial in the same issue discussed the U.S. constitutional provisions with regard to the right to carry sidearms. I do not suppose that any more bitter illustration of a lobby gone rampant could exist.
I think that the changes proposed in this bill are essential. I am glad the bill is now before the house and that some changes have been made in the original proposals contained in the previous bill, C-195. Some provisions I had hoped to see are not included in the bill. I had hoped that consideration by the committee on justice and legal affairs of the issue of wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping would have been farther advanced. I recognize why it has not been, but this problem has to be faced soon by parliament. The proliferation of wanton snooping without any imprimatur of legal or judicial authority is to me most offensive. I hope the government will urge the committee on justice and legal affairs to complete its study of this matter, and that the house will soon have before it a further amendment to the Criminal Code condemning this type of activity.
In his speech the minister emphasized, I think quite correctly, the human rights aspect of the Criminal Code. I hope that on his various excursions about the country to discuss law reform with lawyers, who tend to be conservative types, the minister will be able to prevail upon the bar to accept the traditional right-in fact, it should be more than traditional; it should be a current right-of all members of the public to counsel. It troubles me that the bar has often to be reminded to assume a responsibility that has long been part of its tradition. No one should have to shop around for counsel. When the minister addresses the Canadian Bar Association I trust he will underline the importance of the acceptance of responsibility in this particular area of the law, though those who attend the meetings of the association are usually those who readily do so. But having

said that I think there is an obligation upon lawyers to fulfil their duty in this regard. The legal aid systems that have been set up in some of the provinces are looking after this problem, in some cases better than in others, but there are still gaps that need to be filled.
Perhaps I have not given the philosophical arguments for supporting the various so-called conscience sections of the bill. I accept the view of many in my party that it would have been easier to discuss the four major aspects of the bill separately in that we would have readily been able to exercise our individual vote. But that does not in any way inhibit me from supporting the legislation.
The issue I warned the house I had some doubts about is lotteries. I have doubts because I have been in various countries of the world which operate state lotteries. Such a lottery is a most unpleasant feature of their national life and is a very poor way of raising money. For example, the so-called Irish sweepstakes hands over very little of its revenue to the Irish hospitals-I understand about 12 per cent, or 12 cents of very dollar. I think this gives that fine country a poor name in the world, as do the national lotteries of so many other countries. If the state requires money for education and hospitals, then the ethical way to raise it, in my opinion, is by taxation spread fairly among the people. To try to grub for money in this way diminishes, I think, the national prestige of a country. But even though I feel this way I will not resist the important changes contained within the ambit of the bill.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, no one can fail to be impressed by the serious tone of this debate. Some hon. members have already had a chance to speak their minds on this bill. There are members of my party who share the views of the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Sullivan) who spoke last Friday. I am glad to live in a country where hon. members such as the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain and others can speak their minds on clauses of a bill in such a way as not to leave their constituents in any doubt about where they stand. I am afraid I cannot agree with the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) that hon. members are being muzzled and cannot speak their minds on this bill.
Our leader has made known the general attitude of the N.D.P. caucus to this legislation. Various hon. members of our party will
January 27, 1969

deal with different clauses of the bill in detail, and as a result there will be no repetition by members of this party. As a group we wish to talk about the entire bill, and it is up to the individuals in our party to choose the various clauses on which they wish to speak.
With the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) I was a member of the health and welfare committee which studied abortion in 1967-68. It has fallen to me to deal with the abortion section which, from remarks so far heard in this debate, appears to be the most contentious section of the entire bill. Some hon. members of our caucus, in common with members of other caucuses, are deeply disturbed by some of the amendments. They want no part of legislation designed to deal with abortion. We appreciate their position and honour their adherence to what they believe to be right. Yet we disagree profoundly with them. We also have principles and we also must speak on behalf of those things we believe to be right.
One of the most compelling reasons for one to support the amendments pertaining to abortion is to allow those who believe in the concept of abortion the right to follow the dictates of their consciences and remain within the law. Today they do not have this right. I believe the majority of the Canadian people wish to have that right. According to the only Gallup poll I could find on this question-it was taken in 1965-71 per cent of the Canadian people wanted the abortion laws to be modernized. I cannot believe that that figure is lower now.
Not many members of this house have had direct experience of abortion. I know that neither the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) nor I have undergone an abortion. But that should not prevent our dealing with the question of abortion. Because we may not be in any danger of falling over a cliff should not prevent our agreeing to provide an ambulance for those who have done so.
We have heard much in this debate from hon. members opposed to abortion. Let them think well of what their remarks entail. Do they insist on imposing their views on those who consider it their right to follow their consciences in this matter? No one will force abortions on people opposed to them. No one is proposing to force physicians who do not approve of abortions to perform abortions. Those who oppose the concept of a woman's right to an abortion ought to realize that public crime and private sin are entirely different
Criminal Code
matters. On this question I commend the insight of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), because he was quite right in saying the law has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.
I agree with the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) who said that if our statute books contain unenforceable laws the law will fall into disrepute. The law pertaining to abortion is unenforceable. That point was brought home by religious as well as non-religious groups opposed to our party's stand on this question. Our position was that since an unenforceable law brings the law into disrepute the present law on abortion, being unenforceable, bringing the law into disrepute.
Moreover, I submit that as well as being unenforceable the present law is unjust. At present a pregnant woman may obtain an abortion in Canada safely, not legally but safely, if she has the money for the operation. Or she may obtain an abortion by taking a ship or aeroplane to another country where abortion is legal. On the other hand, while the present law is retained the pregnant woman without money has no such option. She must bear her child no matter whether it has resulted from rape, incest, accident or any one of a number of causes ruinous to her future and her health. She must bear the child or seek an illegal abortion with all the attendant risks of infection, mutilation and death. Those are her alternatives.
I am glad the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) is seeking to abolish a law which, in effect, means there is one law for the rich pregnant woman and another for the poor pregnant woman. A law like that ought to be swept away. It makes criminals of pregnant women who are caught in the trap of pregnancy and need to have an abortion. It makes criminals of doctors seeking to help pregnant women. Recently in Vancouver a highly respected doctor was convicted of performing abortions and was evicted from his profession. He performed abortions only because he could not bear the suffering of unfortunate women who could not face the consequences of their rash acts, and I emphasize the fact that they have not done that rash act alone. I point out that in no instance where an abortion has come to the attention of any hospital board has the pregnant woman alone been responsible for her condition. It has taken a man as well as the woman to bring about that condition. Society must deal with this problem instead of leaving, in many cases, poor,

January 27, 1969
Criminal Code
ignorant, friendless women to bear the burden of a situation which too often they are obliged to face alone.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
One of the "guesstimates"-they were not even estimates-given to the standing committee on health and welfare was the number of illegal abortions performed annually in Canada. The committee heard from Dr. Donald M. Lowe, a former chairman of the Ontario Medical Association's committee on abortion. His figure was that between 25,000 and 75,000 illegal abortions are performed in Canada every year. That is an enormous figure when one thinks of it in terms of the women involved, of their plight and of the cost to society. That estimate was the low one among those we were given. Estimates were also given at several times that figure. But I agree with the statement by the Association for Modernization of Abortion Laws in Canada that there is no need to waste time now on a futile numbers game of trying to guess the number of illegal abortions in Canada every year. The tragedy is that we do not know, nor have we any means of finding out. No steps have been taken to obtain this information and the worst of it is that in the past we just have not cared.
What we do know is that last year Jean Paul Gilbert, Montreal police director, stated in a letter to the committee that authorities in Montreal's major hospitals had reported as follows:
Hardly a day goes by without a woman coming or being brought to the hospital after an attempted abortion.
What is true for Montreal hospitals is true for hospitals in Toronto and Vancouver and in a comparative degree for other hospitals across Canada. What about the many, many more women all across Canada who suffer mutilation and sometimes even death as a result of do it yourself projects with knitting needles, acids or any one of a dozen other instruments never meant for that purpose? There are also those who suffer at the hands of backstreet butchers who claim to be abortionists.
The choice now before us is not whether we are going to have abortions. That has already been decided. If we refuse to face the present situation and try to sweep it under the rug, pretending it does not exist, illegal abortion is going to continue to grow in this country. We have had much evidence to that

effect. It will not be stopped. Ever since the dawn of history women have not been stopped in this matter because the sanctions of society against them are such that they cannot face these situations. They cannot stand them economically or socially and they mean personal tragedies which these women are not able to bear, causing them to seek the abortionist wherever he can be found. If not a legal abortionist, then they must find an illegal one.
One of the French speaking members to my left referred to people who wish to see changes in respect of abortion and other matters, such as proposed in the amendments to the Criminal Code now before us, as those who love darkness, evildoers, and that sort of thing. In my opinion the people who love darkness are those who are closing their eyes to the terrible predicament of women from one coast to the other who are caught in the pregnancy trap and have no recourse because the lawmakers of this country up to this point have given them no recourse. It is our job to change that picture.
I was pleased to hear the hon. member for Fundy-Royal say he wished there were many women in this house. So do I. Thank heaven there are a great number of civilized men in the house who realize that this problem is not merely a case of rushing to the assistance of women. There is that too, but the problem has been tied up for a long time in an impossible situation. Surely it is not a situation that can be met by quotations from religious or philosophical authorities who lived centuries ago. Surely it is an intolerable situation calling for action in line with modern needs and modern thinking. It is a problem with which we have to grapple.
I am not going to get into theological arguments because the committee has had plenty of theology on both sides of the case. The hon. member who preceded me stated there were two sides to this question, those who wanted wide open abortion on demand and those who wanted nothing whatever to do with abortion, leaving it illegal. I believe there are those in between, those who want a reasonable approach to this problem with reasonable measures for solving it.
The amendments now before us clarify the existing law. That is good. They add the word "health" to the existing legislation. At the present time an abortion can be performed only in cases where the life of the mother is gravely in danger. The new amendment will add the word "health". In other
January 27, 19G9

words, the fact that her health is in danger can be a reason for a legal abortion. This is very good as far as it goes. There are those in this house and in this country who consider that this amendment goes dangerously far. I know this because I was on the committee. There was a great deal of argument as to the meaning of the word "health". These amendments are important but they are scarcely world-shaking.
At this point I would like to commend the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) on his excellent speech last Friday. He is the chairman of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. There is no one in a better position to know the scope of the abortion discussion which goes back many years. The hon. member's speech was excellent, surveying as it did not only what the word "health" denotes but the whole history of thinking and legislation in regard to abortion.
I have heard discussion in this house as to why the word "health" in this amendment is not defined, that we do not know what is meant by the word "health".
I think the best definition of the word "health" is the one by the World Health Organization which states that it is:
A state of complete physical, mental, emotional and social well-being-
I think that is how the word "health" should be defined in this legislation and I wish it would mean just that. Before I conclude I will give the Minister of Justice my recipe for making it mean just that. Measured by this yardstick, the amendments now before us fall short in the following respects.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
First of all, they make no provision to terminate a pregnancy where it is practically certain that a deformed child will be bom. To put it bluntly, I think it is a crime that we have a law which says it is illegal for a physician to perform an abortion even though he knows there is grave danger of a deformed child being born. I do not believe that such an abortion ought to be illegal. Mind you, even in this case I believe that the pregnant woman or the parents ought to have the right to decide. I think a doctor has the right to lay before the woman the consequences of the continuation of her pregnancy and then ask her: "Do you want an abortion or don't you?" I think the woman has the right to decide, and I want to add that in my opinion a great
Criminal Code
many women faced with the decision of giving birth to and bringing up gravely deformed children would make their decision in favour of healthy life instead of deformity.
I believe most women would do that. But this legislation makes no provision for a situation of that kind.
Neither does the legislation make provision to terminate a pregnancy that has been caused by rape or incest. I think this is the logical place to insert a provision making legal the termination of a pregnancy that is the result of rape or incest. I ask hon. members to consider the feelings of those two young girls, recently raped in Toronto by a gang of hoodlums, should either of them prove to be pregnant as a result of that experience. I ask hon. members to consider the feelings and the future of those two girls and to understand how strongly a great many women feel about the necessity of legislation to cover situations of that type.
In such cases these young fellows are sentenced to jail for a few months. But the girl gets life-the ruin of her whole life-as the result of an action of which she is almost always, if not always guiltless. Hon. members may say that a girl should not be consorting with such people, but these little girls in the case about which I am speaking came from the country. They had no concept of what could happen in big cities, of what in fact happened to them.
The proposed amendments do not touch the situation where a mother becomes pregnant accidentally. I am speaking of a woman who is already the mother of a very large family, who has not got adequate means or the prospect of adequate means to look after her family, to feed, clothe, shelter, and above all, educate her children, and where the addition of one more child will endanger the situation of the children already existing.
If we are bringing the Criminal Code up to date on abortion I think it should include at least the equivalent of the British social clause which provides that where the birth of another child will put the family of the pregnant woman in jeopardy, her existing family, it shall be legal to perform an abortion. I believe this legislation should include that option because I believe it is wrong, the way the world is today, to bring a child into it if that child will jeopardize the mother's future and the future of existing children, to say nothing of its own.

January 27, 1969
Criminal Code
However, Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendments are an advance over what we have had. We in this group are going to support them if we cannot get anything better. But we are going to try to get something better, both in the house and in the committee, and I make no apology to hon. members for taking a little time to explain what we want.
As my parliamentary leader explained the other day, we in this group would like to see abortion deleted from the Criminal Code. We would like to see it taken out completely in the same way that birth control, before this session is finished, is going to be taken completely out of the Criminal Code. Neither one of these is a criminal matter. Both are medical matters. They belong in the province of medicine rather than in the province of the law.
I have a bill on the order paper which would provide for this and I hope the minister will consider looking at it from the point of view that I am putting forward. First I had better point out what my bill in general terms proposes. It would leave the matter of abortion entirely for decision by the medical profession, the pregnant woman and anyone intimately concerned with her. The decision is ultimately that of the woman. It cannot be the decision of anybody else. I do not believe in the postcard approach, the demand approach. I believe that the woman should and must approach a physician for consultation. When this consultation takes place I believe that in the majority of cases, where the pregnancy is reasonable, it would be continued.
I have mentioned those intimately concerned with the woman in the matter. The hon. member for Fundy-Royal has referred to including the husband. I believe that in a decent marriage the husband, of course, would be consulted about such a decision. But there are other cases where marriages have broken down and other influences are at work. Even though he is not married to the woman, I believe that very often the man responsible for fathering the child would be a good person to be included in this type of consultation with a doctor. In the case where a girl is very young, is under age, I believe that her parents ought to be in on the consultation. If the girl is friendless I believe that a social worker or someone of that type should take part in the consultation. At all events I believe that the medical profession can well be trusted to make this momentous decision in consultation with the pregnant woman and 
whoever is closely associated with her in the problem.
What will this approach do so far as the pregnant woman is concerned? It will give her what so many women do not have now, the right to bear healthy, wanted children as a result of her desire to have children. To my mind it is the height of irresponsibility for people to bring into today's world children who are deformed and who cannot be brought up and educated as today's children should be brought up and educated.
What will this approach do so far as the foetus is concerned? I think it will give the foetus the right, in many cases, not to be born. To my mind the right not to be born is very important in a great many cases. At a later date one of my colleagues is going to describe just what it means to be born mindless and deformed, almost beyond human recognition, and having to go on living for years and years as a result of our legislation and the mores lying behind our legislation.
As I say, so far as the foetus is concerned this approach gives it the right not to be born or, looking at it from the positive angle, the right to be a wanted child. Social workers and others who have dealt with many children who have been unwanted know that the right not to be born is an important right in many cases. Until we can provide the right for children to be wanted we should not worry too much-we should not be so proud of supporting the right to be born.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Children who are moved around from place to place, children who are moved from one foster home to another, children who are never wanted and who never fit into things- there are the other kind too-are living examples of the fact that children ought to have the right to be wanted, loved, cared for and born into a home where they are wanted. So far as the doctor is concerned, this stand will give the doctor the right to do legally what his conscience prescribes. I am afraid that under the minister's bill many doctors, if they wish to follow their conscience, will in many cases still have to perform abortions illegally because there are some types of pregnancy whose termination is not provided for under the bill. If doctors are to be large-spirited and humane they will still have to conduct illegal abortions even under these amendments.
I believe that the approach of giving the doctor the right to decide in consultation with
January 27, 1969

the patient would obviate the danger of illegality. No one will force a doctor against his conscience to perform an abortion. So far as society is concerned this approach would give to society the right to have children who will have an opportunity to become good citizens. We might look at the pedigree of those young men who were convicted for a mass rape the other day. Look at the kind of homes they came from and the conditions in which their parents were forced to bring them up. If you look at these things you will understand what I mean when I talk about the need of society to be in a position to ensure children an opportunity to become good and wanted citizens.
The argument has been made that in other countries with wider abortion laws there have been difficulties. There has been a tremendous increase in the number of abortions performed. This is true partly because there had been a tremendous backlog of requests for abortions to be dealt with. There were women who were formerly unable to obtain abortions and who wished to obtain them. In addition, there was a great deal of unnecessary red tape and difficulty in ironing out the bugs in the systems in these countries for dealing with abortion.
I suggest that one of the things we might have is a referral centre or clinic to which women who want and need an abortion could be referred. Such a clinic would have a trained staff including doctors, as is the case in respect of birth control clinics, so that a woman could come there and have her abortion dealt with in the very early stages of pregnancy without waiting for the stage at which it becomes dangerous, difficult and disgusting even to the physician who has to deal with it.
Birth control is the first line of defence. It is not legal in this country, and we need much more widespread knowledge of contraceptives and much more widespread use of them. Birth control would cut down the need for abortion to a great degree but would not do away with the need for abortion. There would still be a great many cases where it would be required.
I conclude by making a plea to the members of this house. I shall do so by quoting from the explanatory notes to my bill:
In a pluralistic society such as Canada it is possible in a number of matters to allow some people to carry out their own beliefs in action without infringing on the freedom of others to follow a different course of action.
Criminal Code
Such is the matter of abortion. The purpose of this bill is to permit those who believe in the necessity of abortion to seek it legally. Those whose conscience is opposed to abortion may continue, as in the past, to have nothing to do with it.
In view of the fact that we shall never in our lifetime, even in the lifetime of the youngest member here, reach a consensus on this matter, surely we should be thankful that heaven has made it possible for us to have two right courses. There is the right, on the one hand, of people who believe that abortion is criminal and against their better judgment to have nothing to do with the legislation. On the other hand, we can have freedom of conscience and action for those people who believe in the necessity for abortion and who believe in the justice of updating the abortion laws of this country. I do not see any reason why even those members who believe that abortion is wrong cannot weigh very carefully the measures in this bill and then search their consciences to see whether there is anything very wrong in letting an amendment pass which they do not have to be bound by in order to permit those people who do believe in it to have freedom of conscience. Although the abortion section of the bill may be wrong in their minds, they would be voting for many other measures which are long overdue. I ask, what could be fairer than to have the right for both sides in this matter to follow their consciences?


Ralph Wesley Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in this debate because I feel it is my solemn duty to go on record in opposition to one of the clauses of the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code. I do it even at the risk of being considered uncivilized by the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis).


Winona Grace MacInnis: No,
I said I respected such people.


Ralph Wesley Stewart: It is a privilege for me to belong to a government which respects individual opinion and conscience. There are those in this house who have claimed in recent days that members of the government are being coerced into accepting the whole bill. Nothing could be farther from the truth. If that were the case I would not be standing freely in my place at this moment to express an opinion contrary to the proposals of the government. The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) said that members are not robots or computers to be pushed around by the Prime Minister. No, we are not computers or robots and the Prime

January 27, 1969
Income Tax Act
Minister has never at any time insisted that we follow exactly what has been proposed in this measure. He has allowed us a free conscience in this matter as in all matters. In fact I think it is fairly obvious to the country now that not only does the Prime Minister permit us our own ideas but he encourages us to express them. He even sends out little feelers so that people will take up the bait and develop their own ideas. I think this is proper in the new politics we have in Canada and I welcome it.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the house that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Dominion-Provincial Conference-possible increase in old age security benefits; the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Tetrault)-Solutions to Help Poor in Canada; the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart)-Medical Director- Moose Factory.
It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions, public bills.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)



NOTICES OF MOTIONS


Mr. Warren Allmand (Nolre-Dame-de-Grace) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Income Tax Act so that the additional $500 exemption presently granted to Canadian taxpayers under section 26 subsection (e) when they reach 70 years of age be granted at 65 years of age and that section 26 subsection (f) be repealed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on re-examining my own motion this afternoon I notice there is a typographical error as it is printed in Orders of the Day. It should read "under section 26 subsection (l)(e)", and in the last line "section 26 subsection (l)(f)". The figure "1" has

been left out in each case, but I think most hon. members who are prepared to debate the motion understand exactly the principle which is being put forward.
This motion requests an amendment to the Income Tax Act to grant the additional $500 exemption at age 65 which is now granted at age 70. The act at present, in section 26 (l)(e), states that a taxpayer can have an additional $500 exemption if he has attained 70 years of age before the end of the particular year. In other words, all taxpayers in Canada are granted an additional $500 exemption when they reach age 70.
A few years ago, in 1965, we added paragraph (f) to section 26(1). That paragraph states that the $500 exemption shall also be given to people who are over age 65 but are not receiving the old age pension. I feel that this law is inadequate. As I said at the beginning, the present law grants an exemption of an extra $500 to older persons. This provision was introduced at a time when the old age pension was given at age 70.
As hon. members know, a few years ago old age pensions of $75 were given at age 70, which meant $900 per year. At that time it was logical to grant the extra exemption at age 70 because the pension was given at age 70. However, under the last government headed by Mr. Pearson amendments were introduced to the Old Age Security Act and several things were done. First of all, a guaranteed income supplement of $30 was provided. Second, provision was made to increase pensions each year in accordance with the cost of living up to a limit of 2 per cent. Third, it was provided that pensions would be paid one year earlier each year until by the year 1970 they would be paid at age 65. This means this year the old age security pension is being paid at age 66 and that next year it will be given at age 65.
With these amendments to the old age security law we have the situation that a person can receive approximately $109 per month this year owing to the increase in the cost of living. This amounts to approximately $1,310 per year. However, if a pensioner is between 65 and 70 years of age he will only have an exemption amounting to $1,100, which means that the poor elderly people who have nothing but the old age pension and the guaranteed income supplement must pay income tax whereas people in the same position over 70 years of age will not have to pay income tax. This is a little complicated so perhaps I should repeat it.
January 27, 1969

Everyone over 70 years of age gets an extra $500 exemption which makes a total exemption of $1,600, well over the amount they receive from old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. However, people who retire, have no other income than the old age security pension and the guaranteed income supplement, and are between the ages of 65 and 70, only have the $1,100 exemption and therefore have to pay tax on a small amount. The tax is not much, but for many of these old people it is a great bother to fill out income tax forms since they are getting so little money. They feel it is a great injustice since those over 70 receiving the same income do not pay taxes at all.
Perhaps it has been an oversight in the last few years that there has been no amendment to correct this injustice. I have written to the minister on several occasions suggesting this reform of the Income Tax Act, but so far nothing has been done. I have been informed that the amendment I have put forward is being considered in conjunction with other amendments. However, I felt it necessary to introduce this motion in an attempt to get something done and to remind the government, the minister and his officials of this particular need.
The law as it now stands is not logical. The $500 exemption should be given to all persons over 65 years of age. This is the logical age because most people are retired by their companies at 65, and it is at this age that their earnings decrease considerably. They stop working and no longer receive regular paychecks. Most of them rely on old age security pensions and company pensions. In addition, they are beginning a period of their life when they are on fixed incomes.
People who retire at age 65 may have to live for 10 or 20 years, at least those who are lucky enough to have good health, on the same income they receive at age 65. During the inflationary period we are experiencing, which has been particularly serious in the last few years, the purchasing power of these fixed incomes has become less and less and it has become more and more necessary to provide greater relief for these people. I submit it is most appropriate that this extra exemption of $500 be given at age 65 so that the law will be made logical and reasonable throughout.
I mentioned the problem of inflation in respect of people on pensions and fixed incomes. I have also pointed out that the government has provided a certain increase in pensions
Income Tax Act
each year in accordance with the cost of living, but there is a limit. Personally I would like to see government pensions increased each year without any limit but in strict accordance with the cost of living. Sooner or later this will have to be done. I should also like to see private pensions increased by companies on the same basis. Some of these pensions operate on this basis now, but I am sure the day will come when most of them will have to follow the cost of living index if they are to be reasonable. There are probably other measures which could help the old age pensioners. This is only one specific measure which I hope the minister will seriously consider.
When the guaranteed income supplement was introduced in the house I strongly supported it. I believe that pensions of this type provided by the government should be given to the people who can really use the money. We should give more to those people and less to those who have large private incomes. As a matter of fact, I would probably support a guaranteed income supplement up to $150, with less money going to those who have other sources of income. I think it is scandalous that the most our old age pensioners can get in this year 1969 is a little more than $109, whereas some old age pensioners are receiving the $75 pension from the government as well as large private pensions from their companies and other sources.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I will not spend much time on this measure, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) has announced that in the spring he will present a completely new tax act in which exemptions will be rationalized and will be logical in the light of other provisions of the law. Therefore I await his proposed bill and look forward to seeing amendments in it which will give the old age pensioner a more reasonable exemption and a better way of life.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have had occasion to oppose proposals made by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand). It is also true that it is a bit of a pattern around here to be critical of propositions made by members of other parties. But both of these approaches can be forgotten on this occasion. I offered to second the hon. member's motion, and except for the typographical errors he has had to correct I support it without reservation. I agree with the hon. member that

January 27, 1969
Income Tax Act
this is not the only thing we ought to be doing for our old age pensioners. I believe that the basic amount of the non-means test pension should be increased. I believe we will have to establish an escalator provision in the old age security pension based not just on the cost of living but on the rise in the standard of living. As a matter of fact, I still think it was a fundamental mistake when we wrote the cost of living escalator into the Old Age Security Act and did not at that time base the annual adjustment on the wage index, which reflects a little more accurately the rise in the standard of living.
So I might go on with things that I believe ought to be done for our old age pensioners. I also agree with the hon. member-perhaps I might be pardoned for saying I am glad to hear he agrees with me-that pensions generally, both public and private, must be put on a basis so that they go up after people retire, or our whole pension structure may fall to the ground.
Having said that, what is before us today in the hon. member's resolution is one simple proposition that I think the government ought to accept without any delay, namely, that the difference between pensioners 70 years of age and over and pensioners between 65 and 70 years of age, so far as their income tax exemption level is concerned, should be wiped out. I well recall when this extra $500 exemption provision was presented to parliament. I was here then, as I was some years before that time. It was on May 18, 1948, when the Hon. Douglas Abbott, then minister of finance, made this statement as recorded in Hansard for that day, at page 4066:
In the field of personal income taxes, I am proposing one change of significance which will, I believe, be accepted with commendation on all sides of the house. Having in mind the large number of elderly people living on small fixed incomes, and out of consideration for the particular trials and increased expenditures that usually come with advancing years, I am proposing that an additional exemption of $500 be granted to a taxpayer of 65 years of age or over. Many of these elderly people living on small pensions or other forms of fixed income with no opportunity to participate in the increased wages, salaries or profits enjoyed by other sections of the community, are particularly hard hit by the higher costs of living which present boom conditions have brought about. This group of our citizens is entitled, I think, to special consideration at this time.


William Warren Allmand: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: say to our friend, Mr. Justice Douglas Abbott, who has gone to higher realms, well said in

1948, and it still applies today. As hon. members know, this change was made at that time as a concession to those of us who were trying to get something done about the old age pension. We were trying to get the amount increased and the means test removed. The government had not yet seen its way clear to do what we were asking, so this was a bit of a concession. But even though it was presented in that spirit the statement made by Mr. Abbott was correct, and it applies today. The extra $500 exemption at age 65 stayed that way from 1948 until 1965, when Mr. Pearson came into the house one day to announce something that we welcomed, namely, that the old age security pension was going to be made payable at age 65, although this was to be done step by step.
This was a change from a government plan which had proposed that if you took the pension at an age below 70 you had to take a smaller amount and stay with it for life. Mr. Pearson announced on February 17, 1965, that this plan had been scrapped and that the old age security pension would be at a fixed rate for all ages from 65 up, although it would take a few years to get to that point.
As so often happens here with an announcement that is most welcome, there was a little tail at the end of it, which was that the additional $500 exemption which Mr. Abbott had granted in 1948 was going to be taken away from those people between 65 and 70 years of age while they were on the old age security pension. The record makes it clear that on that occasion, the very day on which Mr. Pearson made that announcement, I suggested that this was not the way to go about it at all, that if the government wanted to make a change the best way would be to increase the exemption for everybody to $1,500 for single persons and $3,000 for married persons, or whatever figure might be arrived at.
That is a brief history of the proposition, indicating why it was brought in in the first place and the way in which it was taken away from those between 65 and 70. But as the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace has pointed out, the situation has now been reached where a great deal of suffering results from this plan. The hon. member pointed out, for example, what happens in the case of people who get both the old age security pension and the guaranteed income supplement. If they are over 70 years of age and that is all they have, they have no income tax to pay
January 27, 1969

because of the extra $500 exemption. But people between 65 and 70 years of age who get precisely the same amount and, like their older friends, have the same expenses and are hit by the same increased cost of living, are subject to tax on their income in excess of $1,100. They can receive, as the hon. member said, a total of $1,310.40 a year from a combination of old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, but they have to pay tax on $210.40 of that, which amounts to something in excess of $30.
May I point out another injustice that has been perpetrated upon these people. When something like the social development tax is added it does not hit very hard the people in the $10,000, $20,000 and $30,000 income brackets but it really hits the people to whom I have referred in that they have to pay an extra 2 per cent on the total amount of their taxable income. Thus the type of person to whom I have just referred, who has to pay tax on $210.40, is hit with another 2 per cent, or $4.20. This is being done to people for whom it was said legislation was being brought in to guarantee their income, to bring them up to a certain point. So they are brought up with the one hand and taken down with the other.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I think the whole proposition is wrong and that this distinction should be abolished. I still think the best way to do it would be not simply to restore the $500 to these people but to make it $1,500 across the board. However, if the government thinks it cannot do this it should at least agree to the proposition put forward by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace.
I doubt that there is a member of this House of Commons who is without examples of what this does to people. All of us have this drawn to our attention through the mail. Our old age pensioners think it is particularly unfair to treat them in this way. They are feeling the weight of this tax more than anybody else. I hope that members in all quarters of the house will agree to the proposition put forward by the hon. member, and that the resolution before us will pass today in the course of this private members' hour.


Mr. Jerry Pringle (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to associate myself with the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) who has proposed this motion. I should like to thank
Income Tax Act
him for providing the house with the necessary statistics showing just what this means in terms of dollars and cents, and to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) also for his addendum in that regard.
I wish to approach this subject in a somewhat different manner in order to avoid repetition. First, I should explain that by reason of my location I happen to come into contact with more older or retired people than do those who live in most other areas of Canada.
My constituency is located in the lush, green Fraser Valley, in beautiful British Columbia, a province which is without doubt, notwithstanding some other prejudiced views, the most beautiful area in Canada if not the North American continent. Not only are the scenery and surroundings superb but the climate, on the average, is ideal the year round. We enjoy the diversity of changing seasons without the severity of extreme weather conditions experienced in other parts of Canada.
Aside from the fact that it is always exciting to reflect upon the advantages of living near the west coast, I am stressing the point at this time to explain my concern for our senior citizens. The lure of pleasant living conditions in British Columbia increases the percentage of retired people and pensioners in our area compared with other parts of Canada. I am told that members of Canada's armed forces stationed at bases from Victoria to Halifax provide an impressive waiting list of people requesting moves which will entitle them to retire on pension in B.C. A similar state of affairs exists among farmers, business and professional people. Therefore British Columbia boasts a very high percentage of retired Canadians living on pensions. We enjoy the company of many senior citizens who are depending on us for fair treatment. We are happy to welcome those who are becoming domiciled in B.C. and who are contributing the wisdom of their experience to Canadian life in our western paradise.
There was a time in the past, although I confess to some difficulty in recalling the exact period, when retirement was considered a milestone on the road of life, a time when people could relax and participate in recreational activities and other pursuits, a way of life denied to those who accepted sacrifice to assure ultimate educational opportunities for their children. Not too long ago, young men automatically initiated some plan for retirement when purchasing insurance protection for their families. I am sure there are a few

and I firmly believe in this concept, then we surely must adhere to the accepted principle that any additional cost to a product automatically reflects in its selling price. Regular wage increases create regularly increased costs, which create regularly increased selling prices, which in turn perpetuate the inflationary spiral. The result increases the dollar value of Canada's gross national product, which I understand is considered to be justifiable reason for wage increases. The pensioners and fixed income citizens fail to participate in the guideline provided by the gross national product increases and subsequently fall by the wayside. The 2 per cent regular increase to pensioners recently prescribed would be acceptable if all personal incomes could be held to this percentage increase.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote from an article in "The Elder Statesman". The article is entitled "Senior Citizens, the victims of inflation". I quote:
Senior citizens have long been the victims of inflation.
The post-war (world war II) price spiral has gone up and up, without let up.
As wages and prices expand, pensioner incomes shrink. The small monthly cheques they receive buy less and less.
Wages and prices shoot upward each year. Until now pensions have been fixed, with onljr slight increases granted at rare intervals. These pitifully small increases to pitifully small pensions, have tended to be "to little", and often, "too late".
And now-at long last-the government has decided on a regular increase. Two per cent is a small figure related to even a large sum (it is only l/50th).
It is no more than a drop in the big bucket of inflated prices which enter into the pensioners', and everybody's, cost of living. The cost of living has been rising at an alarming rate for the past 10 years. But senior citizens' pensions will increase only 2 per cent or $1.50 per month.
It is obvious that the gap between wage income and pension income will continue to widen. It is equally obvious that with a small increase in income, and a big increase in prices, and cost of living each year, pensioners are dropping to lower depths into the pit at poverty.
Pensioners belong to the not "smug" minority. They are at the lower end of the low income groups in Canada, who make up, we are told, 20 per cent of our population.
It's high time that most of us became part of a "concerned majority", about the plight of our senior citizens. After all, we'll all be senior citizens some day. Our reward, and theirs, for a lifetime devoted to productive work on the labour market, should be an adequate income, not a mere subsistence allowance, relunctantly "dolled" out. This is the right of every citizen who worked hard and
Income Tax Act
contributed much to making it possible for today's workers to achieve the higher wages and standard of living they now enjoy ...
Some countries are far ahead of us in their treatment of their senior citizens. Germany, for example, has long had legislation which adjusts senior citizens' pensions annually in line with the rise in the cost of living. Canada can do no less.
We all applaud, and should support, Prime Minister Trudeau in his efforts to build a "just" society in Canada.
There can be, and will be, no just society in Canada unless and until our senior citizens receive justice as "right" not a handout.
I reiterate that I firmly endorse the resolution presented by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand). I plead that the subject go to committee at once for further study, and that the report recommend prompt action by this house.


Mr. Roland Godin (Porlneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) whose notice of motion reads in part as follows:
-the government should consider the advisability of amending the Income Tax Act so that the additional $500 exemption presently granted to Canadian taxpayers .. . when they reach 70 years of age be granted at 65 years of age-
Mr. Speaker, I would like also to congratulate the previous speakers who so eloquently held their own. In my opinion, the fact that such a notice of motion has been put the house and the question brought to the attention of the government is an indication of the dissatisfaction which prevails regarding present government policies. Once more, I congratulate the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace who will not give up and who has chosen this moment to discuss the fate of people of 65 years of age and over.
Whether we agree or not, if we consider their background, we realize that these people were born in difficult times, when there was no electric lighting, when houses were lighted with candles and oil lamps. In fact, it was then very difficult, for most people, to receive an adequate education at the little red school house; it was also the time of the economic crisis.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Those people help to build the country by working at the construction of our highways-we know that they did so with the pick and the shovel, the hard way-and our railways. All things considered, everything

January 27, 19S9
Income Tax Act
was difficult, everywhere. Those people contributed twice financially, physically and often morally, to the war effort and some of them, who have now reached pension age, often sacrificed to the army one or two of their sons killed on the battlefield. To-day those very people are abandoned. After having worked hard, after having done their very best, after having financed municipalities and school boards, after having paid taxes and union fees, they are compelled to quit work at 60, because some insurance plans do not protect them from an employer who does not want to take the risk of guaranteeing a job to someone who cannot be insured. This is why I support unreservedly the resolution of the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace and, moreover, I wonder if 65 is not still too late in life. Indeed, when the bill is referred to the committee, I wonder if it would not be possible to lower the eligible age to 60. Since it is difficult to find employment even for a person of 20 or 25 and that there are many unemployed between 35 and 40, I feel that we should consider the possibility of granting a pension to persons of 60 years of age, while allowing them a tax reduction. I think that by doing so, justice would be rendered. It is not a matter of making a gift to those people nor of giving them an extravagant amount, but merely of giving them their due. As I said before, those people, at 60 or 65, are rejected; they no longer belong to their union, nobody takes care of them. I conclude by congratulating the hon. member who proposed that we take a little time to deal with the problem of those people who built our country. I feel that everything that aims at improving their situation deserves the attention of the government and that is why-and I say this in the name of our party-we fully support the measure-


Mr. Bruce Howard (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) upon bringing before the house this important and thoughtful measure. Those of us representing ridings containing many old age pensioners are made aware daily of how urgent it is to improve pension conditions for our older citizens. We should be hard hearted indeed if we did not sympathize with the needs of our pensioners. For that reason alone, we ought to congratulate the hon. member for bringing this measure forward, because he has done the country as a whole a service.

The pension field is very complicated, difficult and full of surprises. In my mail the other day I had a letter from a very old lady who said that she and her husband live on a pension which is well under $3,000, the amount the Economic Council has referred to as the poverty line, and they both managed quite well. She said that although they do not have a great many luxuries, she and her husband are proud they can get along on their pension and do not want to take anything extra from the government. It was such an unusual letter that I thought it worth mentioning here.
It is important to note, Mr. Speaker, that the deductions or exemptions suggested in the motion before the house would provide a larger tax reduction for those with high incomes than for those with low and medium range incomes. I ask whether that would really help our old age pensioners? I submit that a $500 deduction does not mean very much to a taxpayer receiving little but the old age pension. On the other hand, it represents a sizeable sum of money to someone with a large income. I shall compare some figures if I may.
Let us take the case of the pensioner receiving the basic minimum of $1,310 a year. Without the $500 deduction he would pay $31.08 tax. With the $500 deduction he would pay no tax. At the same time let us take the case of the taxpayer whose income is $20,000 per year. If that taxpayer were eligible for the $500 reduction as mentioned in the motion, his tax savings would amount to $232 a year.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has talked of the problems of our old age pensioners and poor people. I submit that by adopting this proposal we would not be helping our poor. I ask, does this measure tackle the problem of poverty among our old age pensioners in the right way? Surely, we ought to give the most consideration to those persons receiving between $1,300 and $3,000 a year. It has been estimated that implementing this measure would cost the country between $20 million and $25 million a year of badly needed revenue.


William Warren Allmand: Would the hon. member permit a question? I should be interested in knowing the source of the statistics he is quoting to us.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: I have done some research on this matter. The figures relating to what this measure, if
January 27, 1969

Income Tax Act
implemented, would cost the national treasury I believe are reasonably accurate. We must remember that this measure would not help those old age pensioners or old people who have little or no income. Some argue that merely because a man reaches 65 or 70 years of age he ought to be entitled to some additional tax exemption. I do not support that contention. Many in this old age group have far higher than average earnings and are well able to pay the taxes demanded of them. Amounts collected from the people who are better off could go towards helping those in the lower income brackets. I submit that many of our difficulties in this field stem from our inadequate and piecemeal welfare programs. If we want to help our underprivileged, surely it would be better to do so by direct assistance rather than by imposing tax exemptions which discriminate against the poor and favour the rich.
Our welfare legislation needs to be thoroughly reviewed if we are to remedy this problem area. I hope the mere fact this notice of motion appears on the order paper will prompt the government to overhaul our existing welfare legislation. I agree that the situation is urgent, but I do not think that adopting this measure is the best or correct way of helping our people. I say that because I do not believe the solution suggested in the resolution will bring about an equitable remedy of this difficult situation.


Mr. H. E. Gray (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I join with hon. members who have spoken in congratulating the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) in bringing forward his notice of motion at this time. His action in doing so is consistent with what I know of his approach to public policy, an approach that is based on concern for people and particularly for those who are in the less advantaged groups.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Watch out! You've had it.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Every proposal to change tax law has many implications. In fact, I think we can agree that every proposed change in law creates various effects. To give a proposal of the sort put forward by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace the consideration it deserves would mean discussing it as fully as possible and looking at all the effects created by it.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Let me say at once, Mr. Speaker, this should not necessarily mean that ultimately on balance if it may appear that implementation of such a proposal is the best thing to do under the circumstances, that such a decision should not be made. It may mean rather that if and when such a proposal is put into effect it would be taken with the full knowledge and understanding of all its implications. We must remember that under our rules, whether or not we agree with them in this regard, private members cannot propose bills to change tax laws. Such bills in effect cannot be moved by private members, but instead must be moved by a member of the Privy Council on behalf of the government. This is why if members have proposals of the type put forward by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, under the rules of this house they must present them as he has done in the form of a Notice of Motion.
It is my understanding that if such a motion is adopted by the house it would not have the effect of actually changing the law in the way it proposes. Conversely, if the motion does not happen to come to a vote in the hour set aside for its discussion, that does not mean a change in the law which is considered desirable by some or all members of the house has been defeated or turned aside. It means only that the time set aside for discussion of the proposal in the Notice of Motion has gone by without all those wishing to speak having been heard. At the same time, it does mean that the real purpose of allowing Notices of Motion to be placed on the Order Paper will have been served. This purpose is to enable the mover to present his views to the house, and therefore to the country, and to enable other members to present their own views on his proposal.
One must recognize, Mr. Speaker, there is more to be done for our senior citizens. In recognizing the need for additional action one cannot overlook the steps forward that have been made in the past five years to aid our senior citizens. There have been increases in the basic old age security pension, reduction over a 5 year period of the eligible age to 65, creation of the guaranteed income supplement and for those who have retired since 1966, the creation of the Canada Pension Plan. As I said, there is more to be done for our senior citizens. In my opinion, the proposal in this Notice of Motion is certainly among the measures that are worthy of additional and serious consideration.

January 27, 1969
Income Tax Act
I want to examine, therefore, some of the implications of this very useful proposal. The Notice of Motion urges an amendment to make the income tax deduction for older taxpayers more generous than it is at present. The present law provides deductions from taxable income in the following ways. In the case of a taxpayer who has attained the age of 70 years before the end of the year, the deduction is $500. It is $500 in the case of a taxpayer who before the end of the year has attained the age of 65 years but has not attained the age of 70 years, if no pension under the Old Age Security Act has been authorized to be paid to him for any month in the year.
It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, when it was decided to lower the eligible age for the old age security pension gradually from age 70 to age 65, a step to which I have already referred, it was also decided by the government of the day that the cost of paying this pension to persons under age 70 would be offset in part by the withdrawl of the special $500 deduction for those wo received the pension and were under the age of 70.
The change to the payment of old age security pensions at ages under 70 added substantially to the cost of providing these pensions. The government felt that rather than impose new taxes to meet this cost it should instead recover a small portion of the additional expenditure by withdrawing the extra $500 deduction from those who receive the pension while under age 70. It was felt that an individual may elect not to apply for the pension if he finds that he would be better off to retain the $500 deduction. It was argued that for the great majority of individuals between the ages of 65 and 70, the lowering of the age at which individuals may receive the pension had a more beneficial effect than the $500 deduction.
This argument implies that when the old age pension is received, or for that matter when the senior citizen is eligible to receive it, it will not bring about any lessening of income. However, some employee pension plans provide in effect that the retired employee's pension will be decreased by the amount of old age security pension he is eligible to receive whether he draws it or not. This means that some senior citizens may find themselves forced to take the old age security pension in order to receive the same amount as before they became eligible for this pension. As a result, they find themselves deprived of the $500 exemption, even though 
they do not get one extra dollar because of their eligibility for old age security pension.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this particular area of change is certainly worthy of further study. The hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Howard) has already brought to the attention of the house the fact that to put into effect what is proposed by the hon. member in his Notice of Motion would lead to the necessity of the Department of Finance finding other income in the amount of some $25 million. One would have to consider how this income is to be found, what other rates of tax are to be changed and on whom the additional tax burdens are to be imposed.
It is interesting to note that members of the New Democratic party have been proposing that the report of the Carter royal commission on taxation be implemented as a package. However, this commission recommended that only taxpayers between ages 65 and 70 who do not receive the old age security pension should be allowed an additional $500 deduction, and that the $500 deduction for individuals who are 70 years of age and over should be repealed.
Those hon. members may not realize that if they support the proposal of the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace they are, in effect, arguing against a proposal put forward in the Carter Commission report which they say should be adopted as a package.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tell
us where you stand.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I think I have made clear my own position in calling for further action to assist our senior citizens.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. The hour for consideration of private members business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) for the second reading and reference to the
January 27, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs 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.
Ralph Wesley Stewart: Mr. Speaker, before the hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business, I had begun expressing some of my ideas, and before proceeding further with my speech, I would like to summarize my previous remarks.

Before the dinner adjournment, Mr. Speaker, I explained that I felt it was my solemn duty to speak in this debate because I am opposed to one, and only to one of the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code. I said that our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has given us every latitude to express our opinions, not only on this issue but on all issues which affect the government of Canada. He has not only allowed us to express our own opinions but has encouraged us to do so. That is why I do not like to hear people say that we are being muzzled or that we are being treated as robots or computers by having to accept a bill with part of which perhaps we do not agree. If that were the case I would not be speaking in this debate at all.
One of the principles which I uphold is that no one should force his or her religious opinions on anyone else in a pluralistic society. If we want to discuss religion that is one thing, but when we are talking about the natural order which concerns items of public morality I do not believe that has anything to do with religion.
So far as religious considerations are concerned, I am opposed to divorce. I believe that certain sexual behavior among human beings is sinful from the point of view of religion, but I certainly have no right to expect other people in Canada to accept my views. But when it comes to a question of public morality, of the natural law, this is not a question of religion. It is above and beyond it. This is where the question of conscience becomes so delicate.
I make no secret of the fact that I have always been of the opinion, and I have made my views known to our caucus and our Prime Minister, that I would have preferred the
Criminal Code
portion of this legislation dealing with abortion to be made a matter of a free vote. I would have preferred that because I think it is no less important than the issue of capital punishment, which was decided by this house on a free vote. Legislation on abortion went through the British parliament with a free vote.
However, should the majority in this house decide that this legislation should go through as one bill I see no reason why I cannot support the bill in to to. One cannot reject a complete bill, which I consider to have 125 goods proposals, simply because there is one proposal in it with which I cannot agree.
Those who have studied philosophy and theology will perhaps recall the term "the perplexed conscience", where one is faced with such a situation. I believe that in accord with my conscience I am quite capable of supporting the omnibus bill should it come to a vote as a complete bill, yet still being opposed to one of the amendments. That is why I feel it is my duty to make it known that I am opposed to one of the amendments.
I would simply ask those who support the enlarging or the extending of- the abortion laws to be honest in their arguments. We have heard so many arguments that have nothing to do with the bill before us. We have heard how we must do away with backroom abortions, kitchen table abortions, and how we must take care of the young girl who has been raped. We have heard how we must take care of the people who possibly will have deformed children. This has nothing to do with the piece of legislation that is before us.
If people insist in making these kinds of arguments, then obviously they are regarding this piece of legislation as a stepping stone to a further enlargement of the abortion laws. I think we should be consistent in our arguments. If we are talking about this particular law, this particular proposal, then I think we should leave these other arguments out of our discussion.
The main change proposed covers the question of endangering the life or health of the mother. This seems to be the part that is causing the most difficulty. The operative words mention a certificate in writing stating that a "female person would or would be likely to endanger her life or health." I think that that particular clause is the danger point of the whole issue. The words "or health" could mean any number of things.
Criminal Code

January 27, 1969
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
The hon. lady who spoke before me pointed out the definition of health as given at the United Nations. She spoke about social health and mental health. For seven years, while engaged in the pharmaceutical industry, I was very closely associated with hospitals. I think I know as much about doctors and hospitals as the committees that are set up which make decisions regarding health. Although I have great respect for the medical profession, I am not one who places a doctor on a pedestal as being a god who can decide between life and death. I know there have been hospital committees in the gynaecological field which have determined whether or not a woman should have a hysterectomy. I know that this decision has depended upon one person because the gynaecologist on the committee was the one most qualified and therefore was the one who decided. We all know that many uteri were removed in this country which should never have been removed. The same thing would apply in respect of this committee which would be set up in the hospitals.
Suppose a committee on mental health should be established. The psychiatrist member of that committee would be the one who would make the decision because he would be the most qualified to decide in matters of mental health. If he decided that a woman should be aborted because of her mental state, that would be it. So, I think this question of relegating these decisions to a doctor is not what it is cracked up to be. I believe that by bringing in this kind of an amendment we are simply doing one thing; we are opening the door to abortion on demand.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ralph Wesley Stewart: If that is what the advocates of this bill want, that is fine. I hear some hon. members applaud. I am sure that is exactly what some hon. members want. I suggest they should say so and not attempt to bring that about under the guise of this particular amendment.
I can do no better than quote my hon. colleague from Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Sullivan) with regard to this matter of abortion on demand. At page 4785 of Hansard for January 24 he is reported as saying:
As someone on the committee said, he would like to see the abortion law opened wide but he believed in proceeding bit by bit.

Is that what we are doing, proceeding bit by bit to get abortion on demand? Then, the quotation continues:
So we have already had notice that this is only the start of the movement. If the members of this house permit the altering of these abortion laws as proposed there is no logical reason that can be submitted later why the unwanted, the unproductive, the deformed and the mentally retarded members of our society should not be exterminated.
1 think that is a very forceful point my hon. friend has made. It goes right to the root of this problem. Before concluding my remarks, I should like to leave this thought with members of the house. We have seen throughout history that whenever a nation has relaxed its moral code it has opened the door to decadence. We have seen this happen in the history of the Roman empire and we have seen it in more recent times. I believe Canada is on the threshold of greatness. We will become great only inasmuch as we respect life and the right of all human beings to follow their own conscience.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, the Criminal Code of Canada is one of the great pieces of Canadian legislation. By it we can judge the standards that we expect of each other. By it we give some indication of the compassion we feel toward each other. The thoughtfulness that has gone into this debate so far is an indication that this very serious piece of legislation is receiving due and proper attention in this chamber.
I propose in a few remarks to point out three areas of the omnibus bill where I am in quite strong agreement, although I have suggestions for improvement. There are several in respect of which I am in complete disagreement. Then, there is one area where I go through the agony of doubt that I am sure has beset many other members in the house.
First, let us deal with the items that are not in this measure which is before us. I believe that sooner or later we must grasp the nettle of dealing with the question of insanity and bring the provisions of the Criminal Code up to date. Important studies have been made and a good deal of experience and opinion is available to us. We must not allow the criminal law of the country in this regard to become hopelessly out of date. Correspondents of mine have noted that the proposed legislation does not contain a provision that was presented by the previous minister of justice, the present Prime Minister of Canada. Perhaps I might have the indulgence of the house to note that this lack in the omnibus bill is covered in another bill. I am referring
January 27, 1969

to the amendment to section 150(2)(c). This provision which was proposed by the present Prime Minister is now contained in Bill S-15 which was passed by the Senate on November 19 and is before us. I shall read this clause because we all have correspondence and this is a good way to bring the point to the attention of the dozens of people who are concerned about it. The amendment as set forth in Bill S-15 is as follows:
-offers to sell, advertises, publishes an advertisement of, or has for sale or disposal any means, instructions, medicine, drug or article intended or represented as a method of causing abortion or miscarriage,
The words which are being deleted from the present law are "preventing conception".
Voila, monsieur l'Orateur, as to the bill before us. I agree with the breathalyzer provision. Probably I would not have a few years back, but I think the menace of drunken or impaired drivers on the highways of Canada has become so great that rather drastic measures must be taken by the House of Commons to cure that evil. So I shall have no wrestling with my conscience when it comes to the breathalyzer proposal, although later I will indicate that I am not in favour of making a criminal of the person who does refuse a breathalyzer test.
I should like to point out to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) however that there will be a question of doubt at the magistrate's court level about the value of the breathalyzer test unless there is an improvement in the breathalyzers themselves or some change in the draftsmanship of the particular clause. The reason I say this is that there is expert evidence available which indicates that a reading on a breathalyzer has a margin of error no more than .01 below the reading. It could be as much as .02 above but since we are dealing with minimums I will deal with the .01 below the reading. So, if we are dealing with a reading of .08 on a breathalyzer and agree that this is the standard we should impose by this legislation then the legislation should read .09 because of that margin of error I have indicated.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
In order to put my case before the house in better form, I should like to quote from the transcript of a case that was tried in Nova Scotia. I will not give the name of the accused, since I do not suppose anybody enjoys having his name bandied about in Hansard, but I will note that counsel for the
Criminal Code
crown was Elmer MacDonald, a very experienced criminal trial lawyer, and that counsel for the defence was G. L. S. Hart, who is now Mr. Justice Hart of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia. The case was tried before His Honour Martin Haley, who is a magistrate in the Dartmouth courts. The witness whose evidence I am about to quote is Donald Joseph Saturley of the R.C.M.P., stationed at the crime laboratory at Sackville in the province of New Brunswick. Let me quote these questions and answers:
By the Court: Well how did your results, with respect to the direct blood analysis compare to the breathalyzer machine?
A. We found that the breathalyzer machine, essentially, reads lower than direct blood analysis.
By the Court: How much lower?
A. The limited accuracy of the breathalyzer is .01% high or minus .02%. For example, a reading of .15% could be as high as .17 or as low as .14. That is to say the breathalyzer consistently reads low.
Q. It does?
A. Yes, over a large number of-
By the Court: Then how accurate is the breathalyzer?
A. It's accurate to within these limits. In other words a reading of .11% couldn't be distinguished from a reading of .12% because the breathalyzer just isn't that accurate, but it could be distinguished from a reading of .13%.
By the Court: But where are we going to land if Mr. Trudeau's bill C-195 goes through and he says that .10 is going to be prima facie evidence of impairment?
That was the number of the former bill. The answer was:
A. Yes.
By the Court: So the guy could be probably .09 then?
A. That's correct, Your Honour.
By the Court: For my own information, since you're here, what good is that bill to be then if they put in a prima facie .1%?
A. I don't know if that point has been considered in the bill, the accuracy of the instrument used to measure the alcohol level. It's something that will have to be thought about.
I make the point that if we accept as a principle that the reading of .08 is what we are aiming for, and above which an individual should be convicted of impaired driving, then we will probably have to put .09 in our legislation instead of .08 to allow for that margin of error. If we do not make that allowance there will be a class of case which the magistrates will have to dismiss on the grounds of reasonable doubt since they will be seized with the knowledge that the breathalyzer is not absolutely accurate.

January 27, 1969
Criminal Code
Let me now refer to the gun laws. When the original bill was presented I found this subject to be the most contentious in my riding, apart from the abortion provisions. All sorts of gun clubs made representations to my colleague, the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), and myself. We have heard nothing from them since as a result of the changes the minister has brought about, so I fully support the measure as it now stands. Indeed, my strong reluctance before was that it seemed to impose perhaps overly strong burdens on members of professional gun associations, those people who would not be expected to misuse guns in any event. As far as the general principle is concerned, I do not believe there is an inalienable or sacred right to carry weapons. I fully support the idea that we must have gun laws and gun control.
Thirdly, sir, I give my wholehearted support to the concept set forth at page 101 of the omnibus bill which involves the question of day parole. This is the first time we have had day parole as such spelled out with reference to the functions of the National Parole Board. It was the magistrate I mentioned earlier, Mr. Haley of Dartmouth, who first used, at least to my knowledge, day parole in Canada. He felt that somebody given a jail term for impaired driving or the like should not have to spend all the time during his sentence in jail because this would impose a hardship on the wife and family. He felt certain persons should be allowed out by day to earn a living, while still undergoing the stigma of being in jail at night.
I believe the idea of day parole probably began in respect of offences under provincial statute. I am glad to see this idea extended as a nationwide principle. I hope members of the committee will invite Judge Haley to come to Ottawa to tell about some of the cases he has dealt with on these terms. This is a far-reaching step in Canada, but it is a method which has been used in other parts of the civilized world, including the state of California where it was perhaps first tried.
Finally, I should like to turn to those areas in respect of which I am in strong disagreement. The first of these concerns lotteries. Lotteries are mugs games or methods of having the people who do not have the wherewithal to pay taxes pay for services that should be paid by state taxes. To my knowledge there has not been such a lottery which has lived up to expectation. New York State is trying one and the revenue is running well
[Mr. McCleave.l
below what it was hoped to achieve in this way. The state of New Hampshire has had one for several years, again with the same result.
Getting closer to home, the city of Montreal is trying to run a lottery and is now having to increase the prizes, still without achieving the intended goal. Montreal calls their scheme a voluntary tax measure, but whatever it is called it still smells the same as a lottery. The town of Moose Jaw seems to be getting sucked into this general trend. I hope the people there will have sense enough to turn back before they become embroiled in a venture which will not achieve what they have in mind.
The United States was chock full of lotteries during the last century. Some 60, 70 or 80 years ago federal law wiped out every last one and there were very few, except several skilled promoters, who mourned the passing of lotteries. I suppose the following generation has forgotten about them and now thinks we should give lotteries a try. I suggest this is a mug's game or a method of talking poor people into spending money ill-advisedly on the chance that lightning will, in some pleasant way, strike them. No responsible parliament should give its sanction to this method of raising public revenue.
A British royal commission in 1951, after examining this question came to the conclusion:
-that there is no important advantage to be gained by the establishment of a national lottery and that there is no reason, in this particular case, to depart from the general principle that it is undesirable for the state to make itself responsible for the provision of gambling facilities.
I turn to the view of two gentlemen who faced each other across the aisle in this very-chamber for a long period of time. They were two bachelor Prime Ministers, neither of which was the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). In 1934 when R. B. Bennett was prime minister and spoke about a bill to legalize lotteries, he said:
When I am asked to exercise my vote as a member of the House of Commons of Canada to say that we shall legalize that which has brought the misery to the human race that games of chance and lotteries have brought, I propose to exercise my vote against any such thing ... If I were to sit upon a jury, I would have to find the evidence against lotteries far outweighs any suppport that can be found either in the past or the present.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
From the other side of the aisle Mackenzie King, perhaps agreeing with the Right Hon.
January 27, 1969

R. B. Bennett one of the few times in his tife-1 ho not know; they certainly both agreed they should be bachelors but perhaps this was another area of agreement-said this:
1 find myself in entire agreement with the Right ; honourable the Prime Minister. My convictions in the matter are quite as firm, as profound and sincere as his own ... I hold that there are very strong reasons why those who have to do with the shaping of public opinion should not further or countenance any measure which, by statute, would publicly encourage gambling.


Gerald William Baldwin: Maybe he thought there was a very close relationship between bachelorhood and lotteries.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has made a remark which I hope goes on the record. It is a very pertinent one on the possible connection between lotteries, bachelorhood and gambling.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have never gambled in my life.


Robert Jardine McCleave: And the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) has never gambled in his life.


An hon. Member:: He is a bachelor.


Robert Jardine McCleave: My second area of strong disagreement with what is proposed in the omnibus bill relates to homosexuality. If I were to approach this as a problem to be solved, I probably would not see it either in terms of crime or of punishment but in terms of disease or pathological complaint. I suggest to this honourable chamber that we should take a close look at a new method of tackling the problem, as we should. I hope in time we shall take a new approach to the problem of alcoholism and how we tackle it. I think they are very much the same type of problem. I think it is wrong to deal with them as crimes first, and then crimes deserving of the particular forms of punishment that we have because our forms of punishment are very limited. In any event, my conscience becomes so abhored by the thought of the sanction that we hope to give to homosexuality that I have no option but to vote against the provision.
I would draw the attention of the minister and those members who will be on the committee to the fact that the consenting portion of the proposal before us is somewhat curiously drafted. It is almost on all fours with the portion of the Criminal Code which deals with consent in the case of rape. But instead of using the words "false and fraudulent 29180-308
Criminal Code
representations," as are set forth in section 145 of the Criminal Code dealing with rape, this bill uses the words "false and fraudulent misrepresentations." The purists of language in the house might wish to find out the difference between "false and fraudulent misrepresentations" and "false and fraudulent representations".
I draw another matter to the attention of the minister. I do this sort of thing tonight because I suppose there will be a few more days of debate before we get to committee, and this will give the minister's advisers a chance to further study the measure. I suggest that if a homosexual act is procured by duress or force, this should be in the exception feature of the proposed clause. This clause provides that a person shall be deemed not to consent to the commission of an act if the consent is extorted by threats or fear of bodily harm or is obtained by false and fraudulent misrepresentations as to the nature and quality of the act. I am suggesting that somebody's arm may be twisted behind his back to consent to such an act, and therefore this should be added to the other exceptions. In any event, as a matter of basic principle and because I think we have to set standards by which we expect people to live, I could not give my consent to the homosexuality provisions of the proposed omnibus bill.
The third point on which I disagree violently with the government which brought in this measure concerns the clause which would make it an offence to refuse a breathalyzer test if a policeman asks one to undergo it. If a policeman has good and reasonable grounds to believe that you should undergo a test he will probably have enough evidence to support his case against you, and that will be that. There will be a conviction, a fine and the loss of your driver's licence. I think that is fair ball, for the reasons I indicated earlier, namely, that the holocaust on the highways is now so severe that we have to take steps here, whether we like to or not, to do something to cut it down. But I say this provision is going too far because it represents double punishment of a person. I propose, therefore, to vote against the provision.
Finally, I come to the area of extreme and extraordinary doubt. This is the provision that deals with abortion. I have listened to the arguments. I have read a bit on the subject; not as much as I would like, but I will read some more. There are a couple of points that tend to crystallize my thinking. I know the objection of the Roman Catholic church

January 27, 1969
Criminal Code
and other religions to the idea of abortion. That objection does not seem to me to be insurmountable or to be a reason in itself why I should vote for that point of view. If a Roman Catholic woman feels strongly enough about her religion, presumably she would not consent to an abortion in any case.
The people concerned have an option; therefore I do not see there is any obstacle to anybody reaching a decision. If a faith has this as an important part of its philosophy, presumably those who live under or by that faith will carry out the dictates of that philosophy. But there are other points on which I am not satisfied with regard to this question and I hope in the committee we will hear some evidence on them.
I realize that the issue of abortion has been scouted in another committee of the house in recent years, but I understand that much of that hearing was concerned with the religious opinion, perhaps I may even call it the emotional opinion, pro and con on the issue.
I also understand that some medical evidence before the committee indicated that a person who is aborted for good reason may find it more difficult in the future to bear children easily or without hazard to herself. It is this medical point that I would like to have cleared up when the committee considers the abortion portion of this bill.
I have two other points, Mr. Speaker. These concern the formula arrived at by the government in bringing this measure before us. The bill refers to accredited hospitals. Sir, only some 50 per cent of the hospitals across Canada are accredited, I gather. The provisions of this bill would probably be quite unworkable in remote areas or in most rural areas of Canada because the type of hospital situated in such areas is not accredited. Accreditation is not something which comes automatically. I understand it can be withheld because, for example, a hospital is too small, even though nothing is said against the standard maintained or the type of care provided. The hospital may simply be of a humble nature, without a large staff or certain types of equipment. I think the government, and certainly the committee, will wish to look at the formula again to decide whether it is even workable.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
In the second place, the number of doctors to be involved in the panel referred to in the formula raises a question in my mind. How
[Mr. Me Cleaved
can places like Churchill, Manitoba, or similar towns removed from large cities, comply with this formula? There would not be enough doctors in such communities to form the committee mentioned. I think the people who drew up the formula, well motivated as they undoubtedly were, simply did not take into account the facts of life in rural Canada.
These are a few of my thoughts on the matter. I look forward to hearing more of the debate and to coming to grips with some of the great problems of our time as expressed in these clauses. I thank the chamber for its courtesy.


Mr. Romuald Rodrigue (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, the amendments proposed in Bill No. C-150 are among the most important changes to the criminal legislation ever introduced in this house. A great number of areas are affected thereby and we are asked to pass amendments having to do with more than 120 clauses of the Criminal Code of Canada. A few of the previous speakers pointed out that more important amendments have been brought in before.
Several of them are distinguished members of the Canadian Bar, including the minister himself, and they all are men of merit. As I am not a lawyer, I shall leave it to them to discuss how important were the changes made in the Canadian Criminal Code at one point or another of our history.
In his introductory remarks, the minister said that he respected the personal convictions of all hon. members. I am quite grateful to him for that.
Mr. Speaker, I respectfully listened to and reread the speeches and arguments of the previous speakers. They spoke with dignity and tried to pass on to us as much of their knowledge as possible without repudiating their own convictions.
The bill before us contains a great deal of valuable and desirable amendments. However, some provisions are unacceptable, and I can neither approve nor support them. Other important changes and clarifications could have been put in but are not included in the measure.
This proposal, important in view of the number of sections it seeks to amend, contains contentious provisions and I think, in particular, of the one that deals with abortion.
In my opinion, the right to live is a basic human right on which depend all the others
January 27, 1969

that every human being is entitled to claim. Without the right to life, we are deprived of all others.
The right to life is a natural right, for all human beings without exception, whether they are rich, poor or crippled. It means that all human lives have the same value.
That is the fundamental point on which rest our notions of justice, that is the recognition that all human beings, from their conception to their death, are equal in the sight of the law and have exactly the same right to live.
Life is the greatest possession given to us by the Creator. How many times have we not heard, from people at the point of death, the following words: I would give everything I own to continue to live or to recover? That is evidence that life is a blessing we all value.
It is a mistake to try to compare the value of life and that of a material good, because property, as human life, has a value. However, it is clear that they are different types of value. Property has value for man and for his aims, but one of the fundamental principles of our society holds that human life is a value in itself.
If we only considered the value of a person in relation to others, any human life could be sacrificed according to this point of comparison.
Such a value given by us to any human life does not depend upon the external appearance nor upon the power nor upon the intelligence of man. The life of a disabled or ill person has the same value as that of a person in the best of health.
We must therefore recognize that the child still in its mother's womb has a full human value and an equal right to live as a human being. The value of such a life before birth is compared to that of the life of a person existing already among us.
Before birth, the child is already living. The only difference is that such a child is concealed in its mother's womb so it is easier to consider it as not existing.
Mr. Speaker, the law must protect the right to live especially the right of the defenceless ones. It rests with the government to pass laws respecting all values and especially the right to live. Otherwise, what could be the value of all the other laws?
The right to live is a basic right and it is up to the legislator to legislate so as to protect such a right. The one who takes the life of another person takes away from that person a
Criminal Code
possession, a value, in fact he robs that person of a right. We restrict when it comes to thefts of any kind. People are sentenced every day for such an offence. We are shocked sometimes by the more or less strict sentence that is delivered, considering the value of the stolen articles or the frequency of such acts.
And now, we want to legalize a still greater theft, one concerning the life of a person, a value that cannot be replaced. That is surely worthy of our consideration.
All kinds of reasons are being put forward to justify the proposed amendments, especially that the law should be in accordance with our times, that it is required for the wellbeing of society, that one must recognize life as it is nowadays and that all our laws should be amended and adapted to the technological era.
The generations that have succeeded one another for 2,000 years have heard many proposals of that kind. Scarcely 30 years ago, war was declared; the war that was to be the last one and that was to establish peace forever. At that time, the following slogan was used: Let us save Christendom. What Christendom? I still wonder why and I am not the only one.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to quote historic facts and precedents to make my personal convictions and those of my constituents known. I admit that our Criminal Code and some of our laws should be amended. Moreover, we of the Ralliement creditiste have proved on several occasions in the past that we did not intend to depart from our line of conduct, even if we believe that our laws should be improved and brought up to date, will not accept improvements that go against our personal convictions, natural law and the right to live.
That it may be necessary to elucidate the law, I agree. But when changes are made simply to suit an individual of a group, then I disagree. We are living in a period of protest, good or bad, but in a period in which efforts are made to banish violence from our laws and our lives. However, we are asked to consider abortion as a solution to the social problem of the unwanted child.
We are reminded by history that, not so long ago, some human beings were considered undesirable and had to sacrifice their life; when six million Jews were exterminated by the Nazis. Still nowadays, human beings like

January 27, 1969
Criminal Code
us, but of a different colour, are suffering and often lose their life. And what about the millions of political prisoners exterminated by totalitarian regimes throughout the world. Those examples are the reflection of as many social problems which will not be solved by violence.
It is truly ironic to note the situation in our country as far as social legislation is concerned. Shortly after abolishing the death penalty-a measure which has put our country in first place among those that respect human life-we want to pass a legislation which will destroy life instead of protecting it.
Canada and the Canadian people have become champions of the oppressed, defenceless individual. This is the opportunity for us to prove it to the whole world.
It is unfortunate that the clauses concerning abortion and homosexuality have been included in the omnibus bill. Bill No. C-150 contains improvements which we approve and which we would have supported. However, we cannot accept the bill as it stands now, because it is a denial of the right to live and it would legalize violence.
We think that the clauses dealing with abortion should be deleted from the bill and studied in greater detail. The proceedings of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs show that different views are held on basic issues.
In my opinion, this evidence should have been taken into consideration and the matter studied more thoroughly.
Clause 195 does not mention that human life exists as of the time of conception, thus even before birth, and it is precisely that life which has to be protected. Considering life as an intrinsic value the proposed changes are therefore not acceptable. It is on these grounds that I say that some proposals contained in bill No. 150 cannot be accepted and that certain sections of our Criminal Code are not justified. That is why the bill is contentious.
Certain sections were drafted a long time ago and they come in conflict with today's scientific discoveries.
Bill No. C-150 lists a long series of changes relating to homosexuality, abortion, the prevention of cruelty to animals, the Customs tariff, the National Defence Act, etc. I skip some of them because it would be too long a list. The number of clauses contained in this bill is quite impressive and, as I am not a lawyer, such changes leave me quite perplexed.

I am of the opinion that in clause 387 we put too much emphasis on animals and birds. It would be better to consider with greater attention clauses 195 and 209, dealing with abortion, and clauses 147 and 149 concerning acts in private between husband and wife or consenting adults.
I think that the sections I have mentioned
deal with different values and should be studied separately.
That is why, following the hon. members for Calgary North and Frontenac (Messrs. Woolliams and Dumont) I would like the committee to submit to the house different reports on each subject.
Moreover, I think that the subjects dealt with are of capital importance for the present as well as for the future of the whole population.
Therefore, it would be fair to grant each hon. member the right to vote freely, according to his conscience, and to take the decision he will think best for society.


Mr. Douglas A. Hogarth (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the time is quite ripe for an extensive consideration of the many specific aspects of this bill's very comprehensive provisions. The bill is going to receive detailed consideration by the standing committee, and no doubt throughout the sittings of the committee the minister will be extremely interested in the committee's deliberations. It is really only at the report stage, when the bill comes back from the committee, that we can give it complete consideration. In light of some of the remarks that have been made in the house, not only by members on the other side of the house but also on this side of the house, with regard to some of the aspects of this bill I thought it appropriate to make a few comments.
Much has been said, particularly by members on the other side of the house, about law reform, and I cannot concur more with the suggestions that have been put forward from many quarters. I think the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) and the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith) are to be complimented in that this bill represents a great step toward the reform of many aspects of our criminal and penal law. In my opinion the criticism of our present parliamentary system that we are failing to keep pace with the demands of modem Canadian society is a valid one, and this is particularly so in the field of criminal law
January 27, 1969

and penal reform. If the failure of our legislators in the past continues into the future, we will bring the criminal law into contempt and disrepute.
Some of the anachronisms in the present Criminal Code are absolutely hilarious. I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the definition of what is known as a game called "three-card monte". I have yet to meet a person who knows what three-card monte might be. However, if you look at the definition of three-card monte in the Criminal Code, or if you are charged with being in a place, or keeping a place, where three-card monte is being played, think of what you have to face! The definition reads as follows:
In this section "three-card monte'' means the game commonly known as three-card monte and includes any other game that is similar to it, whether or not the game is played with cards and notwithstanding the number of cards or other things that are used for the purpose of playing.
That provision is presently in our Criminal Code. It would seem to me that if we are going to amend our gaming provisions, "three-card monte" should be thrown out of the window.
We are also proceeding to amend the provisions pertaining to cruelty to animals. We are greatly concerned about cruelty to animals in our society today, but look what happens to the rooster! Consider the provisions of section 388 (2), which read as follows:
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
A peace officer who finds cocks in a cock-pit or on premises where a cock-pit is located shall seize them and take them before a justice who shall order them to be destroyed.
That subsection is not part of a section pertaining to cruelty to animals. A rooster has very little to crow about under the provisions of the Criminal Code. Many other deep and far reaching changes are required and we have heard suggestions about those from hon. members during the last few days of debate. I think the Solicitor General is well aware of what changes are required. The Juvenile Delinquents Act has not been substantially changed since 1929. Its anachronistic provisions have failed to keep pace with modern aspects of society and modern knowledge about the behaviour of juvenile delinquents. In my respectful opinion, and I have had a certain amount of experience in this field, the Juvenile Delinquents Act more than almost anything else in our society today contributes to juvenile delinquency. We need forensic
Criminal Code
clinics authorized across Canada under federal auspices to deal with those who show propensities towards criminal insanity. In particular, such clinics ought to deal with those who, under our modern ideas, fall into the category of those possessing psychopathic tendencies.
Within the last decade in British Columbia several vicious homocides have been committed by psychopathic juveniles. There are limited resources for detecting and treating such juveniles. If they could have been identified and treated, perhaps these vicious crimes would not have occurred.
Many other reforms are required. Certainly, as some hon. members have said, we require reforms in the fields of bail and contraceptives. Any modern society permitting the provisions of section 150 of the Criminal Code to remain in force is bizarre.
Sections pertaining to corporal punishment and to narcotics and drugs in other legislation will have to be dealt with. Laws pertaining to contemporary problems must be reformed adequately if we are to fulfil in future our commitments to our respective communities.
You see, Mr. Speaker, our difficulty stems from the fact that the house must deal with a good many different problems. We must deal with agricultural problems as well as financial problems. In addition, we must direct our attention to specific aspects of human life. We can only do that by introducing an omnibus bill. It could easily be argued that this bill should be split one, two, three or four ways, and I could concur in that argument quite easily. If the bill v/ere to be split I should want it split into 25 or 30 different sections. But if we did that we should be here for three or four years; debate would be endless, and at the end of that time we should only have taken a few steps towards the revision of the law. Admittedly one can argue in favour of having an omnibus bill just as one can argue against it. I remember a drug prosecutor saying in Vancouver, "You know, My Lord, there are pros and cons in favour of the offence and there are pros and cons against it." The omnibus bill is before us and we must do our job. Naturally, individual people will have reservations about certain parts of the omnibus bill. That must be so when you have a bill with 120 clauses. I have reservations about parts of the bill, in particular about clause 2, the extended definition of the Attorney General. I also have reservations about clause 45 which has to do with the manner of preferring an indictment in the

January 27, 1969
Criminal Code
absence of a preliminary hearing. I think it hamstrings a prosecutor. I am deeply concerned also about a number of other substantive measures which have been referred to in the house in the last few days. All the same, I think the bill ought to pass. We must not forget the pledge we made to the Canadian public on June 25. The Canadian people voted this government in with a majority, and we are duty bound to bring in the provisions of this bill. If we do not, we shall have broken our pledge to the people. And keeping our pledge to the people is as much a matter for the individual conscience as the way we vote on any one of the provisions of the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: I was interested in the comments of several hon. members. I shall take up what they said in greater detail when the bill goes to committee. The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) today, and the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) by implication, pleaded for a more enlightened attitude towards alcoholics. The hon. member for Yukon was concerned about the native peoples of the Yukon Territory who are afflicted with the all too prevalent malady of alcoholism. The malady is not confined to native people only. It is prevalent in British Columbia as it is in the rest of Canada. Yet in the metropolitan areas of British Columbia, alcoholics are not considered criminals any more. We consider they are afflicted by a malady over which they have no control. We recognize that and deal with them accordingly.
If we deal with alcoholics that way, should we not also deal with homosexuals in a similar way? Should we treat the homosexual as a criminal? Although the homosexual's affliction is not the same as the alcoholics in kind, it is in substance. The homosexual has no control over his behaviour. He is either born that way or develops his sickness at an early age. He cannot change apparently; so why put him in jail. If anyone were to say about homosexuals, "Put them in jail" they would be advocating taking a step back into the dark ages. Although we have talked a great deal about the homosexual's perversions, no one so far as I am aware has spoken about perversions in sexual conduct between males and females. The only case of sodomy in which I was involved during my 20 years of practice concerned a relationship between a male and female.


David Lewis: Will the hon. member permit a question. May we take it the hon. member was involved as the lawyer?


Douglas Aird Hogarth: I was involved as a lawyer. I will tell the hon. member about the case later. It was fascinating. In any event, I wish to say that immoral as these private relationships may be, I do not see why any statute should classify them as crimes.
There is one aspect of the bill in which hon. members may be interested and about which I am concerned. I am wondering whether amendments to the Criminal Code dealing with prostitution contain provisions which apply to systems of homosexual prostitution. In my own mind I am not satisfied that the soliciting and vagrancy clauses, as well as living off the avails sections of the act, will be found in our courts to have application to systems of male homosexual prostitution. This is something we ought to bring to the minister's attention when the bill goes to committee.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
A great deal has been said about the changes to our abortion laws. I concur heartily with the remarks of the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan), that the amendment is not merely clarifying the existing law. On the other hand, I have never accepted reasons for the amendment as put forward by Jack Lederman in the Law Quarterly Review. Neither do I accept some of the reasons for the amendment as advanced by the Minister of Justice. A doctor or, for that matter, anyone else who is accused, can always say, "I had to operate on this woman so that she would not die. I had to preserve her health." That defence is still preserved under section 7 subsection 2 of the code. In other words, all common law defences are preserved. It must be remembered that the indictment would read, "Did unlawfully procure the miscarriage," etc. It would therefore be up to the court and jury to decide whether the abortion was necessary under the circumstances. The judge will decide whether or not an offence has been commited. In addition, I find it impossible to accept the idea that hospitals in the country should perform these operations under a diagnostic title, such as diagnostic curetage. Some of the hospitals are ridiculous enough to suggest that they are fertility examinations. Hospitals are performing these operations, and they should be stopped. I cannot see any justification for
January 27, 1969

Criminal Code
reform on the basis that hospitals are performing these operations. If hospitals continue this practice, what is to prevent the young people from bringing pressure on the government to change the laws with regard to marijuana or taking the law into their own hands. This is absolutely no basis for reform of the criminal law. There is a greater and more pressing need which arises out of the fact that inasmuch as our laws are designed to preserve health, freedom and property, they should be designed to prevent human suffering.
If any one of our laws brings about human suffering, then it should be changed or at least carefully scrutinized to see if it is necessary to preserve social order. Section 237 of the Criminal Code can cause grave human suffering. As an example I cite the case of a woman who is told if her pregnancy continues she is going to die, suffer mental illness the rest of her life, or a grave defect of that nature. I ask myself whether we should continue such a law?
I recognize there are many women who are quite prepared to accept the risk of death in order to have a child. They are quite prepared, on the basis of religious belief, to accept this risk as the will of God and proceed. This is quite proper and they should not be condemned. However, we must bear in mind there are many women in this country who are not of the same persuasion and if they are to be condemned to die how are we preserving human life? Who is preserving human life? These women are being sentenced to death, just as if capital punishment were being inflicted upon them. Surely, this is a case in which life should be preserved. One life is yet to come but the other life is in existence and unfortunately, has tremendous family and other social responsibilities.
I am not unmindful of the history of the law of abortion and the fact that even in the eyes of the church it has not always been a sin or against the law. It is only in comparatively recent times that abortion has become a sin in the eyes of the church. The church has always moved, and I hope always will, to preserve the life of the unborn. Quite apart from being influenced directly by any religious organization or religious dogma, our law has always been directed to the protection of the unborn. There are countless ways in which this could be demonstrated. It is inherent in many aspects of the civil law, such as the rule against perpetuities advanced in the case of Shelley. I do not think we should treat
the conceived child as something less than unique in human experience. It is not an animal, it is something new because it is going to become a part of society.
I could never agree with the suggestion that the unborn child should be destroyed merely at the whim or fancy of the mother because I think responsibility for the unborn child lies in the field of social order. Despite the very eloquent pleas raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) and the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), I do not see how we can say that the question of abortion should be left entirely to the mother and the doctor. I believe society has a responsibility to acknowledge that unborn human life has always been entitled to some protection. In my experience the problem has not been the 16 year old girl who finds herself in trouble and wants to get rid of the child. She might well want to, but she is still dependent upon her parents. She is subjected to tremendous pressure by father, mother, Uncle Charlie and particularly her boyfriend to get rid of that child. Despite the fact this child may have been immorally conceived a girl may be anxious to fulfil her own life by having this child. She should be given the protection of the law and I suggest unborn children should have that same protection.
From time to time when dealing with women involved in matrimonial difficulty, we have been told that they have aborted their third child. Many of us have heard them say, "I would have had the child, I wanted the child, but the old man said get rid of it or get out." It seems to me these women are deprived of the protection of the law. I do not think that should be done in the interests of the social order in the community of the people we represent. There must be a balance. We cannot go whole hog. The Japanese did this and they are now regretting it. There is no other nation in the world with the exception of Japan that has gone so far as to say it is a matter between the mother and the doctor.
It may be the committee will have to scrutinize carefully the word "health". That word is very vague and broad in meaning. Possibly its implementation in the law is not going to carry out the design of parliament and the committee might give this further consideration. With the greatest of respect to the minister, I am equally concerned that the amendment does not go so far as to protect women who have conceived as a result of rape, girls under the age of 15 or imbecilic
women.

January 27, 1969
Criminal Code
A woman should not be required to prove that she is going to be a mental or physical wreck or that she is going to die in order to be able to rid herself of a pregnancy she does not want as a result of a crime against her body. I am of the view that is a simple right that should be given to women as members of our community. Apart from abortion, and one could go on very extensively on that subject, there are a great many aspects to be considered.
I think one of the most fascinating aspects of this bill is the provisions of section 16 dealing with the compulsory breathalyzer test, I am somewhat appalled at the members on the other side of the house. They have a Perry Mason over there and I am surprised he did not cut this section to shreds, as it has some incongruities in it.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
But in any event before I get into what those incongruities might be I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that we have a responsibility to take some very firm steps to prevent carnage on our highways. The minister's statistics about the serious accidents being caused by impaired and drunken drivers are absolutely correct. These statistics are borne out by the experience of almost every lawyer in Canada who has had familiarity with these types of cases.
The statistics quoted by the minister might well be bolstered by the fact that in 1966 over 30,000 people in Canada were arrested and convicted on impaired or drunken driving charges. That figure was up from the year before by about 3,500. There has been another increase since and some firm steps have already been taken.
In British Columbia the attorney general gave grave consideration to the imposition of compulsory breathalyzer tests and after very extensive consideration the department rejected the idea. We have adopted, if I may respectfully submit, a far more Machiavellian system. In British Columbia if a police officer, upon stopping an accused person, has reasonable and proper grounds to believe that the man is impaired, he automatically arrests him. The man is taken to the police station and is given the option of taking a breathalyzer test or refusing it. Usually the officer is somewhat sceptical if he refuses it.
Where the police officer does not know for sure that the man is impaired, but knows he has been drinking, he forthwith on the highway gives him an option to do one of two

things. The man can thereupon give the officer his driver's licence for 24 hours, or alternatively he can go down to the police station and take the necessary test. If the man takes the breathalyzer test and his reading is .08 or more, his licence is subject to suspension. It is not very long before he gets a letter from the superintendent of motor vehicles telling him his licence has been suspended for three months.
In the year 1967 when this system was introduced out of 3,900 drivers stopped on the highways of British Columbia, 3,750 walked home. You can see how reluctant they were to submit themselves to the test. I think you can see, Mr. Speaker, how efficient this system is in getting these people off the highways.


David Lewis: For 24 hours.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Suspended for 24 hours.


Mr. MacEwan:: And they can walk home and get the second car.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Just wait until I finish my remarks. I suggest that we compel them to take the test. I think that is a good idea, and is one of the reasons I am supporting this bill. However, I suggest that if the test shows a reading of .08 or more, then they should get an automatic suspension of their licence.
The reason I say this is that those of us who have dealt with impaired drivers have found the critical factor is not the ignominy of being convicted or the fine. It is the fact that in nine out of ten of these cases the magistrate suspends the licence and, if he doesn't, the superintendent of motor vehicles does. This is the thing that hurts. If you take a good look at the proposed section 16 you will see that is pretty well trial by machine anyhow. There are not a great many defences that I can think of that could be raised. But even in the system I put forward if there were defences you could give the accused an opportunity to appeal to a magistrate, as in the gun provisions, if he felt he had been dealt with unfairly. This is something the minister might consider during the course of the deliberations of the committee.
I do not propose to comment much further on this proposed breathalyzer test, except to one aspect. I notice that under the breathalyzer provisions in the bill the police officer who is giving the test shall offer to the accused a sample of his own breath. The provision stops
January 27, 1969

there. What in the world is he going to do with it? I have tried to figure this out.
1 spoke with the senior prosecutor in Vancouver at the week end, Mr. Stewart McMor-ran, and we discussed what the man would do with this sample. We had several colourful suggestions to offer but none that would lead to any cogent defence to a charge under this section. I am sure the minister will agree that probably that section should not be brought into the law until we have a good idea as to where an accused can go with the balloon full of his own breath. If he is found leaving the police station with a balloon in one hand, he will probably be arrested again for being in a state of intoxication in a public place. There is nothing he can do. He can sing, "Hi ho come to the fair," and leave it at that.
So far as this proposed section is concerned somebody will have to take a good look at this provision relating to the accused getting a sample of his own breath. By the way, Mr. McMorran had discussed the matter with Mr. Fennell, the city analyst in Vancouver, and so far as they know a balloon is the only thing that will hold human breath. However, the balloon will not stay blown up for more than two hours. I suppose the accused could run from the police station to the R.C.M.P. station out at Burnaby, or out in my riding, and hope to get some help from another breathal-izer tests, but I doubt if this would get him very far.
There are some other defects in this proposed section that I am amazed some of the other Perry Masons on the opposition side have missed.


An hon. Member:: We want to give you a chance.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: That is very good of you. I waited until today to speak because I wanted to let everybody else go first. There is the matter of the two hour provision. This is something the standing committee will have to consider. I am sure the minister has the answers, but these are things that we should bring before him for his attention and consideration.
I could speak on the lottery and gun provisions included in the bill for quite some time this evening, but I shall reserve my remarks until a later stage because these provisions are quite complex.
I would not want to conclude my remarks tonight without some mention of those aspects of the bill which deal with penal reform, as opposed to reform in the penal law. There are 29180-309
Criminal Code
probably about three very cogent provisions. One can look through all the proposed sections and subsections but I think one ends up with three basic changes. The first is the extension of the power of the court with respect to the imposition of suspended sentences. Certainly not the least of the contributions that are being made to reform is the fact that we are wiping out any suggestion that if the person involved has a previous conviction he cannot get a suspended sentence. This is something that has plagued lawyers for a number of years.
The second thing we should take careful note of is the fact that the parole board is going to be expanded. The result of the expansion of the parole board will be that it will be empowered to sit in Panels throughout the country. Those of us who served on the justice and legal affairs committee and heard the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith) and the Chairman of the National Parole Board were pleased to see that penal reform in this country is taking the direction of further parole. It is all very well to put a man in jail to rot when he has been convicted of a criminal offence. It is all very well to teach a thief to be a tinsmith, but under the old system if you teach a thief to be a tinsmith and nothing more then when he is released all you have is a tinsmith who is a thief.


David Lewis: A far more qualified thief.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: A far more qualified thief if he requires the use of his tinsmith skills. But what we have to do is to consider the welfare of the community because we are dealing in these instances with some extremely vicious men. Let us not pretend that they are all nice guys gone wrong. Some of them are inherently vicious. Some of them when released at the conclusion of their terms are homocides going somewhere to happen.
There are things to consider here in relation to the prisons themselves, but the best way to achieve reform is to get a man back into the community under the supervision of competent penologists. These are called probation officers. They are the men who do the most good. This is the direction the law has taken. You will note the extended definition, as the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) mentioned, of day parole. That hon. member spoke about Judge Haley's actions in this regard. The day parole is one of the interim steps toward reform. We are now doing no more than defining some of the

January 27, 1969
Criminal Code
steps that have been rather vague in the past, even though they were taken by prison officials.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
This will be of great benefit. It is being done now in the province of British Columbia. It is paying off, because men are slowly being rehabilitated rather than to being shoved out the prison door with someone saying, "There is your suit and $35, find a job". This is part of the rehabilitation process and I could not endorse it more.
As much as I might have reservations about some aspects of this bill I think, by and large, the bill will move us ahead. We have been a long time getting ahead with these amendments. I sat on the original committee of the British Columbia Bar which dealt with the matter of abortion in 1962. Here it is 1968.


David Lewis: You are a good Liberal; you are only one year behind.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: In any event here it is 1969, and we are just now introducing these changes. Although I have reservations about certain aspects of the bill, I realize there are so many more reforms which must come about that we should take these interim steps now. They might not all be satisfactory to all of us but let us take this much now. If I wished to include rape, incest and carnal knowledge in the provisions of this bill, I could bring these things up later; but let us take these steps now because it takes so long to get even the most modest measure through. That is one of the reasons I am 100 per cent behind the provisions which are before us.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hogarth) who has just taken his seat. I noted with interest that he prefaced his remarks by stating that he had reservations about this omnibus bill, Bill C-150. Then, having expressed his reservations concerning the bill, he went on to state that he intended to support it. I find this a little difficult to comprehend. I listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member and found nothing to reconcile my comprehension of his initial statement that he had reservations about the bill because it seemed to me he intended to support the bill with a great deal of enthusiasm.
I do not think the hon. member who just took his seat could have been present in the

house when his colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Sullivan) made his speech because, in trying to justify his support of the bill notwithstanding the fact that he had reservations about it, he went on to say as did the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), in his introduction of the bill that the government had a mandate from the people of Canada to introduce this legislation in its present form. That is not the way I understand it. With respect, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that is not the way the people I represent understand it. I submit also it is not the way the Minister of Justice initially understood it. If my memory serves me correctly it was the government's intention to introduce this bill broken down into at least four parts. In other words, we would then not find ourselves in the awkward position we are in today. Some of us are in the invidious position today at least of having to vote against the bill, notwithstanding the fact that we support the greater portion of the bill.
I am not one of the Perry Masons referred to by the learned gentleman who just took his seat. I am not a barrister or a practitioner of the law; but I do think I represent a great number of Canadians who are very much disturbed over the fact that we are introducing this legislation in this form. I am concerned about it. I am concerned about it as a parent, as a Canadian and as a benefactor if you like of the Judaeo-Christian traditions. I am concerned about it because I ask, where does it end.
We have before us a major piece of legislation dealing at once with the very sacred laws of life itself and the rather mundane laws of lotteries and gun control. I support with a great deal of enthusiasm those clauses of the bill which would amend our Criminal Code of Canada to make it possible to eliminate the carnage on the highways because of drunk driving. I support the breathalyzer test. All Canadians are in favour of that. I support the amendment to the Criminal Code which would make lotteries possible in Canada. Indeed, I support that particular amendment very strongly. I support the amendments which would at least take a step toward some measure of gun control in Canada, because we are all greatly concerned with the violence in our country. We are aware of what is taking place south of the border to which eloquent reference was made today by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). We are concerned with all these things and we support them. We support the
January 27, 1969

government's move to provide amendments to our laws to make these things practical and possible.
So tar as the amendments to the Criminal Code concerning permissive homosexuality between consulting adults are concerned, I could not care less. It is a matter of complete indifference to me. I submit it is a matter of great indifference to the vast majority of Canadians; they just could not care less. But, Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain I am greatly concerned with the clause in the bill dealing with abortion. I am concerned because it pricks at my conscience. I shall not detain the house tonight with a long speech.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
We have listened during this debate to members of this house who are distinguished members of the bar. As I understand it, the hon. member who just took his seat is a distinguished member of the bar of British Columbia. It is also my understanding that the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain is a distinguished member of the bar of Ontario. I am not going to repeat the arguments of the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain, relevant and important though they may be. Nor am I going to repeat that very cogent arguments presented to the house by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) and the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). I am going to present my own views.
I am not going to quote any authority but I should like put on the record the fact that I subscribe to the view of the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain and not to the view of the hon. member who has just taken his seat or the view of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner). The latter members tried to justify to this house the failure of the government to split this bill by saying they had a mandate from the people of Canada to present it in its omnibus form. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hogarth) said the government had no alternative because they had a mandate from the people of Canada. The hon. member could not have been present in the house when his colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain, made his speech. His remarks appear at page 4785 of Hansard and I quote:
I believe that, regardless of party affiliation, each hon. member of this house must vote on this issue according to his own conscience, as it goes far beyond party lines or other man made disciplines.
29180-309A
Criminal Code
For this reason I am opposing the proposed amendment concerning the law of abortion in its present form and intend to vote against this bill.
The hon. member then continues, again recorded at page 4785:
Contrary to some unfounded and untrue reports, Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform you and the members of this house that my position on this matter is the same now as it was before nomination day and as it was before the election, and I made this fact known publicly during the campaign.
He was indicating to the house, and I am not putting words into his mouth, that he had the full support of his party when, before the election, he stated his opposition to the amendments concerning abortion. He concludes by saying:
In conclusion I should also like to inform you, Mr. Speaker, and the members of this house that at no time did I get any request from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) to change or alter my position on this matter, and I would like to thank him publicly for this consideration.
Whose view should we accept on this? Do we accept the view of the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain who spoke so eloquently and conscientiously in the house, or do we accept the view of the hon. member for New Westminster who also spoke eloquently but, I suspect, not so conscientiously? I am a little perplexed, but I am not bothered because I know what I am going to do.
I am not going to take up the time of the house tonight because all the things I would like to say were said in a most eloquent way by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain. I am in a position where I am going to oppose the bill. I am going to oppose it because, notwithstanding the fact that the bill contains many measures I would enthusiastically support, this bill contains a provision which tears at my very conscience. In my humble estimation, it contains a provision which tears at the very root of life itself. I submit to you that it ill behooves any member of this house to make lightly of this matter, although the sections of the bill dealing with the breathalyzer test and lotteries, to bring humour to the debate, are tempting, indeed. When the bill contains provisions relating to what I consider to be the very essence and sacredness of life itself, I say it ill behooves any member to make lightly of it.
I speak as a member of this house and I believe firmly in what I say. My words are dictated by no dogma or pressure group, but are merely dictated by my own conscience. They are dictated by my own feelings for the

January 27, 1969
Criminal Code
sacredness of life itself. I speak from my limited experience, not being a barrister or practitioner of the law. I speak as a parent, as the father of six children, and as one of a family of 15 children. I speak with all of the honesty I can muster. In doing so, it is my hope that other hon. members will speak in the same vein and will perhaps understand why there are those in this house who cannot find it within their conscience to support this bill. Regrettably the government, notwithstanding the views or the wishes of the present distinguished Minister of Justice, chose to present this bill in its present form including clause 18, which to many of us is repugnant.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, a good deal of the debate that has taken place regarding bill C-150 has revolved around the procedural situation in which we find ourselves. This was the crux, indeed, of the speech by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat. He like others has complained that the bill is before us as one piece containing things that some members like and others that they do not like. I believe I can say that it is not my practice to let any government, Liberal or Conservative, put anything over on me procedurally. Whenever I have felt that the government of the day was trying to do something wrong by violating our practices or procedures I have said so in the clearest language I could use.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
I want to say quite categorically that I do not think the practices of parliament are being violated by what is now before us, but rather some of the members who have been complaining about having to vote for this bill in one package will get a rude awakening when we come to a stage in our proceedings that was brought into effect by the rule changes we made just before Christmas. I thought that we debated those rules at considerable length. I thought that members were aware of what we were doing. But it seems to me that some members just do not realize what happened.
May I remind this house, and particularly those members who are still calling for the splitting of the bill, that we did two or three things about the legislative process when we altered the rules. First of all, although we did not in my view downgrade the second reading debate, we did downgrade the vote on second reading. We said: From now on at
IMr. McGrath.]
second reading we are not voting for the principle of the bill as though it were sacred and not to be changed thereafter. We are merely voting to consider what is involved in this bill and to pursue it through further stages.
We decided, in fact, that the point at which an ultimate decision is taken should be later in the process, and therefore we upgraded the third reading vote and coupled with the words "that the bill be now read a third time" the words "and pass". But in between those two stages of second reading and third reading we instituted a report stage. That stage is a very important one and it will come into play on this very bill in a way which I think will answer those who have said that they are being treated unfairly.
What is going to happen? This bill, after it has had second reading, as I am sure it will, will go to the standing committee on justice and legal affairs. In that committee it will be considered clause by clause. Granted, only a handful of the members of this house will be there. If that committee makes no changes- for example, if that committee does not change the section with respect to abortion and it comes back to the house in the same form, members might say that was just a case of going through the motions. But when Bill C-150 comes back from the standing committee to be considered at the report stage, I ask hon. members to face what is going to take place.
Just as sure as I am on my feet tonight, there will be amendments moved by members. That will be done, as provided by the rules, to the clauses having to do with abortion, homosexuality, breathalyzer tests and half a dozen other things. Motions to amend the bill with respect to these particular subjects, these particular clauses, will have to be put to the house.


John Napier Turner: As a whole.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just a minute. These amendments will have to be put one at a time.


John Napier Turner: To the
house as a whole.


Stanley Howard Knowles: am sorry; yes, to the house as a whole. If there are several amendments that are alike, Mr. Speaker will have the power to select which ones are to be placed before the house.
January 27, 1969

But each and every one of these contentious subjects will be before this whole house-not a standing committee, not a committee of the whole house, but this whole house with Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Let us take, for example, the provision regarding abortion and let us suppose the standing committee does not change it and the bill comes back with the clause in it which would provide for the changes the government has suggested; there will be members in this house who do not want to support those changes. I am sure that one of them, with a seconder, will move that Bill C-150 be amended by deleting that clause. That amendment is debatable with Mr. Speaker in the chair. There is a certain limitation in that the first speakers can speak for 40 minutes, and after that members may speak for only 20 minutes. But at the end of that debate the bells will ring and a vote will be taken.
What will that vote be? It will be a vote on the issue of abortion by itself. I may say that those of us who do not think the abortion provision in the bill goes far enough will be in a position to move another kind of amendment, that the abortion provision be made more in keeping with modern understanding of this problem. That amendment will have to be voted on. So I might go on with regard to homosexuality; it will be singled out and voted on by itself. If there are people who do not like the proposals regarding breathalyzer tests, there will be an amendment moved that singles out this subject by itself.


John Napier Turner: If the house so chooses. If a member so chooses.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So
long as there are two members who want to see a change, one moving a motion and one seconding it-


John Napier Turner: Exactly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -there will be a vote on that issue. I, for one, like some others, am strongly opposed to the idea of state lotteries. I have already planned to present an amendment, if the standing committee does not do it, to delete those portions of clause 13 of the bill which provide for state lotteries. When the vote comes on my amendment, if I have the privilege of moving it, that will not be a vote on a whole package. It will not be a vote on several things some of which a member may like and
Criminal Code
some of which he may not like; it will be a vote on the issue of state lotteries by itself, just as if it were a separate Bill. So I say that every contentious issue in this bill, every issue about which hon. members have strong feelings, will come up for an isolated vote, a vote by itself.


John Napier Turner: Can come up.


An hon. Member:: Yes, can come up.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My
hon. friends are saying, can come up. They are right, technically speaking. But I suggest that if there is a strong feeling about it, members will make the amendments and in that sense the votes will come.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


John Napier Turner: Any member who wants a vote, and can find a seconder, will get a vote.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is absolutely right. I suggest that those members who now say they will not be able to vote for this bill, because although there are some things in it which they like there are others which they do not like, will not be able to use this excuse when it comes to voting on specific amendments at the report stage. As the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hogarth) said, you cannot take a bill like this and divide it into 120 bills; in a matter like this you have to deal with it in a package. But particularly under our new rules there will not only be the opportunity but the obligation to stand up and be counted on every one of these contentious issues. I think we should not have any more of this nonsense about our not having the opportunity to vote separately on these issues. We will get the opportunity when we reach the report stage of the bill. It is an opportunity members will not be able to escape.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do
not like split speeches any more than I like split infinitives-


John Napier Turner: Or split
bills.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -
but I see it is ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Some hon. Members:: Again?


John Napier Turner: Now I
understand.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, January 20, as recorded in Hansard at page 4489, I put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) on the basis of a federal-provincial conference of welfare ministers that had been held some days earlier.
I asked the minister whether he would soon be making a statement as to the government's intentions regarding pensions, allowances, the guaranteed annual income, and so on. I concluded my question with these precise words:
Can. he also state at an early date whether it is the government's intention this year to increase the basic amount of the old age security pension?
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) gave me a reply containing about 12 lines, to the effect that the whole matter was under review by the government. Whereupon, I put to him this supplementary question:
Does that review include a study of the possibility of increasing the basic amount of the old age security pension?
The minister replied:
It is a factor which will be included in the review.
It is nice to know that in a general, academic way the question of the amount of the old age security pension is part of this general review which the Minister of National Health and Welfare is making of social welfare policy. As a matter of fact, we are getting so many of these reviews by the government it is just about time we set up a task force to review the review committees to see how they are making out.
I want to express tonight the belief that reviews do not make life any happier for the

January 27, 1969
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion old age pensioners of this country. We had something of a debate on this question under another heading between five and six o'clock this evening when hon. members on all sides said that what was proposed at that time was not enough, that we needed to take positive steps to improve the position of our old age pensioners. My question the other day related specifically to a positive step which I believe is a very urgent need, that of increasing the basic amount of the old age pension from the present figure of $75 which has remained constant for several years, except for the 2 per cent annual adjustment.
One senses in this parliament great difficulty in getting any kind of response to these pension questions. Whether we are pleading the case of veterans living on war veterans allowances or drawing attention to the plight of retired civil servants or of old age pensioners generally, we are put off with answers to the effect that the matter is being considered, that the position is under review, and so on. Times are moving on, Mr. Speaker. Wages and prices are rising. For some, our society is becoming more affluent. I think it is no credit to our society, no credit to our government and no credit to this parliament if we cannot do something for our old age pensioners to keep them in the main stream of our society, and I put my question to the government very simply: is it not time that consideration was given to increasing the amount of the old age pension from that $75 figure to a figure much higher? As I indicated earlier this session, I myself think the guaranteed income supplement should be incorporated into the basic pension and the whole amount raised to at least $125 a month.
While we are asking for these matters to be considered, Mr. Speaker, we also have certain fears because of the occasions on which the government talks about passing various welfare programs over to the provinces. There was a suggestion earlier this session that in five years medicare would be turned over to the provinces. Question marks have been raised in connection with family allowances as well as other welfare and assistance programs. This makes some of us wonder whether the present government is dismantling the whole social security program which has been built up over the last 40 or 50 years.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare did say something the other day to members of the press which was somewhat reassuring. He was asked whether there was any likelihood of the old age security program being turned over to the provinces,
January 27, 1969	COMMONS
with the federal government getting out of that field. His reply was that the federal old age security program was the lower deck, of the total program, the Canada Pension Plan being the upper deck, and therefore it could not be surrendered. It is good to know that there is something that protects the old age security program, that it cannot be done away with but that it has to remain as a base for the Canada Pension Plan.
I would remind the government that when we were discussing the Canada Pension Plan and asked whether the bringing in of that plan meant that old age security had to stay at $75 a month for the rest of time, we were told that this was not necessarily so; that as time went on, as wages and prices went up, it was quite possible to raise the amount of that basic old age security pension to a higher figure with the benefits of the Canada Pension Plan being in addition thereto. I do not want this to wait until today's old age pensioners are dead and gone. I think that the time for action on this matter is now. In all this talk about the just society, there should be some place for our older people.
I hope that the parliamentary secretary, or whoever is going to answer me tonight, will be a little more precise about the possibility of an increase in the basic amount of the old age security pension during the course of this session. This really is a must.


Mr. Rosaire Gendron (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, needless to say the government does not intend to repeal the social security programs it has set up, but on the contrary to establish standards in some cases and to give provincial governments, if necessary, enough authority to carry out these programs, even though insofar as we are concerned we could open up new areas in the field of social security.
I already answered a similar question raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), and I would like to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for his concern for our older citizens-a concern shared moreover by all hon. members.
In this regard there are several points I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. member. Firstly, the amount of the basic old age security pension has been increased in two successive years as the result of a rise in the pension index. In January 1968, the
DEBATES	4875
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion amount of the basic pension was increased from $75 per month to $76.50, and in January 1969 the amount moves to $78 per month. If the cost of living continues to rise, further increases will take place.
Recognizing that a number of older people had little or nothing beyond their old age security and, further, that they could not benefit under the Canada Pension Plan, the government introduced the guaranteed income supplement program. This provides a supplement to the basic old age security pension of now up to $30.20 per month. Eligibility is based on a simple test of income. By virtue of this amendment to the Old Age Security Act, it is expected that in January 1969 some 800,000 old age security pensioners will benefit under the guaranteed income supplement program. Many will receive the maximum, which means their total benefit will be $109.20.
I am sure the hon. member and his colleagues agree that the contemporary guaranteed income approach is the most effective and most responsible approach to a just society.
Realizing that a number of pensioners need supplementation beyond the maximum of the combined old age security-guaranteed income supplement, the federal government, through the vehicle of the Canada Assistance Plan, makes this possible. Under the Canada Assistance Plan, the federal government will share 50 per cent of the cost of any supplementation made by a province to an old age security pensioner. There is no ceiling on the amount of such supplementation, eligibility being based on a test of need.
Finally, I should like to re-emphasize what the minister has already said on a number of occasions, that is, that all our social security programs are under intensive review at present by the government. When this review is completed, if firm conclusions are reached, they will be announced to the house. In the meantime, I want to assure all hon. members the government is desirous of Canada having an overall social security program designed to meet the needs of various segments of our population, keeping in mind the resources which are available.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)



MEDICAL, DIRECTOR-MOOSE FACTORY

Ralph Wesley Stewart: Mr. Speaker, when I raised a question earlier today about a petition sent to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro)
January 27, 19G9
4876	COMMONS DEBATES
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
having to do with the medical director in Moose Factory, I raised the question because of the national coverage the matter received last night on the program "The Way It Is". I think it is unfortunate that people, before trying to solve their problem in the normal process, seek widespread publicity in order to bring one side of the story before the public. Such actions sometimes arouse prejudices in the minds of those who would like to take an unbiased view of what is happening.
The members of the native band at Moose Factory sent the minister a petition. They sent a copy to me, to the C.B.C. and to others. The petition reads:
We the people of the Island of Moose Factory hereby present this petition to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Rt. Honourable John Munro M.P., and we demand that the Medical Director of Moose Factory General Hospital, Dr. C. K. Bridge and Assistant Zone Director, B. H. Funston be removed forthwith. We feel that we have legitimate reasons for this demand and will cite the following which are only a few examples of the misconduct and flagrant disregard for human dignity by these two men who have set up themselves as Colonial Masters of our Island.
1.	Dr. Bridge refused to give medical treatment to the Indian population for which he is responsible.
2.	The Minister must be aware of the death of Mrs. Minnie Cheechoo an Indian woman of the Indian reservation on December 12th, 1968. We feel that the death of this woman who left four young children is due to the direct cause of the gross negligence of Dr. Bridge.
3.	After the death of Mrs. Cheechoo one of her sons were taken ill and again this child was refused ambulance service.
4.	The Assistant Zone Director, Mr. Funston who is also the Administrator indulges in discriminatory practices in hiring Indian Personnel.
Again we reiterate our demand for the removal of these two men and request an investigation into their misconduct.
I have received representations from others about the operation of the hospital at Moose Factory. Perhaps the minister would be willing to allow an investigation of all these charges to be conducted. I take no sides in the matter, although I think the program last night showed one side of the story without covering adequately the other side. Certainly, when stories start to develop in small communities like Moose Factory they become exaggerated. I know the program left the impression in the minds of many that Mrs. Cheechoo died as a result of not being taken to hospital. Others claim that is not the case and that Mrs. Cheechoo would have died in any event. The latter allegation was not included on the program.
It may or may not be true that Dr. Bridge is behaving like the colonial master of the island.

The truth can only be discovered if the department investigates the charges. Certainly, it would not be the first time that a man from "back 'ome" has displayed an imperialistic attitude towards Canadians. I think we all have had that experience. As I say, the facts of this matter ought to be looked into.
Nevertheless, we ought to condemn no one just on the say so of one group of people. I think it is our duty to look into all aspects of this situation. Perhaps the C.B.C. which is quick to go after sensationalism will be on hand after the investigation is completed, so they can give a full and unbiased account of all the fact. I would ask the representative of the minister to give some indication as to what is being done in this regard.


Rosaire Gendron: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for the concern he shows more particularly for those who rank amongst the most unfortunate and forsaken in life and who, for that very reason, are in greater need of attention. I also congratulate him for putting this serious problem to the house with such calm.
I know the minister feels very deeply about this situation. He already has visited the Great Canadian North on two or three occasions, and he intends to complete his tour so that he might have visited all the areas which fall within his jurisdiction. Such visits may lead to favourable results for those who are in need of those services.
Still, it must be remembered that the Moose Factory hospital serves a large group of Indians who live partly isolated, on islands, where extremely harsh climatic conditions doubtless add to the tension and their feeling of frustration. But, because of the physical location, of the hospital, at times it is difficult to recruit personnel. Indeed, it takes great missionary spirit and much generosity to accept such isolation and devotion to the sick in underdeveloped areas.
I know that the doctor in charge is very well liked by his staff who give him their wholehearted support. Everyone recognizes his qualifications. Perhaps because he is temperamentally reserved it might be a little difficult for him to establish rapport with the local community. Still, the minister has understood the inconveniences caused by the fact that transport by ambulance was limited
January 27. 19S9	COMMONS
to daylight hours only. Those restrictions have been cancelled so that ambulances are now on duty 24 hours a day.
The hon. member mentioned the case of Mrs. Cheechoos: the reports we have on hand state that the fact that transportation was delayed did not cause death.
It must also be remembered that there is no discrimination towards the Indians, since a large number of them, roughly 50 per cent, work for the hospital. We hope to follow closely the administration of those hospitals so that the Indian population will not suffer from delays. I wish to point out that recently
DEBATES	4877
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion an additional doctor was added to the staff in the person of Dr. Loftus.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry but I must interrupt the Parliamentary Secretary.

The motion to adjourn the house is deemed to have been adopted.
Pursuant to a special order, the house will resume its sittings on Wednesday afternoon at two o'clock.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.21 p.m.

Wednesday, January 29, 1969