1969-02-13

[Stage Direction]
Third report of the standing committee on Privileges and Elections-Mr. Laflamme.
[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of the standing committee on agriculture-Mr. Beer.
[Editor's Note: For Reports above referred to, see Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I have made a proposal, and I believe there is general agreement, with it, that the house should have an opportunity tomorrow to discuss the federal-provincial conference which was held earlier this week. Accordingly, I want to propose, if the house is agreeable, that tomorrow under government orders the Prime Minister might move a motion that the house adjourn. My suggestion is that this motion would be debatable, that all speeches except those of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition be limited to 20 minutes, that the private members hour be suspended and that unless the motion has been disposed of earlier it shall be deemed to have been adopted at 5 p.m. If the house is agreeable perhaps an order could be made to this effect.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: I do
think this is a good idea, Mr. Speaker. While the government brass were away the house made very substantial progress, so that there is now very little work left on the order paper. We might have thought the government would require a week to defend its position and sort out its various stands, but
we are prepared to go ahead with this debate tomorrow.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is correct that there was an agreement this morning as to the general principle of this proposal, but -there is one detail in the actual motion which I hope the government house leader will agree to alter. I refer to the 20 minute limit in so far as it affects the first speakers of the third and fourth parties in the house. I hope the government house leader will agree that the first speaker of the two parties in this part of the house be granted 40 minutes, while the rest would be limited to 20 minutes.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would be quite agreeable to that suggestion, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the proposal submitted to the house by the President of the Privy Council, subsequently amended as to the time to be allotted to those participating in the debate, concurred in?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Hon. Bryce S. Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table a document in English and in French. Omitting the usual remarks that go with tabling of documents, I should like to describe the document. It contains a recommendation adopted by the conference of the I.L.O. at its 52nd session last year to continue recommendation 132 concerning the improvement of conditions of life and work of tenants, share-croppers and similar categories of agricultural workers.
e (2:10 p.m.)
I also table the document from the Department of Justice commenting on whether this recommendation falls entirely within the federal field, the provincial field, or partly in both fields.


Gerald William Baldwin: Why didn't you put it on the agenda?


Inquiries of the Ministry POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT



REPORT OF MR. JUSTICE ANDREI MONTPETIT ON WORKING CONDITIONS

Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 2 of Standing Order 41, I wish to table a report from Mr. Justice Andre Montpetit with respect to environmental and physical working conditions directly related to matters in the Post Office Department.

It is with great pleasure that I table these documents in both French and English.



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate informing this house that the Senate have passed Bill C-162, an act to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, without any amendment.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that a communication has been received which is as follows:
Government House,
Ottawa, 13 February, 1969
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Hon. J. R. Cartwright, P.C., M.C., Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 13th February, at 5.45 p.m. for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant, Louis-Fremont Trudeau Brigadier General
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government subjects which concern the powers of parliamentary committee to examine and discuss the proposals now being put forward for constitutional revision. I ask this question particularly in view of the fact that a number of subjects which concern the powers of parliament, the relationship between the houses of 
parliament, and the structure of government in Canada are now being actively discussed and it would seem appropriate to provide some mechanism for these matters to be discussed and examined in parliament.
Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, the government would be prepared to consider this request, although perhaps after tomorrow's debate we might have a better idea of the utility of setting up such a committee. I would be prepared to consider it then, perhaps with a view to setting specific subjects of constitutional relevance in front of a committee. Once again, I think it would be untimely to put the whole constitutional question before a committee, but I believe the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting certain governmental positions. We could take them one by one. I would not be averse to such an idea at this time, but I would prefer to make a decision after we have heard the debate tomorrow.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have one or two related questions to address to the right hon. Prime Minister. First, would the Prime Minister consider not only setting up a parliamentary committee here, but also discussing with the premiers and prime ministers of the provinces the desirability of having parliamentary committees across the country so that when the next constitutional conference is held the premiers will speak for all sides in their legislatures, and the Prime Minister will speak for all sides in this parliament. I am not suggesting he interfere with the provinces, but I am asking whether he would consult with them about this kind of procedure for the constitutional revision.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: It is not a very good principle.


Mr. Trudeau:: I think I am inclined to agree with the right hon. member for Prince Albert. I would hope that this question may be raised in the various legislatures across the country. I do not think I would venture to answer the question, but I can say that if we do set up a parliamentary committee it would I suppose, deal in part with subjects which are of provincial and federal interest; the question might then arise as to whether we are interfering in provincial affairs. I hope that this would not be the interpretation and that such a committee could, if necessary, travel across the country. It is a delicate subject and might require the kind of consultation which the leader of the New Democratic party is suggesting.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS   SHARED-COST PROGRAMS-CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCES BEFORE WITHDRAWAL

Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the federal-provincial conference. I ask the question for greater clarification. In view of the representations made by the premiers and the comment made by the Prime Minister, is it correct to say that it is now the intention of the federal government not to make decisions regarding withdrawal from shared-cost programs without meaningful consultation and discussion with the provinces in advance? Would this be a fair statement of the government's position?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: No, Mr. Speaker. On this subject we have taken the view that if yesterday the federal government had undertaken to make any such clear-cut promises it would in effect have been amending the constitution, perhaps without the legal power to do so. We do not want to take the position that the federal government spending power could be limited just by a promise made by the Prime Minister of Canada to the assembled provincial premiers. Therefore the whole question of the spending power is open for debate. It is a very important aspect of the constitution, and we have repeatedly suggested that the premiers and the prime ministers of the provinces address themselves to this question. There will be an on-going study of the question of the spending power and whether it should be limited.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Prime Minister regard it as a limitation on the spending power to undertake meaningful consultation before a federal decision is made, and does the answer that he gave me with regard to the withdrawal from shared cost proposals also concern the adoption of new programs? In other words, am I to understand that the government is giving no assurance that meaningful consultations would take place with the provinces before any new programs are undertaken involving action by the provinces within the field of provincial jurisdiction?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is really begging the question. I repeat that as a matter of government policy we believe in consultation in all
Inquiries of the Ministry the concrete instances which were debated, especially the topic of medicare, on which there had been a great deal of consultation. For that reason I do not want to say that the government will refuse to exercise its constitutional rights to use its spending power in the ways it sees fit. I repeat, however, that as a matter of policy I believe in consultation and emphasize that the government has practised it. But I do not want to imply that the federal spending power can only be exercised after a certain form of consultation which is, say, acceptable to the provinces, to a majority of them or to all of them. The policy again is in the direction-please go ahead, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister through you, Mr. Speaker, whether in view of the central importance in constitutional matters of the exercise of the spending power of the federal parliament, this will be one of the specific subjects which may be referred to the special committee of this parliament to be set up to consider these matters generally?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would say that this might eventually be one of the specific subjects, Mr. Speaker, but it will not be one of the earlier subjects for discussion because it is not one which has as yet been studied by the continuing committee of officials, and in regard to which the provincial governments have submitted propositions. We would prefer to deal with matters which have already been studied by those concerned.


Gerald William Baldwin: Is it then the view of the Prime Minister that a condition precedent to the consideration of these important issues by parliament is that they must first be canvassed and dealt with by experts?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We believe it is useful to have experts explore these subjects, delineate their specific areas and submit possible solutions to the federal and provincial governments in order that they may have an easier task in making up their minds as between various alternatives.


Mr. Real Caouelie (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister.


Inquiries of the Ministry
Following the constitutional conference which ended yesterday, does the federal government still intend to withdraw from all joint programs with the provinces, and was this question raised during the discussions?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Indeed this question was raised, Mr. Speaker, and I indicated that as long as the constitutional question is not dealt with and a specific definition of the spending power in this field given, it would be difficult to make any definite promises.
We want to know what joint programs should be considered under federal jurisdiction, and which ones should not.



INQUIRY AS TO POSSIBLE ABANDONMENT OF MEDICARE

David Lewis: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of some of the exchanges that have taken place at the constitutional conference, would the Prime Minister be ready to give an assurance to this house that the medicare program will not be abandoned as a result of these discussions?


Mr. Woolliams:: It does not matter what it costs.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: I think that the only concession the government was prepared to make on medicare- which I stated openly at the conference-was that if the ten provinces could agree among themselves that medicare should not be implemented, it would not be.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: This is not a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, but it is vaguely related to the federal-provincial conference. I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he knows that last night, at the Montreal Forum, the House of Commons team beat the Quebec National Assembly team 8 to 1?


An hon. Member:: Who were the three stars?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



TRANSPORT


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmonl):: I have a question with reference to the statement made at the conference yesterday by the premier of Prince Edward Island concerning the possible abandonment of the Northumberland Strait crossing, and the need for a full statement by the Prime Minister on the financial implications of continuing the ferry service, as compared with the cost of constructing a causeway. Would the Prime Minister be prepared to make a statement on motions explaining to the Canadian people the implications of either of these possible decisions?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Either I or one of my colleagues will make a statement on this subject in the near future.


Some hon. Members:: When?



TELEVISING OF HOUSE AND COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS

Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. In the light of the apparent success of the televising of the dominion-provincial conference, at least as far as some of the participants are concerned, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he is reconsidering the question of televising proceedings of the House of Commons, perhaps starting with committees?



WHEAT-CONSIDERATION OF TWO-PRICE SYSTEM

John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether in view of the resolutions passed by the three western pools and also by the farm organizations in the west in favour of the two price system for wheat, reconsideration has been given to this question, having regard to his support of this proposition during the many years in which he sat on this side of the house, and the fact that it was included among undertakings given in two Liberal election campaigns.


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as the right hon. gentleman knows, the debate respecting a two price system for wheat has been going on for many


years, indeed during those years when he occupied the office of Prime Minister.


John George Diefenbaker: No, not at all.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I have been advised of some of the resolutions that have been passed by western farm organizations recently, but not the one to which my right hon. friend referred. However, I should advise him that this government is willing to consider good ideas at any time.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege arising out of the observation on the part of the minister in regard to the continuance of propaganda in relation to a two price system, when I was Prime Minister the western farmer was properly treated.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This seems to me to be a debate between the Minister of Agriculture and the right hon. member for Prince Albert. I have to rule that there is no question of privilege.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Is the government following a policy of refusing entry and landed immigrant status to United States draft dodgers and armed forces deserters?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the policy of the government on draft dodgers, or draft evaders or resisters, or whatever term you wish to employ, is unchanged. This does not enter into consideration in the admissibility of such persons in to Canada.


David Orlikow: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In light of his reply I should like to ask the minister whether he would investigate charges that are made by a large number of people who are interested in the problem, namely that Canadian immigration officers are co-operating with United States immigration officials so as to get around this policy of the government?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend is referring to a different category of persons, namely military deserters. In these situations the immigration officials have
Inquiries of the Ministry certain discretion in regard to that particular group of persons, and others who have substantial obligations in their country of origin.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, and I think it is a proper one because it deals with the same problem of Americans coming into Canada. In view of the present crisis which seems to be apparent in our universities, would the government consider setting up a committee of the Senate and House of Commons to investigate the department of immigration in order to ascertain why we permit a large percentage of foreigners to come into Canada, particularly from the United States, and cause trouble in our universities, thus costing taxpayers of Canada large sums of money?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, persons who have entered Canada as students have entered the country under the regulations, and under the law and the policy of the government. In due course the estimates of this department will be before the committee, and this would be an opportunity to consider such matters. Certainly I would welcome the views of members of parliament on any such question.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice.
Could he tell the house whether the police force of Montreal has communicated with his department and whether his department is ready to issue a deportation order should some of those individuals be found guilty?


Mr. Speaker:: The second question is, of course, hypothetical. Could the minister answer the first one?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the situation is very complicated because it is not known exactly what the results of this unfortunate occurrence will be. However, I assure the house that the provisions of the regulations are broad enough to cover any possible contingency.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I listened to the minister's remarks carefully. Since these disturbances are costing the country millions of dollars does the minister not agree that there is a crisis and state of urgency-


Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member please resume his seat. The hon. member is not asking a supplementary question but presenting an argument. If he has a supplementary question, would he please put it in the form of a question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Because a crisis exists does the minister not agree that we should set up a committee such as I have suggested, before there is further trouble in our universities?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the question implies that the cause of this trouble is some imperfection in our immigration regulations. I think that is a rather oversimplified view of the problem in the universities.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I see a number of hon. members wish to ask supplementary questions. I am trying to be as fair as possible to all hon. members. I see the hon. member for Shefford wishes to ask a supplementary question. I will return to other hon. members who have already asked questions about this problem.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the minister.
Since we learned here yesterday from a provincial government's representative that according to the results of an investigation in the case, Mao followers were responsible for damages made two days ago at Sir George Williams University, does the federal government intend to open an inquiry to confirm the statement of a provincial minister regarding this movement?
[English\


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask another supplementary question on this point? It has been determined that 45 out of 96 accused in the incident at Sir George Williams University were non-Canadians or foreigners. Could the minister find out exactly what is the immigration status of those 45 accused, to see if they were here as landed immigrants or students, or whether they had visitors' visas?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we are conducting an investigation into the classification of the status of each of these persons. But it is a complicated question. When persons come to Canada as students, they must have an enrolment in university and meet their own

financial obligations. It is possible in certain cases to withdraw a student's visa, but I do not think it would be desirable at this point for the immigration department to take action until the facts are clear, the identity of responsible persons known and their culpability established.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Answering the supplementary questions of other hon. members the minister said the Department of Manpower and Immigration may exercise discretion. Does that discretion permit people connected with Mr. Carmichael to enter Canada and cause trouble?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as asked is more an argument than a question. Perhaps we should go to another subject.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put another supplementary question to the minister.
Could the minister investigate to see whether the federal government has granted scholarships to some of the foreign students arrested yesterday?


Mr. Henri Laiulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
In view of the riots which took place at Sir George Williams University, would the minister tell the house whether he deems it advisable to change or to put off the approaches made to China, in order to ascertain whether that communist country was involved in those acts of sabotage?


Some hon. Members:: Answer.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the great interest the house has displayed in the matter of foreign students in this country would the Minister of Manpower and Immigration make a report to the house on motions after he has conducted and completed a study?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to consider that when sufficient facts are known to make a meaningful report.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, in making that statement could the Minister of Manpower and Immigration deal

with another question, namely, the question of the discretion which he says his officials exercised with regard to deserters from the United States army. I understand nothing in the act or regulations covers this question and I should appreciate it if the minister could make a statement.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it the policy and practice with respect to military deserters has been in effect for some time and has been applied in the same way as I stated some days ago. Last July a directive was issued to immigration officers which established some guidelines with respect to the exercise of that policy. I must also advise the house that quite some considerable time ago I asked my department to review the whole policy with respect to draft resisters and military deserters seeking entrance to Canada either overseas or at border points, and with respect to deserters already in Canada who seek admission as immigrants. That review is nearing completion and then this whole matter will be considered carefully. It is a very complicated and difficult matter and undoubtedly has attracted a great deal of interest because of its complexity.


John George Diefenbaker: Because of the government's laxity.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, a week ago I asked the Minister of Agriculture to reply to a question. He said he would take it as notice. Can he reply to that question today?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I think I have a further reply in my book; it is very brief. It indicates that part of the fur farm research project will be transferred from Charlottetown to the new Greenbelt farm on the outskirts of Ottawa. There is no thought in the department of suspending or doing away with this research. Rather, it is a matter of transferring the operation to a different station where it will be possible for notes to be compared-if that is the right word-by scientists of other disciplines.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Although the minister referred to Charlottetown, I wonder
Inquiries of the Ministry if he did not mean the fur farm project in Summerside?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, that is right.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: In view of the severe unemployment existing in the area from which the fur farm is to be transferred, will arrangements be made to find alternative employment for employees presently working on the fur farm?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I understand that only four people are employed on this research station at the present time and I understand they all have been offered alternative employment.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister indicate to what use the extensive facilities on the farm will be put, after the farm is transferred?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest the question as asked could be placed on the order paper or, if the hon. member so wishes, it could be debated at the time of adj ournrnent.



EDUCATION


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breion-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister relevant to questions posed to the Acting Prime Minister and the Solicitor General yesterday, in the hope that an answer or decision will be forthcoming. In view of the large federal contribution to university education, is it the government's intention to conduct an inquiry into the causes of destruction and unrest on campus, such as was witnessed at Sir George Williams University the other day?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I do not think this is a subject under federal jurisdiction. This matter concerns the administration of justice.


Robert Muir: May I rise on a point of order with your permission sir? I tried to point out that I feel this is in order. My point is-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member should indicate to the Chair what the point of order is. I hope he will not engage in a debate with the


Inquiries of the Ministry Prime Minister or the government as to whether the question is in order, and whether ;t should be accepted.


Robert Muir: What I said was in reply to the Prime Minister's comment. If you will bear with me, my point of order is that where you have a capital investment in federal funds amounting to millions and hundreds of millions of dollars across Canada, and where you have civil disorder on a grand scale, there is certainly a federal concern on grounds of peace, order and good government, as set out in section 91 of the British North America Act. It is certainly a matter for this parliament to be concerned about when we are investing millions of dollars and there is organized and widespread disorder-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Even if the hon. member convinced the Chair that it is a matter for federal jurisdiction, this would not necessarily resolve the situation. It is still within the competence and responsibility of a member of the government not to answer a question. It seems to me if the hon. member is not satisfied with the answer given to his question, perhaps the best thing would be to give the Chair notice of his intention to debate the matter at ten o'clock. It could then be debated at that time.


Robert Muir: May
I pose a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the right hon. Prime Minister? In view of all the destruction and unrest, would the Prime Minister consider the involvement of the federal government? Would he consider having the Minister of Justice join with the attorneys general of the provinces to discuss this serious problem now raging across Canada? We do not want to have to face what has happened in other countries.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Once again, Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is a question for the Attorney General. If we were to find there had been some disturbances which were unlawful, we could not apply the law because the administration of justice is a responsibility of the provinces. The only retaliation we could make would be to cut grants which are directed to education, and this is the kind of step the Leader of the Opposition has suggested we should not take.


Robert Muir: agree with that.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia):: I have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Can he advise the house the results of his meeting yesterday with officers of the Dieppe Prisoners of War Association?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: I did have a meeting yesterday with the association, Mr. Speaker, which was most informative. We agreed there seems to be good reasons for the medical officers of our department to review the files of as many Dieppe prisoners of war as possible to determine whether there is any particular pattern or type of disability common among this group of veterans which could be related to their imprisonment. The findings of this review should enable us to appraise whether or not it would be advisable to call in a certain cross-section of these prisoners of war to see-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member can give information on a matter of interest to all hon. members but he should not make a general statement unless he has the consent of the house to revert to motions.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: A supplementary question. I wonder if the Minister of Veterans Affairs would give consideration to treating the Dieppe Prisoners of War Association as a separate group, similar to the way in which Hong Kong veterans are treated?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: I do not know how much more information I am allowed to give, Mr. Speaker, but I do wish to state I will give these prisoners of war my most sympathetic attention.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I would ask the minister whether he or his department have just completed some contractual relations with public relations firms designed to upgrade the image of his department?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: I would
like to reply.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the minister would like to make his answer during the adjournment debate.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolietle):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture a question.
Since he announced some time ago a conference on agriculture to which provincial ministers would participate, could he indicate the main subjects to be discussed at the conference?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I would be happy to provide hon. members of this house and in particular members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture with copies of the proposed agenda.


Alfred Dryden Hales: A supplementary question. Would the report on the cost of farm machinery be ready for this conference?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I have asked the commissioner to prepare a position paper, or we may call it an interim report, to serve as at least a basis on which the discussion can begin on that particular subject.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: should like to direct a question to the appropriate minister. Will he give consideration to making available, through tabling or otherwise, the report on satellite broadcasting prepared by Canadian and Swedish scientists for the United Nations committee on outer space?


Eric William Kierans: That was a joint report, Mr. Speaker, prepared by Sweden and Canada for submission to a special council of the United Nations. I will discuss with my colleagues the release of that report to the house.



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I would like to ask the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development whether he can now give the house definite assurance with regard to the day on which the bill will be introduced respecting his new department? Is he able to give us any firm assurance in regard to time?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Perhaps I can deal with that, Mr. Speaker. Notice will be given today for the introduction of the government reorganization bill. We expect it will be given first reading on Monday.



RESEARCH


Mr. J. Edward Broadbenl (Oshawa-Whitby):: A question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Last Thursday the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce announced the house would have an opportunity to discuss science policy when the reorganization bill for his department is introduced. Would the Prime Minister assure the house that either in that bill or by some other means there will be a minister responsible for the co-operation of the total government scientific program?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: There is a minister responsible for that coordination, Mr. Speaker. It is the President of the Treasury Board. I have indicated that the government is considering making certain changes in that area, but this policy has not yet been approved by the cabinet. Therefore I cannot say when it will be brought before the house.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
As it seems that consultations and federal government offers to Quebec are at a standstill since October 29, 1968, would the minister find it appropriate to ask provincial representatives to come and discuss the matter in order to find a solution?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I take the hon. member's question as notice.


Mr. Jean R. Roy (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, will the Leader of the Opposition now agree with that old Liberal, Mr. Robarts, that our Prime Minister will be a very good Prime Minister?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



IRAQ-REACTION TO CANADIAN GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIONS-IMMIGRATION OF IRAQI JEWS

[Stage Direction]
Righl Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Alberi): Mr. Speaker, the first question I would ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs, is this: About eight or nine days ago I asked a question regarding the reaction of the Iraqi government to the protest of the Canadian government, or the representations made by our ambassador in reference to the slaughter of a number of Jewish and other persons in that country. What has been the reaction since that time?
Secondly, is the minister now in a position to advise whether the government is giving sympathetic consideration to the immigration to this country of Iraqi Jews who desire to leave potential oppression and come to Canada?
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the message to the government of Iraq was delivered. They have made no reply, but perhaps it is significant that some of the fears that we had about further executions and trials are less now than they were at that time. Perhaps the joint representations made by Canada and many other countries have had an influence upon the government of that country. I am sure we all hope so.
This afternoon the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and I will be meeting with the Canadian Jewish Congress to discuss the question, based on the representations they have made to us, of facilitating the entry of Iraqi Jews to Canada. As I have said before, this is a very complex question, and what we have to be sure of is that the action we take is really beneficial to those unfortunate people.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not quite understand what the minister means by the complexity of the situation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the right hon. gentleman ask his supplementary question.


John George Diefenbaker: That is my supplementary question. What is the complexity of the situation in regard to Iraqi Jews and other refugees who endeavour to come to Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately
when similar pleas were made in the past, sometimes the reaction upon the people whom 
the world was trying to help was most unfortunate. There was strong reaction against them in their home countries.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to have to advise hon. members that we have gone beyond the time allotted for oral questions. Perhaps tomorrow less time will be spent on that day's happenings in Montreal and more on events elsewhere; and the Chair will try to protect minorities and give more time to backbenchers.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like now to make the weekly announcement of business. Tomorrow, as previously arranged, we will have the special discussion arising out of the federal-provincial conference. On Monday we will call the orders for third readings of Bill C-154 and Bill C-155 under the jurisdiction of my colleague the Minister of Agriculture. That will be followed with the report stage of Bill C-156, followed by Bill C-157 if the evidence is available from the agriculture committee at that time. Following these we would call the second reading of the estate tax bill, and we propose to continue with that bill at that stage, at the committee stage and the third reading stage for the balance of the week from Tuesday to Thursday. As I indicated, the government reorganization bill will be given first reading on Monday and we propose to go ahead with the second reading debate on that bill when the estate tax bill has been completed next week.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: question to the government house leader, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister ask for consent later this day by leave to move concurrence in the third report of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections to enable those of us who hold dissenting views to have a chance to be heard before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications leaves on Sunday for its tour of the Atlantic provinces?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the business already has been called for today. I am prepared to move concurrence in the report, if that be necessary, in the near future. I think perhaps we should continue on today's program as arranged.


James Aloysius McGrath: May I refer this matter to the adjournment debate at ten o'clock?
February 13, 19S9

[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, February 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) that Bill C-150, to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, at the time of adjournment, yesterday, I was explaining the importance, the greatness and the existence of man. If we are to know where we are going, the importance of humanity and its components must be known.
I was saying also that we will have a just society to the extent that its components are sound. Society should not be made up solely of corrupt elements, but it should also have elements that are purified through legislation and motives which are adapted to man.
Being its absolute master and vested with powers by an absolute collective strength, a nation which is composed of absolute units recognizes only those collective forces that it uses with consummate skill to neutralize them.
The state ignores man and loathes him. For its own designs, man is a material, a thing, a number, a file and nothing more. The modern state is the enemy of man, of the human being and of the essence and existence of humanity itself.
There is no solution, in the world of the law. There are only irreconcilable inconsistencies, we must get out of this tragic and destructive dilemma; we must replace disorder by order, freedom and the recognition of every human being.
The community exists, Mr. Speaker, as long as there are individuals to make it up. The community means almost nothing if it were not for the human being.
The existence of communities is dependent upon individuals. When we say "community", it is an abstract word which does not cover every individual; we refer rather to a group of individuals.
Criminal Code
Society must recognize the importance of every individual. Something might be done for the community, provided there are sound individuals and the legislation is consistent with natural and Christian ethics.
These values must be protected at all costs. The only proper order is that which comes from the great moral law: respect for life. According to that law, man is the beginning and the end.
There is no other method but that which stems from him to lead to him.
After a long history, humanity faces a mortal danger by accepting a degrading settlement, made possible by making legal everything which is contrary to order and to morality.
Man has become an incredible industrial giant. In our modern world, it is possible to give food and shelter to everyone. There are equal opportunities in life for everyone irrespective of his environment and his education. Then, what is the obstacle but old hatred, fears and the covetousness of the human heart?
The Canadian people must understand that situation and say with all their will power and self-control: We are going to take great strides so that we may together live through the next stage of our Canadian development. Otherwise Canadians will destroy themselves, as surely as there is a sun shining above us.
Apart from being pernicious, the provisions in this bill dealing with homosexuality and abortion will lead the nation to its own destruction.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to see the establishment of a plan or discipline that would not only lay down what is just in family and community life today, but also lead the Canadian people on the road to a clear conscience, so that all individuals and all nations may live peacefully and harmoniously.
With my whole being and with all the respect I can summon, I must thank my mother for having given birth to me. I would never have seen the light without her. I do not know of anybody who was ever born without a mother. Every human being is of great importance. The importance of a human being is unequalled and human life is priceless.
Frankly, Mr. Speaker, women as a whole are more courageous than men. They have more courage. They need it since they must live with men. We expect them to give us comfort in our bedrooms and beauty in our living-rooms.


Criminal Code
I wish to emphasize the fact that women deserve the highest respect and are of an extreme importance. In our modem world, men advocate the idea that women are beautiful and costly toys and that if one has money, one can look after them. But we forget that most of them give the best they have. We do not expect women to play a decisive role in modern history. Women are not only endowed with intelligence but most of all, with a kindness of heart that enables them to cure the hatreds of the modern selfish world.
Somebody has to undertake the task of building a just society, otherwise man will destroy himself on account of the problems he will have created. This is not a dream. It could be something real tomorrow. Abortion will not, as by magic, make men better and generous. If man really wishes to place himself above animals, to control his lower instincts and develop his highest ideals, the state must enact laws to enable him to place himself above animals.
Mr. Speaker, bills such as the one we are now discussing are unable to insure any real amount of protection to human beings, especially where women are concerned.
It is up to the state to promote morality so as to maintain, as far as possible, a well-balanced human personality. Such is the duty of the state.
According to the theory of evolution, which every new discovery of science seems to confirm, man, with all his greatness and his drawbacks is yet a far-from-perfect creature. This means man can improve. It also means, however, that the changes towards perfection have to follow the very, very slow rhythm of evolution, the rhythm of every living being. Man is probably unable to speed up the process. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, let us not be deceived by the hope that a moral law would make men better, less selfish, less hostile, more human, more brotherly. The state would be unwelcome to release our lower instincts; this would only result in allowing a great number of individuals to indulge in turpitude thus increasing corruption and destroying society.
The duty of the state is, by setting reasonable standards, to help man realize himself and to give him every moral, social, intellectual, practical and economical support in its power.
Every man should be given the means to find the key to his inner truth, to fulfil his

destiny. Thus, instead of deteriorating, he would probably improve.
Deep down, man wants to be considered as a man. This claim is nothing else but his will to be, and to be himself. He wants to build up his own world, according to his own truth, to the way he feels life and happiness on earth should be. And this is a feeling one should respect.
That kingdom is sacred, that kingdom is man itself. To build up that man, right from the beginning all the energies latent in the world have concurred. That man in front of you is like nobody else. Indeed, he thinks, he loves, he hates in his own way; he believes and he hopes; he skakes and quivers. He is the sole master of this inner recess, burning and radiant, in all his nobility and dignity. Whoever penetrates into it, man, state, law, authority, commits a major, an unatonable crime against man. All life must be exalted, protected, saved when it is in peril. There is no life, no matter how debased, no matter how low it has fallen, that does not hold within itself the resources of it own revival.
Life is not a state, it is a movement, it is action, it is a confrontation. Life is a continuous creation. It is in that creation that man seeks himself, finds himself and fulfils himself.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, if there are 3.4 billion people on earth, there are 3.4 billion different concepts of life and happiness. No power on earth can know a man, except that man himself. It would be ill-advised of the state to intervene in one's privacy and conception of life, before having fulfilled its proper role towards society. It falls to the state to ensure the national balance Which will enable every individual to live without fear, without hardships, in a country overflowing with wealth, and guarantee him and his family three meals a day, a decent shelter which he can hope to own someday.
Mr. Speaker, I could say more on man's conception and his moral greatness, but I shall go on to another topic. Instead of trying to impose laws which are not its concern, laws which are not fitting and which encroach upon the rights of the individual, the state should assume its responsibilities. I therefore urge the state to fulfil its duty, and mind its own affairs.
Mr. Speaker, if we want to eliminate abortions, then let us take the necessary steps.


According to the findings of various associations-I have the figures here-86 per cent of all divorces are due, it would seem, to our diabolical system, which prevents people from having decent housing. That is where the State should intervene, not in the citizen's private life. It ought to allow all citizens to freely achieve their goals and to live comfortably in this country abounding in resources and capable of feeding half the world. However, 20 per cent of our people are left starving and living in slums.
Many wives refuse to bear children because they would not know where to accommodate them. Children would crowd their homes. Besides, some have to work to support themselves or their family, to pay their rent and their debts. In the circumstances, they do not assume the part they should play in the community.
Experience shows that 86 per cent of the abortions are directly caused by lack of money at home. Education is the responsibility of families and society but at a certain age the individual becomes responsible for his actions and each considered decision remains the responsibility of the society, the family and the individual himself.
Most of the time, Mr. Speaker, criminals are what they are because they were ill-treated when they were young by their parents, their companions or their teachers. An infamous bill seeking to allow such indecent acts is against human nature and God's commands.
I should like, Mr. Speaker, to read a letter I have received. I have been snowed under with letters from my constituents these past few days, but I shall limit myself to the one which struck me most, and I quote:
In the context of life in society, here are the words I would flatly tell my own daughter with an itching to get an abortion.
I would start by trying to make her change her mind, by all possible means, and especially by removing first the causes of her decision.
I would finance adequately the period of her pregnancy, at the rate of at least $3 per day, or $90 per month. I would offer her $1,000 at the birth of her child and after that, I would give her a monthly allowance of $90 for herself and $30 for her child to the age of 10, of $60 from 10 to 20, and of $90 from 21 years of age until the end of his schooling, or until he got regular employment in the community of adults.
It is in that area, Mr. Speaker, that the State must intervene. With the value of our production having reached $68 billion last year and with this year's production reaching $72 billion, while consumption will stand at
Criminal Code
only $40 billion with a surplus of from $28 to $30 billion in warehouses, on the shelves, it should be easy to offer something to our children, to Canadians generally.
The letter goes on and I quote:
If, after receiving all my moral support, my human and fatherly encouragement and for reasons known only to herself, she insists on having an abortion, I shall assist her to the best of my ability in obtaining for her the most modern and experienced methods used by our best obstetricians.
Mr. Speaker, such is the attitude of one father regarding his daughter if she happened to get in trouble some day. According to the letters I have received, this seems to be the general consensus. Most of my constituents use the same arguments when they ask me to speak up and voice their opinions about this infamous bill which at no time should have been submitted to this parliament.
And I quote again:
In the case in point, I feel this would be my duty as a humane father, and I would be confident of acting under Divine guidance and according to my enlightened conscience.
Mr. Speaker, this sums up the reasoning of a head of family.
Therefore, all abortions taking place in Canada are due to our damnable society-
Again, this is the same person speaking:
-which is guilty of failing to educate the people decently, of denying them their right to life, freedom and the enjoyment of their property. This damnable society is Canada. The government of Canada is responsible for depriving most citizens of their personal property as guaranteed by the Creator.
Mr. Speaker, I have been a member of parliament since 1962 and I have always advocated a better distribution of personal and family income. Since 1962, the Liberal and Conservative governments turn a deaf ear whenever they were asked to raise family allowances.
I see nothing but increases in capital gains and in the interests on the millions of bonds of the federal government. One can see the increase in taxes and contributions that reduce the income of small wage earners who cannot afford to rent decent houses for their children yet to be born.
I have always made my representations politely, but I am about to make them in a firmer and somewhat angry tone and I will protest more strongly, for society ought to do what is necessary at least.
Family allowances should be raised. If they were, and should the government


Criminal Code
assume its responsibilities and proceed in an orderly way, applications for abortion would be examined in consultation with psychiatrists; a social worker, a gynaecologist, and, if necessary, a moralist and an expert in genetics should be engaged to assess the consequences of the completion of pregnancy or of abortion and prepare a file which would be submitted to the abortion committee. That is the task that the government should accomplish, that is what the bill should include.
The government should give the mother everything it can. Legislation should favour as much as possible those mothers who complete their pregnancy, whether they want an abortion or not, and those who cannot avail themselves of treatment facilities.
In particular, someway should be found to change the conditions making pregnancy undesirable. The state should provide any pregnant woman with her financial requirements. If these people enjoyed all those rights and benefits, I am sure that abortions would cause little problem. If the mother felt able to provide an education and a decent living to her child, she would not be reluctant to give him birth.
Society is made up of human beings, and nothing is nobler and greater.
The state must fulfil human functions, in accordance with public feeling. The state must give sufficient purchasing power to our families, so that they will not fear the future. Consequently, we would not have to bring over millions of immigrants. We could go on building up our society, which would develop and also be healthier. We might never witness again what happened at Sir George Williams University.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, it is in this light that I take part in the debate on this bill, which I would like to see amended.
Before concluding my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on lotteries. The bill contains many clauses and, consequently, if it is not divided, we shall not support it. However, if we can vote on each clause, then we will be able to vote freely. I ask once again the government to allow government members to vote freely so that,
[Mr. Latulippe.l
faced with such responsibilities, every member may vote freely, in conscience and in the best interests of society.
As far as lotteries are concerned, I agree indirectly with the principle that there must be a difference between lotteries and mei'e games of chance or small drawings. Certainly, nobody could ever imagine that the same legislation could apply to lotteries in which hundreds of thousand dollars are at stake and, for example, the drawing of a T.Y. set for the benefit of a parochial charity. We must ensure the passage of a piece of legislation likely to solve all cases which may arise. However, there is one point of the clause which, in my opinion, should be amended.
If a province is allowed to have a lottery, I do not see why such a lottery would be illegal in another province, because the latter has not officially legalized lotteries.
Mr. Speaker, at the recent federal-provincial conference, the rights of the citizen have been claimed, especially the right for a Canadian citizen to feel at home anywhere in Canada.
The city of Montreal, for instance, legally established a lottery. Yet, it is illegal in other provinces to purchase a ticket for the Montreal lottery. I sincerely believe that we should amend this section of the bill by moving an amendment which reads as follows:
I move, seconded by Mr. Lambert:
That clause 13 of bill C-150 be amended as follows:
"That paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section 179A be amended to read as follows:
(b) for the government of a province or for a municipality, either alone or in conjunction with the government of a province, to conduct and manage a lottery scheme, in accordance with any law enacted by the legislature of that province, for any person, in accordance with such law, to do any thing described in any of paragraphs (a) to (f) of subsection (1) or subsection (4) of section 179."
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in accordance with standing orders, I move this amendment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I would like to take the proposed amendment under advisement. For the moment I would say by way of preliminary remarks that I have grave doubts about its admissibility, but I would like to study it.


Criminal Code


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the amendment concerning lotteries, I said earlier that we supported it in part.
Mr. Speaker, if our economy was adequately controlled and properly balanced, there would be no need for these national "barbottes" to support municipalities, school boards or various religious or other organizations.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, we will vote for this bill. We will vote for the legislation dealing with lotteries. Ours will be a reluctant vote because we know that it involves a national "barbotte".
We know that we could act otherwise. If we had a just society, there would be no need to adopt unjust regulations and legislation. Establishing lotteries is an injustice in a country such as Canada which has an abundance of resources and could be self-supporting. Our country is capable of guaranteeing three meals a day and a suitable income to everybody, since we do not know what to do with our products because we do not have enough consumers. We want to increase the number of consumers. Because of applied science and the work of past generations, we could do without such things. As we are living under the present system, we will probably vote in favour of lotteries.
As for the other clauses of the bill, such as the one on abortion, I have had my say on the subject.
On the subject of homosexuality, this bill deals with a most evil and indecent matter and it should be of no concern to the government.
Mr. Speaker, the state should endeavour to introduce sound regulations which are morally acceptable so that there will be an end to these indecent matters and that our nation might develop itself and rise above animality.
Mr. Speaker, there are several other things I would like to say. I will conclude by asking once again that each member vote according to his conscience as this vote is exceptionally important because it involves the essence of life itself. Abortion is one subject that strikes at the very essence of the individual, of humanity and of society as a whole. If this does not exist, there will not be any society because, I repeat it, I know of no one in this world who does not owe his life to his mother.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Mr. Mcllraiih:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if argument is to be heard on whether or not the amendment is in order I should like an opportunity to make a submission along the lines that it is a type of amendment which is not properly admissible at this stage, though it could be moved at another stage of our proceedings.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak only briefly on this bill, realizing that what we are doing at this stage is to give general consent to the proposition that this legislation be referred to a committee for investigation, study and possible amendment before further debate and third reading.
I enter this discussion with a certain amount of trepidation because it is not usual in these days for a theologian to become directly involved in questions which concern amendments to the Criminal Code. But perhaps I should not classify myself as a theologian at this late juncture. Since, however, there seems to be some basic confusion with regard to the bill before us-whether we are dealing here with what is fundamentally a theological question or with what is really a legal or political question-it is perhaps appropriate that a person who passes from time to time as a theologian should become involved.
An attempt to clarify this point was made by the N.D.P. house leader when he suggested in the course of his remarks that much of our criminal law was developed in a day and age when the influence of the church on attitudes in our society and its popularly held folkways and mores was very greatly felt. However, we have since moved into a pluralistic society in which no one denomination or religion can be said to answer for all the popularly accepted opinions of society. What we shall be called upon to do increasingly as we deal with reform of the Criminal Code is to make a clear distinction between what we mean by criminal acts and what we mean by immoral behaviour or sin, as it was more often referred to in a previous age. If you like, it is-the distinction between sin and crime. This will impel many of us to consider what we mean by sin. It will also involve, particularly for those who are called upon to pass laws, whether in this parliament or another, the question of what we really mean by crime. I say in all humility that various religious


Criminal Code
bodies have spent a great deal more time during the last decade upon a re-examination of what is meant by sin in comparison with the amount of time spent by legislators, political scientists and jurists on the question of what is crime or what is anti-social behaviour.
Introducing this measure on January 23, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) said:
This bill will, I am sure, be remembered as a high point in penal reform in Canada.
I wish that statement were accurate, Mr. Speaker. I am afraid it is not. We see here a considerable amount of tinkering with the machinery in regard to such things as detention, probation, suspended sentences and so on, but the proposals do not really come to grips with the fundamental questions-how we are to treat people who run afoul of the law and how we are to protect society from further acts of anti-social behaviour while working toward the reform of the individuals involved. To the extent that these basic questions are dealt with, they are dealt with in an extremely superficial way. The essential task remains before us.
I am glad to see the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith) in the house this afternoon. The aspect of the bill which I am discussing falls largely within his jurisdiction since he is responsible to the house for the administration of federal penitentiaries. There is no area of government administration in which there is a greater need of reform.
I have in mind, of course, the way in which we treat people who are sent to penitentiaries and the kind of protection we should ensure to society upon the eventual return of most of those who are incarcerated. I realize that in connection with the quotation to which I referred the minister was probably throwing out a self-congratulatory statement, disregarding the fact that no real attempt had been made to grapple with these questions, and I look forward to other opportunities of dealing with the subject in the course of subsequent debates.
I think it is unfortunate that certain provisions which could have been included in this bill have not in fact been included. I was particularly hopeful that since this legislation had been redrafted, an election having intervened, the newly appointed Minister of Justice might have included in his proposals the substance of the bill I introduced in March, 1968, having to do with the abolition of corporal punishment, which I described at the time as being a relic of the dark ages. We know that

corporal punishment is not extensively applied today. We also know there is nothing about its use which makes sense either from the viewpoint of protecting society or from the viewpoint of reforming the individual concerned. It is merely another kind of social vengeance and a holdover from an earlier understanding which adds nothing to our sense of the dignity of man or his motivations.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I want to speak on three or four of the most controversial, if you like, and most important sections of these reforms to the Criminal Code. I think it is very important that these reforms are dealt with in this bill. Quite frankly, I am disappointed that to a certain extent they seem to be set as substantial as I would have appreciated.
Let me go immediately to the one that seems to provoke the most controversy and the strongest emotional feelings and to which what I said at the beginning applies, namely, whether what we are dealing with here is a crime or a sin. I refer, of course, to the provisions with respect to abortion.
There has been an interesting debate in the house, and we had a great many hearings by a committee last year, on what changes should be made and what will be acceptable to Canadians generally. But what we are faced with in the provisions included in this bill is something that will very likely satisfy almost no one. I say that because, in effect, it is an attempt to suggest that in some way we are going to legalize abortions in this country. From the minister's own speech and the speeches of other members we have come to realize that the definition that will be given to these clauses is exceedingly narrow and surely will not satisfy those who realize that here we have a tremendous social problem. In addition, it quite likely will not satisfy those who believe that any provision regarding abortion is in fact a highly sinful and, in their terms, somewhat criminal act. But more important, one of the basic reasons that the health and welfare committee spent many months examining this problem was to get at what, to me, is one of the most disturbing social problems we have today. I refer to the thousands of illegal, back-room and back-alley abortions that are being performed in the most dreadful kind of circumstances and with, from time to time, the most tragic results leading to loss of life or the almost complete destruction of health of women who must resort to this means.
February 13, 19G9

I am not so naive as to think that we can put into the law provisions that will take care of this situation. What we are dealing with is a very complex social, economic and health problem that quite naturally is not only the responsibility of this place but of the provinces, the municipalities and also the various church bodies. For us to try to solve this problem would, of course, be superficial, but if we were going to try to face the problem realistically I think we should have offered more by way of legislative reform than has been presented to us by the minister in Bill C-150. We have avoided facing some of the aspects of this problem that surely must disturb us all.
When one thinks of young girls who are viciously attacked and raped and as a result become pregnant and at the same time realizes that under the provisions of this bill there will be no assistance or hope for them, when one thinks of abnormal social or family situations in which an adolescent becomes pregnant as the result of an incestuous relationship and at the same time realizes that the bill will not deal with this particular circumstance, and when one realizes that as greater medical knowledge is obtained we can predict more or less accurately the birth of badly formed offspring and that there is nothing in the bill to deal with this situation, one does wonder just what kind of reform is being presented to us in the amendments with regard to abortion.
As I said a few minutes ago, I cannot see that the legislation will really satisfy anybody very much. If all that the minister can do is just to legalize what, as the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) said, is popularly acceptable in the law, instead of legalizing what people think the law means, which is another thing, then in my opinion we cannot call the proposed bill a reform measure. Quite frankly, I think it represents an avoidance of the issue, and this does disturb me very much.
I should like to refer to another provision that has caused considerable difficulty to some people, that popularly referred to as the legalization of homosexuality. I suggest that is not the purpose of these amendments at all. Certainly there is a fundamental misconception here. I believe the previous speaker said that the government should not be getting involved with these things, and this, of course, is exactly what the government is saying in this regard in its legislative provisions.
Criminal Code
However, I am disturbed about the popular implications that may very well arise from these amendments. It is not only what we do that is important; equally important is what we seem to do. In this regard I think it will be necessary for the minister or for other officials, while removing from the category of crime what are considered abnormal sexual relations between consenting adults, to suggest at the same time that very serious consideration be given to the incidence of this problem and the ways in which it might be dealt with from a health point of view. I think it would be bad leadership on the part of parliament if it were to be mooted abroad that the present members of parliament had thought that they were voting in favour of encouraging or opening the door to increased homosexual or other forms of abnormal sexual behaviour. If that were to be the case, we would have done a great disservice to the people of this country.
I should like to make brief reference to the great many amendments regarding gun control and control of other weapons. In this respect I think our country has lagged much behind many other countries and parts of the world that have realized the seriousness of this problem. Perhaps we have been overly influenced by the tremendous lobby that has existed in the United States in the matter of gun control. Surely the instances of assassination of great figures during the last few years will not let us forget the importance of such regulations.
Again I feel it is not going to be enough for us merely to regulate what kind of weapons it is permissible to own, and under what circumstances. Surely, in the final analysis, weapons are controlled by men. If we prohibit certain kinds of weapons or more greatly limit their use, it would only require ffie imagination of man to invent some other weapon which could be used to commit a violent or anti-social act.
During this past week we have been witnessing a great increase in violent behaviour in the North American context. Both in this place and in the various committees that seek to examine the detail of what we do here we must ascertain what our response is going to be to the growing violence in the North American-perhaps I should say the western-way of life. I suggest it will not be enough to circumscribe the gun laws of this country; we must come to grips with the cause of some of the violence that is very deeply embedded in our culture.
Criminal Code


[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
There are also some extremely worth-while revisions touching on the relationship between drinking and driving. I am glad to see that in the revised bill there are stringent criteria for establishing the alcohol content of blood. Similar provisions in previous legislation were not realistic. Although the new provision will impose great responsibilities on law enforcement officers, it at least is beginning to attack what is a great social problem today, the drinking driver. It is simplistic to say that drink only is responsible for the deaths of 5,000 who die on our highways each year. But we do know that in a great percentage of accidents drink is involved and that there is a relationship between the alcohol the driver has consumed and his susceptibility to accidents. Yet we should not fool ourselves into thinking that simply by passing this law we shall prevent death or mutilation on our streets and highways. Frankly, I am disturbed at the cavalier attitude we have displayed to automobile manufacturers who produce motor vehicles that may not be safe. We do not know how safe they are. Also, we spend too little on enforcing high standards of safety in highway construction and in bringing about safe driving standards.
If a disease were on the rampage in North America that claimed the lives of 55,000 people annually and injured about a million others, some of them permanently, we would soon set up royal commissions and invest millions of dollars in setting up new departments to deal with that specific problem. Although we applaud the minister for adopting a new standard to be applied against drinking drivers, may I point out that the drinking driver represents only one aspect of a serious social problem which needs be dealt with now.
May I refer to another amendment contained in the bill, the one having to do with lotteries. I am surprised that in a country wishing to be identified as progressive and in a bill that seeks to bring in reforms we should take the retrograde step, a step considered by many as economically regressive, of permitting lotteries. I suppose the idea is that lotteries will benefit individuals and groups as well as governments, federal and provincial. It is thought that lotteries in some way will bring in many millions of dollars of revenue. I suspect that this amendment was included in the bill as a result of lobby pressures exerted on the minister and his department and not as a result of any widespread examination of what lotteries would do to

help provincial or federal budgets. I have seen lotteries operating in other countries and seen data pertinent to lotteries, and I have yet to be convinced that lotteries benefit society or inculcate the people of the area with a desire to increase their productivity or wealth through working. Considering the social effects of lotteries, the inclusion of this amendment in the bill is ludicrous. When this amendment is debated in committee I hope we shall have an opportunity to examine the implications of lotteries in other countries. Perhaps hon. members may change their minds about the advisibility of permitting lotteries here.
It will be obvious to those who have listened to this debate or read it in Hansard that there is a wide divergence of opinion in our party on many aspects of this bill, and this is as it should be. Many of its amendments touch matters of conscience much more than they touch on political ideology, philosophy or principle. I think that hon. members on both sides of the house ought to express themselves on the bill; if they do not do so on second reading they ought to do so when the bill is in committee or when it is before the house at the third reading stage. Above all, I think they should express here what their consciences dictate, particularly on the key sections of the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: That they should be able to do so was the intention of our original amendment. Although Your Honour did not accept that amendment we hope that when we come to vote hon. members will be permitted to vote according to the dictates of their consciences.
In conclusion, may I say how pleased I am to learn from the minister that shortly there will be established a new national law reform commission. May I suggest that preliminary to the establishment of that commission serious consideration should be given to the full implications of anti-social or criminal behaviour in our society. May I also suggest in all humility that the membership of that commission should not consist entirely of those whose business or profession it is to associate with the law. Many of my colleagues on this side of the house are lawyers and I have friends in other places who have dealings with the law. Nevertheless, I think public opinion in this country demands that persons representing a wide cross-section of opinion in our society should be members of such a


commission. It is a little dangerous and nearsighted to limit the membership of that commission only to those who deal with or administer the law. Not only lawyers, magistrates or prison officials ought to be on the commission. The law affects all our lives and the membership of any commission concerned with recommending the revising and updating of our laws ought to be drawn from many segments of our society. Only then will it gain full respect in the minds of all Canadians.


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, it is customary, in this house, to hear arguments for and against a great many questions. We have very often to listen to specious arguments and sometimes to speeches in which demagogy can be detected, but I think that the bill now before us provides hon. members with a better opportunity than is usually the case to resort to demagogy, since everybody agrees that this bill deals with difficult subjects.
Incidentally, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) who has just resumed his seat, for the serious analysis he has made of this bill. Like many others I suppose, I was wondering at times whether he was speaking as a theologian or as a politician. I would even say that when the politician was speaking, there still lingered a touch of the theologian and I congratulate him on the high standard of his remarks generally.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that a great many of those who have spoken on this bill have spoken through their hats and about things which do not exist. I would like to point out some of those remarks in order to remove any doubt which may remain in the mind of the public. Indeed if there is a topic which lends itself to ambiguity it is that very subject, inasmuch as you deal with it without having read the whole tenor of the bill or with the settled intent of discrediting its proponents in the house.
For instance some have objected to breath-alizer tests being given to automobile drivers, claiming that in some cases it would interfere with the freedom of people.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the time has come, in this country, to reduce the number of accidents due to excessive consumption of alcohol. That seems even more important
Criminal Code
than concern for the protection of freedom. If one wanted to push the argument for freedom to its bitter end, policemen would have to refrain from investigating people they suspect of having committed crimes. After all, the number of deaths, accidents and claims brought about by motorists whose ability is impaired by alcohol should not be ignored. It is high time, I think, that the state should take the necessary steps to prevent such slaughter as we have experienced, through measures as strict as those prescribed in the bill before us.
Mr. Speaker, I know that the job will not be an interesting one, that we shall often be confronted with border cases where people might not be as guilty as breath analysis would suggest, and that the proposed method probably does not take into account what a given individual can stand, for some people can drink 26 ounces of alcohol and still manage to drive their car properly, whereas others, after one glass only, are unfit to drive. Justice is not perfect, tbat is a well-known fact; none the less, human shortcomings being taken into account, the state ought to enforce some legislation aimed at preventing greater evil.
It is a public disgrace, Mr. Speaker, to note the number of accidents and casualties in Canada, as well as the plain waste of money, that are due to negligent drivers who more often than not are intoxicated.
Mr. Speaker, I think that a government could not have a law passed without getting some opposition, even with regard to the most rational ones. There is in this omnibus bill many cases where, evidently, we can attribute all kinds of motives and make all sorts of assumptions. There was opposition, for instance, to certain regulations provided by the bill with regard to the possession of weapons. Mr. Speaker, I think it is high time that governments take drastic measures and be more on the look-out for these foolhardy persons who bring about so many tragedies.
A few minutes ago, Mr. Speaker, it was announced under the seal of secrecy that a bomb had exploded in Montreal, in a harbour building, wounding some thirty people. It is high time that governments take the necessary steps to prevent such disorders and slaughters which are now increasing most alarmingly in Canada. I think that the regulations governing the possession of weapons


Criminal Code
and the penalties for those who are caught in such misdoings are not yet strict enough. Indeed, the public should call upon the governments to impose even more rigid control.
In many circles people have been gloating over homosexuality. They seem to imply that the government wants to encourage it but, Mr. Speaker, it is the least of our worries and I do not think that any of our members has such a predisposition or at least I am not aware of it.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, this legislation does not in any way seek to legalize homosexuality which, I admit, is a disease. Some have said: Let us rather make provisions for the treatment of homosexuals. But under what statute can we force people with a heart condition, cancer or tuberculosis to undergo treatment against their will? For some people, that is a matter of conscience. It is not the responsibility of the government to force them, but rather to prevent that they contaminate others around them.
In the proposed legislation on homosexuality, there is no intent to spread homosexuality, on the contrary. Acts of homosexuality which would cause scandal to a minor and which would lead to obscene exhibitions will still be punishable under the law. The bill aims only at correcting deficiencies in the law which, in some cases, could expose an homosexual to sentences of 10, 15 or 20 years of imprisonment, or preventing over-zealous policemen to raid private homes and bedrooms, something which is unacceptable under our democratic system. We are merely amending the law because there is precisely an aspect of it against which we cannot do anything.
Mr. Speaker, laws that we cannot enforce should not exist. It is much better to amend them than to ignore them and thus tolerate violations which, in their original form, they could not prevent.
An hon. member objected earlier to lotteries. But for how many years, Mr. Speaker, have we not been hearing cries for the toning down of the lottery legislation or requests to the federal government for the transfer of control over lotteries to the provinces? Despite the federal legislation, for many years almost every Canadian has been buying tickets for the Irish sweepstake. As far as I know, church organizations have been conducting for many years lotteries and all kinds of

draws. It is about time that we put an end to such hypocrisy, and I think it is wise for the government to hand over to the provinces the control of lotteries. Provinces will legislate within the limits of their boundaries on the advisability of allowing lotteries to be held.
The love of gambling, Mr. Speaker, is something quite natural and betting and lotteries are age-old pastimes. I think that the federal legislation was shabby on that point, and that these amendments were long overdue.
I remember for instance that in 1963, in Toronto, my colleague, the former mayor of Toronto, and myself were invited by the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities to take part in their one-week convention in that city. And the mayors' federation passed, in 1963, with quite a comfortable majority, a resolution to the effect that the federal government should amend its legislation on lotteries, and transfer control thereof to the provinces. Then provinces wishing to do so will be able to make lotteries as lawful as they see fit.
I suggest it is high time that this lottery item be brought up to date.
It has been said in some places that the act did not go far enough in some respects, and I share that viewpoint. In other words, circumstances and the extent of public acceptance must be taken into account. The people must be informed about these judicial reforms instead of forcing more knowledge on them than they can assimilate. The present legislation is nevertheless a first step in the right direction and a commendable beginning.
Mr. Chairman, the most controversial aspect of this bill is probably the one about abortion. I have heard unimaginable comments of this subject. For instance, some way: My own conscience does not permit me to accept abortion.
Before proceeding further, it might be well to remember what is permissible in the clause dealing with abortion. There is no question of legalizing abortion. On the contrary, abortion will remain illegal for any person not complying with the conditions stipulated in the amendment. What are those conditions? In fact, abortion will be permitted in cases where a competent medical board, in a recognized hospital, will have sufficient grounds to decide that the mother could be in danger of death or of becoming permanently mentally deficient.


Someone said that his mother had several children. If anyone had asked her: Which one would you do without, she really would have been hard put to pick one.
Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of asking a mother to sacrifice her children, or even of allowing a young miss who has been indiscreet to procure an abortion because her pregnancy annoys her. It is a question of allowing a mother whose life or mental health is in danger to be examined by the members of a competent medical board, in a recognized hospital. We could then go by the diagnosis of that medical board.
Some people say that doctors would abuse the law, and that some of them would be more broadminded than others. Of course, Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of times some human beings have had weaknesses. Perfection is not of this world; it only exists in heaven where, I hope, the abortion problem will not crop up. Still, we must aim towards the lesser evil and accept the best possible human control which, to my mind, this bill provides.
Let us go back now to what I said a while ago when someone stated, "My conscience will not allow me to vote for this bill." Now, I ask that person by virtue of what principle he wishes to impose upon all Canadians the dictates of his conscience?
One's conscience is a personal thing. Other Canadians feel that the bill is right. Some members of the clergy feel that the bill is right, while spokesmen of certain denominations tell us it goes too far.
What is the legislator to do? Above all, he has no right to impose his religious convictions on his fellow-citizens.
Secondly, he must ask himself whether he took adequate precautions to insure that serious principles govern and condition the legislative measure.
I ask those whose conscience dictates that they vote against the bill whether they are not troubled at the thought of condemning to death the mother of children whose life, according to doctors, is endangered by her pregnancy. Will their conscience not bother them for having condemned to death both mother and child instead of choosing and saving the life of the mother whom the other children need?
It seems to me a basic moral principle not to sentence to death in advance a mother who has experienced unforeseen difficulties in pregnancy. Besides, we are forcing no one to
Criminal Code
have an abortion. Only those who will agree to it will have one with the consent of their doctor. There is not one single mother of a family who will be obliged to have an abortion. Any attempt to impose on others one's religious principles seems a little behind the times.
Mr. Speaker, I am against abortion and I shall not allow any member of my family to have an abortion even if the law made it legal. My attitude is dictated by my conscience but I cannot impose my religious principles upon the believers of other faiths or the people who do not share my views.
If some people question the value of my argument, I should like to risk an indiscretion and relate a personal experience. I should like to remind them that I have seen my wife lying on a sick bed with three doctors at her side. They told me for two weeks that with an abortion they could save her life but because of my moral principles, they did not induce abortion and I lost my wife and child. I ask those who, are bothered by their conscience if it would not have been better to save the mother rather than to sentence to death both mother and child.
In recognized hospitals, doctors will take usual precautions. That solution is a lot better than to force a woman to get an abortion from any quack abortionist.
I have the very distinct impression that upon sober reflection, one must admit that this legislation is a step in the right direction although it it not perfect and does not go far enough. It is a step in the right direction even though to the best of one's knowledge and belief, one objects to it.
I object to homosexuality, Mr. Speaker. Personally I also object to abortion. My conscience is at peace because I shall not resort to those things. However, I cannot impose the dictates of my conscience upon others, and this is what we are trying to provide.
We should be as broad-minded as possible when considering this legislation. We should display the greatest possible measure of oecumenism-I did not coin the word-and be very considerate of all beliefs. As for those who have problems with their conscience, they simply have to waive the provisions of the act and obey the voice of their conscience.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I believe we should support this bill. By doing so, we may not attain perfection but we will at least try to choose the lesser evil which would certainly be a remarkable achievement in a society such as ours.
Criminal Code


[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Francis Andrew Brewin: 
equitable, unjust and retrogressive. It exploits the desire to make easy money on the part of those people who can least afford to pay. Every state which has attempted state lotteries has been forced to abandon them because of their poor results. Yet because of some popular pressure, perhaps popular ignorance, we are urged to expand the scope of lotteries.
I have no doubt that in my own constituency the majority of my constituents would say they are in favour of expanding lotteries. I do not like to take a stand perhaps different from that of many of my constituents, but in this field my conscience requires me to say that most of them have not studied the facts. Had they done so I am sure they would agree with most of us who urge that we take this provision out of the bill. We need a more equitable and just tax system. When we need a juster tax system, why should we be denied a method of approach which is intelligent and just rather than an approach which is inequitable, inexpensive and pushes costs upwards? Lotteries are, in effect, taxes which are unjust, unreasonable and unfair, and I certainly hope to get the opportunity to vote against this part of the legislation. I will vote against what I think might turn out to be a social nuisance.
Let me say a word about the moot question of abortion. We all recognize that this is a delicate subject which involves peoples' deepest religious feelings. We are discussing the sanctity of human life. All I can say is that while I respect the views of others it is my view that it would be more convenient and more humane to take abortion out of the field of criminal law. I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway that we should remove it from the sphere of criminal law altogether. If we are to have a law in respect of abortion I think the proposal in the bill is reasonable because it specifically refers to life and health, and these are intimately interconnected. I do not understand how abortion can be said to be disregard of life when we permit an operation which may save the life and basic health of one fully developed personality at the expense of a personality that has not developed.
I cannot go into all the fine refinements of theology in respect of this matter, but I know different churches take different views. The church to which I happen to belong has recognized, I think rightly, that the views it used to hold are no longer applicable in this modern age of scientific development. I go along with that view, not entirely because that is my church but because I think it is 29180-3471
Criminal Code
sound sense and a matter of respect of humanity.
Let me say a word about the law in respect of homosexuality. I hope the committee will study this whole question to ascertain whether the legislation we are proposing in this field is adequate. I want to say that the basic principle in respect of this matter should be that private aberrations or illnesses should not become public crimes. If they are made into public crimes they open the door to blackmail without providing a cure of the disease. They add to the human misery which can flow from this affliction.
It is my suggestion that we look into this matter to see what other jurisdictions have done about it. Perhaps something more could be done than will be done by the provisions in this bill, although in my opinion they are steps in the right direction.
I was particularly pleased to read the proposals in the bill for the expansion of the National Parole Board. I do not want to deal with this at length because it can be dealt with in detail at a later stage. I do want to emphasize that this system has worked and worked well. It has rehabilitated many people. But those responsible in this bill have worked with inadequate facilities and without a sufficient, number of trained people to carry out the functions of supervisory parole. No arguments of economy should stop us from expanding this service which has been shown to be beneficial and, incidentally, a matter of sound economy as well. We create a sort of false economy when we cut down services of that sort. We condemn people to jail for long terms at great loss to their lives and great expense to the public. If we are to extend this system of parole we must also increase the funds available to those who are doing the actual job of supervising in the field.
In the course of this debate hon. members have made reference to the inadequacies of this so-called omnibus bill and its omissions. I suppose each one of us has a list of different omissions, but in my mind the notable omission is in respect of bail. A number of studies have been made in this regard. Learned experts have referred to the wastefulness, injustices and inequities of our bail system. Why cannot our Department of Justice prepare a revision of the bail provisions of the code?
I should like to see a new definition of insanity as a defence to a criminal charge spelled out. We now have a definition that every learned psychiatrist and medical man in the world has condemned as being inadequate. Distinguished lawyers, including my


Criminal Code
former senior partner, Chief Justice McRuer, have expressed a view which I think happens to be wrong and not in accordance with the times. They have taken an over-technical approach, as lawyers sometimes do.
I do not know why we cannot in this house, rather than somewhere else, deal with hate literature. I think there are many other spheres in which there is an urgent need for change. If this is an omnibus bill, we need not one omnibus but a whole fleet of omnibuses in order to remove the inadequate laws we have in the field of criminal law and bring in up to date provisions.
At this stage I should like to refer to a point I mentioned before when I said I would like to adopt as the theme of my remarks the need for a thoroughly radical revision of the system of criminal justice. Let me quote Dr. Menninger, an eminent psychiatrist:
It is a well known fact that relatively few offenders are caught and most of those arrested are released. Society makes a fetish of wreaking punishment as it is called on occasional captured and convicted individuals. This is supposed to control crime by deterrence. The more valid and obvious conclusion-that getting caught is thus made the unthinkable thing-is overlooked by all but the offenders. We shut our eyes to the fact that the scapegoats must go through the mill to keep the legend of punishment alive and to keep our jails and prisons, however expensive, crowded and wretched.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I could cite passage after passage from Dr. Menninger's book. He is a person who knows what he is talking about, who has studied the facts, not the facts of some ideal system of justice, not the facts of what ought to be, but the facts of what is. Such people say we are not dealing adequately with the problem of violence. The hon. member for Egmont said that we on this continent face a very serious problem in connection with violence. We shall not solve that problem by doing more of the same, by increasing the number of police officers and jails and imposing punishments of the type that have been imposed. We will have to go a great deal deeper than this if we are to solve the problem.
In the solution of the problem we shall have to use methods of scientific research which have been adopted in other fields and found to work. We shall have to say to the lawyers and to society in general: Your system has not worked. The cold war that exists between lawyers and the social workers, psychiatrists, medical men, penologists and others expert in this field must be ended; the situation must be changed.
[Mr. Brewin.l
I tell the house quite frankly that when I studied law I was taught nothing about what happens to people after they have served a term of imprisonment. I was taught what the sections of the Criminal Code contained but nothing at all about what happens to these people because of our system. Magistrates, judges and those concerned with administering our system of justice are not as such concerned with what happens afterwards to those whom they condemn even if they are personally sympathetic. They do not have to make decisions in this respect. They have to decide whether the penalty will be imprisonment for two years, three years or six months. Whether as a result of the penalty any cure will be provided, or whether it will create more criminals and promote recidivism is not part of their concern, expertise or knowledge. We have to consider this problem and ask the lawyers, who are a group with honourable principles and many great traditions, to get together with the social scientists, the medical men and psychiatrists and study and evaluate what are the consequences of our present system and how it can be improved.
I support this bill by and large, with the exceptions I have mentioned. It is a step forward. But I want to emphasize that unless it is treated by the government, this parliament and the public as merely a first step, a move toward a radical and thorough revision of our whole system, it will be inadequate and almost a waste of time. These are subjects that deal with deeply rooted feelings, prejudices and traditions. I think we must recognize that the time has come for change, for bold revision.
I hope that the law reform committee which will be set up will be a committee that will not tinker around, as lawyers have so often done, with the wording of the Criminal Code and things of that sort. I hope the committee will seek the best possible advice from people like Dr. Menninger, for example. We know that the field of psychiatry is changing. Those engaged in this field have developed new approaches and therapies which have been far more successful than the old-fashioned psychiatry practised in the past. Until we become up to date in this field we shall race constantly the type of violence, disorder and misery that now exists which has been growing and threatens our society.


Mr. Roland Godin (Porineuf):: Mr. Speaker, the former Bill C-195 which has become,
February 13, 19G9

since the last elections, Bill C-150, has benefited from a wide publicity: radio, television and newspapers alike have taken up the matter. Contrarily to many bills which are often passed without the public bothering about them, this bill is popular in every class of society. We get letters from mothers and fathers who convey to us their ideas on the subject or they use the "Letters to the Editor" or other columns which are available to them in the newspapers.
I have received quite a lot of mail since this bill was introduced in the house. In addition to the personal letters which were sent to me I have a brief from the Association des bureaux medicaux des hopitaux de la province de Quebec and also a brief from the Alliance pour la vie, located in Hull, P. Q.
We have also received recommendations, and blueprints from the Association des Parents Catholiques du Quebec, from the Societe Saint-Jean-Baptiste in Montreal, from the Federation des Societes Saint-Jean-Baptiste du Quebec, from the Foyers Notre-Dame and from les Equipes Notre-Dame, from the Chapitre metropolitan des Chevaliers de Colomb, from the Chevaliers de Champlain, from the Dames Helene de Champlain, from the Association des Puericultrices de la Province de Quebec, from the Association des Infirmieres Catholiques du Canada, from the Action Nationale, from the Fraternite des Policiers de Montreal, from the Federation des Fraternites de policiers de la Province de Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, among all these briefs, all these letters, there is just one single letter in favour of the bill as proposed; if I had to speak on behalf of all those who oppose the bill as presented, I guess it would take me at least 40 hours.
Like the previous speakers, I shall be satisfied with the forty minutes at my disposal, but I shall simply point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that forty minutes for an area of 50,000 voters do not amount even to a minute for a thousand voters and that forty minutes to deal with a bill that contains more than 100 clauses is not all that much.
So I made a choice, and the first subject that I want to talk of is the one that proposes to modify the Criminal Code so as to authorize the federal and provincial governments to organize and to manage a lottery, and to deliver permits to charitable or religious organizations to agricultural fairs or exhibitions or a private citizen so that they can organize and manage a lottery.
Criminal Code
Mr. Speaker, we can support this bill while opposing lotteries. I think our present system is useful because a few persons only have dared to use it.
And yet we remember the prohibition era in the province of Quebec, when the few innkeepers who engaged in bootlegging became millionaires. Today, because of the distribution right and left of licences or permits, the innkeepers realize that there are too many of them and that the majority of them have financial troubles.
By legalizing lotteries and by generalizing these systems, their "beneficial" effects are cancelled, if I may use that expression.
Today, the city of Montreal's voluntary tax can be advantageous. But on the day when any one, religious associations, the federal government, the provincial governments, the cities, the municipalities, agricultural exhibitions, individuals, can do the same, in short, the day when there are as many fishermen as there is fish, it will then be realized that this clause of the bill left only disillusions and numerous victims among low income people who believed, at one time, that they had found the solution to their problems.
There is another section of the bill that does not leave any room for doubt as regards its efficiency. It is section 16. The purpose of that amending section of the law would be to oblige the driver of a motor vehicle to submit to a breathalizer test whenever it is required by a peace officer who believes, on reasonable and probable grounds, that that person's ability to drive is impaired.
Mr. Speaker, such a procedure will facilitate the work of the peace officers and will also protect citizens against abuses or errors on the part of certain peace officers. We have all seen at one time or another automobile accidents, where policemen failed to do their duty because they were dealing with influential people. It may happen however that small folk become the victims of peace officers. I am thinking about a Quebec City carpenter, head of a family, who after spending the evening at the home of friends, where he had had a few drinks went back home in his car. Now, he saw a policeman on a street corner.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Shaken by the publicity, and in good faith knowing that one must never drive whenever one's ability is impaired by alcohol instead of asking a friend to drive him home, he asked the first policeman he saw to do so. In order to help him, the peace officer accepted to take


Criminal Code
the wheel but it was to bring him to jail. The following morning, his employer had to go to the police station to bail out his employee, who had had three bottles of beer in four flours' time.
I am also thinking about a peddler, who *earned his living as a retailer. Following a minor accident in a fog, he had told the policemen that he had had two small bottles of beer in a three-hour period prior to the accident. On account of the evidence given by two policemen, the man lost his driving licence for five months. Since he earned his living as a door-to-door retail salesman, he did need his automobile, but there was no way out: he had his driving permit suspended for five months.
It is not often said, but the average honest Quebec resident thinks this is about the same all over the country. The honest Canadian citizen has had at times to deal with the police force. He wants to be protected against abuses by police officers. Again, I say that this new method, the breathalizer test, is highly regarded by my compatriots. I would vote for the clause on this subject were it not for the other repulsive clauses which are included in this bill.
In fact, that part of the bill concerning homosexuality is one among others that is disgusting. In my opinion, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) is a normal person. It is indeed unfortunate that he has been compelled to work on this and to take over this responsibility.
In my opinion, some articles published in L'Ami de Saint-Benoit-du-Lac are a good example of the ridiculous situation inherited by the minister. I quote:
The bill on homosexuality.
The bill which aims at "legalizing" homosexuality will he talked about for quite a while. It would be a pity if honourable members took it upon themselves to enact it in its present form.
All the ballyhooing around that topic gives the impression to many poorly informed people, that homosexuality is a normal thing, while it is a sexual perversion: the bill does not state it, and yet it should be common knowledge. During the debate on a similar bill adopted in England, people at least were courageous enough to tell it like it is, about the scourge of homosexuality. In this country, we heard men and women say on the airon C.B.C.
__that they favour the legislation, because they
themselves indulge in that kind of perversion; according to them, their behaviour is quite normal: they are sick, but they do not know it.

Doctors and psychiatrists agree that this deviation may often be cured; but if you allow people to think that it is a normal way of life, it is quite possible that things will get worse, instead of getting better. If authorities would agree to say that it is a disease or an abnormal psychological condition, one cannot imagine that this sexual deviation would be encouraged to spread on a plea of "freedom", as true freedom of the individual is based upon the respect of other peoples' freedom. But human nature being what it is, we can see, with horror and dismay that those who indulge in that kind of behaviour, lead astray other people, for in general they are indifferent towards the opposite sex, if not downright hostile. Is this what they want to legalize?
And the article ends with the following words:
"But where will it all stop?"
Mr. Speaker, I also have here a long letter from Rev. Gerard Gagnon, of the College Sainte-Croix in Montreal. He quotes the comments of Raymond Lacoste, a French journalist who was covering the debates when the British Parliament passed the Bill legalizing homosexuality. I quote:
The debates have shown us the extent of this evil: from 50 to 60 million unnatural acts are committed every year! The number of sexual offences, from a mere 5,000 per year in 1939, had risen to 20,000 by 1964; at the same time, the number of violent crimes had risen from 2,900 to 23,470, and the number of criminal offences from 303,000 to over one million per year.
Raymond Lacoste continues in a humorous vein which however calls for tears rather than for smiles:
During the debates we were treated to some "weighty" considerations. Needless to say, when the question was put the ravishing young men with made up eyes who filled the galleries expressed their boundless joy with loud cheers.
The defenders of the "dear boys" put forward all kinds of arguments ... Mr. Wood maintained seriously that homosexuality offers no risk of illegitimate birth! And what good is it to send a homosexual to jail? Is it not like sentencing a "wolf" to a few years in a harem? (This from Mr. Absi, M.P., and it brought a roar of laughter from his colleagues).
Raymond Lacoste concluded by saying that those debates revealed that the moral fibre of British youth was in danger. There are two million homosexuals in Great Britain, which shows the depth of degradation in that country. Could it be there is something rotten in the Kingdom?
Mr. Speaker, like monkeys we are imitating England. Side by side with England, we fought Germany; side by side with England, we won the war and today, like England, we go back to Germany to borrow money. In this


regard, I would like to quote an article published in the newspaper L'Action of Wednesday, May 22, 1968:
Thanks to the loan oi $162 million credit will become easier to get-
And we are told about the source of this credit granted to us last year.
The first of two new bond issues has been announced last week. It is a matter of $62 million issued in Western Germany marks and it is the Deutsche Bank, a German commercial bank, which will negotiate the loan.
England and Canada, which won the war by bombing Germans, are today kneeling down before them. The conquerors bend the knee before the vanquished. It is not very clever but those are facts.
Therefore I think that the Minister of Justice should not be satisfied with imitating. Obviously, the adoption of the clause regarding homosexuality will help to reduce the number of births and if the mover of the previous bill, No. C-195, the hon. member for Mount Royal, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), thought of annihilating the Canadian nation, the present Minister of Justice, after the manner of England, could improve the bill by moving an amendment promoting cannibalism.
In that connection, I should like to quote from a so-called honest newpaper reporting an event which took place in England recently.
Cannibalism had never before reached Great Britain. It is now an accomplished fact. That is at least the opinion of Scotland Yard inspectors who take their stand on actual cases. Yesterday, they found in a house in the north section of London, inhabited by-*
-I will not mention whom-
-pates of human flesh, salted and potted leg. One foot was simmering in a pressure cooker; an eye had been thrown away in a garbage can.
Two persons were arrested and examined. The preserved human flesh was sent to Scotland Yard laboratory. A report will be sent to the Home Office.
e (4:50 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, Canada was with England against Germany; it is on its side today, to borrow from the former enemy. I think the Prime Minister should not be satisfied with imitating England. He should move an amendment immediately to legalize cannibalism in Canada. It would be a real success. There would be no mistake possible; people would be destroying themselves much faster.
Mr. Speaker, paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of new section 149A deals with another
Criminal Code
matter. It allows young people of 21 or more to commit certain acts. Now before introducing a bill limiting criminal offences to persons of 21 or over, the Minister of Justice should propose that legislation be passed to compel Canadian people to carry an identity card because in the province of Quebec, people are now exchanging and lending birth certificates. Young people act this way to sneak in liquor stores without trouble. That is why I say that as long as identity cards are not made compulsory in Canada, it will be childish to set age requirements for granting certain authorizations.
With the amendment regarding homosexuality, we can expect weddings. As there are several races in Canada, I think that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) should make a statement in order to determine, in the case of weddings between persons of the same sex, in the case of a wedding for instance between an Englishman and a Frenchman, which one of them will be considered as the breadwinner, under the income tax act.
As to the clause of the bill dealing with abortion, previous speakers have eloquently dealt with it. Among them were fathers with 10 or 12 children. I recognize most humbly that it would be useless for me to try and deal with the same subject in the same capacity.
May I quote extracts of a report from the Haut comite frangais de la population et de la famille entitled: "The State face to abortion". I am quoting:
First of all the reader is impressed by the firm position taken on moral grounds.
But over and beyond all those empirical arguments. public Powers are basically facing an option of a moral order.
-among those rules stands respect for human life; now, abortion is unquestionably recognized to-day as the disruption of an autonomous human life.
And the report goes on to say:
Biology catches up today with the intuitions of Christian thought, the basis of our civilization. From the very beginning the Church considered abortion as homicide and nothing allows us today to think otherwise.
"To accept abortion is to accept the destruction of a child who, according to circumstances, has from 40 to 99.5 percent chances to be born normal. Would it not be better then to wait until it is born and to do away only with those children who are actually unsound? As this very idea is indefensible, it becomes clear that the motivation is inadequate. Society is oriented in the opposite direction: the progress of civilization led us to accept of the handicapped and misfits; we help them, seek their rehabilitation, their improvement, first from the human point of view, then from


Criminal Code
the medical one. Such efforts are inconsistent with a certain kind of eugenism by way of abortion-
Still, where are the real dregs of mankind to be found? I would like, at this point, to quote Georges Bastide: "It is impossible to dissociate the biological future of the human species from its moral progress; human beings without morals would mean pitiful biological waste soon to be swept away by nature.
I would like now to quote from a bulletin that was published in an Ontario city by the Emergency Organization for the defence of children to be born:
Dear member of Parliament,
Any loyal Canadian citizen cannot help but be frightened as he realizes that Canada is rushing full steam ahead into a population crisis, or rather a depopulation crisis. In some areas of Canada, the birth rate has decreased by more than 60 per cent due to oral contraceptives. This can be proved by the population figures in a single city of Ontario, namely Listowel, reported in the Listowel Banner of November 16, 1967:
POPULATION FIGURES, LISTOWEL, ONTARIO Year	Population	Births1963	4,246	76
And I spare the house the rest of the table. 1967, 4,447, 27 (up to November)
Such a decline in the birth rate is noticeable throughout Canada. How then can we consider even possible to pass a bill which will legalize the murder of the small number of babies being conceived?
Let us hope that Canada will not make the same mistakes as other countries. Rumania, for instance, brought upon itself such an under population problem that a whole generation was lost. The situation has become so serious that this country, where once abortion could be procured on request has found it necessary to prohibit both abortions and contraceptives.
Once a law is passed, it is difficult to repeal it. You are asked to do your utmost to prevent its passage before it is too late.
This report is signed by the president, Mrs. Olive Heron.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before proceeding
with the consideration of private members' business, will the house allow me to revert to the amendment moved earlier today by the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe) ?
The Deputy Speaker then deemed advisable to take it under consideration. Since then, we thought the matter over and I am now ready to give a ruling.
First of all, I must advise the hon. member that in order to be allowed on second reading, an amendment must not relate to particulars

of the clause of the bill it seeks to amend or anticipate on those which might be moved in the standing committee that will consider the said bill.
As indicated in citation 382 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, a member may, at the second reading stage, move a declaratory resolution of some principle adverse to those of the bill. Such is not the case here.
Citation 381 of the same author reads as follows:
On the motion for the second reading, it is out of order to discuss the clauses of the Bill.
Similar restrictions can be found in citations 388 and 389 of the same volume.
Therefore, for the reasons I have given, with the co-operation of my colleagues, I regret to say that the amendment moved by the hon. member is out of order and unacceptable at this stage of debate on the bill.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the house that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin)-National Parks-Quebec-inquiry as to development; the hon. member for Surrey (Mr. Mather)- Post Office Department-effect of increased rates on trade papers publication; the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert)-Housing-possibility of referring task force report to committee.
It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-6, respecting the Canada Trust Company, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Max Sallsman (Waterloo) moved:: That clause 1 of the said bill be deleted.


Mr. Speaker:: As hon. members may know, the Chair has some doubt whether this proposed amendment is in order. There have been informal discussions about the very interesting point of order that has arisen as a result of the proposed amendment, particularly in view of the new rules under which the house operates. I would invite hon. members who may have comments to make in connection with this amendment to argue the case.
Briefly, the objection that the Chair might have to the bill is that the amendment proposes the deletion of clause 1 of the bill. There is, of course, only one clause to the bill. Perhaps this is an indirect way of inviting hon. members to vote against the bill. That is the difficulty, a difficulty of some substance, with which the Chair is faced at the moment.


Mr. Blair:: Mr. Speaker, I think you have stated the problem that arises from the amendment moved by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman). I do not think it was ever contemplated by the special committee on procedure that Standing Order 75, subsection 5, would be used in a case of this type. As the house is aware, one of the effects of the new Standing Orders adopted just prior to the Christmas recess was to add what is called the report stage to the consideration of any bill, be it public or private. It was provided in Standing Order 75 that at the report stage the issue would be put immediately without debate, whether or not the bill had been amended in committee. It was also provided that only in the event an hon. member had put down a motion at least 24 hours prior to the consideration of the report stage could there be any debate whatever.
I should think that the difficulty, if there be any, about the procedure at this stage might arise from the wording of subsection 5 of Standing Order 75, which reads as follows:
If, not later than twenty-four hours prior to the consideration of a report stage, written notice is given of any motion to amend, delete, insert or restore any clause in a bill, it shall be printed on a notice paper.
It might be considered by some hon. members, as indeed it may well have been considered by the hon. member who has proposed this amendment, that the inclusion in this subsection of the word "delete" gives authority to the house at this stage to consider his motion. It is my submission that this would be an incorrect and imprudent interpretation of the new rule which all of us had
Private Bills
hoped would commend itself to the house and facilitate the procedure in this chamber in connection with both public and private bills.
It appears to me, and it is my submission, that the motion which is now before the house offends against the Standing Orders on at least three grounds. First of all, it is, as Your Honour has pointed out, apparently in contrast to the established practice of the house with respect to amendments. Second, it is my submission that it is offensive to the common sense of members in that it asks them to vote twice on a proposition which could be decided on one vote. Third, it is my contention that this type of amendment is not only contrary to the letter of the Standing Orders but certainly contrary to the spirit of the Standing Orders as amended.
May I now refer you, Mr. Speaker, to some of the authorities, with which you are undoubtedly familiar, in support of these arguments. First of all let me refer you to the 17th edition of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, page 414. Here the learned author sets out the purpose of an amendment under the heading "Object of an amendment and effect on debate". He states:
The object of an amendment may be either to modify a question in such a way as to increase its acceptability, or to present to the house a different proposition as an alternative to the original question.
My first submission is that the motion to delete the only clause in a one clause bill does not present this house with an alternative to the original question.
The second citation from the same volume to which I wish to refer is to be found at page 418 and deals with the type of amendments that are declared to be inadmissible by the established practice of parliament. One of the species of inadmissible amendments is covered by this statement:
The Speaker has also ruled that an amendment that was merely an expanded negative ... could not be proposed-
Then there are extensive references to decisions of Speakers of the British house to be found in the footnotes to page 418.
Again I submit that there can be no question about the nature of this amendment. It is in exactly the same form as the vote on the substantive issue which would arise if we were permitted to proceed with the vote at the report stage.
I wish also to refer you, Mr. Speaker, to page 550 of the same volume, where the learned author discusses the proceedings in


Private Bills
the passing of public bills. As reported at this page the learned author states:
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
An amendment which is equivalent to a negative of the bill, or which would reverse the principle of the bill as agreed to on the second reading, is not admissible-
He goes on to give examples and I draw to your attention the first example cited, Mr. Speaker:
The scope of the Parliamentary Elections,... Bill, 1880, being restricted to the repeal of a section in a statute, an amendment which proposed the continuance and extension of that section was ruled out of order. The chairman stated that, though the committee had full power to amend, even to the extent of nullifying the provisions of a bill, they could not insert a clause reversing the principle which the bill, as read a second time, sought to affirm.
I submit the situation we have here is on all fours with the situation depicted in this example, in which an amendment seeking to remove a clause from a one clause bill was ruled out of order.
May I also refer you to Beauchesne, fourth edition, citation 202 (13), which appears at page 170. Here the learned author states:
An amendment to alter the main question, by substituting a proposition with the opposite conclusion, is not an expanded negative and may be moved.
He goes on to say in subsection 14:
An amendment which would produce the same result as if the original motion were simply negatived is out of order.
In my submission it is clear beyond doubt that the effect of a vote on this amendment would be precisely the same as the effect of the vote on the main motion. I was in error in referring Your Honour to Citation 202 (13). I ought to have referred Your Honour to subsection 14.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But
13 is much better.


Duncan Gordon Blair: I have cited some authorities of long standing which have governed the procedures in this chamber and which, in my submission, the committee of the house had no intention of disturbing by the adoption of the important amendments to the rules immediately before the Christmas recess. I think it would be very serious if the house were to take a stand now on the scope of amendments which can be admitted different from that which has prevailed during the long history of this chamber.
I now wish to address myself to the principle of the law as opposed to the letter of the

law. It is clear that the house has already voted on second reading on the very proposition we would now be confronted with if this amendment were adopted. It is also clear that on third reading the same proposition could properly be brought before the house. If hon. members who have moved and seconded this amendment find it is out of order they have the right to call for a recorded vote at the report stage. There can be no question that any new principle, new issue or new matter of substance can be placed before the house by reason of this amendment which merely negatives the main principle of the bill. We should all face the fact that one of the purposes of bringing in the important amendments to our rules was to avoid repetitious debate and to speed up procedures in this chamber. I submit also that in the case of private bills we ought to be concerned that those who bring them before this chamber are not subjected to unfair and discriminatory time-wasting when it is important that decisions be reached.
For all these reasons I submit that this amendment, having regard to all proper considerations, ought to be considered as not being within the rules and declared out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I submit to my hon. friend for Grenville-Carleton that the issue is not the time we take but the correct interpretation of the rules. He suggested that there was no doubt about the position of this matter; but I would remind him that Your Honour expressed some doubt at the beginning of this hour about this matter and suggested we might discuss it so that this doubt could be resolved.
First, Mr. Speaker, may I, even if in doing so I repeat some of the citations or quotations read by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, point out that there is in our rules a provision for bringing in amendments at the report stage. This is what my friend, the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman), has done under the provisions of Standing Order 75(5), which reads as follows:
If, not later than twenty-four hours prior to the consideration of a report stage, written notice is given of any motion to amend, delete, insert or restore any clause in a bill, it shall be printed on a notice paper.
My hon. friend from Waterloo has given notice of an amendment to delete clause 1 of Bill S-6. He is now claiming the right to move his motion and have it debated and voted on under other parts of Standing Order 75.

My hon. friend from Grenville-Carleton bases his entire objection to this procedure on the ground that there is only one matter before us, namely, clause 1 of Bill S-6. May I remind him that Bill S-6 contains three parts: a title, a preamble and a clause. May I also remind him that our authorities make many references to these various parts of a bill, the title, the preamble and the clauses. My hon. friend from Waterloo has not moved an amendment to one part of a bill containing one part only; he has moved an amendment touching one of three parts of the bill, namely, touching clause 1.
I confess I had no notice that the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton would raise this point of order and I have not had time to find all the authorities on this subject. May I draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, Standing Order 78(1) of the rules which existed before last December. I believe this provision must have been carried forward to the new rules in some way. The old rules said this:
In proceedings in committee of the whole House upon bills, the preamble is first postponed-
And I draw to your attention, after some intervening lines, these significant words:
-the preamble and title to be last considered.
In other words it is not just an independent opinion of mine that there are three parts to a bill, the title, preamble and clause or clauses. Those three parts are mentioned in the old Standing Orders and in several citations. May I also say to the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton that the case he relied on most heavily was before another parliament and, as I understood, related to a public bill. This, I suggest to Your Honour, is a different kettle of fish. This is a private bill and authorities like Beauchesne make it clear that in the case of a private bill the preamble is more significant than in a public bill, be it a private bill or a private members' public bill. The preamble is something that must be proven before the bill can be proceeded with. At the moment I am not saying whether the preamble has been proven. I am saying it is an integral part of this bill separate from the clause just as the title is a separate part. To vote on only part of the total bill is not the same as taking a vote on the bill as a whole. My hon. friend contends that because this is a one-clause bill a vote on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) is simply an expanded negative. I submit that would be true if there were nothing else to the bill except clause 1. However,
Private Bills
there are three parts, the title, the preamble and the clause.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
What I want to say now is perhaps a little out of sequence, but I should like to point out that the idea of an amendment to delete a clause is not only enshrined in Standing Order 75, which I quoted a moment ago, but it was put to the test yesterday. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar moved an amendment at the report stage yesterday when we were debating Bill C-155 to the effect that Clause 13(3) of the said bill be deleted. One could have argued that that was an expanded negative. It was just a way of voting against subclause 3 of clause 13 of that bill. No one raised that point. I believe it is in keeping with the provision in this Standing Order that it should be possible to vote at the report stage, not against the bill as a whole but for or against the deletion of a part of that bill. If it was in order to do that yesterday on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar, then I submit it is possible to do so today.
I return to the main point which is being made by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair). If it were true there is nothing before us at the report stage but a clause, I admit he would have a pretty strong argument about its being an expanded negative just to defeat that clause, but there is not before us just a clause. There are three parts of the bill before us, the title, the preamble and the clause.
The preamble to a private bill is not the same as in a public bill which in some cases merely states:
Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
It is something which has to be proven. In this case the preamble reads as follows:
Whereas the Canada Trust Company, hereinafter called ''the Corporation", has by its petition prayed that it be enacted as hereinafter set forth, and it is expedient to grant the prayer of the petition: Therefore Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
That, Mr. Speaker, is a debatable proposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There must be some humour which escapes me. I welcome the laughter. At least I am being listened to.


Private Bills


Duncan Gordon Blair: We hope the point of humour does not escape you.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In
the days when we went into Committee of the Whole on a private bill, and this is still true in the standing committee to which a private bill is referred, the preamble to a private bill is debatable. It is not just a simple phrase- "therefore be it enacted". It contains allegations. It is cited in Beauchesne that the preamble is something which must be proven. I am talking at length about the preamble of this bill not because I am arguing or debating its validity, but to emphasize the fact it has to be proven. I am trying to make the point it is a separate proposition from the clause itself. What is before us is not just a one-shot item. It has three parts, the title, preamble and clause.
I submit it should be in order to move this kind of amendment. I suppose the hon. member, instead of moving this amendment to delete clause 1, could have moved an amendment to delete the preamble. Would the same argument have been raised? If Standing Order 75 envisages debate at the report stage when amendments are put down it does not seem consistent with that decision of the house to say on a point of order that a bill with only one clause in it is not debatable at this stage. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider that if this point of order raised by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton is sustained what would stop the government from bringing in one-clause bills from now on? The government is pretty good at that. They are not only good at omnibus bills. They can write an awful lot into one clause. Any bill which the government did not want debated at the report stage could be presented as a bill with only one clause.


Mr. Aiken:: That is the best argument you have come up with.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There have beer, such bills. Sometimes a government amending bill seems to amend two or three sections of the original bill by lumping them all into a one-clause bill. This would result in one-clause bills, although they might cover a dozen subjects, not being capable of being amended or debated at the report stage.
I welcome the word of approval I just got from my "N.D.P." friend from Parry Sound-Muskoka. That is a reference to an error made by the press a while ago which we both enjoyed. Come on over.
Denial of the right to move an amendment to a one-clause bill is opening the door to

tactics by which the right of debate at the report stage could be taken away. I submit, Mr. Speaker, this is an important point. I recognize the validity of your raising the question and asking that it be discussed. I submit very strongly that we did provide for debate at the report stage, not on the bill as a whole or of a general character but on the clauses. What my friend has done has been in keeping with the rules. He is asking that the one clause be deleted. That is separate from the question whether the title or preamble carries. I realize they would not be worth much without the clause. They are separate parts from the clause itself.
If I may borrow the language used by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt at all but that this amendment is in order.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I did not have the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, of looking up the references. I must admit I was completely against the argument of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre until he pulled the last arrow from his quiver.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
hon. member was looking at me. Perhaps it was mental telepathy.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I really could not accept his argument that striking out the clause would not in fact be a negative. The reason is that rule 75 does not permit the amendment of the preamble or the title. It refers only to deleting a clause. His suggestion that perhaps the reverse might be true and that he might move to delete the preamble, and therefore the clause, does not follow. I could not say as a matter of realism that the rules should be applied to permit a negative vote by deleting the only clause in the bill.
However, I was quite impressed with the last suggestion made by the hon. member that refusing leave to delete the only clause would open the way to the government to introduce several subjects in one clause, and thus prevent any amendment on report stage. We have argued strongly against the introduction of many subjects in one bill. For that reason alone I would think a restricted interpretation of the actual words of the rule should be followed, and the amendment be allowed.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I notice that you are asking hon. members, according to standing order 75 (10), to


give a few explanations concerning the proposed amendment which seems both in order and out of order for various reasons.
I would like to indicate that keeping in mind certain arguments that have been voiced-if we were in the process of discussing a public bill, I would think that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) would be quite in order for the simple reason that the procedure concerning public bills is different from that of private bills. On this subject, I do not intend to repeat the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) which, in my opinion, were quite appropriate.
However, Mr. Speaker, we are now discussing a private bill and consequently, a difference must be established. If, on discussing a private bill, we had reached the first, second or third reading, the amendment could be declared out of order since this would create a precedent according to the parliamentary procedure.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, as we are now discussing a committee report-I have obtained legal counsel on this point-I would think, as it was mentioned a minute ago, that at the committee report stage, it may be that the amendment is in order. In parliamentary wording, this is known as a "Motion to delete".
Another argument which, in my opinion, is quite appropriate and with which I agree, Mr. Speaker, although I am not an expert in this matter, is the proposition voiced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who said that a bill must be distinguished as to its various parts. Hence, I do not agree with the hon. member who first voiced his opinion on this subject and who said that this amendment is equal to the bill being rejected, as a distinction must be established between the different parts of a bill, namely the title, the preamble and the several paragraphs included in it.
The amendment is intended to repeal clause 1 and, in this connection, we could refer to standing order 75 (5) and say that such a thing is possible, and I quote:
If, not later than twenty-four hours prior to the consideration of a report stage, written notice is given of any motion to amend, delete, insert or restore any clause in a bill, it shall be printed on a notice paper.
And this is in order, Mr. Speaker, since such a situation is provided for in the Standing Orders. Therefore, this is not a precedent at the committee report stage in that respect, since it is mentioned in the Standing Orders.
Private Bills
Mr. Speaker, I would not like to delay this debate any further. I think your skill and your experience will enable you to take in the situation, but I wish to tell you that we appreciated it when you asked for the advice of hon. members before ruling the motion in order or out of order.
As far as we are concerned, Mr. Speaker, we wish to say, with all due respect, that we would welcome your ruling it in order, for the simple reason that the first clause, and not the preamble, is involved.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, because we are attempting to develop the new rules to be meaningful to us, it is necessary for us to explore as much as we can all the ramifications involved in any new proposal such as this. Most of us do not have the advantage that the hon. member for Gren-ville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) had in being involved intimately in the discussions of the Special Committee on Procedure, and therefore we are at a loss to know, when he says such a thing was not contemplated in the discussions, whether there is any meaning to this.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is his view.


Frank Howard: That is his interpretation of what took place in that committee, but even if the committee did not contemplate such an eventuality as the motion to amend that is before us, this does not mean it is invalid just because the committee did not think that far ahead of itself in developing these rules.
I hope I will be pardoned, Mr. Speaker, if I read Standing Order 75(5) and place a certain construction on it that may assist you immeasurably. It says:
If, not later than twenty-four hours prior to the consideration of a report stage, written notice is given of any motion to amend, delete, insert or restore any clause in a bill, it shall be printed on a notice paper.
I want to make the point that there is a distinction in using the word "any." I am quite sure that the procedure committee carefully selected that word to be used in the broadest possible sense.
If the committee had meant this to be restricted, to give it the meaning that the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton submitted, it would have used the word "a", and thus it would have appeared:
-written notice is given of a motion to amend ... insert or restore a clause in a bill-


Private Bills
Because the word "any" is used in both cases it is implicit that it is to be interpreted in the broadest possible way and relates to any clause in any bill. That is what is before us, a motion to delete any clause in any bill, namely, clause No. 1.
I now refer to Standing Order 75(8) which states:
When the order of the day for the consideration of a report stage is called, any amendment-
Again I underline that word any. It states "any amendment," not an amendment, or a particular amendment.
-any amendment of which notice has eeen given in accordance with section (5) of this order shall be open to debate and amendment.
That is what we have before us "any amendment", namely, the one to delete clause 1.
I do not want to go into the very substantial argument put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that the bill consists of more than a clause, and that the use of the word any in both those instances should lead us on to the conclusion that it is to be applied in its broadest possible sense, applied in that way particularly because what we have before us is a procedural aspect of things, namely, a report from a standing committee that considered a certain bill.
If we were following the old rules of procedure and had gone into committee of the whole to consider the bill then the bill itself would be before us. But what we have before us now is a procedural item, namely, the report stage of the bill, and we should not be and cannot be precluded from moving an amendment such as that proposed by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman). The argument that this is a negative or an expanded negative does not hold water because we are at report stage. If we were in the committee of the whole considering clause 1 or any other clause and a motion were made to delete a particular clause that would be a direct negative. In all probability, you would rule it out of order without inviting discussion. In this case you have expressed a doubt.
e (5:40 p.m.)
I infer from what the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) has said, that if the motion to amend is out of order there will be no debate at the report stage. In other words, there will be no opportunity for the house to deal with the report itself. You must remember that the standing committee is only
[Mr. Howard (Skeenal.l
an extension of the house. There would then be no opportunity to have a counterbalancing action at the report stage. In this sense, if the contention of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton has any validity at all, and I know there is a change-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether the hon. member is convinced that his argument to this point has been strong enough to satisfy the Chair. I might inform the hon. member that after listening to all the arguments I am in a position to express an opinion and render a decision. Perhaps to satisfy the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) I might say that I do not think he could say much more which would change my mind, because I am satisfied that the position, he has adopted is probably the correct one.
I was very impressed by the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton. Even though I was impressed, I was not convinced. There are considerations which the Chair cannot overlook, in particular the very words used in the standing order which indicate clearly that an hon. member may do certain things at this stage of the proceedings, one of which is to move the deletion of a clause.
If the committee did not think this provision should apply to a bill which has only one clause it seems to me that should have been spelled out in some way by words or explanations. If the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton thinks that was not what was contemplated by the committee, then that aspect should be looked into. At this time we are trying to interpret the rules to the best of our joint abilities, by putting our heads together to decide in what way these rules can be interpreted reasonably. I see no possibility of interpreting this rule in any other way than what it clearly suggests.
The hon. member has cited a number of interesting quotations from Beauchesne's and May's, but it is my understanding that the citations were based on precedents which did not occur at the same stage of consideration of a bill. That is my understanding of the citations from Beauchesne's and May's.
I should like hon. members to consider this citation from May's seventeenth edition at page 566, dealing with a report stage which is substantially the same as we have under our new rules:
Amendments are moved to the bill, not to a particular clause, and amendments to leave out a clause, sei'ies of clauses or the preamble, are moved as amendments to the bill; and no question is put for each clause standing as part of the bill.


In the committee of the whole the motion is to adopt a clause. At that stage, if an hon. member moves an amendment that the clause be deleted, it is an expanded negative. However, at the report stage there is no motion to adopt a clause and a motion to delete stands by itself; so we have an absolute motion.
What the hon. member is suggesting is not an amendment to a clause but a motion to amend or, in effect, modify the bill itself. For this reason, I respectfully suggest to the hon. member that the precedents to which he has referred are not applicable to this stage of the proceedings.
I might also say that I am worried about the possible consequence which would result from a decision that this motion is out of order. If there were three clauses to a bill and there were three motions moved by three hon. members, each one of them feeling that for good reasons the particular clauses should be deleted, the Chair would then have to rule that these three motions, having as a consequence the loss of the bill, would not be acceptable. This example would indicate that it would be very difficult to make a distinction between a motion to amend a bill which contains only one clause and a motion to amend a bill which contains two, three or more clauses. For these reasons I would be inclined to think that the motion proposed by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) should be accepted by the Chair.
I thank hon. members for their valuable contributions. If it is felt that this interpretation of the rules results in difficulties, I suggest that hon. members who take part in the deliberations of the procedure committee should give the situation further thought. Then, the hon. member for Grenville-Carle-ton, who plays such an important role on that committee, would be placed in a particularly strong position in advancing the views he has submitted to the house this afternoon.
In view of the proceedings with which we will be faced in a moment, is it agreed that this bill be allowed to stand for consideration?


Mr. Peters:: No.


Frank Howard: Proceed with it.


William Arnold Peters: Call the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: It is my understanding that the motion has been put to the house. In order to be sure that hon. members are familiar with the motion, perhaps I should repeat that the hon. member for Waterloo moved that clause 1 be deleted from the bill. Is it the
Private Bills
pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I felt there was sufficient controversy without raising any more about the amendment. It is very important that we have an opportunity to debate this bill. I opposed it at the committee stage and I was perhaps the only one who objected to it at that time. I am very grateful now for the opportunity of presenting my arguments to the house.
The arguments I wish to place before Your Honour are not just arguments concerning this particular company, namely the Canada Trust Company. My arguments relate to all financial institutions in this country, and whether or not they should be granted increases in their authorized capital at this time. There is no desire on our part to single out this particular company. The bill concerning this company happens to be before the house, and is therefore the one that has to be debated. Other companies who make the same request will receive the same kind of scrutiny. We intend to raise the same kind of questions in respect of companies asking for an increase in authorized capital.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Duncan Gordon Blair: Mr. Speaker, I did not raise the point of order but have spoken to it. I was quite surprised that a way was not found whereby this matter could stand over for debate. I rise now on a point of order. We are debating a bill to increase the capital of one company. I suggest, for the consideration of Your Honour, that my hon. friend is placing himself out of order immediately by saying that he does not really consider it important to speak to this measure but is speaking to the general issues. He is simply using this measure as a vehicle for the propagation of his particular views on public policy.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't show your annoyance.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton misinterpreted my remarks. That is the kindest way I can put it. I think it is fairly obvious that we are definitely opposed to this bill. The point I was trying to make, and I hope the hon. member appreciates it, is that we are not singling out any particular company.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to remind the hon. member that the point of


Private Bills
order raised by the hon. member for Gren-ville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) is well taken, particularly if the hon. member considers that this is the report stage of the proceedings. The arguments now being advanced by the hon. member could be made to the house on third reading. The proposal now before the house is not for third reading of this bill but consideration of a particular amendment.
It may be that the position taken by the hon. member is an indication that the decision of the Chair was not right. If the hon. member is now suggesting that he can, at the report stage, advance exactly the same arguments that can be put forward on second and third reading, that might be a very good argument. I emphasize that the house is now considering the amendment moved by the hon. member. I suggest to him that at the report stage the rule of relevancy has to be applied very strictly. If the hon. member wants to make a general statement, he will have to do it on third reading; he cannot do it at the report stage.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I will be guided by your advice, naturally. Since this is one of the first items with which we have dealt at the report stage, it will take a little time before hon. members know the limits of debate to be set by Your Honour in respect of this type of measure.
I would like to refer to some of the evidence given to the committee because therein lies the point of our objection to this bill. Before the Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs Committee on January 21, Mr. Taylor, when speaking about the Huron and Erie Mortgage Corporation said the following, which will be found on page 995 of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence No. 18:
(There is a) shortage of capital that is plaguing virtually every country in the western world-
Then he said that this shortage of capital is certainly spreading to us and is having a very severe effect on the raising of interest rates. He continued:
I also think the fact that in both the private and public sectors in Canada we have been trying to do too much in too short a time with the capital we have. We have only so much capital to use. We have been trying to use it for all manner of productive and non-productive purposes and the demand is just tremendous.
This raises the important question of the allocation of capital. The government of Canada has been attempting to restrict its activities. We think it has restricted its activities too much. The Government has stayed out of the money markets at a time when it

should have been going into them to obtain capital for the needed expansion of housing, to fight a war on poverty and do all those things that our country requires at this time.


Duncan Gordon Blair: Mr. Speaker, it is with extreme regret, but also with firm conviction, that I intervene again on a point of order. It seems to me that the hon. member could not have heard your injunction that the rules of relevancy apply at this stage of debate. He is now addressing himself to the widest questions of public policy. What the hon. member is saying has no relevance to the particular private measure before the house. I suggest again, for the consideration of all hon. members, that it is not appropriate in connection with a private bill of this type to expand the debate into the broadest issues of public policy affecting the financial policy of the country.


Max Saltsman: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite relevant. We are considering a report from the committee. I am reading from the evidence given to the committee to indicate what the argument is. I think this is very relevant at the report stage. Naturally, you cannot raise any question without dealing with the broader implications involved. What is sought in connection with the Huron and Erie Mortgage Corporation and the Canada Trust Company involves the broad question of capital allocation. That is what we are trying to discuss at this moment. We are pointing out that an increase in authorized capital of the Canada Trust Company would inhibit the opportunity of the government to do its financing in the capital markets. This is the whole point of the argument. This company can go into the money market, because it has attained an Increase in its authorized capital, and divert funds to itself, to the private sector.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Having consulted hon. members earlier today and being grateful to them for the advice they gave the Chair, I should like at this time to consult them again and ascertain whether it is the wish of hon. members that the house should suspend its sitting, in view of the fact that it is six o'clock, or whether we should adjourn. We are informed that the Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General was to be in the other place in the course of the afternoon. I would like to get the advice of hon. members on this very important point of procedure.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me that the hour for private members' business having expired, we could conclude that


Criminal Code
part of our business and wait for the Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General to call upon us.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The hour set aside for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So
what do we do now?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Wait.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An Act to amend the Canada Evidence Act.
An Act respecting the marking of articles containing precious metals.
An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act.
An Act to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
An Act to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act.
At 6.17 p.m. the house took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate informing this house that the Senate has passed the following bills to which the concurrence of this house is desired: Bill S-26, an act to prohibit the advertising, sale and importation of hazardous products; Bill S-28, an act to amend the Co-Operative Credit Associations Act.
The house will now resume the business that was interrupted at five o'clock.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) that Bill C-150, to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act, be read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
[T ranslation]
Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, before the recess I was mentioning the adverse effects which followed the legalization of abortion in some European countries.
At this stage, I would like to quote from a publication sent to me by the Emergency Organization for the Defence of Unborn Children. It is Bulletin No. 3 and I quote:
According to the figures of the World Health Organization, the world's highest suicide rates among women between 20 and 29 years of age are found in Japan and Hungary-the two countries with the highest abortion rates.
As to the results of abortion in Japan, Dr. Nobuo Shinozaki, of the Department of Health and Welfare of Japan, stated that there are more suicides among women under 24 than ever before, and that many sexual and nervous problems are due to same.
In Japan, where abortion is available practically on request, the number of births for the last ten years was not enough to replace the parents after one generation. According to Father Anthony Zim-mermann, the well known priest-demographer, there are serious indications that if the compulsive trend for abortion continues in that country, the Japanese race will become extinct.
And I continue Mr. Speaker, with the views expressed by Father J.-Alphonse Beaulieu in the readers' column of a Quebec newspaper, under the title "The conscience of our M.P.'s". I quote:
It is settled. The omnibus bill legalizing among other things abortion and homosexuality will be back before parliament at the next session. What will be the attitude of our law makers faced with this challenge to our religious beliefs?
Can we, under the plea of a "pluralistic society" introduce a legislation that clashes so fiercely with natural law and social order, and, thus, with Christian conscience?
Moreover, pluralistic or not, more than 90% of our Canadian society believes in God, and this is an imperative.
How can they refer to "pluralism of beliefs" to ballyhoo, without hurting the majority, a legislation in keeping with the more than dubious opinions of a very small minority? If they are dead set on demeaning themselves in the eyes of the people by introducing such a putrid legislation, let


Criminal Code
them at least allow members to vote according to their conscience. It is illogical to oblige in order to permit... to command so as to let people do what they want.
Why link this measure to a vote of confidence and bind the fate of the government to such a controversial legislation?
A free vote had been accepted on the bill relating to the abolition of capital punishment. Why not a free vote on the imposition of another capital punishment: the "Slaughter of Innocents"?
If the bill is preserved as presented, the member of Parliament who is a believer will have to make the best of it and to remind himself that he is a Christian before being a member of a party. Religious beliefs are not to be traded in a multiracial society for political ideology. In any event, compulsion is a thing of the past in our time of progress, and it must be "aborted" as soon as possible.
There is so much ado about personal freedom these days that, to say the least, this is an odd and indecent practice to order a "wholesale vote", especially after having touted "pluralism". The Hunianae Vitae encyclical again points out to the legislators that they must not allow "a degradation of the moral tenets of nations through legal processes .. . through practices which are contrary to natural and divine law". Paul VI is only continuing the teachings of his predecessor, John XXIII, who had warned public authorities that the problems resulting from the trends of populations "must not be solved through methods that would be unworthy of mankind and which may be explained as a purely materialistic concept of man himself and of life" (Mater et Magistra)
Mr. Speaker, when in a country such as ours which does not know how to dispose of its overproduction, we are called upon to approve legislation which would encourage mass murder, I think it is appropriate that we should ask ourselves questions and give serious consideration to the massacres that have taken place before. Let us remember the slaying of all the first-born in the Egyptian families. In Palestine, when Christ was bom, there was the total slaughter of the Holy Innocents in the hope of killing the God Child. Under Nero, there was yet another slaughter of hundreds of thousands of citizens. In Cyprus, in Greece, in Egypt, people have been slain by millions. In 1918, in Hungary, there were 30,000 people butchered in three months' time. In Russia, at about the same time, 2 million bishops, priests, army officers, police officers, middle-class people, teachers, engineers, workers, farmers, were killed in the space of 18 months while at the same time, 30 million people were starved to death because of the unrest. And for the past 18 years, a very similar kind of slaughter has cost 12 million Chinese their life.
Remembering all these facts and considering the background of the member for Mont Royal (Mr. Trudeau) who is now Prime
[Mr. Godin.)
Minister, I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the present government, with its loathsome laws on divorce, on abortion, on homosexuality, is not simply the tool of a dreadful plot against our civilization.
On the other hand; if this is not the case let us draw the conclusion that the omnibus bill should be split so as to provide every member with the opportunity to vote according to his religious beliefs and to the voice of his conscience.
The member, on his part, has to assume his responsibilities as a Christian and remember he owes his life to a Supreme Being whom he should please rather than try to please man, even if his own future or the future of his party were to be at stake.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, may I suggest the consequences of this bill should be considered right now. Either you decide you are going to let yourself be submerged by a wave of depravation, or you resolve to assume your responsibilities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I will devote the few minutes at my disposal to express certain views about this bill which has been so much debated and which is so debatable.
For a few months, I have sometimes read or listened to certain speeches in this house and I have realized the attitude of the present government. I think it is normal that we support certain laws when we think they will be advantageous for the population. If we study the present bill so actively today, it is because it is very important. Many things have been said, but for my part my comments will be brief. I do not want to repeat all the figures that have been mentioned since the beginning of this debate. But when one talks of a bill that elicits so many important amendments to the Criminal Code, like the lotteries, the carrying of firearms, abortion, homosexuality and when one is asked for a blanket I wonder how we can do it conscientiously and in all fairness. How can we vote freely on subjects that are so different and so controversial.
We have asked like others for a freedom at the level of the members of Parliament. We have asked for the division of the bill and we still think that every member in the house should be free to vote according to his conscience. It is of course impossible to ask members with different mentalities to think the same way. Since this bill covers many subjects, I think one must treat each member


with the utmost respect, and this respect requires that hon. members be offered or given this freedom of conscience.
Mr. Speaker, I know perfectly well that because of their commitment towards their party, several members will feel badly when the time has come to vote on this bill. They will not say they are forcing them, but they will force them just the same to find reasons for not being at variance with the right hon. Prime Minister and for not placing their party in an awkward position.
I believe opinions expressed by important newspapers, those from counsellors and the representations made here in this house, should prompt members to require that the bill be split so as not to put some of us in a position that would be embarrassing to some members.
Sure enough, this bill includes provisions we are willing to support straight off. However, the bill as a whole does not permit me to accept its present wording, for it deals with lotteries. It deals with lotteries, the carrying of firearms, as well as with a very controversial subject, namely abortion. In the case of abortion a committee of three medical practitioners will have to decide whether abortion is to be proceeded with, in order to protect any person who is seeking one.
There is a section I am far from agreeing with, it is the one dealing with homosexuality. It is well recognized that there is a mental aspect, to consider. It is recognized that homosexuals are probably sick people. Personally I would like to believe they are. Therefore we should suggest the building of certain hospitals where the government would do its utmost to provide the services of certain specialists, who could take care of such people whose behaviour, to me, is completely abnormal.
Figures up to 10 per cent have been mentioned. I dare not believe it. But the fact remains that this bill will be discussed and passed by men, in this house. I have the distinct impression that they are not half men and because I am certain that they are men, we shall be able to deal with the bill humanly, of course, but realistically. I will certainly not accept to vote on this bill blindly, especially when we know that the situation at the present time in our society is most disturbing.
There is a danger of corruption and rot in society and I think that the government should-and I would subscribe to such a measure-work so as to be able to treat homosexuals and care for them.
Reprisals are out of the question or sending them to prison. Instead of reprisals against
Criminal Code
those individuals, who are a danger for society-we must admit it, and I think that we all do-I think that it would be fairer and more useful to send them to hospital to be treated.
I think that is the measure we should support. This is a way which enables us to improve society; however far be it from me to accept this thing as natural or normal.
I know that some will say that a complete improvement of society is impossible. That is obvious, but I cannot accept the bill, because it is against my principles and my nature.
I shall dispense with statistics. Several hon. members have quoted some earlier. I shall ask simply the government and the hon. members not to turn a deaf ear to the representations that are being made, especially if one takes into account the opinions that are expressed from one end of the country to the other and the fair amount of mail that the members receive from people who are qualified and serious.
The duty must always be performed in the common interest. We must try to give our society laws which tend to help it. To ignore those representations will simply mean refusing to listen or to meet the wishes of the people.
I think that when any legislation is introduced in the house, normally there is always an important part of the population that wishes for and wants its adoption. Now, it would not be true to say that the majority of the people wants the bill passed as it is drawn up, and personally, I have proof to the contrary. I know it is not a question of the majority, when we talk of 10 per cent in relation to a particular field, and I do not think that a majority must subscribe to such a legislation. Once again, while analyzing in depth all the clauses of the bill, we must first act freely about it. In this way, we will give to parliament an opinion that will be more accurate, more sincere and more concrete.
When we dealt with the question of the death penalty, nobody objected indeed everybody was pleased I think to have a free vote, in parliament and freedom of thought according to one's conscience.
By its very nature, the bill under consideration now requires this same freedom and I am pleased to say that we are given this advantage of voting freely, according to our own conscience, on this bill. I am convinced that all hon. members, including the government members, would like to enjoy that same freedom.
Therefore we recommend and hope they may enjoy such freedom, as I am convinced


Criminal Code
they will then be able to vote according to their own beliefs and conscience much more than according to their commitment towards a party. In fact, I would scarcely understand or not understand at all the present government's attitude if they obliged members to vote according to a principle, to a party's policy.
Now Mr. Speaker, the purpose of those few comments is not to take some of the other members' time. They surely have different opinions to express, and personally I remain deeply convinced that we have the right to require and to recommend freedom to vote according to our own conscience as well as the splitting of this bill. Thus, every member, the government members as well as those from the opposition, will be able by expressing their opinion and adopting a definite position, to serve society better.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: For
many years, Mr. Speaker, we have been hearing about the studies that were being undertaken in the Department of Justice to review the Criminal Code with the intention of introducing an omnibus amending act. Therefore, I can say that I welcome the opportunity this evening of making a few comments on Bill C-150. There is undoubtedly a great deal which we can support in the numerous amendments contained in the amending bill. My only regret is that in introducing the amendments the Department of Justice has seen fit to give us half measures on occasion rather than full measures, to move forward half a step instead of a full step.
It is also regrettable that in the introduction of such an omnibus bill, covering as it does 126 pages, they omitted a number of important matters which the house has been waiting to discuss. It is obvious from the correspondence all members have received, and from the speeches made in this house on this bill, that there is a great deal of interest and concern in the section which deals with abortion.
The first speaker this evening stated hon. members should have the opportunity to vote according to their religion and conscience. I wish those who have said there should be the opportunity to vote according to their religion and conscience had added the words, and knowledge and understanding.
Before I was elected to this house in 1953 I had the privilege of spending a number of years in the British Columbia legislature. During those years as an M.L.A. it was my policy each year to visit all provincial institu-

tions, homes for the elderly, jails, reformatories, tuberculosis hospitals and mental asylums. I would like to mention one institution which I visited. I will call it the children's home provincial institution. I wish all hon. members had the opportunity to visit these asylums and provincial institutions for children. Possibly then they would understand what I mean when I say, members should vote according to their knowledge. I am not referring to what is commonly called backward or retarded children, but to those who although they have the breath of life are vegetables. Hundreds of times over the years while visiting these institutions as a member of parliament I have seen children born of a moronic father and moronic daughter. I have seen the result of a moronic boy committing incest with a moronic sister.
In going through an institution in New Westminster I have looked down into a baby's crib and have seen what I considered to be a six or seven year old child who was nothing but skin and bone, and later discovered this child was 14 years of age. I would say this child was breathing but certainly not living. I have no hesitation in saying that not only must we consider the right to be born but we must also consider the right not to be born a vegetable that medical science can keep alive until you and I are probably long dead.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
I wish that all hon. members could have met, seen and tried to talk to school girls who had been raped, and who could not take the shock. I am speaking of those who did not recover and who are spending the rest of their days in the insane asylum. Having spoken to doctors, I was told that had they had the legal right to be aborted after rape they would never have gone into mental institutions.
I seriously ask hon. members to consider these matters and honestly try to provide answers. Even this bill is not going to resolve the problem. It is a step forward but I would prophesy that there will be just as many illegal abortions when this bill becomes law as there are at present, with the same risk to the life of the woman resulting from an illegal abortion.
As I say, we should think of the right not to be born as a vegetable. We should think of protecting the life and health of a woman if, for good and sufficient reasons, she does not want to bear a child once impregnated. Surely, we will eventually come to the understanding that the question of abortion is
February 13, 19G9

not a matter of criminal law, but should be left to the relationship and the understanding between the woman concerned and her doctor. I am convinced we will eventually come to that position. I can only wish that were the issue we were facing this evening in making a decision on this part of the bill. Even though this amendment is only a partial step forward, let us not turn it down from a biased, non-understanding point of view. Let us think before we cast our votes on this issue.
As a member of a provincial legislature I visited provincial institutions, and since becoming a member of this House of Commons I have tried to follow a similar policy. One type of institution which I visit is the penitentiaries of Canada. Though we have many amendments before us, I want to express my regret that they do not include an amendment to wipe from our statute books the policy of corporal punishment. Canada is one of the few countries of the so-called civilized world that still retains corporal punishment on its statute books. I am not one who believes in the molly-coddling of criminals. Society has got to be protected, and we have to try and rehabilitate people from their anti-social attitudes and objectives. But there is no need to retain the barbarous system of corporal punishment.
We are to decide this issue here as members of parliament, but how many members actually know what it is all about? How many have visited the penitentiaries, looked at and handled the strap or the lash? How many of us have seen the backs and the backsides of men after they have been strapped and lashed, and are in the hospital section of the penitentiary? I have, and on more than one occasion. It is completely punitive; it is non-rehabilitative. The evidence given before the joint committee of the House of Commons and Senate some years ago was conclusive. When you give a man the lash, or the paddle you don't put him in the mood for rehabilitation. You make him antagonistic to society. You add to his antisocial behaviour. You don't assist in developing his social consciousness.
I have spoken to many of the boys in reformatories and the men in penitentiaries and they are almost unanimous, as are the guards and the officials in the penitientiaries, that corporal punishment is not rehabilitative. It is archaic and should be eliminated.
I actually know of one boy who got the paddle in a reformatory. His reaction was such that when he was released there was only one thing in his mind, and that was to
Criminal Code
get back at the one who bent him over and lacerated his backside. You know, Mr. Speaker, there are holes in the paddle and it tears the flesh. That boy was so affected that he actually had the guard who paddled him over the sights of a rifle and but for a colleague who deterred him he would have pulled the trigger. I am sorry the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) has not seen fit to remove corporal punishment from the statute books of this country.
This is a very important bill, Mr. Speaker. It goes beyond the Criminal Code because, as hon. members have undoubtedly noted, it will also amend the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act. I would like to deal for a moment with the matter of probation and parole. I am glad that we are moving forward, but I am sorry that the understanding and the viewpoint of the Department of Justice are so far behind the philosophy of modern penology. We are already years behind what is taking place in other countries with respect to probation and parole on a rehabilitative basis. Even with the suggested amendments we are still going to be years behind. Unfortunately, it would appear that this matter has been tackled, by whoever it was who made the study, in a slipshod and haphazard manner. No recognition was given of a fact which I think all penologists recognize, as well as organizations interested in penology. We need one completely comprehensive act in respect of probation and parole rather than a scattered or almost piecemeal approach.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
We are all happy that in recent years there have been more people let out of reformatories and penitentiaries on parole. I think it is significant that, according to the commissioner of the parole board here in Ottawa, in the last ten years, 23,943 prisoners have been released on parole. Conclusive proof that this system of parole under proper supervision is successful is the fact that of the 23,943 only 2,675 were returned to the penitentiaries. Of those, only 1,347 were returned because they had again taken up a life of crime. The others apparently had broken some of the conditions of parole. These conditions state that a paroled prisoner cannot go into a beer parlour, cannot move from town to town without permission, cannot change his job without permission, cannot buy a car without permission and other things of this nature. Some of these prisoners were returned for these reasons but of the 23,943 approximately 1,500 did return to a life of crime. This fact should


Criminal Code
indicate that we should enlarge or increase our parole system. I hope that in the not too distant future we begin to catch up with the federal policy in the United States.
A number of us had the privilege of going to the United States for a number of days as members of the joint committee of the House of Commons and Senate on Penitentiaries. The United States instituted this policy some three years ago. I refer to the fact that they began to allow prisoners out of jails before the period of parole eligibility, after prisoners had demonstrated a social attitude which convinced the guards, officers and educationalist, that they had been rehabilitated. These people are let out in the morning to go to work and come back at night and on weekends. They continue this procedure until such time as they are eligible for parole. These prisoners are able to support their own families and they pay room and board at the penitentiaries. This all takes place before they are eligible for parole. We were told when we were in Washington that this practice was so successful in the first year they hoped to more than double the number of people allowed out under the system in the second year.
It is my hope that we will go ahead with such a program and that we will have the power to do so. I hope we can proceed with this type of progressive, modern penology policy under the proposed amendments in this bill. A lot more people should be let out under supervised probation. Perhaps many should be put on this basis before they even enter reformatories or penitentiaries. If a judge and an investigating officer decide that these people have made a mistake, there is no need to put them behind bars.
There are some things about this bill in respect of paroles that I find difficulty in understanding. There is one part which deals with the Prisons and Reformatories Act. The principle sounds pretty good, but let me read one of the new policies which this bill enunciates.
Where, in the opinion of an official designated by the Lieutenant Governor of the province in which a prisoner is confined in a place other than a penitentiary, it is necessary or desirable that the prisoner should be absent, with or without escort, for medical or humanitarian reasons or to assist in the rehabilitation of the prisoner at any time during his period of imprisonment, the absence of the prisoner may be authorized from time to time by such official for an unlimited period for medical reasons and for a period not exceeding 15 days for humanitarian reasons or to assist in the rehabilitation of the prisoner.
The principle is excellent. If the person designated by the Lieutenant Governor feels

that a boy or a girl in a reformatory has adjusted, has a new sense of social conscience and is ready for rehabilitation, in order to assist in that rehabilitation the law of Canada will state that this person should be allowed to be absent from the reformatory for a period of time not exceeding 15 days. I am sure that a person is not going to be released for 15 days unless the official is pretty certain that the individual is ready for release. If the official is correct, and this is the right thing to do, why should he be allowed out for only 15 days? Following that time he will be returned to the reformatory. What kind of nonsense is that? The proposed measure states that the individual may be absent from time to time. Perhaps at the end of the 15 day period, the prisoner will be released again. Surely, that is too short a time in which to decide whether rehabilitation has taken place. If it has not the prisoner will be brought back. If rehabilitation has occurred, why put the individual back behind bars? A little more thought should have been given to matters of this nature, and I sincerely hope that some change will be made before this bill becomes law.
Before concluding I should like to stress another point. I am very fond of animals, as I think most members are, so I welcome the changes that will provide greater protection for animals and make more severe the penalties for those who are guilty of cruelty to animals. Why does the measure stop at that point? Why do we not follow the example of other countries and have something on our statute books about licencing and inspection of premises as well as the methods used in the name of scientific research? Millions and millions of animals are victimized and brutalized in the course of scientific research. Perhaps it is necessary that these animals be used, and I do not deny that, but I cannot understand why it is not possible to carry out this scientific research without this brutalization of animals.
As long as the present practice continues it remains a disgrace to this country. This has been a disgrace not only in the past but is a disgrace at the present and will be in the foreseeable future if we do not adopt a law in respect of licencing and inspection to give the government control over the use of animals for medical and scientific research. We must put something on the statute books in order that the government can make sure the best possible treatment is given to these animals. It almost passes all comprehension that whilst we are improving the act and making the penalties more severe for cruelty to pets, we completely ignore the millions of animals who


are subjected to cruelty in the name of medical and scientific research. I say that millions of pets are subjected to this cruelty. We do not know what the figure is in Canada, but the figures given to the Congress of the United States indicated that over 250 million animals a year were used in medical and scientific research in that country. We should do something about this, and I hope we do.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
When I speak of cruelty to animals I also ask why something is not being done about the cruelty inflicted on those who became a little wayward, broke the law, served their sentence, never got into trouble again, and yet for the rest of their lives are condemned because of their one mistake. Why in this omnibus bill is there not a provision to correct this situation? Members of all parties have over the years, particularly in the last session, spoken in favour of a provision to wipe out a criminal record, or at least keep it secret, if a person has behaved himself for a number of years. But there is not one word about that in the bill. Hundreds, if not thousands, are paying the penalty for our incompetence.
Let me give just one example. There is in the city of Vancouver a man in his early sixties who, when he was 17 years of age, made a mistake. The mistake was such that he did not go to jail, although he was found guilty. He has never been in trouble with the law since that day; he has kept out of trouble from the age of 17 to his sixties. He is a brilliant man. He has to my knowledge risen to executive position three times, and three times he has been fired. Why? Because the executive position required him to be bonded, and the bonding company said: He has a criminal record and we will not bond him. Now, he drives a taxi. This is just one example.
There is a grave responsibility on our shoulders when we become members of parliament. It is not to just follow our religion and conscience but to understand and have knowledge then, having understanding and knowledge, to do what is right on behalf of the people of Canada. We hope this bill will pass, but that it will pass in an expanded form.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on Bill C-150 there are a few observations I should like to make on certain aspects of it. The matter of abortion has created great interest. It has created great interest for as many years as the problem has
Criminal Code
been around, which is at least as long as recorded history. Arguments and opinions are firmly held by people both for and against this procedure. In the result, it seems to me that there are those who firmly hold that in conscience they cannot condone abortion under any circumstances because in their opinion life begins at the moment of conception, and therefore any interference with this natural process is wrong.
On the other hand, there are those who argue that the life and health of the mother is an important factor. If the life and health of the mother should be threatened, under certain circumstances the procedure of abortion should be carried out in an authorized, legal way. It seems to me that these two views, being firmly and sincerely held, are irreconcilable and that the conflict of ideas in this respect will not be solved by this bill any more than it has in the past.
In my opinion the provisions of this bill will not make abortion any easier in this country, although it may make it more available in certain parts of the country where heretofore hospitals in the area did not allow it. The laws on abortion have in the past been very obscure and so far as the medical profession is concerned have been the cause of some doubt. This bill will make the position of physicians more sharply delineated than previously.
At the present time abortions may be carried out in hospitals that allow them if the life and health of the pregnant woman are considered to be in danger. In practice this has meant that Catholic hospitals do not allow abortions, while non-Catholic hospitals have permitted them if they are carried out in accordance with their medical by-laws. The general pattern in the hospitals where therapeutic abortions are allowed is that an attending physician, in consultation with a duly qualified staff colleague, may decide whether a therapeutic abortion is to be performed.
In general, this practice seems to have worked fairly satisfactorily. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) has stated that no physician has been prosecuted for carrying out a therapeutic abortion. I think this indicates that the medical profession has discharged its duties in a responsible way. I would like to point out that hospitals have been quite strict in the application of this law. Furthermore, hospital accreditation and the attempt by the Medical Hospital Association to improve quality care in hospitals has resulted in a general change of attitude toward the problem and a


Criminal Code
tightening of regulations in respect of this procedure.
It seems to me that the bill does not in any way change existing conditions. If it does anything, it will further restrict the carrying out of a therapeutic abortion. It will in practice be much more difficult to have a panel of three doctors, apart from the attending physician, agree to a request by the attending physician to carry out a therapeutic abortion. In my opinion the reason is a very human one. The attending physician is responsible for the health of his patient for eight or nine months during her pregnancy; he becomes sympathetic toward her and her problems and is more amenable to her request for a therapeutic abortion if her condition in any way warrants it. Under the new act a panel of three doctors appointed by the hospital board will have to certify that the health of the patient of the attending physician would be endangered if the pregnancy were allowed to continue. Therefore the procedure will be considerably more cumbersome than in the past. Physicians are by nature most reluctant to agree to a therapeutic abortion, and in my opinion the indications for this procedure will lessen as time goes by.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
There has been considerable concern that the provision with respect to a woman's mental health being affected might provide an avenue by which large numbers of abortions would be carried out, amounting almost to abortion by request. I certainly do not feel this will happen since there is in general little psychiatric indication for abortions even in the case of unmarried women. There has been some thought I believe in the minds of many people that the opening of what are considered more relaxed abortion laws will prevent so-called back street butchery. There is nothing in this bill that will materially change the number of abortions performed in other than recognized institutions. Most women who seek illegal abortion will not in any way be accommodated by this new bill, so that if there is any idea that the number of illegal abortions will be reduced, I believe it has no basis. It might be of some interest that the problem of abortion will likely recede in the future because with the wide dissemination of birth control knowledge and devices, the instances of unwanted pregnancies will likely diminish. In short, the bill does not really change what has been the accepted custom in the carrying out of this therapeutic procedure.
I would like to point out that the wording of the bill in this section leaves something to
[Mr. Ritchie.l
be desired and, unless amended, will create hardship and uneven application to many people living in remote areas. Section 237 states that this procedure can only be carried out in a hospital accredited by the Canadian Council on Hospital Accreditation. This is a quality control of a voluntary nature whereby hospitals endeavour to upgrade their standards. The hospital may not be accredited for many reasons, such as fire regulations, etc., having nothing to do with the ability to carry out this procedure. Also, many hospitals can never be accredited because they are too small or there is just not enough medical personnel to meet the requirements of the accrediting body. Yet, these same hospitals in outlying areas must care for patients, and unless the act is amended to include these hospitals hardship will exist. I believe that in these cases the minister of health, in conjunction with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of the provinces concerned, should specify where this procedure may be carried out.
The other point which I feel will cause considerable hardship is the requirement for a panel consisting of three qualified medical practitioners, together with an attending physician, which will mean that a minimum of four doctors will be involved. Many small communities do not have this number of physicians. It is expensive for patients to be moved to larger centres, and in some cases it might be quite dangerous to their lives or health. Unless the legislation is amended to allow for the variations of conditions where these anomalies may arise, hardship will develop. Here again I believe that the minister of health of the province concerned, in conjunction with the College of Physicians and Surgeons, would be the logical group to make provisions to meet these situations.
I am inclined to favour the section on homosexuality. I do not believe that homosexuality is deterred by criminal proceedings and I think that in practice homosexuality cannot be controlled in this manner. I do not believe that people with this bent are criminals in the accepted sense, and I think that homosexual acts in private between consenting adults can be accepted by our society as reasonable. In practice, society is already condoning much of what the section implies. However, I do feel that we must carefully and rigorously apply the law in the matter of homosexuality where attempts to seduce young people are involved and in any case where sexual deviation may endanger the general public. I do not think this section will


materially change what is now already generally accepted by society's concensus concerning the practical approach to this problem.
With regard to the sections devoted to the problems of guns, I would say that the new provisions are designed for large cities and are not as applicable to our rural areas. It will be difficult for organizations such as junior rifle clubs to carry on their activities because, for instance, section 87 states that no one shall give ammunition to those under 17. Presumably, therefore the use of ammunition by a junior rifle club would be prohibited. It would have been wise for the department to have worked out a more suitable statute in collaboration with the National Fish and Game Federation.
According to section 94, casual sportsmen who are involved in a day's shooting can be made liable for what seems to be a very minor offence. I would like to point out also that in the case of reporting lost weapons, a weapon may be stolen for some time before the loss is noticed by the owner. I think that this section may be impractical.
I would like to make a suggestion to the minister, which I think he might agree is constructive, that a ballisticgram be made of every new firearm at the manufacturer's level with a record of its serial number. This in turn would be correlated with the serial and permit numbers of the registrant and would make it considerably easier to correlate bullets and firearms from the central registry.
I will conclude my statement with these few remarks, Mr. Speaker.


Percy Verner Noble: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to delay the bill, and my remarks will be brief. Nevertheless, it is my responsibility and my duty to the people I represent to put my views on the record as well as to take cognizance of the thoughts and ideas of the many people who have written me in respect of Bill C-150.
This bill contains much that is meritorious. In fact it contains one item in which I have a special interest. I introduced it to the House of Commons by way of a question to the Minister of Justice of that day. On January 27, 1966, I put the following question to the minister:
Would the government give consideration to amending the Criminal Code so that breathalyzer tests can be made mandatory?
I pressed the government on three other occasions in 1966 to take the necessary action to bring in this legislation. The urgent need to curb drunken driving was brought home to me forcibly at that time when a whole family
Criminal Code
of five in my riding was wiped out in one accident involving a drunken driver proceeding on the wrong side of the highway. Since that time hundreds of other people have died unnecessarily at the hands of drunken drivers because this government continued to ignore the urgency of the matter, even though the Highway Safety Council provided them with figures which indicated the costly hazard of drunken drivers.
The highway casualty lists for the first half of 1968 are available and, as usual, are appalling. In six months there were 2,143 fatalities resulting from Canadian motor vehicle accidents, 83 more than for the same period of 1967. In addition to the dead, there was a multitude of injured. The number of Canadians who survived accidents but suffered harm to some degree totalled 75,713. If there were an epidemic that took 2,143 Canadian lives in six months, the country would be in a state of wild alarm. However, the 5,522 deaths due to motor vehicle accidents in 1967 were accepted with calm resignation, and a higher total for 1968 will neither cause panic nor surprise the survivors.
I know there is some resentment across the country against the breathalyzer method but apparently there is no other way of dealing with drunken drivers. I have here an editorial taken from the Free Press Weekly of January 4, 1969, entitled "Conclusive Proof" which reads:
Britain's breathalyzer legislation is now one year old. The results: 40,000 fewer casualties and about $35 million less damage. A total of 1,152 fewer people were killed in Britain and 11,177 fewer people were seriously injured than in the previous year, despite increased vehicle registration, and despite higher alcohol sales.
The proof is now conclusive. The breathalyzer legislation works without being a killjoy. It has merely taught Britons that one does not drink and drive. In percentage figures the breathalyzer is held responsible for a 10 per cent drop in road casualties. If the same criterion were applied to Canada we could have saved something like 400 road deaths and 10,000 injuries.
British transport minister R. W. Marsh has said that unless there is a further drop in the casualty figures the present legislation will be made stiffer and enforced with even more vigour. This proves another point, so violently disputed by modern penologists: That deterrence is effective. In Britain, the worst time on the road was after the pubs had closed at 10 p.m. Now the casualty rate during this period has dropped by the startling figure of 33 per cent. Clearly people are deterrent from excessive drinking and then driving home by the prospect of meeting a policeman with his breathalyzer, and facing then, not only severe penalties but automatic suspension of the driver's licence.
Criminal Code


[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Now, I should like to deal with some of the other matters contained in the bill. I can only echo what has already been said by other members of our party, that the bill should have been presented in divided form rather than in its present omnibus form. The bill proposes a number of good amendments which, like the breathalyzer test, should have received consideration long before now. However, it also deals with controversial issues of moral and social significance which concern the consciences of most hon. members as well as those of people across the nation.
In Canada we have always taken great pride in our freedom, but people across this country are now showing deep concern about the future of this God-given right, when matters of vital importance are being decided by one man. Especially is this true when this House of Commons is deprived of a free vote on an issue that reaches to the very soul of this nation. We realize that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) rules the cabinet with a stern hand. In the matter of the bill before us he has become a virtual dictator. The outcome of this debate is, therefore, a forgone conclusion.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to voice my disapproval of grouping both good and bad legislation in one bill and forcing the whole issue down the throats of the people of this country. Every piece of legislation should stand or fall on its individual merits.
I do not propose at this time to go into the details of all the issues contained in the bill before us, but I would like to make a few observations about the advisability or otherwise of amending abortion and homosexuality laws. I have consulted the Oxford Universal Dictionary as to its definition of abortion, which is as follows: "the procuring of a premature delivery so as to destroy offspring." It seems to me no one would doubt that the definition to which I have referred applies to the case in hand. In other words, Mr. Speaker, this amendment seeks to broaden the law in order to destroy offspring. It appears to me that this is the thin edge of a wedge which would open the door to removing all provisions in respect of abortion from the Criminal Code.
To my mind, there is no doubt that life begins at conception. In the vocation in which I have spent 30 years of my life, I have performed hundreds of sperm checks. It is there

one finds where life begins. As far as I am concerned, wanton abortion is murder. My conscience will not let me support murder. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, on this count I shall vote against the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Percy Verner Noble: I cannot support an amendment which would condone homosexuality. My argument in this connection is that to condone it is to support it; to support it is to encourage it. For the life of me, I cannot understand how any family man can vote in favour of this amendment. In my opinion, we should be doing all we can to discourage anything which contributes to the breakdown of morality. The fact that it was the Prime Minister who devised and put forward these amendments concerning abortion and homosexuality does not, to my mind, constitute a strong argument in favour of their adoption. He is not a family man and he does not seem to understand that children do look to their parents for leadership and direction. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, most children will have mental and conscientious reservations with regard to parents who would support measures such as these.
The support of such retrograde proposals would lead to only one thing, the rapid deterioration of the moral fibre of this nation. Surely we, as members of parliament, must hold the line with respect to moral standards. We cannot justify the repudiation of our responsibilities to our young people, to older people, too, and to generations which will follow.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I really hoped to have the floor after the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) who resumed his seat a few moments ago, because some of his statements made the blood of the members of the Ralliement creditiste boil and I was eager to give him tit for tat.
In any event, his wild remarks were annoying, to say the least. It is surprising to note the illogical attitude of certain members who will favour the abolishment of the death penalty in order to protect bandits, as well as the protection of animals, as the hon. member has just done, while supporting abortion, and consequently the destruction of thousands of innocent children.
In his speech the hon. member told us that in the course of his political career he had visited many mental institutions, many hospitals,


where he had met people suffering from some kind of physical illness whom he described as "vegetables". I suggest, in turn, that there are also "vegetables" in our society and even in this house who are not physically but mentally ill. Indeed, it is not a question of blaming the physical defects, but when one hears expressed in this house principles that are devoid of all moral or religious sense, it is a sign I think, that the person concerned is not physically, but indeed mentally ill, and that he represents another variety of "vegetable" that grows in our society.
It is said that abortion would suppress not only certain physical illnesses-and I doubt even that-but also that it would have eliminated in the past, certain mentally sick people who, unfortunately, were propounding principles on which we are far from agreeing.
Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes which are alloted to me, I wish to point out how surprising it is to observe the debatable and contradictory attitude of the hon. member for Vancouver East. Before coming to the heart of the matter I would like to pass censure in this house, on the Liberal members of the province of Quebec.
We have not yet heard of them, nor of their principles, neither do we yet know their opinion on this bill. Indeed, because of the principles in which we believe in Quebec, it is very difficult for us to understand how some members who say that they too-are devoted to certain principles, can indeed remain silent and refuse to reveal their innermost thoughts on such an important bill.
I would like to tell the house, Mr. Speaker, the basic reasons which compel our group to sternly oppose a number of provisions in bill C-150 which drastically amend several sections of the Criminal Code, in particular those concerning abortion, homosexuality and lotteries.
Mr. Speaker, it is as members of the Rallie-ment creditiste, as Catholics, or as plain human beings and nothing more, that we intend to fight some of the amendments now proposed by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) and first introduced by the former minister of justice who is now Prime Minister.
Our position as members of the Ralliement creditiste is as follows: In the world of today, in Canada as in any other country, the mass media tend to be concentrated into the 29180-348i
Criminal Code
hands of a few and the philosophy of materialism-we have had a sample of it in the statement made by the hon. member from Vancouver East-and the principles of collectivism are expressed in policies also controlled by an increasingly restricted number of people. We, from the Ralliement creditiste, do not wonder when we see our movement which offers measures based on a philosophy diametrically opposed to collectivism and materialism met by silence or misinterpreted in the eyes of the people by our enemies and by the mass media they control.
Is Mr. Molotov, the former spokesman for the Soviet Union at the United Nations responsible or not for the remarks he is supposed to have made about the social credit? I do not know, but anyhow, it does not matter. He is reported to have said that the communists knew everything about the implications of the social credit philosophy, the only one they fear in the world.
Whatever else it may be, the communists understand the basic importance of linking their policies to a philosophy and their leaders, by their malevolent charges against the social credit, have demonstrated they consider it as a serious threat to their own policy and ideology.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
So do the crypto communists and their cousins, the socialists, who would place their activity under the control of the state. When the founder of Social Credit, Major C. H. Douglas, undertook a public debate with the socialist the hon. prime minister knows well, Fabian Sydney Webb, after Mr. Douglas had refuted all the objections of Mr. Webb concerning the practical application of the social credit doctrine, the latter finally admitted that he did not agree with the principles of social credit because they were contrary to his own views on the ends of man. He was aware that social credit proposals, aimed towards monetary and other reforms, were rooted in Christian philosophy which he rejected.
Even today, Mr. Speaker, the enemies of social credit, when they are forced to speak of it, take great care in giving the impression that social credit is nothing more than a simple monetary reform.
In the years following the First World War, Douglas insisted on stressing the fact that any


Criminal Code
political thought should be based on Christian philosophy. He said:
We are fighting to save Christianity and those who are fighting are those who still believe in the Christian philosophy.
The Douglas philosophy, of which social credit is the political expression, is based on the conviction that there is in the world a law of rectitude, a law of divine origin which he calls the "Canon" and which St. John, the Evangelist, called "logos", that is the law.
Thanks to his intelligence and his will power, man does not have to rely solely on his instinct to discover this law and conform to it. He must seek it actively; when he discovers it and conforms to it, he achieves harmony between the universe and its Creator; when he ignores that law or trangresses it, he destroys himself. What does it teach us, this sound law which is connected with the law of nature. What does it tell us about one of the proposed amendments to Bill C-150, the amendment on abortion? It tells us that:
The murder of an innocent person is always a murder and it is the more hateful that the victim is defenceless.
So speaks Father Paquin, a Jesuit, in his book "Morale et Medecine", which is available at the parliamentary library. The honourable members opposite could read it with profit, instead of guffawing, for it is far easier to laugh than to understand. It is easy to laugh for you have only to do as the hon. member for Quebec-East (Mr. Duquet). Since he has been sitting in this house, he did not have the intestinal fortitude to rise and to express the opinion of his constituents.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Nobody has the right to take a life, be it that of a foetus. Neither the mother, nor the doctor, nor the government has a right to dispose of it at will. The mother's consent and the government's are of no importance whatever and they could not lighten the immorality of a directly murderous operation. And Father Paquin, speaking about the law of nature said:
However, such is the nature of abortion, which can be compared to foeticide; to take the foetus out of the mother's body without which it cannot survive, is the same as to inflict a fatal wound on it, as to put its life immediately, directly and surely in danger.
IMr. Rondeau.]
"Direct abortion remains a high misdemeanour, even when ordered for an excellent purpose: the mother's life, for instance. But even a very good purpose cannot change a morally wrong action."
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker we Credi-tistes cannot accept the proposed amendments to sections 195 and 237 of the Criminal Code.
What is our position now? As Christians and Catholics, we find that morals and medicine are sometimes in conflict. Medicine as a science sees only the internal natural assets: life, integrity of limbs and health-while morality, governing the whole man and his preternatural purpose, must take into account the spiritual values. It does not allow the sacrifice those values for worldly values, such as health, fancies or passions.
Medically speaking, touchstone of an action is the medical or preventive purpose.
For those who still have morals it is toe ultimate goal which is the touchstone of morality. Consequently, this criterion is absolute and has nothing to do with personal feelings or even utilitarianism.
The basic human rights recognized in the world all through history have inspired a few statements, such as The Universal Declaration of Human Rights passed by the United Nations in 1948, as stated in section 3, and I quote:
"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."
The Canadian Bill of human rights of 1960 recognizes as stated in section 1, paragraph a), that "the right of the individual to life" exists in Canada and shall be maintained.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
More precisely, the Convention safeguarding human rights and fundamental liberties, signed in Rome by the members of the Council of Europe in 1950, states the following in clause 2 (1):
The right to life of every person is protected by law. Death cannot be inflicted intentionally, except when carrying out a death sentence delivered by a Court if the offence is punishable with that penalty and by the law.
I think I have said enough, Mr. Speaker, to prove that everywhere in the world the right to life is universally recognized. We assume that, from its conception, the child is a person and that the voluntary and deliberate destruction of a foetus in the womb of the mother, or of a child at the moment of birth, constitutes a homicide, if not a murder.
A lawyer, Mr. R. Dierkens, a professor at the law faculty of the University of Ghent,


Belgium, in a book entitled "The rights on the body and the corpse of man" which can also be found at the parliamentary library- writes that any man can claim a right to the preservation and inviolability of his being. As a lawyer, he rejects the pretension of those who assume that man enters the legal world when he is born, and I quote:
Far from being a beginning, birth ends already an important, even decisive period of man's life which begins with conception. It is fecundation which creates a person in its entirety and individuality.
Quoting Jean Rostand of the French Academy, he writes:
From the moment when, in the fecundated egg, chromosomes of that ovule have joined those of that spermatozoon, the hereditary personality of the child is determined once and for all ... and that egg includes virtually not any man but a particular man, a person.
One must conclude therefore that since human life marks the duration of personality, the latter begins, not at the time of birth, but from the moment of conception.
Until now, our Criminal Code recognized the existence of a human being in the womb of a woman, not as part of her body but as a being distinct from its mother. An attempt on that life is condemned as a criminal act even though it is committed by the mother or with her consent.
Furthermore, at one time, the execution of pregnant women condemned to death penalty was deferred until the birth of their child.
That means that from the standpoint of natural law and human positive law, abortion has generally been disapproved in Canada and in the world.
I should now like to deal the with the law of God and of the Church. What do they say in that connection?
As catholics-and we are proud of that- we cannot accept the amendments to the Criminal Code proposed by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), with regard to abortion.
The fifth Commandment does not distinguish between adult and foetus. The principle of the Decalogue is absolute:
Thou shall not kill.
All through the centuries, the precepts of the Church and its penal legislation have always condemned abortion. The Council of Elvira in 300, the Council of Ancyra in 314, the Council of Lerida in 546, the Council of
Criminal Code
Constantinople in 692, and others afterwards have all provided very severe penalties against abortion; penalties as severe as excommunication of the perpetrators and the abettors.
However, it was during this century, during the onslaughts of materialism, which, nowadays, have even invaded this house, and on account of atheism, that the teachings of the Church dealt more clearly with the subject of abortion.
In his encyclical on Christian marriage Casti Connubii (chaste union)-copies of which can be found in the Parliament library -Pope Pius XII spoke in the following terms of attempts on a child's life, that is of abortion:
Another crime extremely serious, by which an attempt is made against the life of the child still hidden in his mother's womb, has to be mentioned.
As regards medical or "therapeutic" direction-[DOT]
The matter dealt with in Bill No. C-150.
-we have already expressed the great pity we feel for the mother who, by carrying out her natural duty, is exposed to serious dangers for her health, even for her very life; but which reason could never justify the "direct murder" of an innocent? For that is the matter in point here. Whether death is administered upon the mother or upon the child, it goes against God's and nature's precept: "Thou shait not kill!" The life of either one is equally sacred; nobody, not even the public authorities, could ever possess a right to make an attempt against it."
That is the voice of our Church. And the pope goes on in the same vein on the inviolability of human nature. His successor, Pope Pius XII, talking to midwives and referring to the nature of their profession, reassumed the teachings of Pius XI on the inviolability of human life, and I quote:
Every human being, even the child in his mother's womb, owes immediately to God, and not to his parents to society or to human authority his right to live. Therefore, no man, no medical, eugenic, social, economic or moral counsel can produce or confer a judicially valid right to dispose directly and deliberately of an innocent human life, that is to dispose of it with a view to its intended destruction considered either as an end or as a mean to achieve an end which perhaps in itself is not at all unlawful.
Thus, saving a mother's life, for instance, is a noble achievement, but the direct elimination of the child as a means to attain such an end is not permitted. The life of an innocent is intangible, and any direct attempt or agression against it violates the fundamental laws without which a secured life in society is not possible.
I shall now talk about respect for life. In an allocution delivered November 26, 1951 before


Criminal Code
the large families associations, Pius XII brought the matter up again, and referred once more to the question of direct abortion or murder of the child before, during or after childbirth.
However justified, the distinction between the various moments of life already conceived or not yet conceived, in the light of secular or religious law, and some civil or penal effects, according to moral law, it is in all cases a serious and guilty attempt against sacred human life.
Reference is made to the mother's life in the amendments to the Criminal Code.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
In the course of this address, Pope Pius XII goes back to the question: Is the child's life to be preferred to that of the mother?
At no time and under no circumstances has the Church taught that the life of the child must be preferred to that of the mother. It is erroneous to put the question in these terms: either the life of the child of the life of the mother. No! Neither the life of the mother nor that of the child can be directly destructed. In any case, there can be but one requirement: to do the utmost to save both the life of the mother and that of the child.
But it will be argued that the life of the mother, particularly the mother of several children, is comparably worth more than the life of an unborn child.
Answering this sad question is not difficult. Inviolability of the life of an innocent being does not depend on its greater or lesser value.
Besides, who is capable of judging with certainty which of the two lives is really the most valuable? Who could tell what the future has in store for this child and to what height could bring him his achievements and his perfection.
Then, Pope Pius XII goes on to discuss accidental death of a child occurring during therapeutic treatments to the mother:
At all times, we have purposely used the expression "direct attempt to the life of the child" and "direct murder". For instance, if it were a matter of saving the life of the expecting mother, without considering her pregnancy, in the case of an urgent surgical operation or therapeutic treatment, that would, accidentally result, in the unavoidable death of the embryo, in no way sought or wanted, this act could no longer be described as a direct attempt to the life of an innocent being.
In those conditions, the operation could be allowed as other similar medical interventions, bearing always in mind that it is a question of prime interest, as life would be, and that it is impossible to wait until after the child's birth or to use some other effective means.
I shall mention the letter of Canadian Bishops. More recently and more specifically in connection with the proposed amendments to

the Criminal Code relating to abortion, the Canadian Catholic Conference which speaks for the Episcopate, laid down again its instructions to the Catholics of Canada in a statement issued on December 5, 1968. It is a statement reaffirming the position of the Canadian Catholic Conference on abortion, issed by the executive committee in the name of board of directors of the same Conference, and I quote:
While discussions are going on about the proposed amendment to the act on abortion, many people still wonder why the Catholic Episcopate of Canada has taken on abortion a stronger position than on the sale of contraceptives.
The difference in attitude stems from the fact that abortion involves the sacred right to life. Therefore, once again, we declare that it is not possible to consider abortion as a personal matter, as if in that case, another person's life was not at stake.
That point is already obvious in the statement made in February 1968 by the Canadian Catholic Conference. Moreover, we wish to stress here that the stand taken by the Bishops cannot be considered as a position dictated solely by reasons of a religious or theological nature. It rather results from our deep conviction that law and social customs must be greatly respectful of that most precious possession that human life is, and in this particular case they cannot be heard if we do not speak for them. This is why our appeal is addressed first to every intelligent man concerned with those prime values. However, we must remind Catholics that they-
. . .Still. . .
-have to abide by the teaching of the Church, regardless of a legislation intended for a pluralistic society.
The Canadian legislation on abortion must respect the invaluable honor of any human life and must render each one of us more, not less, respectful of life. This is the way civilization should plan ahead.
Several people think that by changing the act we could bring about a decrease in the number of clandestine abortions and minimize their disastrous effects, but the experience of a few countries where a similar act has been adopted tends to prove that will rather be the other way around.
In its December 1967 report, the parliamentary committee on abortion acknowledged the fact that there had been insufficient studies and inquires conducted in this field. While the bill is being considered in the House of Commons, should we not make public the findings of the studies made since the parliamentary committee's statement was issued.
Owing to its complexity, we cannot expect to solve the problem of abortion through easy solutions.
The solution we are recommending is entirely different: to promote respect of human life at all stages of its development, through education and legislation which would be an education in itself;


Criminal Code
to study carefully the frequency of illicit abortions and the means to eliminate it; to stimulate medical research; to make a real effort to help mothers in difficulty, by providing them with the resources of medecine and psychiatry; to develop an understanding attitude towards unmarried mothers and their children, as well as provide a positive answer to their needs; to increase help to mental cases; to develop a more generous and more adequate social and family policy.
As far as this bill is concerned we are now asking ourselves: Whom shall we obey? Shall we obey now Caesar or in this instance the government, or God?
There is therefore a basic contradiction between the proposed amendments to bill No. C-150 regarding abortion and the philosophy from which we seek inspiration. Those who have no problem, are those who have lost their philosophy.
As to the antinomy between what the State proposes and the teachings of our Church, let me remind you what Yves de Chartres was writing to Pope Pascal II:
When empire and churchmen live peacefully, the world is well governed. When discord sets in between them, not only do small things do not grow any more but great things themselves are doomed to destruction.
What should we do when the demands of the State go against the demands made by the Church upon Christians and when the two powers to which we are subjected are giving us opposite orders?
No man can serve two masters. So we have no choice. We will not break the laws of Jesus Christ and His Church, on the pretence of respecting secular rights. It is better to obey God than men. This answer of Peter and the other apostles to those magistrates who ordered them to do illicit deeds, we must make it ours insofar as the debate on the amendments pertaining to abortion is concerned.
Mr. Speaker, before winding up my remarks, I should like to say a word on the free vote. I earnestly ask government members, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice to withdraw the amendment concerning abortion.
It is the duty of the government and the legislators to protect the life of the innocent by enacting laws and providing adequate penalties; all the more must they take a stand, when life is directly involved or imperilled, as is certainly the case for the unborn in his mother's womb.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
We ask hon. members of all parties not to fear to assume their responsibilities, to hold fast to their convictions, if they still have any, particularly when it comes to legislation affecting morals and contrary to their previous beliefs.
I think the Prime Minister is liberal enough, in the broad sense of the word, to allow at least a free vote on this matter.
As for us, of the Ralliement Creditiste, I say again that we will fight to the end to prevent the passage of the amendments proposed by the Minister of Justice. And at this stage, I would like to point out, as many hon. members already have, that we would have been in favour of dividing this bill. In this respect, I should like to quote an article published in the 28th of January 1969 issue of Le Devoir to the effect that the Minister of Justice has already stated there is no need to divide the bill, since at the committee stage, amendments could be moved to every clause.
This is certainly not a satisfactory answer, for if the government is actually determined to put its life at stake on this bill in its present form, it will not agree to any substantial amendment to the main sections of the bill. But the sections pertaining to abortion and homosexuality are among those main amendments.
The opposition has urged that the different areas covered in this omnibus bill be divided into at least four separate bills. It is a most legitimate request. Otherwise hon. members might as well be asked at the beginning of a session to vote in bulk the legislative program contained in the Speech from the Throne. Each party should leave its members free to vote according to their conscience. We should be informed of the opinion of each legislator, and not of the leaders of the diverse political parties.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding, we regret not to be able to accept this bill tonight, at the government house leader's request, as several of our members still have many things to say. In fact, we do not think it will be passed speedily, for it is important that the population be informed of the different views expressed by members in this house, by those who declared themselves for or against and that it be aware of those who are not courageous enough to give their opinion right now, for silence gives consent and considering the importance of a bill that will have effects in the future, people could think that we accept today homosexuality as such.

5508	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Before long, like some other countries, that proceeded the way we are doing tonight, we will have to legalize homosexuality, and soon afterwards, we will also have to pass a legislation in order to legalize marriage between homosexuals. (Laughs). We know of some countries that have legalized that. Having reached a certain degree of ridicule, why should we not put such a provision in the omnibus bill, to show to the Canadian people the real purposes the government has in mind by introducing this legislation? The least we can say, if we declare homosexual people to be sick persons, is that a few years ago, the federal legislators believed homosexual people were criminals. If at that time they provided in the Criminal Code penalties for homosexuals, why should they not today, since they are inclined to think homosexuals are sick people, delete from the Criminal Code, all that concerns homosexuals? Why not remove from the Criminal Code what we considered in the past as criminal and that we now regard simply as an illness? Does the Criminal Code, for instance, provide for penalties in the case of people with T.B.? Are penalties imposed on the mentally ill? Why then should we think of legalizing the status of homosexuality which is a form of sickness?
I claim that this bill was introduced-and this is unfortunate-by persons who perhaps wish to protect homosexuals. The mere thought of that is saddening, but we have to say it in the house. Apart from homosexuals, who could claim their freedom under Bill No. C-150?
If you want really to help those people, if you consider them to be sick, let us treat them as such, and removed from Bill No. C-150 all that deals with homosexuality.
If lawmakers associated in the past homosexuality and criminality and if they consider nowadays that homosexuality is a disease, let us introduce an amendment to the Criminal Code to remove everything that is related to homosexuality in Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order.
I must regretfully interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired half a minute ago.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, since there are only a few minutes to go may I call it ten o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it
agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I just wish to confirm that tomorrow, according to the terms of the special order passed earlier today, we will be having a discussion on the federal-provincial conference.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have already asked the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) many questions on national parks, on the organization and development of a federal park in Quebec.
Once again, tonight, I wish to raise that matter in order to get from the minister a more precise answer. However, I have no intention to blame him too openly, because the matter before us offers reason to complain.
Mr. Speaker, while Quebec politicians speculate on the political status Quebec should have in America, the taxpayer loses every day considerable amounts of money because his leaders ignore the practical aspect of things, refuse or fail to take advantage of some federal programs which are real financial windfalls.
Such a negligence exists in several fields. Tonight, I shall restrict my remarks to one of them: federal parks. May I say right away that at the end of the fiscal year 1967-68, the central government had paid $262 million for the establishment of federal parks. Quebec got nothing of that amount, Mr. Speaker.
February 13, 1969	COMMONS
Why? I would like the minister to tell me why tonight.
The idea of establishing federal parks, that is maintaining large areas in their natural state for the benefit and the enjoyment of the public, originated in North America, and Canada now ranks second in the world for the number of parks.
Mr. Speaker, there are many things that could be said about that, but I must restrict my remarks because of the little time I am allowed.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
Those federal parks are administered in Ottawa by the Natural Resources Branch. Under the law, namely chapter 189 of the 1952 Revised Statutes of Canada, those parks are, and I quote:
-dedicated to the people of Canada for their benefit, education and enjoyment... and shall be maintained and made use of so as to leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.
Mr. Speaker, those tracts of land are intended to preserve picturesque sites in Canada or in Quebec and to protect forests and various species of plants and animals. To allow the public to make use of that inheritance, the National Parks Branch has created camping grounds, roads, tracks, and so on.
Mr. Speaker, at the end of the fiscal year 1967-68, the federal government had spent for those national parks, as I said earlier, over $262 million. The province of Quebec did not get anything out of that sum, since it has no national park. I am almost sure that the majority of the Quebec members are not aware of that fact. Why does the province of Quebec not have a national park? This question has already been answered by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and I quote:
The addition to the national parks system of one or more outstanding examples of Quebec landscape would indeed be welcomed by my department. However, the establishment of new national parks is dependent upon the province concerned taking the initiative. Customarily the province invites the federal government to participate in a joint survey of potential park lands, followed by mutual agreement on a satisfactory area and subsequent action to transfer title to the lands, free of all encumbrances, from the provincial to the federal government. To date, no such invitation has been received from the Quebec provincial government.
DEBATES	5509
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Such a statement was made on September 25, 1967, that is, more than a year ago. What is the situation now? Since then, the federal government has spent more than $20 million and Quebec has received nothing. On September 18, 1968, the Minister of Tourism of Quebec met the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in Ottawa to discuss that problem. Since then, officials of both governments have been studying the question and doing nothing. What will come out of those negociations? A statement should be made in a near future in this connection.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the minister not to be afraid to compromise himself, to lead the way if need be and to ask Quebec to go ahead and finally assume its responsibilities.
According to geographic and demographic criteria, we feel that Quebec should get over $60 million as recovery payment. It should already have received this amount which it has failed to collect. Ottawa should then spend approximately $6 million a year in Quebec.
These millions of dollars spent in Quebec could certainly be used effectively to eliminate some of the unemployment in the province and would no doubt favour the existence of a better balanced federalism. Mr. Speaker, I hope that our governments will soon turn in that direction.
I sincerely believe, on that score, that the Quebec government deserves a major share of the blame since it proved careless and irresponsible in not replying to the invitations of the federal government. On the other hand, I have to criticize the federal government, and especially the minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, who is content with making offers, without holding real discussions and bringing forward definite measures which would allow the province of Quebec to cease having a special status-a special status in reverse-that of an underprivileged province.


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is unable to be present to reply personally to the hon. member for Lotbiniere, because in fact this is a very important question.
I think the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has already told the
February 13, 19S9
5510	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion hon. member that, several months ago, he met the minister responsible for provincial parks in Quebec who made some suggestions. A reply by the provincial authorities has not yet been received.
As was mentioned by the hon. member, I think it is up to the province to first ask for the establishment of federal parks within the limits of its jurisdiction. I do no think that the federal authorities should be blamed for neglecting to initiate projects in this field, because the federal authorities have always been prepared to receive suggestions made by all the provinces and particularly those of the province of Quebec.
As I am not an expert on this subject, I will draw to the attention of the minister the remarks made by the hon. member.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT-EFFECT OF INCREASED RATES ON TRADE PAPERS PUBLICATION

Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, the question I should like to raise tonight is consequent on a singular question I tried to raise a few days ago during the question period. It relates to what the government intends to do about the imbalance, the injustice, and the illogic of the increase in postal rates to non-profit publications in Canada.
When I raised the question earlier it was ruled out of order and I take this opportunity of bringing the subject to the attention of the house tonight. When I raised the original question the Ottawa Citizen recorded on the front page the fact that as a result of postal rate increases to non-profit publications many of them were folding. As the headline stated, as a result of the massive postal rate increases these non-profit publications are folding up, and many others are having a hard time continuing operations. The article indicates that in some cases the increase in respect of unions, co-operatives and church organizations range up to 2,600 per cent.
This is a very serious problem which we should again consider. For many years members of this party and members of other parties in the house have urged that second class or business mail in Canada, that is publications by private or commercial firms, must pay its way. These publications should pay


their share of the cost of mailing services in Canada. They should pay their fair share of the load in respect of the mail service of Canada, as the users of first-class mail have done for many years. We still hold this point of view.
When the proposals of the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) were before the house last fall we urged, and we urge tonight, that while rates paid by non-profit publications may be increased, these publications should not have to bear an undue, illogical burden. They should not have to pay more than their ordinary share of the increased costs of postage. I am told that union and co-operative papers, maybe the church papers, are prepared to pay an increase of up to 400 per cent or 500 per cent, but to ask that in some cases they pay an increase of 2,600 per cent or 2,700 per cent is surely unfair.
While we may admire the Postmaster General for bringing about a generally healthier situation with regard to postal rates in Canada by making the business publications pay more than they have in the past, we are right in questioning the extra load the non-profit publications will have to bear. Another question I would ask is this: In view of the protests which many members of all parties I am sure are receiving, will the government take a second look at the situation which results in the non-profit, church, union, co-operative and other association papers paying very much more than in the past, 2,000 per cent or more in some cases? Some of them may have to cease publication. Will the Government consider setting up a non-partisan committee to review their plight which results from the very severe postal rate increases?
If I had another minute or two, Mr. Speaker, I would ask one other question. If the government fails to do that, will it not consider a cabinet shuffle whereby the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) would become the postmaster general? I understand the Minister of National Defence is in favour of keeping as they are non-profit organizations such as NATO? The Postmaster General would, I think, make an excellent defence minister because he is in favour of our withdrawing from the costly organization of NATO. I think that if this were done the non-profit publications of Canada would be in a much better position than they are at present.
February 13, 1969	COMMONS
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)


Yves Forest: 
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: A few days ago I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) in charge of housing to refer the task force report on housing to the appropriate standing committee of the house so that the committee might examine the outrageous recommendation with respect to public housing and urban renewal.
I had three reasons for doing this. First, no standing committee of the house has ever examined the problem of housing or had an opportunity to offer any practical solutions for it. In fact, since I came here in 1965 no committee of the house has ever been called to deal with this subject, even though the opposition has made numerous requests for one to sit. Second, the composition of the task force makes one wonder as to its adequacy. When one thinks of the academics, the successful builders and the mortage men who composed this task force, one asks the question: why was no trade union representative, or representative from the Consumers Council, or representative interested in public housing, invited to join that force?
In the third place, the report of the task force on housing failed on three counts. It did not cope with the serious shortages of housing stock, more especially with the housing needs of the two-thirds of Canadian families whose incomes are less than $7,500 a year. It placed too much reliance on the private sector to supply the housing requirements, and deemphasized the nature and the role of public housing and urban renewal. It did not indicate adequate solutions to major problems involved in buying a house, such as mortgage financing, high interest rates and the high cost of land.
Tonight, I wish to deal briefly with my criticism that the task force placed too much reliance on the private sector to supply housing requirements, and de-emphasized the nature and the role of public housing and urban renewal. When I read the recommendation in the report that the federal government initiate a thorough research program into the economic, social and psychological issues of public housing, and that until such a study had been completed and assessed no new large project should be undertaken, I was shocked. Seemingly, this conclusion was the result of the task force's examination of Toronto's Regent Park development, north

5512	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion and south. The report produced costs required to create those projects which were grossly inaccurate, and slandered the residents in public housing to the point of despair. To add insult to injury, it referred to public housing projects as ghettos of the poor.
It is too bad that the report failed to make a comparison between modern public housing, despite its weaknesses, and some of the appalling slums which existed before urban renewal and redevelopment. It is too bad the report failed to mention the refusal of the federal government to provide recreational facilities in public housing projects, or expose the government for its lack of interest in such matters. It is too bad the task force failed to make a study of the success of the Ontario Housing Corporation in public housing and request its president to give them the benefit of his experience in that field.
Is it any wonder City of Toronto officials thought the recommendation with regard to public housing disastrous, and that the Toronto Social Planning Council should have referred to it as kindergarten arithmetic? At a time when almost every nation has concluded that it is only through vast public housing programs that the housing needs of low income groups can be met, it is most disheartening that the task force should have

attempted to discredit and disparage public housing.
This is why I asked the Minister of Transport to refer the report to a standing committee for detailed study in this regard. I regret the minister is not here tonight, but I notice that the hon. member for Toronto-Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) is present. He knows the tremendous progress which has been made in Toronto with regard to public housing. He knows there is a long list of people waiting to get in, and I am sure his answer will show agreement with the remarks I have made.


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: The information available to me on this side is that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) expects legislation concerning housing to be introduced in the House of Commons within a few weeks and referred to the appropriate standing committee for study. At that time, the committee might also wish to examine the broad range of realistic recommendations contained in the report of the task force on housing, recommendations which are designed to provide good homes at a reasonable price for all Canadians.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house adjourned at 10.20 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, February 14, 1989


[Stage Direction]
Third report of the standing committee on Privileges and Elections-Mr. Laflamme.
[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of the standing committee on agriculture-Mr. Beer.
[Editor's Note: For Reports above referred to, see Votes and Proceedings.]