1969-05-06

PRIVILEGE


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting all members of the House of Commons. In doing so I wish to make specific reference to a motion for papers moved by myself on March 4 and approved on that date, and tabled in the House of Commons on Friday, May 2. I did not raise this matter yesterday, as transportation difficulties prevented me from returning at the appropriate time.
On March 4 this motion, placed on the order paper by myself and asking for a copy of correspondence between the government of Saskatchewan and the government of Canada with respect to the processing of damp and tough grain in Saskatchewan and the transportation of grain during the period of October 1, 1968 and January 31, 1969 inclusive, was called for consideration. The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Forest) told the house that this notice of motion was acceptable to the government, subject to the usual reservations concerning privileged papers and authorization of the government authorities concerned. Subject to these reservations or conditions the motion was adopted.
I think all members in this house will recognize that there are privileged papers from time to time which the government may wish to reserve, although there may be disagreement on specific cases from time to time. There is also no question, with respect to correspondence between the government of Canada and other government authorities, that authorization must be obtained for the tabling of such correspondence. However, Mr. Speaker, when these papers were tabled in the House of Commons on May 2 there was no indication whether any documents had been reserved either because they were considered privileged or because authorization had been refused by the other government authority. I have noted this practice on other
motions for papers which I have submitted in this session, and I am certain that the same thing has happened to other members.
The point that I wish to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, is that, in my view, members have a right to know whether documents have been reserved for either one of the reasons already noted. I submit that consideration be given to making provision for reporting of this particular matter when papers are tabled in the House of Commons. I hope that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) will give this matter his attention in order that the appropriate steps might be initiated.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Sixth report of standing committee on external affairs and national defence-Mr. Wahn.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I promised the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) that I would table copies of a press release which I issued, and with the leave of the house I should like to do that.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. May I ask him whether the minister intends today to

May 6. 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry answer the questions which were turned aside yesterday by the Prime Minister concerning the setbacks suffered by Canada in international grain markets? In particular I direct his attention and replies to the questions relating to the loss of the sale of some 800,000 tons of wheat apparently secured by France in dealing with Mainland China. Would he also explain why Canada apparently was not represented at the China Spring Fair in Canton where this sale seems to have been announced?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that in one swoop I can answer all the questions to which oblique reference was made by the Leader of the Opposition. But I will try to deal with one or two.
First of all may I assure hon. members that the government of Canada, through a member of the Trade Commission Service, was in fact represented at the fair in question. I would also like to assure hon. members that the discussions between the Canadian Wheat Board and the Chinese authorities are in fact going on at all times, that there is very close contact for specific discussions at all times for the sale of wheat by Canada to China, and that our interests in that regard are being very well protected by the Canadian Wheat Board.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, the minister of course did not explain why Canada missed this sale, but could he tell the house the rank of the official who represented Canada at this fair?


Otto Emil Lang: I do not have the specific rank of the official, Mr. Speaker, but I shall be glad to obtain it. The Leader of the Opposition said I did not say anything about this particular sale. Of course sales by France to China are not by any means new. They have been going on ever since 1961. Australia, Canada and France have been prime suppliers of wheat to China during that time, and the fact of a particular sale by France to China does not affect sales of wheat by Canada to China.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasl-ings):: Mr. Speaker, in my original question addressed to the Prime Minister yesterday I asked whether the acting minister would take the opportunity on motions today, 24 hours later, to give information concerning why Canada let this specific order slip through her fingers. The minister has had 24 hours in which to obtain the information: I ask him to give me information now. If the Canadian

Wheat Board, as he has said, is in constant touch with these matters they must have known several days ago why we lost the sale, and how much.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have really covered the situation of sales, but I regret indeed not having responded in exactly the way the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings asked his question, if in fact the other day he managed one that was in order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the minister obviously is following the example of the Prime Minister in getting smart in his answers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Harris Hees: I would ask him now to get that information and would he please report tomorrow on the question I asked yesterday.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister see that the minister answers tomorrow the question he assured me would be answered today; would he do that? Come on; you can stand up.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



WHEAT-SALES BY FRANCE TO MAINLAND CHINA BELOW I.G.A. PRICE

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister without Portfolio. Can he tell us at how much below the International Grains Arrangement price was the wheat offered that was sold by France to China, and has the government protested officially to France or to those officials who are responsible for administering the International Grains Arrangement?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, precise details on the sale to France from China have not been divulged. When these details are received by us we will certainly look at them in the light of the collective undertaking by exporters to strengthen international wheat prices, and we will take any appropriate action necessary to see that I.G.A. prices are implemented.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us whether
May 6, 1969



at present or in the very immediate future talks are or will be held between the signatories to the International Grains Arrangement so that this international agreement will be an effective instrument instead of a piece of paper?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The exporters meeting was held some time ago, and just very recently the prices review committee met. I am happy to tell hon. members that there was an expression of determination on all sides to work towards the maintenance of the I.G.A., and specifically to take strong action to examine those devices and techniques which had made it difficult to judge the exact prices being charged at times by the various participants.



WHEAT-CRUSADE FOR SALE OF SURPLUS

Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Is he taking any cognizance of the many suggestions emanating from this chamber that he organize a crusade immediately to sell wheat or other surpluses anywhere in the world.



VANCOUVER-ARRIVAL AT PORT OF GRADES IN LESSER DEMAND

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a further supplementary question, related to the suggestion made by the minister in Vancouver yesterday that the port of Vancouver is headed for a new grains tie up. Will the minister tell the house what is being done to avoid that further difficulty confronting the farmers of western Canada?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Vancouver situation again developed into a problem with the arrival at Vancouver of grades and types of wheat which were not as much in demand as the types for which ships were in fact waiting. This resulted in large measure because of the failure of the authorities in loading box cars to load into those cars the appropriate wheat, and the Wheat Board has taken strong action in the form of indicating to the elevator companies involved that storage will not be paid on wheat which arrives there improperly when contrary orders were in the hands of the company.
Inquiries of the Ministry
This has been done in order to correct the situation and assure that the wheat which the Board wants to arrive will arrive at the proper time.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister if he would really give us some solid bit of information and report to the house concerning who did represent Canada at the Canton Fair? Would he also say whether he meant to indicate that the railways had shipped to Vancouver grain of a different sort than that which had been ordered or requested.


Otto Emil Lang: I have indicated to the hon. member that I will do as he asks in respect of the first part of his question. The railways of course carried the grain to Vancouver which was carried there. The actual placing of the grain in the box cars is done by the local elevator agent, in accordance with orders supplied to the local agent. In many cases those orders were not filled accurately, with the proper grain going in the cars.



VANCOUVER-REPORTED SHORTAGE OF WHEAT FOR SHIPMENT

Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question of the acting minister. I appreciate the background information he gave about the situation. I should like to ask the minister what immediate and remedial action is being taken to make up the shortage in respect of the 4-| million bushels of No. 2 Northern which is required at the port of Vancouver.


Otto Emil Lang: I believe I did cover that as well. The Canadian Wheat Board has issued the appropriate orders to the elevator companies this week and has taken steps to ensure that those orders will be followed so that the cars which go to Vancouver from the local elevators will carry the required wheat.



INQUIRY AS TO APPOINTMENT OF TRANSPORT CONTROLLER

Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon. In view of the fact that we are now experiencing our second tangled grain mess in Vancouver is the government, even at this late date, considering appointing a transport controller who could iron out these situations?

May 6, 1369
Inquiries of the Ministry


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker. Indeed on the last occasion when the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce was asked about this he said he himself would act as the controller. I am happy to note that the tie-up was cleared away somewhat faster than many members opposite thought was possible. I am sure the matter is well in hand under the direction of the Canadian Wheat Board. Under their direction as well there are under way certain experimental systems of handling grain which may in the long run improve the handling of our grain between the local elevator companies and Vancouver.



WHEAT-LOWER GRADES SUPPLIED BY ELEVATORS

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Minister without Portfolio could advise the house what proportion of this grain that was shipped by the elevator companies was not of the grade ordered, indicating whether it was of a grade lower than 2 Northern, and whether it was damp or tough?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the situation, the grain in demand is No. 2 and the grain shipped in excess was No. 4.



HOUSING


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the new minister in charge of housing. If I may I should like to congratulate him warmly on his appointment and express the hope that I will be able to congratulate him on his performance.
Is the minister in a position to inform the house when we may expect to receive guidelines in respect of the public housing and urban renewal policy of his department or the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, as I imagine the hon. member would expect, I am not in a position to give him a precise date in that regard. I have spent the last several hours in briefing sessions and I hope to be able to be a little more definitive on these matters in a few days. I am very conscious of the need for this

kind of decision to be made and enunciated very quickly.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, while the minister was being briefed on this matter did he have an opportunity to discuss the following matter and, if not, will he consider it: I refer to the question of a supplementary estimate to add to funds available for public housing and urban renewal, since only the availability of finances can make this program effective?


Robert Knight Andras: I am conscious of the representations the hon. member has made.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I express the hope that the minister will not be influenced to a great extent by the unimportance the Prime Minister apparently attaches to these problems.


Mr. Real Caoueite (Temiscamingue):: I wish to ask a supplementary question of the minister.
According to what the Prime Minister said last Sunday on the program "Deux plus un", there is no housing crisis in Canada. Would the minister responsible for housing tell us whether the government is thinking of drafting a bill on housing, which would allow peoples in the lower income group, that is those who earn $5,000 to $6,000 a year, to buy a house according to the plan suggested by the minister?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendments to the Housing Act are now on the order paper. I hope we will be able to deal with those in the house and refer them to the committee very shortly. At that time and following then I hope the policy answers the hon. member is seeking will be articulated.



POSSIBILITY OF MEETING WITH PROVINCIAL MINISTERS

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should also like to congratulate the minister responsible for housing, and I hope that we will have further dialogue. In view of the fact the Canadian Welfare Council has indicated to the Prime Minister that opportunities remain largely untested for federal initiative in promoting a socially just housing program in partnership with the provinces, can the minister now state wher.
May 6, 1969

he will be meeting with provincial ministers responsible for housing?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I will be meeting with provincial ministers responsible for housing as soon as time permits. In fact, I have had one or two phone calls, and some appointments are in process of being set up.



THE MINISTRY


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my supplementary question to the Prime Minister. As I understand it, a telegram was sent to the Prime Minister expressing an interest in the establishment of a ministry of housing and urban development. In view of the fact the Prime Minister has placed housing in charge of the Minister without Portfolio, can he now indicate whether he is considering the establishment of a separate ministry of housing and urban development?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, no steps are being considered beyond the ones that were announced yesterday.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Could he tell us wether he has found some new machinery for consultation which could lead to an agreement with the province of Quebec for the development of a national park in the Forillon peninsula?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the Quebec Minister of Tourism, Fish and Game called on me this morning. We discussed this matter and I hope that we will find a solution in the best interest of the people of Gaspe.


Alexandre Cyr: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Does the minister think that a 99-year agreement could be concluded before May 15 as requested?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am very confident, Mr. Speaker.


David Réal Caouette: During the course of this meeting, did the Minister of Tourism repeat the words heard on the program "Les Couche-Tard" Saturday night to the effect that the minister had gone wrong in becoming a Liberal?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I certainly have not-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: -gone wrong enough to become a Creditiste.



AIR CANADA


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and has to do with the Air Canada strike which is now in its third week. In view of the right hon. gentleman's statement that the offer of settlement made to the union, or to the workers, was a most generous one, will the Prime Minister say whether following the course taken by previous administrations the government is now prepared, in the interest of the Canadian people who are sometimes forgotten during these strikes, to introduce legislation to parliament to end the strike?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, we are not considering such steps. I believe we have stated on other occasions what the approach of the government was: that so long as the process of free collective bargaining has not completely broken down, and so long as there is no national emergency which calls for government intervention, we prefer to allow the process of free collective bargaining to proceed.


John George Diefenbaker: In view of the fact that both sides, according to radio reports, are not even meeting, what does the Prime Minister mean by saying "so long as the processes of negotiation or collective bargaining are continued"?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As everyone knows, Mr. Speaker, during strikes there are periods when there are no meetings, and sometimes this is part of the process of negotiation.


John George Diefenbaker: It is time the Canadian people were thought about.

May 6. 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister which is prompted by a shocking and disturbing Canadian Press report of a visit by members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to at least one United Church in Otawa for the purpose of interrogating the clergy on the content of a Sunday school program devoted to an understanding of Mainland China, and the pupils' response thereto. Can the Prime Minister advise whether the R.C.M.P. now have a place in the Sunday schools of the nation; and if so, are the Presbyterians next?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Fundy-Roy-al: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member may have a related question, but I doubt that his supplementary question is acceptable.


Mr. Fairweaiher:: Mr. Speaker, this is an urgent question to the Prime Minister. In view of the negotiations Canada will be conducting in Stockholm to recognize the People's Republic of China, will the information to be gathered in this exercise in participatory democracy with children be communicated to the Secretary of State for External Affairs as a possible aid to such negotiations?



HOUSING


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing and is supplementary to exchanges of a few minutes ago. In view of the minister's expressed hope that the bill to amend the National Housing Act will be dealt with soon, may I ask him whether he will make representations to the government house leader that this be the next item of business before the house, after we have finished with the Criminal Code?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I have been in consultation with the house leader. We are now working out the timetable, and I am sure he
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
will be advising all hon. members about it shortly.
INCOMES REQUIRED TO PURCHASE HOMES Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West): A
supplementary question to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing. Will the minister undertake to make a statement reporting to the house the average market price of the 200,000 houses of which the Prime Minister is so proud, with a breakdown of the incomes required to buy houses in each of these brackets?



EXTERNAL AID

[Stage Direction]
RATE OF INTEREST ON LOAN TO INDIA Mr. Bernard Dumoni (Fronfenac):	Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.
Could the minister tell the house, following the announcement that a loan of $30 million is to be granted to India, what will be the terms and conditions of such loan and, in particular, what interest rate will apply thereto?
Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the information at hand. I would like to take the question as notice.


Mr. Dumont:: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance.
With respect to the loan granted to Jamaica last week, could the minister tell us what arrangements were arrived at or what terms were agreed to?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest both the hon. member's original question and supplementary question call for technical and statistical data and should normally be put on the order paper.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. I have not had an opportunity in the house to congratulate him on his appointment until now, so I should like to extend my congratulations and express the hope that he will live
May 6. 1969

up to the expectations which I believe all members of the house have for him.
Last Friday the hon. member for York South questioned the Acting Minister of Transport concerning the extension of flying hours permitted to pilots by the Department of Transport. At that time the acting minister undertook to answer the question. My question to the minister is whether pilots in Canada have been allowed extensions of monthly duty hours as a result of the Air Canada strike.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no, there have been no applications to the department for any change in the maximum hours which form part of the current regulations.


David Lewis: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. Last Friday the Acting Minister of Transport in reply to my question suggested that it was the Canadian Transport Commission that dealt with this matter. Is this so, and if so can the minister tell us that the commission has not received any such applications?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: To be honest, I am not quite certain myself whether it is the C.T.C. or a group within the Department of Transport. However, I am satisfied that no group that has the necessary authorization to extend hours has done so.



AIR CANADA STRIKE-EXTENSION OF CANADIAN PACIFIC AIRLINES FRANCHISE

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the length of the strike of Air Canada, in regard to which nothing is being done, is the government considering extending the franchise and giving more routes to Canadian Pacific Airlines at this time?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I believe that the information on that has been given to the house on a number of occasions. Any air line is quite free to make application to the Canadian Transport Commission for an extension of routes during the period of the strike, and these applications will be entertained.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: 
Donald Campbell Jamieson: As an hon. member said, this is a different kettle of fish, and I will be glad to look into it.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. Will the minister cause to be re-examined the question of permitting a second coast to coast carrier to operate east of Montreal?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The answer is the same as the one I gave to the hon. member for Calgary North.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Failing this, would the minister and the government give consideration to issuing a D.F.C. to Canadiansi who have used third class carriers?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether hon. members do not think we might go on to another subject. I see many hon. members are anxious to ask questions. I hope that the next supplementary question is one that can be accepted by the Chair.



SUGGESTED HALIFAX LANDING TO ACCOMMODATE ATLANTIC AREA PASSENGERS

Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: I did
not extend congratulations in the house to the minister on his appointment, nor have I done so outside the house, so I will not say anything further on this matter at this time. I should like to direct a question to the minister not in regard to C.P.A. but in reference to a question which was directed to the Acting Minister of Transport last Tuesday. If the minister does not have an answer today perhaps he could take it as notice. My question relates to overseas carriers flying over Halifax. Has there been any effort made by C.T.C. or any applications made by these carriers for permission to land in Halifax, now that they are taking off from Montreal and by-passing the east?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I understand that invitations have been given to overseas carriers, or carriers other than Air Canada, that if they wish to apply for landing rights in eastern Canada the C.T.C. will give sympathetic consideration to such applications. Subsequently I asked today that representation be made to such carriers asking that they land not only in Halifax but also in Gander, Newfoundland.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

May 6, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry



POSSIBLE STRIKE OF CANADIAN PACIFIC AIRLINES MACHINISTS

George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, but first of all I should like to congratulate the minister on joining one of the two best departments in the government. My question is: In view of the fact that there is a distinct possibility of the machinists of Canadian Pacific Airlines also going on strike, has he been in touch with his colleague, the Minister of Labour, urging him to set up a conciliation board or a conciliator to avoid such a possible catastrophe?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I do not think it should be my initiative to suggest what the Minister of Labour should do. He is perfectly capable of taking care of himself in these matters and I have no doubt he will do whatever is necessary.


George Harris Hees: He did not get on too well with the strike he is trying to handle now.



HIGHWAY SAFETY


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: I should like to offer the Minister of Transport my supplementary compliments on his appointment, and direct a question to him in his capacity as the minister reporting on road and vehicle safety. Considering the very heavy casualties and the warlike toll taken every week on our highways, would the minister consider making an early statement on what federal action will be taken to curtail or reduce this heavy toll of life on the highways?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, at the appropriate time. As my hon. friend probably knows, studies are going on within a special branch of the Department of Transport, as well as consultations with the provinces. Draft legislation is being prepared, and when all of these elements have been brought together I will be pleased to consider whether the appropriate procedure will be to bring it before the house in a statement made in the house, or whether it might not be preferable to refer it to a committee.



INCOME TAX


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance based on the problem of the old age

pensioner who has been granted supplemental benefits on a means test and who finds himself having to pay income tax on his meagre pittance, as a result of which he loses his free hospitalization and half of his OMSIP premium-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member ask his question.


Philip Bernard Rynard: -would the minister consider the abolition of this iniquitous tax imposed on people who are on welfare?


Philip Bernard Rynard: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I consider this a very urgent problem and I would like to discuss it at ten o'clock.



FITNESS AND AMATEUR SPORTS ACT


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
I would like to know whether during the visit of the minister Mr. Loubier in the national capital, the representatives of both governments have concluded an agreement to promote amateur sport and recreational centres?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Loubier had some discussions either with the minister or with the officials of his department today. I could not say if both ministers met, but I can add that some negotiations have been launched in this connection by the representatives of both governments.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Lorn© Nyslrom (Yorkion-Melville): I
have a question for the Prime Minister. In order to improve the possibility of grain sales to China, will the government of Canada now press toward immediate recognition of mainland China and establish diplomatic relations?


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Brelon-Easl Richmond):: I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister and ask him
May 6. 1969
whether he has received any urgent communications from the United Mine Workers with respect to the meeting held last week with the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.


Right Hon.  P. E.. Trudeau@Prime Minister: No, Mr. Speaker, I have received no communication from the mine workers beyond those on which I commented in the house a few days ago.


Malcolm MacInnis: Has the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion received any urgent communications? I ask this question today primarily because the urgency of any question cannot be dictated by the presence or absence of any minister in the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Malcolm MacInnis: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been trying to follow up this very urgent matter with the government and I have asked questions in respect of this matter only to receive off-the-cuff and snide answers from the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Malcolm MacInnis: I think the situation of the Cape Breton miners which has been imposed by a Crown Corporation deserves the attention of and some answers from this government. After all, it was the Prime Minister's idea to promote a just society.



WHEAT-APPLICATION OF PENALTIES FOR SHIPMENTS OF IMPROPER GRADE

Leslie Gordon Benjamin: wish to direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. He may already have given an answer to it, and I might have misunderstood him. In his earlier answer the minister mentioned penalties whereby payments for storage of grain shipments of improper grade would not be made. Are these penalties now to apply to the shipments already made ,or are they to apply to any shipments that might be made in the future? Have farmers only been given a warning, or will the penalties be imposed on previous shipments? Secondly, can the minister advise the house whether he has any information on the number of carloads of No. 2 Northern now on track or en route to Vancouver?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Otto Emil Lang: I do not have the specific information for which the hon. member asks but I shall be glad to obtain it for him.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. R. R. Souiham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development related to the conference recently held with the Indian people in Ottawa. Has the minister taken part in an informal discussion with officials of the government of Mexico concerning the Migratory Birds Convention Act?


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if this is not a question which might well be debated at the time of adjournment.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr.   Gaeian-J. Serre@Nickel Belt: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Defence.

In view of the telegram received this morning from the Ontario Teachers Federation requesting further consultation on terms of agreement covering overseas teachers, will the minister advise the house whether such consultation is under way and, if so, what progress has been made?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: I think I should explain to the house that the contract for teachers for the year 1969-70 has already been approved by the Department of National Defence. However I have had a request from members for a consultation in connection with the next contract, and I undertake to have these consultations whenever the time is ripe.


John George Diefenbaker: I would ask the minister whether the changes in the contract were made without consultation with the Canadian Teachers Federation, which has been designated as the national organ for the teachers of Canada. If the answer is in the affirmative, why should the Government of Canada refuse to deal with the federation on questions concerning salary and other terms of teachers' contracts?



May 6, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: First of all, I think we should get together as to the date of the contract. What Mr. Nason of the Teachers Federation was talking about at the press conference was the 1967 contract. That contract provided for no change in the 1968 contract and there was therefore no room for discussion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I would join in the applause, but the answer does not cover the situation. The contract which the minister mentioned-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the right hon. gentleman ask his question?


John George Diefenbaker: The question I ask the minister is: Why should the government of Canada refuse to deal with the Teachers Federation? Why was it not consulted?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: For the simple reason that there are two aspects involved in this situation- an agreement and a contract. The contract is one between the school boards who lend the teachers, the Department of National Defence and the teachers themselves. We agree that on general conditions of work, or general conditions of the contract, or questions concerning over-all agreements we should consult with the Teachers Federation, and this is what I have just undertaken to do.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Roy-al: A supplementary question. If teachers working for the department have a grievance, to whom do they look for redress?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: A teacher working for the department is assimilated in the rank of officer, and he has the same recourse as an officer. If he has a grievance he has the right to go before a board of inquiry, just as an officer has.



SHIPPING


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had the privilege of addressing a question to the Minister of Transport about the sunken tug Emerald Straits. Today I received information that seamen on the Pacific coast may decline to man steel tugs of the same design as that of the Emerald Straits, which sunk recently, unless action is taken to rectify apparent construction defects. Can the minister tell us whether a decision will be made to salvage IMr. Diefenbaker.]
the tug in order to find out the reason for her sinking, and possibly to recover the bodies of the men who drowned?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Following the hon. member's
question yesterday I asked for information on this matter and I hope I shall be able to provide it before the end of this week.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker, arising from disturbing reports over the last few days as to the number of farm auctions and disposals in Prince Edward Island. Has the minister initiated inquiries in Prince Edward Island as to the number of potato growers who, because of deplorable prices in the industry, will be prevented from planting this season, and would he tell us whether certain steps may be taken to alleviate this situation?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minisier of Agriculture):: We have not initiated a survey to gather the information in those precise terms but we are nevertheless aware of the economic and social problems associated with low potato prices.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Since the industry is the backbone of the economy in Prince Edward Island, will the minister agree to make such inquiries, in order that the full extent of the problem might be appreciated, and possible action taken?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am not sure I should agree at a moment's notice to undertake a survey such as the hon. member has outlined. However, the department and the government are deeply interested in this' problem and we have held a number of meetings in an attempt to find some way of meeting this difficulty which recurs all too often in connection with the marketing of potatoes.
fTranslation]



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
According to Mr. Nadeau, a Montreal newspaperman, who says he is well-informed, there has been a Trudeau-Caouette agreement to fight Quebec separatists. As I am not aware of the terms of such an agreement, is the Prime Minister in a position to tell us about it?
May 6, 1969



AIRPORTS


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolieile):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question.
As some municipalities of the north shore of Quebec will be meeting tonight to discuss the famous location of the airport, and as some Quebecers are still hoping for a reversal of the original decision, would the Prime Minister, in the interest of all those who wish to take a constructive attitude towards this project, state clearly whether the choice of Ste. Scholastique is a final one.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker it has been stated several times by members of the cabinet, that the choice of this site was final and I need say only that the decision was the result of very long and numerous consultations with the authorities of the province and of the City of Montreal.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: My
question is directed to the President of the Privy Council in his capacity as leader of the house. Now that one of the few men opposite who understands maritime problems has been appointed Minister of Transport, will the hon. gentleman assure the house that this breakthrough will be followed by calling as the next order of business Bill C-182 to amend the Maritime Freight Rates Act?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: The hon. member will have observed that there is a certain difficulty in connection with that proposal, namely the fact that an extensive filibuster is going on in connection with the order of business presently under consideration. I understand that some hon. members have inquired earlier about the future of the National Housing Act proposals. We hope to pring these forward at an early date. In all probability the next order of business to be considered will be the official languages bill, followed by the bill to amend the National Housing Act.



TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS


James Aloysius McGrath: When does the hon. gentleman propose to
Criminal Code
bring forward for consideration the committee report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications which is now before the house and which deals with this subject?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We have heard enough filibustering on the Criminal Code bill, and I do not think we want to hear again from the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.



AGRICULTURE


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. A moment or two ago, when the Minister of Agriculture was being questioned, I asked a second supplementary question to try to clear up a confusion which seemed to have been created between myself and the minister on this matter. I tried to ask the minister whether through his officials in Prince Edward Island there would be initiated the kind of inquiry-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the confusion is between the hon. member and the minister it can be cleared up after orders of the day have been called. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, May 5, consideration of Bill C-150, to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, and motion No. 33, Mr. Laprise.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to the amendment now before the house. I am sure the record will show that I am ready and prepared to defend the procedural right of private members to move amendments or motions even when I do not agree with those amendments or motions, I submit that it

May 6, 19G9
Criminal Code
is also appropriate tor me to object to a motion even when it happens to contain ideas to which I take exception.
I believe that the amendment now before the house is leading us into a somewhat frivolous debate, is irregular and should be ruled out of order. We ought not to debate it any further. As to my right to raise this point of order at this time, I rely on citation 70(2) of Beauchesne's fourth edition. I will not take the time of the house to read that citation, as I doubt that there is any argument as to my right to raise this point of order at this stage.
The basis of my argument against the admissibility of the amendment is to be found in citation 203(1) of Beauchesne's fourth edition. The important sentence reads as follows: Every amendment proposed to be made either to a question or to a proposed amendment should be so framed that if agreed to by the house the question or amendment as amended would be intelligible and consistent with itself.
I contend that if the amendment of the hon. member for Abitibi were adopted we would have as a result an amended section of the Criminal Code which would not be intelligible or consistent with itself. That is the first of two main reasons I wish to put forward to support my argument that the amendment is not admissible.
My hon. friend from Abitibi seeks to move a motion to amend clause 18 of Bill C-150, which refers to abortions of female persons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
laughter I hear demonstrates my point. We are having a frivolous debate and we ought not to consume the time of the house with it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May
I say that I indicated to my hon. friends next to us that I would be raising this point of order this afternoon, so they would be ready to reply. The hon. member for Abitibi wishes to remove the word "female" wherever it appears in clause 18 of Bill C-150. He wishes the language of the amendment to refer only to a person, not to a female person.
I listened last night to the arguments that were advanced. My friends said that a person is a person, whether male or female, and that in the case of an abortion the reference would obviously be to a female person. Nevertheless, I suggest that if this amendment were passed there would be an inconsistency in the amended section and, second, the amended 
section would not be consistent within itself in that the amended part of the section would not be consistent with the original part of the Criminal Code. For example, if my hon. friend's amendment were carried the amended section in one place would contain the word "person" and then later would talk about "her intention" or "her own miscarriage." I do not wish to press the rules of English grammar too far but it is a rule of English grammar that when you talk about a person you must then say "his" this, or "his" that. If the language of the section is to refer to a person the obvious inference to be drawn would be the section should then refer to "his intention" or "his own miscarriage", which is ridiculous.- That just shows the ridiculous situation we should find ourselves in if this amendment were passed. I submit that these inconsistencies in the amendment itself make the amendment one that should not be before the house.
Even more serious than that is the fact that if this amendment were passed it would become an amendment to section 237 of the Criminal Code. Section 237 of the Code already contains three subsections, two of which refer to a female person. If the amendment were passed it would apply to the new subclauses or subsections 4, 5 and 6, but no change would be made to the original, unamended part of the Code. As a result a state of confusion would arise. Section 237 would contain six subsections, some of which would refer to a female person and others to a person. Confusion would be inevitable.
Even worse than that, if the amendment were to carry someone would have to change the language in the original, unamended subsections of section 237. If we did not do it here it would have to be done by the officials who revise our statutes from time to time. The net result of passing this1 amendment, therefore, would be that we would effect an amendment in the original statute; we would alter section 237 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
May I remind Your Honour that on Friday, April 25, you ruled out of order three amendments that were proposed. I refer to amendments Nos. 17 and 18 proposed by my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, and amendment No. 20 which was moved by the hon. member for Calgary North. Your Honour's argument in ruling out those three amendments was that the amendments went behind the bill and amended parts of the original act which were then not
May B, 1969

Criminal Code
before us. May I take a moment to read what Your Honour said, as found on page 7970 of Hansard for Friday, April 25. These were your words:
If we look at section 237, with its three subsections, we find that they are not, as I understand it, before the house at the present time except in a very indirect way and I cannot see how, by an amendment, the hon. member can attempt to alter or amend them. This is why with much regret I have to reach that decision in connection with Nos. 17 and 18.
Later Your Honour used the same argument as the basis for ruling out of order amendment No. 20. Having read what Your Honour said, I confess I agree with your ruling even though I might have argued the opposite side of the case had I taken part in that debate. However, since Your Honour ruled that we cannot by an amendment at the report stage go behind the bill then before us and introduce language that would change the basic statute, I submit that the present amendment should not be allowed. If this amendment were to carry the wording of the original statute would be changed, and it could not be otherwise. A change would be made at least in subsections 1 and 2 of section 237 of the Criminal Code. If that were not done we should have a totally new section 237 which would be nonsensical, without meaning and without any clarity at all. Somebody would have to make the changes, and the result would be that my hon. friend from Abitibi would have been permitted to effect changes to the basic act, a right that was denied the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway and the hon. member for Calgary North.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
I realize there has been some frivolity about the amendment, but not all of the arguments of my hon. friends in the Ralliement Creditiste are frivolous by any means. Even though I disagree with them, I respect what they are trying to do in regard to this proposition. If they are called to order when I believe they are in order, I will again rise to their defence. In this case, however, I think they not only do their own cause harm but they are taking parliament for a ride by presenting a frivolous motion, and this should not happen. I admit I cannot find among our procedural authorities anything that says we cannot spend the day in frivolity, but there is a citation that says that we cannot move an amendment so framed that it is not consistent in itself, an amendment so framed that the
net result would be a proposition unintelligible and inconsistent.
For these two reasons, because of the inconsistency that would result and because of the fact that this amendment would, in effect, amend the basic statute, I believe Your Honour should find this amendment to be out of order.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere):: I listened with great interest, Mr. Speaker, to the comments of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and I should like to say that I certainly do not agree with him when he says that our debate is frivolous, that we are constantly out of order and that our remarks are vain.
With all due deference to you, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member's point of order might be procedurally valid in substance, when he says that the proposed amendment could give rise to problems in connection with the drafting of section 237 of the Criminal Code. But as to his point of order and his comments on the tremendous job done by the members of the Ralliement creditiste, I think that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who is very competent in procedural matters, is out of order himself.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the amendment moved by the member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) which tends to delete certain words in clause 18 of Bill C-150 is in order, as I said last night, since its purpose is to prevent inconsistencies, which is quite the opposite of what the member for Winnipeg North Centre was saying.
Even more-and I would like to emphasize this point in concluding-our ultimate and fundamental purpose is to avoid useless repetitions. Indeed, as I said last night, the word "female", for instance, in paragraph (a) of sub-section 4 of clause 18, which reads in part as follows:
-for the purpose of carrying out his intention to procure the miscarriage of a female personis unnecessary, for it goes without saying that a male person cannot be aborted.
My remark applies also to paragraph (b), and I quote:
-a female person who, being pregnant, permits a qualified medical practitioner-
It seems that the word "female" which appears almost every third line in clause 18, is absolutely useless.

May 6, 1969
Criminal Code
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to elaborate further on that amendment except to say that our fight is not a frivolous one. While carrying it on, we are not trying to obstruct the business of the house uselessly, but rather to improve this piece of legislation, so that it may serve the best interests of the Canadian people.
As for the minister, if he thinks that we are engaged in useless work and that the debate is dragging on, he need only withdraw the clause on abortion and we will vote in favour of the bill while voting against it, and then the house can proceed to a more serious piece of legislation, if any.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Unless other members with to contribute to the debate on the point of order that has been raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I am prepared to give a ruling at this time. I should like to assure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that the point he has put to the house is one that worried me when the proposed amendments were considered, which is already some weeks ago. With my advisers, with the gentlemen at the table and with parliamentary counsel a very close look was taken at all of the amendments, including the one now before the house. I had some reservations about it but, as has been said before, the policy adopted in connection with these amendments was to be as lenient as possible so that there might be a full discussion of the amendments. I realize that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, along with his present seatmate, might feel-


Stanley Howard Knowles: You
had better identify her, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: -that if this policy is followed in this instance, all other hon. members might enjoy the same leniency. However, we did feel that, speaking generally, we should not allow an amendment that sought to go behind the amending legislation, an amendment which would directly amend the original legislation. This is why a number of these motions have not been put to the house.
The suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is that although the motion now before the house does not directly affect, amend or modify the original bill, it would do so indirectly. I would think that perhaps this is going just a little too far. I think there is a substantial difference
[Mr. Fortin.l
between a proposed amendment that obviously seeks directly to amend the original legislation and one that, by way of consequence, might require amendments which, as in this case, are not of a substantive nature.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre contends that the adoption of this amendment would mean that the gender of some pronouns might have to be changed in consequence. I am not sure whether this would be sufficient reason for the Chair to refuse to put the amendment that is before the house.
I realize that in practice this particular amendment might result in a debate that perhaps is frivolous in its nature, not because of the hon. members who are taking part in this debate but because hon. members perforce have to be relevant in their remarks to the subject matter of the amendment to be discussed and decided on.
Having said that, and since the House has already spent some time considering an amendment which in my view, although perhaps borderline, was in fact accepted, I think it would hardly be in order at this stage to hold that this amendment is not acceptable, that it should not have been put to the house because it is out of order. I doubt that this is the decision that should be made at this late time. I should like to suggest that we allow the amendment to go forward, that hon. members who take part in the debate on and consideration of this motion take into account the fact that it is perhaps borderline, and that they limit their remarks on the amendment so we can move on as quickly as possible to the next one.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to your ruling on the matter of the admissibility of the amendment and-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe that the hon. member for Lotbiniere had the floor when the point of order was raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The hon. member for Lotbiniere participated in the debate on the point of order, and I would think that we should at this point go back to the hon. member for Lotbiniere. Unless the hon. member has completed his remarks. If so, the Chair will recognize the Minister of Justice.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I tried to combine my answer to the point of order made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre with
May 6, 1969

the end of my speech, so as not to uselessly delay the debate, and also for the purpose of concluding at the same time.
We will be happy to hear the Minister of Justice.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I gather in that event that the hon. member has concluded his speech, and I think the house will welcome your remark that because of the very narrow context of this amendment hon. members should confine their speeches to the very narrow point of whether it should be "person" or "female person" in the bill.
What the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) attempts to argue in his amendment is that since only a female can be aborted therefore the word "female" is superfluous and should be deleted. I venture to say, Mr. Speaker, that if we had put in only the word "person", members of the Creditiste party would have argued that only a female can be aborted and therefore it should read "female person". In fact their amendment would be drawn either way, depending on how the bill had been drawn.
I want to say briefly to hon. members opposite, grammarians that they are, with their subtle knowledge of the English and French languages, that "female person" is the broadest concept we know to cover the connotation woman, girl, female adolescent, and certainly in the part of the country from which my hon. friends come, lady. But the reason that the words "female person" are used is quite simple. Section 237(1) and (2) of the Criminal Code, to which clause 18 relates, use the words "female person" and section 238 also uses the words "female person". This is the section relating to the supply of noxious things, and I will read it:
Every one who unlawfully supplies or procures a drug or other noxious thing or an instrument or thing, knowing that it is intended to be used or employed to procure the miscarriage of a female person, whether or not she is pregnant, is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for two years.
Going through the Criminal Code I would like to draw the attention of hon. members to Section 135 relating to rape, which reads:
A male person commits rape when he has sexual intercourse with a female person who is not his wife

Criminal Code
Section 138 reads:
(1) Every male person who has sexual intercourse with a female person who
(a)	is not his wife, and
(b)	is under the age of fourteen years-
Section 140 reads:
Every male person who, under circumstances that do not amount to rape, has sexual intercourse with a female person
(a)	who is not his wife, and
(b)	who is and who he knows or has good reason to believe is feeble-minded, insane, or is an idiot or imbecile,
is guilty of an indictable offence-
Section 141 reads:
(1) Every one who indecently assaults a female person is guilty of an indictable offence-
So there are plenty of precedents for the proper drafting that we believe was used in the bill.


David Réal Caouette: May I ask the minister a question?


John Napier Turner: Certainly.


David Réal Caouette: Is the minister trying to make it clear that a female is not a male?


John Napier Turner: I want to make it clear that the drafters of the Criminal Code knew the difference between a female and a male long before the Creditiste party was ever born, and I want to suggest to Your Honour that not even the fertility of imagination with which we have been faced for the past 20 days is sufficient to stray beyond the confines of this amendment. I hope we hear hon. members opposite talk about the amendment in that narrow context of person and female person in the hope that we can then get on to a more significant amendment.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to dwell on these remarks, because I was the first, I think, in the committee on justice and legal affairs to ask the minister questions. At the time, the only answer he gave me concerning the inclusion in the bill on abortion of the words "of the female sex", was that experts would be called in to try and find an explanation.
Well, today in this house we will not take very long to discuss this amendment, because we realize that it has been prepared by the minister's experts who have not provided him with the reasons why they have included in

May 6, 1969
Criminal Code
the text relating to abortion the words "of the female sex".
One understands the minister when he speaks, for instance, of the rape of a female person. One can explain the reasons why in the Criminal Code the distinction is made between the male sex and the female sex as far as other matters except abortion are concerned. But in connection with abortion itself we still do not know how it is possible that a person of a sex other than the female sex may get an abortion. Medically speaking, nobody has proved to us yet that a person of another sex may secure an abortion. And that is why we find that this legislative text is ridiculous, not serious, and we feel obliged to bring in amendments that are not serious to make comprehensible a text we would have liked the minister to change between the committee report and second reading of the bill.
So we seriously and sincerely regret that the minister should go on sponsoring a bill that the public and even his fellow lawyers find ridiculous and stupid and in which mention should only be made of abortion and not of abortion of a female person.
I believe that on this point at least the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) could accept to amend the Criminal Code. If up to now that text has been the laughing stock of the public, he should try not to be responsible for the continuance of a wording which is preposterous. Let us have at least legislation which is logical, shows common sense and corresponds to the views of doctors, who have asked us to remove from the Criminal Code the words "female person" in 12 or 13 different places when speaking of abortion.
We recognize that we. must limit our remarks to the topic, the abortion of "a female person" and that we must express ourselves concisely. But when we speak of female persons, we speak of more than half the population. That is why we were pleased to support the remarks and the amendments of the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) aimed at removing from the Criminal Code such ridiculous, stupid and senseless words which show a lack of maturity on the part of the Liberal party. It claims to be a serious party; yet it introduced in this house a bill which was prepared by God knows whom. It was prepared not by hospitals, or doctors, or medical associations, but by civil servants who kept on repeating, in the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code or in the bill on abortion, the same stupidities1 we had before

concerning the abortion of a female person. The expression existed way before the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) came to this house, way before the friends of his predecessor, who introduced the bill, thought of protecting themselves by asking the government to amend the Criminal Code with regard to abortion and homosexuality.
I support in all seriousness the amendment moved by the hon. member for Abitibi. It may not seem serious in the eyes of the minister but, otherwise, the matter will continue to be a joke in our society and especially for those who will have to plead before our courts, when they must speak of "the abortion, Your Honour, of a female person".
Again, this will prove that the Liberal party goes by what experts say in introducing amendments to the Criminal Code, in this omnibus bill, in introducing changes which basically are not serious.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, just a few words1 about the expression of "the female sex", that my colleague from Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) would like to see eliminated because it is understood, according to the clear and precise explanations of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), that this expression should be used when speaking about abortion.
This is likely a result of Bill C-150 dealing with homosexuality. By speaking of female persons, it establishes clearly that homosexuals shall not have the right to get an abortion. These are undoubtedly the explanations the minister meant us to understand a while ago by referring to the Criminal Code, to the law that has always existed, so that it would be clearly established in everybody's mind that a man has no right to get an abortion even if he is in love with another man.
That is why the expression "of the female sex" is maintained. So in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, all explanations are unnecessary. Everybody knows that abortion is for women and not men, as far as the operation itself is concerned. So, the Minister of Justice probably knows the rules, the law, the Criminal Code and so on. By using this expression, he wanted to spare men difficulties that could happen some 20 years' from now in Canada.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like at the outset to set the record straight. Although I interject remarks
May 6, 1969

on each amendment, it is not to do any filibustering on this bill, for our party did not ask for such a discussion.
Not only we did not ask for it, we actually asked for the very opposite, and last Friday, we voted with the Progressive Conservative members: on a motion to adjourn the debate on Bill C-150, in order to proceed with more serious matters. So if people pointed a finger at us because the debate drags on, they would be labouring under a tremendous misconception.
The amendment before the house is a very short one. I will try, therefore, as on similar occasions, to be very brief, and to limit my remarks to the regular 20-minute period.
Mr. Speaker, I am not a lawyer, and I would not like to get entangled or lost in the maze of legal terminology. Many people act as if they were paid so much per word, which often results in the fact that their language in a written form, in its attempts at precision, becomes gibberish or, as in the case in hand, simply ridiculous and stupid.
Simple souls and laymen like myself have to smile when they read the various paragraphs under section 18, and come across things like this:
-a qualified medical practitioner, other than a member of a therapeutic abortion committee for any hospital, who in good faith uses in an accredited or approved hospital any means for the purpose of carrying out his intention to procure the miscarriage of a female person-
When we find this kind of language in one paragraph after another, we cannot help but be amused. The repetition of this ridiculous specification gives us some doubts. Many stout, corpulent members of this house should feel their bellies, just in case.
Did a woman's ovum ever go into orbit and drive a permatozoon back into the body of a man? This is what this useless specification would lead us to believe. My remarks will be found very stupid and yet the wording of the subsections of clause 18 does imply such stupidities.
One would think that the authors of this clause in the omnibus bill were so concerned with the fate of these poor Canadian women that they wanted to show them that this provision legalizing abortion was a precious present being offered exclusively to the mothers and future mothers of families, those who are indeed responsible for one of our greatest national resources, that is, the generations which will succeed us in this country which is
Criminal Code
as big as a continent. Our motto "from sea to sea" could become "mother at sea".
These abusive specifications could also be construed as justifying the legislator who would have thus become a kind of Pontius Pilate who washes his hands so well that he dares determine, self-consciousness, without that he is quite in favour of abortion for persons of the female sex but, on the other hand, he certainly does not want the same authorization for persons of the male sex, like him.
All sorts of other interpretations could be put forth. May I be allowed to underline the most serious ones, those which would be likely to bring about confusion.
Let me take again paragraph (a) of section 18, which reads partly as follows:
.-a qualified medical practitioner other than a member of a therapeutic abortion committee for any hospital, who in good faith uses in an accredited hospital any means for the purpose of carrying out his intention to procure the miscarriage of a female person.
Mr. Speaker, someone might give to the term "a female person" the following interpretation: a person still in embryo, that is a child in his mother's womb. If someone gave that interpretation, the legislation would mean that abortion is right provided the mother expects a girl. You see that that term may be confusing.
When the bill refers to:
-the miscarriage of a female persondoes that mean that if the unborn child were a male person, miscarriage could not be procured? You can see that that could be interpreted in such a way. I do not say that such is the purpose of the bill but it could be interpreted in that way by someone, and abortion would not be valid, then, if it were a boy.
And what would happen, Mr. Speaker, if some smart aleck came to see the doctor and requested an abortion for hisi girl-friend, basing his request on his own interpretation of section 18 (b) which reads as follows:
-a female person who, being pregnant, permits a qualified medical practitioner to use in an accredited hospital any means described in paragraph (a) for the purpose of carrying out her intention to procure her own miscarriage.
Mr. Speaker, it could be interpreted to mean that a female person cannot request the authorization,, but a male person can. For an abortion to be authorized, the request would have to be made by a male person.

May 6, 1969
Criviinal Code
We might call this splitting hairs, Mr. Speaker but such an interpretation is possible.
Therefore, our "smart aleck" could say: "She, of the female sex, cannot, but I, I am not of the female sex, therefore, I can get the necessary authorization.
Often, we refuse to believe that people may be so stupid. It is the kind of objection that the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) could put forward, for instance. I would answer that if we see eggs, there must be a hen around. And we, in this house, since we are discussing idiocies, there must have been some idiots to lay such rotten eggs. If we bear in mind the consummate skill of the law artists-of those people who know how to evade legislation or to use it to their benefit- such a hypothesis might appear quite likely.
Mr. Speaker, it has been common knowledge since time immemorial that the greatest thieves are as free as a bird and that the law is unable to catch them. I would be tempted to add that, sometimes, having caught them, it lets them get away again. I am thinking at this very moment of Lucien Rivard's famous evasion.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
All such interpretations, though they may seem crazy, are nevertheless plausible. We are puzzled by this heavy insistence on "female person". How many sexes are there? Was it the intention in this way to spare the pretty boys who, instead of being normally constituted, are cracked in the head?
Mr. Speaker, may I refer to a definition of the sexes to be found in the works of Plato. I quote:
Formerly, our nature was not what it is today: it was quite different. First of all, there were three species of humans-
May be it is to that text that the author of the omnibus bill was referring.
-and not two, as is the case today: the male, the female and, in addition, a third species made up of the first two. Only the name survives today, the species has disappeared. That was the androgynous species which combined the forms and the names of the two other species, male and female; it no longer exists today; only the name survives as an expression of scorn.
Moreover every man as a whole was roundshaped, with a rounded back and rounded sides, four hands, as many legs, two faces quite similar on a round neck, and on top of those opposite faces, a single head, four ears, two generative organs and all the rest accordingly. He walked erectly, as we do now, in whatever direction he wanted, and when he started running fast, he did like showmen who turn in circles while throwing

their legs up in the air; leaning on their eight members, they turned somersaults in rapid succession. And those three species were thus shaped because the male originated from the sun, the female from the earth, and the mixed species from the moon which has the characteristics of both.
Mr. Speaker, it is true that I am young, but I have yet to meet such beings as those I have just described.
So, we only know two kinds, and we know only one sex that can transmit life, that can bear the foetus which will result in a normally shaped human being. There is only one sex.
That is why when the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) stresses the fact that this provision should be deleted, I think that he is quite right. It is altogether useless. However, the amendment might not cover all the clauses adequately, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) pointed out, because the same expression recurs in other clauses.
If the minister agreed, he would simply eliminate the expression every time is met and in all sections on abortion.
But the interpretations I just pointed out may exist. The main interpretation, at least according to the French version we have here, would be that the abortion of a person of the "female sex" might not be really that of the person because we understand the embryo, the foetus is a human being, a living being and consequently abortion could be interpreted as being that of the foetus itself of the female sex, which would create tremendous confusion.
Were we expected to understand that since the result of these masculine affairs, of the feminine gender, could not affect life or health, the fact of clearly specifying the "female sex" was meant to eliminate this kind of sex? This specification was useless as science is not advanced enough to know the nature of the young of this new race. Will they be aqueous or terrestrial creatures?
Finally, what will happen to these persons of both sexes physically? We have here all kinds of problems which, as ridiculous and stupid as they may seem at first sight, are nevertheless a very eloquent demonstration, in my opinion, of the uselessness of the present debate.
Before I conclude my remarks, I would like our motives to be understood and I want the government to consider the fact that we do not want to delay this debate in any way and that we would be very happy if the minister
May 6. 1969

were able to convince the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or the cabinet to put an end to this debate, to adjourn it indefinitely, so that we might pass to other much more important matters, in short, that we might discuss projects for which the people of this country have been waiting a long time and which they would rather hear about than what we are now discussing.
We are not and will not be blamed for it since we are still being urged to continue this gigantic struggle we have undertaken and which we will continue in order to prove that our attitude is supported by the majority of the people, at least those we are trying to represent with dignity in this house.
Mr. Speaker, I apologize for having taken so much time in trying to explain a difference of a few inches only.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, for a number of days we have been debating a series of amendments to the government's proposals in respect of abortion as put forward in the bill. I have lost track of the number of days we have been discussing this matter.
Some of the amendments put forward oppose any provision for abortion within the Criminal Code. Other amendments placed before the house embody the stand that in the event this bill is passed by the house certain improvements should be made. I think it is perfectly proper that a confrontation of debates should take place on this particular matter, and that adequate provision should be made for such a debate.
During previous debates in the house I have made my own stand very clear. I am unable to see my way clear to support the government proposal as it is now before us. There are some amendments I feel I can support; yet there are others to which I cannot lend that support. In respect of this amendment I find it difficult to conceive-or possibly I should say I find it difficult to perceive its exact purpose.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I do not pretend to be enough of an authority on the French language to comment on particular problems that may exist with respect to the French version. However, in trying to arrive at a possible explanation of the English translation and the English version of this amendment, the only thought that came to my mind was that it might refer to the
Criminal Code
type of case that I read of a number of years ago, where a 14 year old boy developed pains in his chest and after a period of time, examinations and x-rays it was decided to operate. When the operation was carried out it was found that in fact there was a developing embryo in the boy's chest. Subsequently it was concluded that this was in fact a twin of the boy, the development of which had been arrested in the prenatal stage, that the foetus that was eventually born enveloped the retarded foetus and that with the physiological changes and developments at the stage of puberty the embryo had once again commenced its development.
I thought this might be an explanation of what the hon. member had in mind when he moved the amendment. However, after listening to some of the members who have presented their case in favour of the amendment I find that this is not their concern at all; they are not concerned about a male person ever developing a state of pregnancy. Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I find that I cannot lend any support to this amendment, and I hope the house will proceed with the other more important aspects of the abortion issue now before us.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like first to thank the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin), my colleague, who was kind enough to move this amendment yesterday on my behalf. I had to stay up North to attend the funeral of a very dear friend, and that is why I was absent when that amendment was moved in the house.
Mr. Speaker, it will not be necessary for me to speak at length in order to make the purpose of this amendment clear, for the hon. member for Lotbiniere, as well as my colleagues who spoke in support of my amendment, have already done so fairly well.
However, I should like to add that I wanted to delete those words in clause 18, in order to avoid repetitions and also complications in our Canadian laws, as my colleague from Champlain (Mr. Matte) mentioned. We know that the legal officers who draft the laws always manage to complicate them to such an extent that the same pieces of legislation often mean two or three different things, and this gives rise at times to some quibbling between lawyers, but always at the expense of the client, of the little people.
Now, I would like to explain very clearly how I understand maternity. We know that

May 6. 1969
Criminal Code
the feminine nature implies a possible maternity. That does not mean that all women must be mothers or must go through motherhood. I think a woman can be a mother without experimenting maternity and giving birth to a child. That is a happy and glorious experience which all women, I think, should hope for, but a woman can also be a mother through adoption.
I think that it is an altogether different thing that the man's body has in itself the possibility of being a father, but he cannot, I think, experiment maternity.
For those reasons, I think it is not necessary to complicate a legislation by giving so many details, when everyone knows that many of our Canadian statutes should be clearer to prevent complications. Maybe such details have been deliberately omitted from our legislation.
So, Mr. Speaker, I think that my amendment is well-founded and justifiable, and I cannot understand why the minister and the government would not agree to this amendment which could prevent complications and perhaps heavy expenses later.
Earlier, in his opposition statement, the minister led us back to the question of rape. He spoke about rape itself. I think that as far as rape is concerned, today we cannot consider it in the same light as we did in the past. Today a man can be raped just like a woman because, if I understand correctly, to rape someone is to force that person to perform a sexual act against his or her will.
It can happen to a man. One has only to read the proceedings of certain lawsuits in our largest cities to see that sometimes the charge of rape made against a male person is rejected and the latter, who was charged with rape, is freed. One therefore wonders whether the male person had not been driven to rape.
I think the minister's explanation does not make sense and I still think my amendment- the one we are supporting-is justified and acceptable.


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, following the amendment moved by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) to the effect that the omnibus bill
-be amended by deleting in clause 18 the word "female" on lines 28 and 29 on page 42, and the word "female" on lines 3 and 23 on page 43, and the word "female" on line 39 on page 44,
We realize, Mr. Speaker, that the drafting of this bill was done too hastily. We have

been saying so since this debate started. Because of this, there are errors and almost inconceivable nonsense in the bill. Furthermore, that is exactly why 70,000 Catholic parents have asked for a royal commission in order to determine who is responsible for the drafting of this bill and for the gross errors it contains.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
A while ago, I was listening to the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) and with him I recognize that, from time to time, some changes take place in the patterns of human life.
Last week, we were told of a human heart living outside the chest of a human body. That probably shows why some people with their heart not within their chest but without, are against an amendment to defend Christianity.
Therefore, in the face of such changes, we are not surprised either to discover in that bill, which was prepared and reproduced too hastily, enormous mistakes such as the use of the word "female" throughout.
I have discussed that famous omnibus bill at home with my own family, and my wife, seeing the word "female", asked me whether the Minister of Justice was afraid that women would change their sex, as some of them have. That happened last year, but it does not occur very often.
However, since it was deemed advisable to repeat the word "female", I believe that it would be more logical, as requested by those having a clear mind, to delete that word from the bill. Before we believe that women will change their sex, we have to await proof that such things will happen more quickly.
Besides, I discussed the matter with my daughters-they are students in a convent- who were wondering in what respect that bill was serious. They asked me the following question: "Is it true that men could imagine that other men would need to be aborted?"
Together with the Serena teams, which studied recently the amendments we have moved, the spokesmen for the University of Sherbrooke support us and state this: Your amendments could at least mitigate the omnibus bill, make it less ridiculous and allow this representative of justice to discuss it better.
Besides, these Serena teams have sent over 238 letters of protest, 7,378 signatures regarding all the amendments and also 49,175 signatures to the Senate in order to kill the bill once and for all.
May 6. 1969

In the face of such a general outcry, I will not let anyone say that we are not defending something serious here. On the contrary. When we find something ridiculous in a bill, we ask that it be changed. We must decry such absurdity in the house in cooperation with these teams, with Catholic parents, with all those who now want us to go on with the battle we started, because what is taking place in parliament reminds me too much of the time when we had a Prime Minister just as uncompromising as the present one. He would force his members and his ministers to vote like him, without any other obligation than to dictate to parliament. I say that this reminds me of the time of Sir John Macdonald who said about Riel "A man to hang".
Today, we can say that there are lives to be protected. When in this ridiculous bill we see such absurd words which are repeated at every turn, such as "female person", thus giving the impression that there could be others than female persons who could procure miscarriage for themselves, I say for the last time to my Liberal friends-who accept such intransigency, who vote unanimously as they did yesterday on sensible amendments which we introduce but who reject them all because of the dictatorship existing in this parliament-please do not repeat those mistakes for which the Canadian people have suffered because right now we are forging the destiny of Canada and we are going back a hundred years.
For a better and just Canada, for more explicit laws, I therefore beg you, as a broth-er-christian of all Canadians, to accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Abitibi.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question? The question is on the motion by the hon. member for Abitibi amending clause 18 of Bill C-150. All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 75 (11), and a special order of the
Criminal Code
house made last Wednesday, April 30, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred until after consideration of motion No. 19.
We will now proceed to the consideration of motion No. 34 in the name of the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace.


Mr. Cafik (for Mr. Allmand) moved: motion No. 34:
That Bill C-150, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act, be amended by deleting in clause 18 the words "or would be likely to endanger her life or health" on lines 4 and 5 on page 43 and by inserting the following words:
"endanger her life or seriously and directly impair her health".
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment of the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) to Bill C-150, and I would like to explain the reasons for my position. First of all, I wish to make it clear that I realize that many members of the House of Commons, many people in Canada and many people in my riding are divided on the position they take with regard to the legalization of abortion. I hope they will try as hard to understand the position I am taking as I have tried to understand theirs.
When considering abortion I believe that the main question is whether the foetus is in fact a human being and, if it is a human being, at what stage it becomes one. Obviously, if one were to conclude that the foetus is not human, there would be no reason for not granting abortions on either request or demand. If, however, it is concluded that the foetus is human, then people might be inclined to come to a different decision. I believe that this central question takes the problem of abortion out of the realm of religion and belief because I do not think it is solely a religious question but rather one on which legislators should decide on scientific grounds. In doing so we must ask ourselves the following question: If a foetus is a human being, do we as members of the House of Commons have any responsibility to protect its human life? This is a serious question which affects all people, regardless of their religious, political or other beliefs.
A great deal of evidence was put forward to the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare in the 27th parliament by a number of witnesses who indicated that there is no question about whether or not a foetus is

May 6, 1969
Criminal Code
human. I should like to quote some ol the evidence put forward at that time. One of the witnesses was Dr. L. L. de Veber, assistant professor of the Department of Pediatrics and Pathological Chemistry at the University of Western Ontario. In conjunction with two other doctors he submitted a brief to the committee, which is to be found at page 556 of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the committee for January 30, 1968. I quote:
The foetus Is a unique and distinct individual from the first few weeks of life with its own circulation and its own blood group, separate tissues, and by 20 weeks or even earlier, capable of existing outside the mother. This is not to deny that the mother is the supremely important individual in the life of the foetus and that she is intimately connected with the foetus. However, to speak of the foetus as being part of her such as other organs is simply not logical or scientific.
Does the foetus become a human being at the moment of birth? In answer to this question the doctor said:
This seems hardly logical since this may occur at 10 weeks, 20 weeks, or 40 weeks. There is nothing magical or mystical about the passage of birth process except for its independent circulation and breathing of air.
The doctor went on to ask:
Is the foetus human when the mother can feel it kick and move? This is a very subjective assessment and would vary from mother to mother and we know scientifically that the foetus can move and react to pain long before the mother is aware of its presence.
The next question the doctor asked was:
Is the foetus human at the period of viability? The problem here is that the period of viability is changing continually. At present it is usually assessed at about 20 weeks gestation. However, obviously as medical science advances, this period will become much earlier and it is also possible in the future that the foetus could be maintained outside of the mother from the very earliest weeks of gestation. Thus, again, we are on slippery ground in attempting to award the quality of being a human being at the period of viability.
Does the fact that the foetus can cry after delivery, before viability, make it human? It is interesting to note the extreme reactions of people to the concept of the foetus crying after an abortion.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
He is speaking here about abortions which take place prior to three months of pregnancy. Scientific evidence indicates that the foetus is living well before the time at which most abortions are carried out. Dr. de Veber continued:
Very few doctors who perform therapeutic abortions find it a pleasant task. Many of them have stated they realize they are destroying a human life with the operation.

I go on to quote from evidence by Dr. Jack Walters who is a professor of obstetrics at the University of Western Ontario. He says:
The definition of human life depends on the finding of certain factors characteristic of life as opposed to death. The factors are: 1. Heartbeat. 2. Blood pressure. 3. Maintenance of body temperature. 4. Production of carbon dioxide. 5. Utilization of oxygen. 6. Respiratory activity.
In Stockholm, Sweden, experiments were conducted on aborted children. I wish to quote the results of these experiments:
The recording of the data concerning these aborted foetuses should demonstrate to anyone that life is present at this stage of development. The foetus has a heartbeat, produces an electrocardiographic pattern, utilizes oxygen, produces carbon dioxide and maintains body temperature.
Utilizing what is called the Doppler effect, heartbeats have been recorded in foetuses nine weeks of age.
This kind of evidence certainly leads me to believe that the foetus is in fact a human being. And if it is, what right have we to authorize some other person to take its life? I think there are situations in which this could be permitted. There is, I believe, a longstanding argument that a person has the right to protect his or her own life-the right of selfdefence. This argument would justify an amendment to the Criminal Code allowing a mother to abort if her own life is, in fact, directly in danger. Cm the basis of this principle I believe most people would grant the right to an abortion in cases where life was endangered by the continuation of pregnancy.
In what other circumstances could we possibly permit an abortion? Bill C-150 as presently drafted says that, in the opinion of the committee set up to consider these things, an abortion could be carried out provided the continuation of the pregnancy would, or would likely, endanger life or health. The problem here lies in the definition of the word "health". Does it mean, as many would interpret it, merely a matter of convenience? Can abortions be allowed when the mother finds it discomforting to have an other child. Perhaps when she has four or five already, perhaps when the home is not large enough, or possibly when a girl is unmarried and social pressures are brought to bear upon her, producing mental attitudes which cause her to seek an abortion?
If we allow abortion for reasons of this sort, Mr. Speaker, we are surely not correcting the real problems. Suppose an unmarried girl is led to seek an abortion because of the pressure of society upon her. Is the fault that
May 6, 1969

of the innocent unborn child or is it the fault of the society which is so critical of her? Suppose a mother does not want her child because she is economically poor or inadequately housed. Do we solve this problem by allowing her to have an abortion or should we, as legislators, do something to provide conditions in which such a woman would want to bring her child into the world? I do not think we solve problems such as these by creating another. Many of those who submit to abortion find themselves in a much worse condition years or even months later. They find that the abortion weighs on their consciences. They regret what they have done. Anyone who is married and has children realizes that a wife is very often in a depressed state during some stage of her pregnancy. Are we to judge what should happen to an unborn child because of what may, after all, be only a temporary condition? I do not think so.
The amendment put forward by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace makes a significant change in the wording of the bill before us. The operative words are: "to endanger her life or seriously and directly impair her health." In my opinion this may be a justifiable condition for abortion in line with the consideration of self-defence which I have mentioned. Simply to say that life or health could likely be endangered, or could be endangered, is putting the matter far too broadly. We have been told that from a legal point of view there is no difference between the original wording and the wording of the amendment. I submit there is one real difference, leaving aside the legal implications. The original wording would create a climate for abortion in Canada; people would believe that abortions were very easy to obtain. It may be we are doing many women a disservice by seeking to pass the legislation in its present form, because I do not think they will find abortion quite as easy to obtain as they thought it was going to be.
It would have a far better effect in Canada if we were to change this legislation in such a way as to avoid any impression that there is nothing wrong with taking the life of an unborn child or that it is permissible in any and all circumstances. I do not think it is, and I do not think this legislation should suggest that it is. If those who drew up this bill feel that the foetus is not a human being, then I believe they have drawn up bad legislation. If they say it is a human being, then we should be very careful about the conditions under which abortions are allowed to take place.
Criminal Code
For these reasons I support the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace. In no way do I feel that I have any responsibility to legislate morality, nor that the government has any responsibility to do so. That is not the question. I would certainly not subscribe to that view. But I strongly feel that we are under an obligation to protect the lives of our citizens, including the unborn child.
I should like to put on record one further quotation, this time from the Declaration of the Rights of the Child adopted in 1959 by the General Assembly of the United Nations. I presume Canada subscribes to this declaration. The preamble states in part:
Whereas the child, by reason of its physical and mental maturity, needs special safeguards and care, including proper legal protection before as well as after birth-
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
It is interesting that here is a recognition by a world body in which we participate of the rights of the child both before and after birth. From that body emanates a declaration that there is need to protect the child both before and after birth. I feel that, without question, the foetus, at the stage of its development being considered here in connection with abortions, is a human being. I feel that abortions should only be permitted under very strict control for the purpose of protecting a woman's life or if her health will be seriously and directly impaired. Such an abortion would be, in my view, a case of self-defence.


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to rise and talk about the amendment proposed by the previous speaker and I think it is quite important at this time to draw the hon. members' attention and to express my ideas on this amendment.
We should consider whether this amendment goes any further, goes far enough or goes too far in its attempt to make the bill more explicit. The amendment reads as follows:
That Bill C-150... be amended by deleting in clause 18 the words "or would be likely to endanger her life or health" on lines 4 and 5 on page 43 and by inserting the following words:
"endanger her life or seriously and directly impair her health".
I do not think there should be any uncertainties as to the reasons behind the position of the previous speaker who spoke in support of that clause or that amendment for allowing

May 6, 1969
Criminal Code
therapeutic abortions. This is not a probable, a hypothetical or a future matter; it is an immediate question.
When you read this:
-would or would be likely to endanger her life or health-
I suggest that the clause should be more explicit and the amendment more realistic.
This may not seem very important, but just read the clause again in another way, and I quote:
-would or would be likely to endanger her health-
Most often this is how it will be construed and this will leave us open to all kinds of problems. Doctors will have to deal with women that will play on words, who will think up any reasons to get a therapeutic abortion.
Mr. Speaker, the present section of the Criminal Code is much too evasive and vague. I think the amendment, as worded, certainly supplements clause 18 to some extent, but fails to make it specific enough.
In my opinion, a matter of such importance should not provide a means of playing on words.
Physicians will face women who will play on words. This was confirmed in every country that adopted such legislation.
As it appears in the Criminal Code, the section now contains the following expressions "would or would be likely" and "her life or health".
I think too wide an interpretation is possible, and as I said, serious problems will crop up because of the way in which some expressions of the bill will be understood.
Those who wish to solve the problem of an unwanted pregnancy, are not consumed with scruples, but with an obsession: to get rid of the foetus they carry in their wombs. Those women or young girls have the impression that their problems will be solved by the death of the foetus and that, in this way, they will trifle with the conscience and good faith of physicians and gynaecologists. They will even threaten to commit suicide, but very few ever do it.
Physical health is easy to ascertain but hard to define in order to determine whether health is endangered or not, because it is closely connected with the morale of a person who claims to be sick because of a pregnancy.
[Mr. Beaudoin.l
It is more difficult to determine the moral or mental health, especially of unscrupulous persons who will resort to tricks or intrigues.
Mr. Speaker, the mistake made in section 18 of the Criminal Code has been noted and studied by Dr. Lavigne, president of the Quebec hospital medical boards, who referred to it, when he appeared before the committee on justice and legal affairs on March 20 last, in the following terms, and I quote:
We are against the present text of the bill and we wish to see it amended to limit the reasons for abortion to cases where there is a serious danger to the life of the mother. The problem is stated in the bill on page 43.
Mr. Speaker, I will not quote the wording, because I know that most hon. members know it by heart, especially those who took the trouble to study the bill and to come here to discuss its consequences clause by clause. I will go on:
Now, this leaves a door open to all social, psychiatric or other reasons that people will choose to give. There will always be a way of obtaining pseudo-psychiatric or pseudo-social reasons to obtain an abortion. Now, this is the equivalent of what the clause on abortion requests. At the present time, the bill reads as follows: Would or would be likely to endanger her life or health.
In my opinion, the proposed amendment does not go far enough, is not specific enough, and offers no guarantee, or nothing more than the provision of the bill when it was first introduced in the house.
Dr. Lavigne who is aware of the dangers of a wrong interpretation made the following suggestion, which I would like to quote:
We would prefer this to be limited to "to endanger her life" or at least "to endanger seriously her health."
The terms used leave the door open to problems, and discussions. The major problem regarding these therapeutic abortion committees is that psychiatrists, among whom some admit any kind of psychiatric reasons, would ask the gynaecologists and obstetricians to carry out abortions when those physicians have refused to perform them.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
*-This provision would also allow for a certain amount of bargaining as far as the patients are concerned because they will try to find a doctor who will agree to such an abortion. This will bring problems that will give rise to a double standard in certain cases.
In New York I know two hospitals that are located just a few streets from each other. Now one hospital carries out one abortion for every 20 deliveries and the other one carries out one abortion for every 6,000 deliveries. Therefore, I think that this situation would be creating a problem that is just as serious.
May 6, 1969

Mr. Speaker, these findings are very important, because the legislation itself on abortion already constitutes an evil, and the acceptance of such an indefinite clause, that changes almost nothing, such as the amendment under consideration,-that could be qualified as unfinished-constitutes a challenge to the interpretation of the terms of the law.
Such women who would ask for an abortion will thus be free to resort to all tactics, but they would be unaware of the actual psychological consequences which will result.
By trying to get out of an unpleasant situation for themselves, by playing upon words, they will get involved, that is, they would not know, and neither the psychiatrist nor the specialists would know exactly where they stand. Well-known doctors came to that conclusion, and one of them, Dr. Walsh, when he appeared before the committee on justice and legal affairs on March 20 last, added:
It may impose tremendous strains on her health, it may impose tremendous economic and other strains, and in the case of the unmarried mother, which we must always keep in mind, it imposes the tremendous problem of giving up her baby.
One of the problems that is not properly investigated yet is the following. In respect of a woman who has an abortion .. . our experience is that a woman can tolerate giving up her baby much better than feeling that she has deprived it of its right to life.
This is something that is very deep in a woman makeup. It is psycho-biological. We cannot prove it to anyone statistically. It is an intuitive observation. It is something that doctors who work with patients find all the time.
I think that for all those reasons we must be extremely careful before accepting all the amendments, especially the one now before us.
Some hon. members believe that the new legislation on abortion will only legalize abortion for serious reasons, for instance to preserve the life of the mother, even if it is seldom necessary.
It is generally recognized that abortion for such reasons is already legal. The changes proposed in the bill, on the whole, open the door a little more. That is why I submit that this amendment does not restrict enough the scope of the bill nor the meaning of its wording.
Bill C-150 proposes to legalize abortion to protect the mother's health. The decision here is left to the sole discretion of a small abortion committee.
In fact, this legislation will allow two doctors, a majority in a three-member committee,
Criminal Code
to authorize abortions for the purposes they decide upon.
In a television program on the CTV network on December 27 last, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) confirmed our apprehension concerning abortion committees. Let the abortion committees make the law, he said. He stated that the word "health" would not be interpreted by the courts of justice but by each therapeutic abortion committee. In other words, the decision of such committees is above and beyond the law.
We have noticed that in our hospitals abortions are now made for reasons of life or death, and not on psychological grounds. The immediate, rather than the future, physical health is more important. There is no gambling, no shillyshallying and consequently doctors are not blamed for such operations. If there is an emergency, an operation is performed but only with the mother's consent. Such cases are extremely rare, and are becoming more so, because of progress in the medical field, but when they happened, the mother more often than not chose to sacrifice herself in order to give birth to her child.
Why then should the government pester us with "probably" and "maybe" or with amendments like this one, which is incomplete and does not change much? What is taking place now is simple and gives rise to abuses. Why do this on purpose?
I believe first of all that a bill such as this one should never have been introduced. Now that the harm has been done, we, in the Ral-liement Creditiste, are trying to limit the disastrous consequences by trying to induce the government to adopt a firm and clear-cut attitude, which will not let the moral health of pregnant women be adversely affected by an abortion.
Moral health is very difficult to define; even doctors have no definite views on this and find it difficult to explain this moral health, which cannot be endangered by a pregnancy, which is a normal process for women. Several physicians who appeared before medical boards have found it quite difficult to explain and establish the nature of moral health for a pregnant woman.
I hope that my intervention on this amendment will be more successful than those of the previous speakers, but as I do not expect any comprehension from the hon. members opposite, I ask them for once, since that amendment seems to be rather reasonable, to vote in favour of it and show for once at least that the bill can be improved.

May 6, 1969
Criminal Code
It is therefore time for the government members to find a specialist who like the famous Dr. Barnard will graft on them what they need following the vote on the abortion legislation.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take part in the debate once again, first to congratulate the mover of this amendment. He has proved that we are not fighting alone and that at least many people are beginning to wonder, as this amendment clearly shows.
I cannot say that I agree entirely with the motion. The fact remains that the hon. member deals with the real problems when he asks for a more precise definition and evaluation of the health factor, so as to leave no room for abuses.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Such are my first reactions to this amendment which clearly shows that many people are thinking things over and wondering how far it is permissible to go in order to save the life and especially the health of the mother by resorting to abortion?
That is why I congratulate and praise the hon. member who moved this amendment. I perceive here his desire to protect the people against the possible abuses which will certainly occur.
I say "certainly", for there is abundant proof in all the countries which as a first step, passed legislation similar to the one we are discussing. It started in a very low key: Merely a measure to legalize abortion when the mother's life is endangered.
It seems quite reasonable, at least in theory. But then applications are so numerous that the meaning has to be broadened to "life and health". And thus, scores of people resort to abortion, even when unjustified.
And so, down the slippery path, for soon new amendments are brought in to make abortion still easier to get. Today, in Japan, an abortion upon request costs $4.85, while British hospitals practise mass abortions and a British physician has procured up to 62 abortions in a single day, for $288 each.
Legislative measures on abortion passed in different countries irrevocably lead to fantastic abuses. It is on account of that, I believe, that the hon. member who moved this amendment was prompted to restrict the meaning of the word "health".
When we say "-endanger her life", if we stop there, what happens? I have said it 
again and again, and I am going to repeat it once more, for I think it is worth saying it again, since it is an extremely important detail: the mother's life may be endangered three times out of 10,000 deliveries, and yet they want to extend the permission to procure miscarriages to all the hospitals in the country. It is awful when you think of it seriously. Three times out of 10,000, and nobody denies those figures. They are official figures.
And even in those three cases out of 10,000, the physician cannot positively state that abortion will save the mother's life. When her life is really in danger, the mother is as likely to die from the abortion as she would be due to her normal pregnancy.
And very often nature can correct things far better than the best physician.
What do experience and facts prove? That there are fewer risks for a woman to die if her pregnancy is continued to the end.
Very definite cases have been explained. We took the trouble to consult serious and competent people; we were even shown slides, films, which prove beyond doubt that nowadays, with the tremendous progress made by the medical science, no doctor can be absolutely sure that abortion will save the mother's life. And that is only for the first part.
Being aware of such facts, how could we not object to abortion? How could we go against what is so natural, so logical? In the final analysis, we wonder why we are discussing such things when the facts are so obvious.
We, of the Ralliement Creditiste, have not undertaken this debate lightly, for it is only after spending week-ends with doctors, gynaecologists and psychiatrists that we have come to the conclusion that an alarm had to be sounded across the country so that people would realize that they were going to be fooled with a bill introduced quietly and without warning.
If the facts are not as we describe them, we would be pleased to stand corrected. We would like nothing better. Will all the acts be turned upside down to promote the pernicious consequences of the countless abuses which are possible? Will essential principles, that are not necessarily and basically moral principles, but simply human ones, be upset to that end?
And since we specialize, so to speak, in promoting the liberty of the human being, its
May 6, 1969



complete development and fulfilment, we take care of it from the first moments of its existence, which starts as soon as impregnation takes place or, in more precise terms, as soon as there is implantation of the impregnated ovum in the uterus.
Consequently, there are no cases where pregnancy endangers "her life".
A doctor told us of a quite frequent occurrence: cancer of the uterus. When a pregnant woman is struck by such a disease, what happens? She seeks the advice of her doctor who prescribes treatments against cancer and not against the life of the foetus. This is not regarded as an abortion. Besides, it is done even in Catholic hospitals. It happens in three cases per 10,000.
As for renal or cardiac deficiencies, there are as many chances, if not more, of the woman dying through abortion as there would be if she were allowed to reach the term of her pregnancy.
It is facts like those which prompt us to hold our own and we shall continue to do so. And that settles it for "her life".
So, with regard to life, it does not happen. This occurs only occasionally and then a pregnant woman will never be left to die because in giving her such and such care she can be saved. When a patient has a doctor and is in the hospital all attempts are made to cure her and save her life. If that person represents two persons, because she has a foetus in her, a baby, if you prefer, in her body, then what is the doctor's role? It is to save both lives. He must try to save them both.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
If, when one tries to save both, the foetus dies, we shall not oppose this. And if abortion was practised in this case, we would agree entirely.
We do not agree about the consequences, and the consequences of abortion are especially shown in the second part of this amendment:	"or seriously and directly
impairs her health."
The wording is as follows:	"or would
endanger her life." Of course, I can understand the concern of the hon. member who brings us this amendment when he wants to specify "seriously and directly impairs her health."
At first glance, it seems fine, and I would be inclined to support him if I were formally assured that a serious and direct health
Criminal Code
impairment were determined beyond question.
Mr. Speaker, if abortion practically never helps to save the life of the mother nor her health, the consequence is even greater, that is to say that all discussions, all suppositions are possible.
It is for this reason that adding the expression "seriously and directly" does not change anything. There will always be a doctor, a gynecologist, a psychiatrist or a member of the committee authorized in the hospitals to suggest that a girl or a woman who absolutely wants an abortion will always find a way to say that her health is or can be "seriously impaired".
There will always be somebody that will find that her health is threatened "directly" while we know quite well, thanks to medical science, that it never happens.
There may be indirect consequences; a person could become insane, mentally ill, as a result of her pregnancy. Then, this person would have become insane for entirely different reasons, Mr. Speaker. Destroying the foetus will not solve her mental problem.
This again was demonstrated very clearly and decisively: a psychiatrist has indicated that the consequences of abortion, from the psychiatric and psychological points of view, were more serious than those of a normal pregnancy, even when it was not wished for. Although a person could be pleased momentarily with having been aborted, this was only temporary; sooner or later she would develop a guilt complex that would affect her mental health for years.
Mr. Speaker, are we going to vote for something that is so unscientific, so illogical? Are we going to vote for something that is going to increase the number of mentally unbalanced? For, Mr. Speaker, as the number increases of the institutions where abortions are performed, we will also have to enlarge our mental institutions. If anything affects a person mentally, abortion certainly does.
Are we to believe that a normal pregnancy, a most natural thing, related to one of the deepest instincts of the human being, the instinct of reproduction, could really affect the mother's health? We know of no such cases. There are all kinds of treatments, and new ones are discovered every day to help the pregnant woman.
Mr. Speaker, we even heard about a woman who had German measles in the first months of her pregnancy. The popular belief was that

May 6, 1969
Criminal Code
in 90 percent of the cases a woman affected with German measles would necessarily bear malformed children. As a result, in many countries a woman who caught German measles in the first months of her pregnancy could get an abortion. This was 15 or 20 years ago.
Today, following experiments in laboratories, experiments in hospitals and the discovery of hard facts it was found, Mr. Speaker, that 10 to 15 per cent only of women with German measles gave birth to malformed children. It can thus be said that by authorizing abortion in all those cases, 80 to 85 per cent of the foetuses killed could have become perfectly normal people.
The newest developments in medical science do not allow us to legislate today on things we do not know about with certainty. To postulate that health is seriously or directly impaired would encourage abuses, though this amendment was brought in with the best intentions.
There will always be some woman or other who considers that her health is seriously impaired or that her health is directly impaired. That is why it does not behoove us to determine this point, under the pretext of doing away with illegal abortions. This has been pointed out and doubtless others will mention it later. It has been pointed out that it does not solve the problem in any way. In every country where abortion has been legalized there has been a fairly marked increase in illegal abortions. It is quite understandable. Most of the female persons who are waiting for the passing of this bill, in order to resort to abortion, have some hope for they do not understand what reservations the act may stipulate. They hope that once the bill has been passed they can go and consult the therapeutic abortion committees and have their abortion authorized. That is what they are hoping, Mr. Speaker. And when the bill is passed, they will want that hope to be fulfilled. They will try to be aborted, even if their health is neither seriously nor directly impaired. What will they do? Resort to illegal abortion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am afraid the hon. member's time has expired.



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 at the time of adjournment tonight are the following: The hon. member for Vaneouver-Kingsrway (Mrs. Maclnnis)-Consumer Affairs-Lumber-Request for investigation of price increase; the hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Alkenbrack)-Public Service-Undue extension of bilingual requirements; the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart)-Finance-Northern Ontario- Alleged investment discrimination.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of Bill C-150, to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, and motion No. 34, Mr. Allmand.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Mr. Ovide Laflamme (Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I shall deal briefly with the amendment under study, the purpose of which is to qualify the word "health" in connection with permissible abortion, that is, abortion that will not be considered a criminal act in the future.
Mr. Speaker, I have already expressed some doubts about leaving the word "health" unqualified in the legislation. That could lead to abortion on request and could also lead to legal abortion for psychiatric reasons.
I respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, that the purpose of qualifying the word "health", used in conjunction with other words as suggested
May 6, 1969

by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand), as follows:
"endanger her life or seriously and directly impair her health."
is to avoid future abortions for psychiatric reasons which the act, as it now reads, might legalize.
Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, this is the crux of the matter with regard to this whole clause, because if the word "health" is not qualified, there will be, both medically and legally different interpretations of the legislation as between hospitals, and thus, all kinds of illnesses, even indirectly related ones, will make abortion possible, that is non-criminal.
Mr. Speaker, if I do not agree with the views expressed by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) concerning this matter, I respectfully submit to the house that we should qualify the word "health" as proposed in a similar formula, in order to prevent any intervention of psychiatry, and by leaving the general term "health", it might be inferred that, from the medical point of view, since the expression "or would be likely to" has already been added, a mental illness might be sufficient for a hospital therapeutic committee to deliver a certificate authorizing an abortion.
And in this field, Mr. Speaker, I feel that psychiatry has proved that the effect of abortion is absolutely contrary to the patient's purpose.
I think psychiatrists or psychiatry have never been able to determine one way or the other whether abortion had any remedial effects on the person seeking an abortion on psychiatric grounds. The amendment states, and I quote:
-seriously and directly impairft is my opinion that doctors who will eventually have to interpret those words could not conclude to the possibility of psychiatric abortions, if it is stated and if it has to be proved, by way of a certificate or through a diagnosis, that this would seriously and directly impair her health. An abortion will then have to be performed.
At that time, with respect to psychiatric abortions, we should think it over seriously so as to leave it to doctors, as suggested by the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle), to interpret the word "health" which includes
Criminal Code
both physical and mental health. Various hospitals thoughout the country would give it various interpretations. I think what is good in one part of the country should also be good in another part.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ovide Laflamme: Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity of looking into this matter. I personally talked about it to several gynaecologists even within hospital groups, and I sincerely think, as I have already said in my own constituency, that I would be not only agreeable to the bill but also satisfied with it, provided the word "health" is qualified, specified and defined.
And the clarifications brought in by the amendment moved by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) meet, in my opinion, the real objectives that the legislation should seek, namely to avoid considering in future as criminal acts the medical acts performed at present in a good number of hospitals in this country, and not open the door in such a way that it would be possible from now on to have abortion upon request, on the pretence of psychiatric diseases, even simulated ones, to which a patient could resort, at a given moment, in presence of her doctor, to show that her health would probably be impaired, when we know that this could also include mental health, for if mental health could be impaired, one must nevertheless take into account the life of the individual which must also be protected.
Given those circumstances, I will support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, and I agree with the remarks made by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) on that point for, in my opinion, it is essential that the word "health" be defined and described in a way similar or identical to the one proposed.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Laflamme) for the opinion which he put forth about the amendment introduced by one of his colleagues, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand), removing from the clause the words "or probably" and adding:
"endanger her life or seriously and directly impair her health."

May 6. 1969
Criminal Code
The proposed amendment improves a little the meaning of the clause; only, in our opinion, it is not sufficient. We are going to accept the amendment which establishes that the health would be seriously impaired and, if it is seriously impaired, that the abortion be accepted.
Mr. Speaker, as was mentioned by my colleague from Champlain (Mr. Matte), it is proved beyond doubt that death or seriously impaired health were deplored in only three cases out of 10,000 pregnancies.
Mr. Speaker, the amendment stipulates that pregnancy would endanger the life of the mother or impair seriously or directly her health, and everybody agrees that the pregnant woman is from the beginning rather ill, although it is natural. This lasts as long as she is pregnant. I have among my relatives the mother of a family who, when pregnant for the first time, was practically condemned to death. She was told that she would not reach her term and so on. Today, this mother has seven children. She did not die. Her health is even better than ever.
And how many Canadian mothers of families with a delicate constitution, have we not seen bearing families of 10, 12 and 15 children. And yet, they were ill everytime they gave birth to a child. From the point of view of health, people said: She is ruining her health. However, nothing prevented those mothers of families from raising large families.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, if 50 years age a bill providing for the termination of pregnancy, when it engangered the life of the mother or seriously and directly affected her health, had been introduced, it is probable that we would not have those brilliant men in parliament at the present time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) might not be here today, if such a legislation or regulation had been passed 50 years ago. That is what I think.
In the name of civilization, such bills are introduced while those who will vote in favour of them might not be members of parliament. They would have been rejected because their mothers' life was in danger or the birth of these particular birds would have seriously affected her health.
[Mr. Caouette.l
It is all absurd and confusing. The minister, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or any member are unable to cope with the matter. The bill is introduced even if it is a known fact that the majority of the people object to it and nobody says a word of what the people are expecting to hear.
If such a bill had been passed 50 years ago, the Chinese would perhaps have taken over our country. How many members would be here? We are told that we would help the Canadian people by passing such a legislation. This means that we are attacking and betraying future generations through that bill.
Mr. Speaker-I said it earlier and I repeat it now-they rely heavily on the concept of civilization to introduce in Parliament such a bill and such amendments as provide that abortion could be procured when the mother's life is "endangered or her health seriously and directly impaired".
Mr. Speaker, to hear such lines of argument is unbelievable. Particularly among Liberals, the services of psychiatrists are called upon. Before psychiatrists existed, there were women who gave birth to children. Psychiatrists have never helped anyone from losing his reason if he was meant to. Psychiatry has seldom cured the insane. We realize it when we look at the other side of the house.


John Napier Turner: You should look at yourself in a mirror.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice tells me to look at myself in a mirror. He probably knows from experience, because he has seen his own reflection.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the services of psychiatrists are requested. We have nothing against psychiatrists. No. But since Canada and the world exist, there have been all kinds of such people. For awhile there were "wise women", who were first replaced by psychiatrists, then by "wise ministers". Nonetheless, we cannot determine, exactly and completely, as the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Laflamme) said earlier, that such a person will die, or that her health will be affected or ruined by pregnancy, or bearing a child.
In my view, the amendment-and I repeat the words of the hon. member for Champlain-partially improves the legislation.
May 6, 1969

However, the fact that we reject the bill as it is does not mean that we accept abortion when the mother's life or health is endangered. We are against such a thing, we want nature to be respected.
Nature was not created by psychiatrists, nor by the Minister of Justice nor by the Prime Minister of Canada. Nature was created by a superior being, who is not the Minister of Justice. We must conform to that nature. Of course, there are ups and downs, tragedies, and death.
Mothers are not the only ones to die. I wonder if the minister will not eventually introduce another bill dealing with fatherhood, on behalf of male fathers of families.
And so it goes: we go off our rockers in the name of civilization. In the name of civilization, we no longer know what to do. In the name of civilization we allow all kinds of organizations to push us around, organizations which are absolutely unknown to the Canadian people, unknown to Parliament. A few people only understand what is going on; the others are all at sea.
We seldom see members speak up on the government side, as the hon. member for Montmorency did, and openly take a stand in favour of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace. The minister does not seem too pleased with his attitude, coming from a Liberal member, and does not seem pleased either with the support of the hon. member for Montmorency with regard to the amendment, because he does not want to change the law.
A bill is introduced and we are told: Follow the leader and vote in favour of the whole caboodle. This is a "package deal" as they say in English.
Mr. Speaker, the few Liberal members who get on their feet will be praised by the people more than those who remain stuck to their seat with Lepage glue. This is obvious. The people of Quebec will commend them too, because this is not a question of religion. We are Catholics, it goes without saying, but we have gathered evidence from people who, though they are not Catholics, are strongly opposed to this bill and against statements such as: "the life of the mother is in danger or her health will be directly or seriously affected".
Mr. Speaker, it is not just a question of religion, it is a question of Christian morality. There are Christians not only among Catholics, but all over Canada.
Criminal Code
We sincerely believe that the government has no right to open doors which will give rise to abuses, to more or less justified abortions. The government is aware of this, and the minister also, and nevertheless he is good and patient. Sitting at his desk, he is listening, he is thinking and he calls us doctors from time to time. We do not speak on behalf of medecine at all, but on behalf of life that no man has a right to jeopardize. That life may be only embryonic, but it is a life there and thereafter. The nonsense of such a bill is that we are about to permit murder.
We are asked in the Criminal Code to spare from the rope those who have taken the life of others. But those who are about to be born, let us kill them under the pretext that the life of the mother is endangered or her health will be seriously impaired.
Now, neither the Minister of Justice, nor I know anything about the subject. As a matter of fact, even physicians do not agree. The hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle), who is a doctor, says something and another doctor who went to medical school with him, says the opposite.
When one speaks as a Liberal rather than as a physician, then one repudiates medicine.


John Napier Turner: When you speak of credit, what do you repudiate? Credit?


An hon. Member:: We serve the country.


David Réal Caouette: Even if we lose credit, we nevertheless work for our country, and if credit is lost, Mr. Speaker, it is not the fault of the Ralliement creditiste, but of the Liberals, because they are the ones who play with credit. The credit of the whole country. The credit of the whole nation good for the others.
Mr. Speaker, those are the remarks I wanted to make on that matter because I do not think that someone can prove beyond doubt that a mother will die in child-birth.
Mr. Speaker, nobody can be sure, not even the greatest scientist. So, how is it possible to be absolutely sure that the mother will die? Furthermore, neither the doctor nor anyone else can decide of the place or time of a person's death.
So I think the Minister of Justice who pilots this bill through the house should withdraw it, and stop saying all the time that we are filibustering, as the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) said this afternoon. That is not the case. Let them introduce other pieces of legislation. Let them cast that one

May 6, 1969
Criminal Code
aside; the minister should reintroduce it in 50 years, when he has more experience than he has now; during that time, our mothers will not rack their brains wondering whether they will die or not in giving birth to a child.
Therefore let us get down to work, let us improve health conditions for our mothers so that they can give Canada, our native land, sturdy, robust and intelligent children, so that we may be able, in a few years, to replace the present Minister of Justice.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Mr. Warren Allmand (Noire-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I must apologize to the house for not being here earlier this afternoon when my motion was called. I was obliged to be at a meeting of the Transport and Communications Committee at that time and did not know that the preceding amendment had been dealt with. In the meantime I believe the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) filled in for me and gave an excellent explanation of my amendment.
In any case I would like to put forward some of the reasons why I propose this amendment. Last year when the government stated its intention of amending the law on abortion and referred the matter to the Health and Welfare Committee I asked to become a member of that committee. I did so because I felt that this question was a very serious one and I wanted to listen to arguments on both sides and to all experts on the matter. I approached the subject, like most other people, with preconceived opinions. All of us form certain opinions about certain things and I, like others, had certain opinions about abortion. However, I had made up my mind, because I had been approached by many of my constituents, to try to look at this subject as objectively as possible and to consider all arguments as openly as possible.
I was made a member of the Health and Welfare Committee which sat for three and a half months during the period from October 1967, to March, 1968, studying the question of abortion. During that time we had 29 meetings, received 35 briefs, heard 93 witnesses, and prepared two reports. We prepared an interim report which was presented on December 19, 1967. I shall summarize briefly what the report said. It recommended that the Criminal Code be amended to allow therapeutic abortions under appropriate medical safeguards where a pregnancy will seriously endanger the life or the health of 
the mother. I agreed to that interim report which was prepared before we had heard all the evidence.
Later we prepared a final report which was presented on March 13, 1968, after we had heard all the witnesses. The report we made at that time was somewhat similar to the interim report. It said that the Criminal Code should be amended to read-and again I summarize-that when the continuation of the pregnancy of such a female person will endanger the life or seriously and directly impair the health of the mother an abortion may be performed. This was the opinion of the parliamentary committee which sat for three and a half months and seriously considered the evidence of all the experts in Canada on the subject. As a matter of fact, we heard not only experts but women's groups, theological groups, journalists and anybody who wanted to say something on the subject. We requested all those who we thought might have something worth while to say to come before the committee.
The wording that I propose in my amendment is the wording that was suggested by the Health and Welfare Committee. What it in fact does is to restrict the grounds where an abortion might be granted for reasons of health. We think that abortions should only be allowed when the continuation of the pregnancy will seriously and directly impair the health of the mother. As I said, I came to this conclusion after much soul-searching and after questioning and re-examining my initial position. It was my feeling that this question should not be decided on theological grounds but rather on scientific and social grounds, and I tried to reach a decision on those bases.
The arguments that led us to this conclusion were that the foetus is a human being in the process of development. There was discussion among the doctors as to the exact nature of the foetus. Some gave it more human characteristics and others gave it less, but finally I concluded that if there is doubt as to the humanity of the foetus, then surely that doubt should be resolved in favour of its humanity. If I had a gun in my hand and was trying to decide whether to fire it down a dark corridor without knowing whether or not somebody was there, I certainly would resolve the question in favour of the possibility that somebody might be there and I would not engage in foolish behaviour which might endanger someone's life.
As I say, there are arguments on both sides as to the humanity of the foetus, and this
May 6, 1969

Criminal Code
disagreement is found among doctors. Some doctors firmly state that the foetus is fully human right from the moment of conception. Others state that whereas its humanity develops as the foetus develops it is uncertain whether or not it is fully human in the early stages. If there is this division of opinion, I state that we should resolve any doubt in favour of the human being. We should not take chances if there is any doubt whatsoever that a human life is involved.
For that reason we say that this life can only be terminated for extremely serious reasons. The only reasons that we feel are acceptable are when the life of the mother is in danger or when her health will be seriously and directly impaired. We take this position for humanitarian and social reasons. Those who object to it and would like to deny any protection at all for the foetus state that the foetus does not deserve any protection whatsoever. They state that it is just a part of the woman's body and therefore, if she wishes to have it removed, she should have the right to have this done. In other words, they say that it is no different from her appendix or her kidneys.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I must say that the vast and overwhelming majority of the informed witnesses who came before our committee denied that contention. To begin with, none of these other organs develops into a baby. The foetus definitely and necessarily does. That alone would lead one to believe that it is not like any organ in the human body. Second, doctors, and especially Dr. Jack Walters, professor of obstetrics at St. Joseph's Hospital and the University of Western Ontario, put forward six tests for human life. These tests are: 1. Is there a heartbeat? 2. Is there blood pressure? 3. Is there maintenance of body temperature? 4. Is there production of carbon dioxide? 5. Is there utilization of oxygen? 6. Is there respiratory activity? These are the tests used habitually to determine whether there is human life. The witness stated that scientific tests he and other obstetricians had carried out showed that as early as nine weeks the foetus gave evidence of satisfying all these criteria. In other words, the foetus has met these tests used to determine whether human life is present. Dr. Walters concluded as follows, as found on page 559 of the evidence before the committee on January 30, 1968:
In discussion before this committee relative to changes in the abortion law for Canada, statements have been made that the foetus is a
"potential human", "not living" or a "protoplasmic mass". The foetus, on the contrary, is living, is human and this must be taken into consideration in modifying the abortion laws of this country.
This doctor did not reach these conclusions on theological grounds or on grounds of prejudice. He arrived at them following the evidence of six scientific tests which he and others had carried out.
Another doctor who appeared before the committee on the same day, Dr. de Vcber, a pediatrician, has carried out operations on foetuses as early as 14 weeks after conception. He referred to cases where the foetus had been taken out of the womb, operated upon and replaced in the womb where it developed normally until born as a child in due term. His comment was that if the foetus is not a human being and does not deserve human rights at this early stage, what are its rights after it has been taken out of the body to be operated on in one of these operations? Does it acquire human rights when it is outside the womb, only to lose them again when it is put back?
I confess I approach this subject with certain ideas about it. But the law itself, over many long years, has also recognized that the foetus has human rights. I could cite many examples of the way in which the law has recognized this. For example, in those dark days when we retained capital punishment a woman was never executed while she was pregnant. The reason was that the state recognized that although the woman might have committed murder there was living inside her another person who was innocent and who should not be executed for the crime. Thus, whenever a convicted person was pregnant the execution was stayed.
There are many countries in which pregnant women are exempt from imprisonment because it isi recognized that they must care for the human being developing inside them. In addition, civil law has recognized that an unborn child has certain civil rights. Such children are given rights to succession and inheritance from the time of conception, and a curator can be appointed by the courts to protect their financial interest. In other words, if a woman is pregnant the child within her body is considered to be human for succession purposes should the father, or some other person, die leaving legacies to the woman's children.
Civil law has also recognized that the foetus has a right of action for damage caused to it. This was illustrated in cases involving what

May 6, 1969
Criminal Code
have been called thalidomide babies. Action wasi taken on their behalf on account of damage done to them as foetuses because certain drug companies or doctors had acted or prescribed negligently. The courts upheld the right of action on the part of the foetus.
All this seems reasonable to me. These are principles which the law hast recognized for many years. Now we are being asked by some people to dispense with these rights, to do away with this protection. I have a lot of respect for those who put forward arguments in favour of the proposals now before us. I have examined these arguments but after serious consideration, and, still with great respect, I cannot accept them inasmuch as I feel it is the duty of the state to protect innocent persons.
It is said by some that parents should be free to do whatever they want to do, that this is a question for them alone to decide, and the state should not intervene. Well, Mr. Speaker, we do not take this attitude with respect to cases of non-support by a father or in cases where a mother or a father batters a minor child. We do not take this attitude with respect to education. The state hasi decided that regardless of the wishes of the parents children should be educated to the age of 16; free and compulsory education is provided for them and we feel this is in the interest of the children no matter what the mother or the father might prefer. There are many other questions which the state decides because it wishes to protect children against the damage or intrusion upon their human rights which may be occasioned even by parents and those closest to them.
There are those who say, in support of arguments in favour of a wider amendment than the one I am now suggesting, that no one should be forced by law to have unwanted children. It is argued that families should have the right to limit the number of their children. Few of us would disagree with that proposition. I, myself, support the principle that families should have the right to limit the number of their children. I call attention to the fact that the government has put a bill through parliament, Bill S-15, legalizing contraception and the sale of means of contraception. I fully support that bill. But to say parents should have the right to decide the number of children they want to have does not conflict with the principle that we ought not to countenance abortion on any condition whatsoever.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I maintain that we must make up our minds whether we want the child before it comes into existence. Once it has come into existence we have forfeited any right to dispose of it for any reason whatsoever. Those who say we have a right to dispose of the child surprise me. Many hon. members have suggested that you must protect human life, and even animal life; yet, at the same time they suggest we can deprive a child of existence. This Criminal Code omnibus bill contains amendments which will make it more difficult for some to abuse animal life. Those are good amendments1. On the other hand, I maintain that the grievances of a woman seeking an abortion can often be dealt with by means other than the performance of an abortion. Society can help to cure some of her grievances.
I could say many things on this matter but we are limited to speeches of 20 minutes. May I wind up by saying that I moved this motion to amend because I was a member of the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare which worked hard to bring out a report on this matter. I thought it was a good report. In no sense did I move this motion as a motion of non-confidence in the minister. I have full confidence in the minister. I think he is a good minister and in bringing forward this omnibus bill he has done good work. Only on this one point do I disagree with him.
My only regret is that the Creditistes may use my amendments as a pretext to continue their filibuster. Their behaviour here has been deplorable. This is the first time I have spoken in this debate. I did not speak on second reading or on any of the other motions to amend, thinking other members would wish to speak. I feel that the Creditistes, in carrying on a frivolous debate, have been undemocratic. I feel uneasy when they support me on this motion. I am uneasy about giving them an opportunity to talk more, because I completely disagree with their reasons for supporting my motion. I feel they are acting most undemocratically and they are paying lip service only to the principles of democracy. After I have spoken on my motion I will sit down, hoping to have the support of other members in this house. In any event, I wish to see the vote come as quickly as possible so that we can dispose of the matter. Hon. members here will determine whether they wish to support my

May 6, 1969



motion. After that, we can consider other things.
May I also say that certain reasons which cause a woman to seek an abortion-I am speaking of poverty, adverse social conditions and so on-should be cured by society. If a female wants an abortion, that is, wants to do away with the life of a child because of certain social reasons or because she cannot afford that child, then surely it is the duty of the state to give that family the necessary assistance to take care of the children. If bad social conditions, improper housing, or slum conditions cause a woman to seek an abortion, then I think it is the duty of the state to correct those underlying conditions. I say that many of the conditions put forward by persons as reasons for an abortion are conditions that may be and should be corrected by society. Of course, if the continuation of the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother, we cannot do anything; she must have an abortion to protect her own life. The same thing applies to her health. But if she wants an abortion because she is poor, because she is living in adverse social conditions or simply for personal convenience then, surely, we have civilized and humane methods of dealing with those problems.
I submit strongly that we should allow abortions under controlled conditions. At present the law is totally inadequate and confusing. There are conflicting sections in the Code, and the law must be changed. There ought to be reforms and I suggest the reforms should state clearly the conditions under which an abortion may be granted. Those conditions should be serious conditions. They should be related to serious threats to the life or health of the mother.


Mr. D. Gordon Blair (Grenville-Carlelon):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to speak briefly on this motion. Having listened carefully to the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. AI1-mand), I rather feel that he has set up a lot of straw men which are not in issue at all in this motion to amend. He made a case against permitting what might be termed abortion on demand or request, but he did not say anything which persuaded me that the proposed wording of his amendment in any way improves upon the present wording of the bill.
I think all hon. members realize that it is necessary, in providing for therapeutic abortions, to deal with questions not only of life and death, but of health. This was made clear by the great case of Rex v. Bourne, decided
Criminal Code
before the war in Great Britain. In that case the medical evidence made it quite clear that it was impossible in many cases for doctors to decide whether life or health were involved. Indeed, they might never know that life itself was involved unless the mother died. So, I think all hon. members supporting the principle of therapeutic abortions realize that the distinction which is sometimes made between the life of the mother and the health of the mother is a false distinction. They realize that medical men, in the exercise of the awesome discretion which they now have and which we will confirm with the passage of this bill, require the protection of the law.
I invite the attention of hon. members to the wording of the present bill and to the wording of the amendment proposed by my colleague for Notre-Dame-de-Grace. The present wording is to the effect that a therapeutic abortion will be lawful if it is found that the continuation of the pregnancy would be likely to "endanger her life or health". I submit that the word "endanger" is a good, old Anglo-Saxon word. It is strong, forceful and carries great significance. That wording means that the medical men must find-


An hon. Member:: Probably, you mean.


Duncan Gordon Blair: The medical men must find that the continuation of the pregnancy will endanger health, in the same way as it may endanger life.
Now, let us consider the proposal made by way of amendment. Instead of using one verb, it uses two. The test as to life will continue to be whether it endangers her life, but the test as to health becomes merely whether it will "impair her health". Actually, the full wording of the amendment is:
-endanger her life or seriously and directly impair her health.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I submit for the consideration of all members that, on a proper reading of these two texts, the test "endanger her life or health" is a much more serious test than "impair her health". I submit further that the addition of adverbs to the word "impair" does not improve its force or position. It is suggested that the test should become the endangering of life or seriously and directly impairing health. If this kind of section ever had to be construed by a court, I would say that the court would look at those two verbs-


John Napier Turner: Adverbs.

May 6, 1969
Criminal Code


Duncan Gordon Blair: Verbs and adverbs-and would say that the test as to life is endangering life, but the test as to health is merely the impairing of health, qualified by whether health is seriously or directly impaired. I suggest for the consideration of all hon. members that the original text of this bill imposes at least as strict a standard, and in my submission a more severe standard, than that proposed by this amendment.
I also make the submission, which I think will carry some weight with members of my profession in this house, that if we wish to have a law that is clear and incapable of undue confusion in interpretation and administration, the fewer words we use the better. I submit that by using the original text of the bill and retaining the phrase "endanger her life or health", we are going to have a more clear and understandable law than if we confuse the situation by suggesting that the test for life is whether it is endangered and the test for health is merely whether it is impaired.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to speak on the amendment now under study, but after all that happened, I feel it is my duty to clear up certain points.
First, I shall like to congratulate the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. All-mand) for his amendment.
As 1 was listening to him, he taught me a lesson, that we should never judge someone before having listened to him. In order to show that we are gentlemen, I would like to congratulate him, in spite of everything he said against us, for the reasoning he developed and for the arguments he put before the house.
He is accusing us of delaying the business of the house, but I think that we are getting our reward today. After two weeks of fighting, we feel that government members are beginning to move, are beginning to express themselves. If it were only for some amendments, as the ones we are studying presently, our struggle would not have been in vain. While endorsing the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace who is urging his colleagues to vote for this amendment, I must tell him that I cannot understand why he is the only one in his party to oppose those amendments.
I was listening earlier to one of his colleagues and I tell him frankly that he could

at least have been honest when he was opposing the amendment. He has brought out arguments against this amendment, and he has not been honest about it, because he has not quoted all the words spelled out in the present legislation. He merely read paragraph (c):
(c) has by certificate in writing stated that in its opinion the continuation of the pregnancy of such female person would ... endanger her life or health-
But, that is not the case, it is not the truth. Let us read the whole of this paragraph which says:
-that in its opinion the continuation of the pregnancy of such female person would or would be likely-
There lies all the difference, there is the heart of the matter. That is why we are fighting with all our might.
-would or would be likely to endanger her life and health-
And it is this word "likely" I am sure, that incited the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Laflamme) to say what he did say and for which I want to congratulate him. It is with this word "likely" that we will come to abortion on request. All the people, all the members who are thinking, who want to pass judgment on this clause, agree that tomorrow, in a few years, with this clause, we will have abortion on request.
The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair), to oppose his colleague, read this clause three times, and each time I said to myself: Since he is a lawyer, will he end up by reading the clause in full?
I am not a lawyer, and he read it in English, but then he did not say "likely". Hon. members shouted "likely". He would not say it, and it was intentionally. Hon. members shouted it twice at him-
One hon. Member: Dishonest.


Mr. Gauthier:: 
An hon. Member:: In the English version, the word "probably" does not appear.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: The French version that I have here says "probablement". I speak French. I cannot help it. If there are two bills, I am not to blame. Two flags, two bills, two Ministers of Justice.
Again, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, since be bothered to sit on the health, welfare and social affairs committee; when he learned that
May 6, 1969

that subject would be discussed, he asked to be named on that committee and his report is simply marvellous, as well as the work he did to get information and pass an equitable judgment.
He says that in both reports he tabled in the house, it was clearly stated: "provided that the pregnancy worsens the mother's condition and seriously endangers her life or health".
That is what struck me. While he says that in both reports tabled in the house, he suggested to the minister of Justice not to forget to insert that word, no account has been taken of that suggestion in the text of the bill. The sentence: "probablement en danger la vie et la sante de la mere", has certainly not been written by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, not by the hon. member for Montmorency, nor by the hon. member for Gatineau.
I note that the amendments moved by those hon. members always aim at defining the word "health", and the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace has just provided us with striking evidence that the committee reports, since the beginning of this session, do not weigh much in the leaders' decisions.
We must remember that that bill was prepared long before-I am not talking about the present Minister of Justice-but the picture has not changed, because the chief said so. It cannot be changed. When I look at this task as a whole, I commend those members who were responsible, who worked seriously.
They are a little roused themselves since they are bringing us these amendments in order to try to correct the situation, to come back to the terms of the committees' reports.
Those who helped draft this bill, according to me, and to the evidence just given us, did not take into account the two committees' report regarding subsection (c). And this is why we see some members, despite the orders given to them, rise, protest and say: We have reached the limit; it does not make sense anymore.
And I understand that their social conception is rebelling. It looks as if their present leader compels them to destroy the Canadian nation. An infernal spirit which I am unable to describe is behind that.
That is why today, after the member for Gatineau who wants to delete the word "likely"-and it was quite clear in his amendment-the word "likely" must be taken off.
Criminal Code
Had such a word been left out, we could not have talked about it.
We missed that, we missed another amendment. I am wondering if we shall not miss the third, that of the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace. And yet, these are three fine testimonies from the government side and not from just anybody.
The points made by the hon. member for Montmorency were not frivolous. I know personally the hon. member for Montmorency and usually, he knows what he is talking about. I am convinced that his reasoning today was based on the fundamental principles concerning the child's right to live, because if we deny here all rights to a child, we might as well shut up shop and go home, for this affects the future generation, our heirs of tomorrow. I will admit that the amendment is not quite perfect yet. But at least it might bring some comfort to people when they read the following words:
-endanger her life or seriously and directly impair her health.
Those words, will in my opinion be of great help, though it is still far from perfection. It is not a hundred per cent in accordance with our idea yet, but we approve of a middle course. That is why we have been fighting for many days, in order to find a middle course.
Such a course is being indicated to us this afternoon, but some proclaim it to be futile. They forbid their colleagues to change the idea for the sake of which we are fighting. Yet they are not shallow-minded; let us tell them so, let us praise them. We are braver than people on the government side; say "thank you for a job well done" and this has nothing to do with politics. The future of the Canadian people is at stake.
As the hon. member for Montmorency pointed out a while ago, if we do not accept this amendment, with what is allowed by the law, we shall see in a few years from now abortions upon request, which is a very dangerous thing. And that is precisely what we do not want; we do not want to be like some other countries, like England and all the other countries mentioned since this fight began. We want to avoid the extremes to which other countries have gone.
Mr. Speaker, may I declare six o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock this sitting stands suspended until 8 p.m.
At 6 p.m. the house took recess.

May 6, 1969
Criminal Code AFTER RECESS
The house resumed at 8 p.m.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, before recess, I was making a few comments on amendment No. 34 moved by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Alknand) who wants to specify a certain detail in the act, of much concern to us, in clause 18 of the bill, by deleting the words:
"or would be likely to endanger her life or health" on lines 4 and 5, on page 43, and by inserting the following words: "endanger her life or seriously and directly impair her health"
As I said earlier, we will vote for this amendment, even if it does not achieve our aims. It is a lesser evil. It specifies the case of an abortion, when the board of a committee appointed will have to make a decision, because the terms of the present act which the hon. member wants to delete make all the difference in the world.
When we write "would be likely to endanger her life or health", I am of opinion that the words "would be likely to" will allow some doctors to go very far, and even, as the hon. member for Montmorency suggested, to allow abortion on request. This is exactly what we are trying to avoid through our amendments. I believe that amendment No. 34 does not go as far as those we have moved, but at least it sets some limits for the committee which will have to make the decision.
The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton as well as the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace were sincere this afternoon in their discussion. The latter seemed somewhat sorry to have moved the amendment, though he told us frankly that he did so because he thought some of his constituents wanted him to define more clearly the limits of the legislation. He blamed us for extending this debate on the bill now under consideration.
This extension, Mr. Speaker, if it is an extension, has a purpose. We want to achieve an aim. We wish to draw the attention of the government and stir it up. We probably have not quite succeeded today, by moving that amendment, but the intervention of the hon. member for Gatineau and of the hon. member for Montmorency, whom I would like to congratulate once again, have helped us.
I think that our comments were not entirely lost and if we could carry on, in a few days most of the government members would

support us, in order to respect the wishes of the people.
Mr. Speaker, as I have little time left, I am going to bring my speech to a close. I would like to appeal to the conscience of all government members-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order!
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have not previously taken part in the debate on the abortion clause of this bill or the amendments, but this particular amendment seems to be the one which gives an opportunity to make some brief comments. The various stands which have been taken in respect of this amendment indicate how much this whole subject, and the amendment relating to abortion, have been misunderstood.
As a piece of social legislation, I would agree with those who have suggested that this particular part represents a fraud. Current practices in most hospitals go much further and are much more reasonable than this particular amendment would allow. Rather than being a progressive piece of social legislation, this really is a step backwards.
The impersonal hospital committee which is to be set up, busy as it will be, will not meet the situation. The hospital committee which will have to make the decision will not have personal knowledge of the patient, her family background, mental or physical problems. This amendment is intended to permit that committee to give serious consideration to more than just the danger to the life of the patient. For that reason I would support it.
I am advised that at the present time hospital practices in most, if not all, of the provinces take into account many more conditions than those set forth in the bill we are now considering, and many more than those incorporated in the amendment we are now discussing. I should like to outline these considerations by reading from an article which appeared in the April, 1969 edition of Canadian Doctor. Those of us who are not medical people must rely upon the opinions of those who are in practice, particularly in respect of what is currently being done in hospitals regarding abortion. Let me read from this article which is entitled "Forum":
If an abortion law has to specify indications for abortion, rather than leave the decision to the woman and her physician as is done with nearly all other decisions to operate, then the indications must include all conditions for which termination
May 6, 1969

of pregnancy is required. These should encompass ail physical diseases in the mother that would jeopardize her health, or that of the baby, should she continue with the pregnancy. They should also include obstetrical indications, if carrying the pregnancy to full term would be hazardous to either mother or baby.
Furthermore, the law should include psychiatric indications where continuation may result in a psychotic episode or depression severe enough to engender suicidal thoughts or affect the woman's personality. It should be made possible for the woman to be relieved of responsibility for continuing with a pregnancy that would result in an unwanted child and the adverse effects such an event may have on the emotional health of the mother, the child, or on pre-existing children in the family. Similarly, there should be no question when abortion is requested in the case of known rape or incest, or in the case of a high risk pregnant child under the age of 16. It would also be reasonable to expect that abortion be permitted, in case of a gestation which may result in a physically or mentally incapacitated offspring. Bill 150, when looked upon in this way, is inadequate.
That outlines briefly what the people in the medical profession seem to feel is an absolute minimum. In fact, these are the conditions under which abortions are presently performed in hospitals. If you consider all the conditions set out in the article I have just read, you will find that the proposed definition we are being asked to consider is completely inadequate.
Many others during the debate have spoken about these inadequacies, particularly in respect of rape and other incidents which are not covered by the bill. For that reason, I think the amendment now proposed moves in the right direction, or at least in a more reasonable direction, toward making abortion a medical matter rather than a legal matter.
The legislation we are now asked to consider, even as it would be if the amendment before us were adopted, is much too narrow to be workable. As I see it the result would be that the hospital committees, when they have been established, would have to rule against many abortions which are now being performed in our hospitals. In other words, rather than enlarging the grounds or making them more reasonable, this bill will narrow those conditions and make it more difficult for the committee to rule in favour of abortion. This is another case of defining by narrowing the meaning and making the law less reasonable than was intended.
These committees must follow the definitions in this bill. If there were nothing said at all I think these committees would be in a better position than they will be with the present narrow definitions. In other words, if
29180-532J
Criminal Code
the hospital committee were set up, and if it were given general directions that abortions might be performed in accordance with the practices heretofore prevailing in that hospital, or any hospital in the province generally, it would be a better bill. I say this because here we will have the situation of the committee having to apply the law which has been laid down and refusing cases which are perfectly legitimate and logical. After it has refused one or two of these cases, patients will stop going to the committee and instead will turn to illegal abortions, which this bill is trying to avoid.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I found it necessary last night to vote against the amendment of a colleague. I shall not comment upon the vote because that is not permitted. However, I found it necessary to vote against that amendment because it would have tended to increase the number of persons on the hospital committee, which I think would be a bad practice. In my view, the more people that are placed upon a hospital committee the more difficult it will be to get the committee together in order to make decisions, and the more difficult it will be to consider the act and its application to a particular person.
I think the present practice, amended slightly, of permitting the family physician and the surgeon involved to perform the abortion, with perhaps advice from another surgeon, would have been much more preferable. However, we are confined to the narrow amendment before us. Therefore, I rise to indicate that I will support the amendment because it moves a little further toward the situation where the committee can make a broad and reasonable decision upon the facts. I hope the government will give consideration to some of these amendments and will allow them. We have here an amendment moved by a member of the government party. It goes a little way toward improving the bill, and I hope the government will accept it.


Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, because I spoke briefly on the question of abortion during second reading of this bill I shall be very brief tonight. I was impressed by the speeches of the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) and the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. All-mand). It is very seldom that I have been able to say I have been impressed by a speech I have heard in the House of Commons, but as a result of those speeches I am

May 6. 1969
Criminal Code
prepared to change the position I took on February 25 with regard to the question of abortion.
I am now able to vote for the amendment moved by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace. I reserved an open mind on this question until I had read the deliberations of the justice committee, which might indicate that I should change my mind. I was not sure that I should vote against the government on this issue. Since that time I have not seen, read or heard anything that would lead me to change my position. However, the speech of the hon. member from Notre-Dame-de-Grace and that of the hon. member for Ontario have moved me to change my position somewhat, and I shall support this motion.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this amendment. I think it will make what is not a very good piece of legislation somewhat better. It will allow the medical profession and those dealing with this question a little more leeway in their interpretation of danger to the life or impairment to the health of a pregnant woman. The problem with this legislation is that it is too restrictive; it devolves upon the abortion committee alone to decide whether an abortion shall be carried out. The question is whether a woman should be admitted to hospital and have this procedure carried out before the eighth week of pregnancy.
In these days of tight hospital beds and the fact that the pregnant woman rarely sees the physician before the sixth week of pregnancy, it makes it difficult to do the operation before the 8th week which is the optimum time.
I support this amendment because it will slightly broaden the terms under which abortions may be carried out. The amendment provides that an abortion may be carried out if continuing the pregnancy would endanger a woman's life or seriously and directly impair her health. If such a provision were not made, I think the abortion committee would degenerate into a largely routine and poorly functioning type of body, in that you would have on it three physicians none of whom might have anything in common with the patient, who might not know the family, and the family would not be very familiar with what was going on. This would be a very poor way of proceeding, and there would not be the necessary consultation between doctor and patient.
It seems foolish to have an abortion committee just to guard the rules and practices of a hospital when there is a general medical

committee in every hospital that inquires into the standards according to which abortions are carried out and which studies the indications in respect thereof. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment. It makes a small improvement to what is a very poor piece of legislation in respect of establishing a cumbersome abortion committee.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, we are considering the amendment of the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) which seeks to replace the followings words:
-or would be likely to endanger her life or healthby those:
"endanger her life or seriously and directly impair her health"
I feel nonplussed. On the one hand, I would like to support the amendment without reservations. But on the other hand, the bill proposed by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) reads as follows:
-would or would be likely to endanger her life or health-
By that expression, the Minister of Justice opens all the doors to every pretense and to every case without exception and would allow abortion under any circumstances and without any limits.
Since I formally object to that proposal, to this shabby piece of legislation proposed by the Minister of Justice, dealing with abortion,
I would be inclined to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, which is a little more specific and which gives a little more security to the patient and to the legislators, to the doctors and to the therapeutic committees, when it is said:

would endanger her life or seriously and directly impair her health.
But when I consider the abortion problem in its true context, I wonder why we should permit abortion? Is it really necessary? Are we compelled, because of the great number of cases, to pass a law on this matter? Is the problem so big that we should allow abortion? Will the fact that we adopt a measure and that we permit abortion do away with clandestine abortions?
After considering both the bill and the amendment moved by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, I remain puzzled. The reason is that I am not at all sure that the
May 6, 1969

amendment 1 have just mentioned or the bill can solve the problem of secret abortions, or of therapeutic ones, in short, that they can bring any long-term solution to the problem of the rejection of motherhood and of the meaning of motherhood.
Secret abortions constitute a very serious problem, not only in Canada but in a large number of countries. Its consequences are disastrous, because more than half of all secret abortions give rise to serious complications, to permanent sterility in 25 per cent of all cases.
Even in those countries where abortion is legal, the number of secret abortions-and this should really give us food for thought- does not appear to have been substantially reduced.
As a matter of fact, in France, 88 per cent of all abortions are secret, although abortions are authorized by law, and in 80 per cent of such cases, married women are involved.
In various countries, the reasons put forward to justify abortion pertain to physical health: health of the mother, to mental health: depression, psychoneurosis, overwork, etc. These reasons are closely related to socio-economic factors, financial troubles, especially poverty, alcoholism of the husband, housing problems, lack of information on birth control methods, etc.
When we know these things, when we stop to think in a sensible manner, and with common sense-it is not necessary to have as much education as the hon. Minister of Justice-we then begin to wonder about the advisability of the legislation of the omnibus bill, and in particular, of clause 18 designed to legalize abortion, and we wonder even more about the amendment moved by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace which is only another way to flounder in a system that a strong-minded majority government wants to force on the Canadian people.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, everybody knows that this legislation will not really solve the problem of illegal abortions, nor will it help the woman who asks for an abortion.
We are worried more than puzzled when we read in the bill terms as vague as "would be likely", "would," "to endanger her life" or "health", especially when no definition is given of the word "health".
I have here a book entitled "Famille et realties contemporaines" published by the
Criminal Code
Foyers Notre-Dame editions and an article written by Mrs. Fernand Ouellette, entitled:
-"Reflexions sur Vavortement".
She says on page 77, and I quote:
Therapeutic abortion in hospital seems to involve less pernicious consequences. On the other hand, there is no evidence that pregnancy aggravates psychic and other disorders, nor that it eliminates, them.
Therefore, on what are we legislating, Mr. Speaker? In allowing abortion, will we solve the problems or aggravate them?
That is what I want to know. And I continue the quotation:
It would be preferable, it seems-
This is an extremely interesting and positive factor that I am duty-bound to mention in this house and that hon. members have forgotten since the beginning of this debate.
Mrs. Ouellette says and I quote:
-it would be preferable, it seems, to provide the pregnant woman with psychological, technical, financial assistance-[DOT]
I hope the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cantin) understands me.
-to enable her to accept her womanliness as a whole, including her fecundity.
This government would like us to pass retrograde legislation. It wants to legalize the rejection of maternity, to have the public accept the legalized rejection of motherhood. It wants us to admit and to recognize that such is the way of progress and humanism, that in such a way the respect of the human being and of life may find expression.
I say that this is a retrograde legislation, which makes no sense at all and which is unbearable in a society such as ours.
Mrs. Ouellette goes on-and this is very interesting indeed:
-This might be the crux of the matter: the serene acceptation by woman of her real mission, which is maternity taken in its broader, more human sense. Several thorough studies on the nature and behavior of woman have led us to the conclusion that maternity gives woman her greatest sense of achievement and allows her to actualize her fullest virtualities on all levels.
Mr. Speaker, I think that we are dealing here with an extremely important aspect of the question and the discussion of such stupid matters as the omnibus bill, legalizing abortion, caused us to displace the problem. When our basic values: maternity, fecundity, love, relationship between husband and wife within the family, are already deteriorating, this

May 6. 1969
Criminal Code
government is making himself an accomplice of an entirely socialist ideology, which does not respect the human being and contributes to degrading women, to degrading men and to eliminate values which are the basis of our society.
The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) and the hon. member for Chambly (Mr. Pilon) or some others, are unable to see-


Mr. Mongrain:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


André-Gilles Fortin: -that this legislation-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. Is the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres rising on a question of privilege?


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: No, Mr. Speaker. On a point of order.


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


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Our friend from Lotbiniere is speaking for the fifth time on general abortion, while we are considering an amendment that proposes to change certain words in the bill, and I quote:
-"endanger her life or seriously and directly Impair her health".
Therefore, I would like to ask the hon. member for Lotbiniere to keep to the rules. We have heard that sermon 50 times.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I thank the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres. I noticed that the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) was more in order than usual. The hon. member for Lotbiniere.


André-Gilles Fortin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for recognizing that I was more in order than usual. But with all due respect, I do not like your way of implying that generally I am out of order.
It seems to me that the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres, instead of remaining glued to his seat, should rise from time to time and participate in the debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order please. I would ask the hon. member for Lotbiniere to speak only to the amendment now before us.


André-Gilles Fortin: If I must speak exclusively to the amendment, I would ask the hon. member

for Trois-Rivieres to play his part as a parliamentarian and to give us his views on the matter. If he has the courage of his convictions, Mr. Speaker, let him rise.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order please. The hon. member for Lotbiniere has the floor and I would ask him to stick to the amendment before us.


André-Gilles Fortin: I know, Mr. Speaker, but, with your permission, first I would like to make the following remark: I wish the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres would stop interrupting me with his nonsense because it puts me off the track.
As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, maternity is the road to a woman's greatest development and to her full potential in every way.
However, the amendment now before us is avoiding the issue, going around in circles, a foolish and a mad system into which the Minister of Justice wants to drag us. He sets the problem in an utterly different way and proposes minor values just to upset our basic principles.
Mr. Speaker, our responsibilities are far more serious. This amendment would be valid if there were many problems, many cases originating from the fact that a woman is pregnant or that it is a matter of maternity.
But could the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres, or another one, tell us the number of cases, among all abortion applications, in which the life of a person is really endangered and how, for a woman, the fact of having a child can endanger her life?
Would the hon. member, or another one, have the courage to tell us the proportion? He does not ask himself the question because if he did, he would agree with the Ralliement creditiste and say that we are meeting a need that does not exist, a problem that does not exist.
How many cases occur in which a woman is pregnant and dies in childbirth? How many?
I do not know how many hundreds-perhaps even thousands-of cases, because of the progress of medicine have incited doctors Legare and Jutras from Victoriaville to testify before the committee.
The minister is always saying, when he rises in the house, that he is in favour of adopting the report of the committee. I wonder whether he has read what went on in the committee, what Dr. Jutras and other specialists said.
May 6, 1969

We are not the ones to say so. Specialists say that when termination of the pregnancy is requested, it is not always a matter of the pregnancy endangering the life or the health of the mother, because with modern progress of medicine and technical developments, those cases are very few, they are practically non-existent.
Dr. Jutras even said in this regard, and I quote:
The progress of medicine is such that tomorrow we will have the following problem; we will have legalized abortion, we will have allowed abortion. Doctors will procure an abortion under the pretext that the pregnancy probably or certainly endangers the health or the life of the mother. The foetus will be expulsed from the uterus but, Mr. Chairman, thanks to medical progress, the foetus will continue to live.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
Is that strong enough, to speak like the Canadian people, to be understood by the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres? Is that strong enough?
The foetus will live just the same. Those words are not from me but from specialists. This goes to show you the stupidity of this amendment, and of the section for all that, that wants to make us believe that the fact of being pregnant, for a woman, necessarily means that it impairs her health or her life. It is ridiculous, it cannot be.
Therefore, not only can I not accept the clause of this bill, for it is a lame measure, but what is more, we are floundering in a system which deflects us completely from the subject, namely the amendment moved by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace.
I would like to congratulate him just the same, for having the courage of his own convictions and for having expressed them. That may be a lesson to other members. I hope like him that he will not be taken to task by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), his leader, and should he need help, we can offer him our services. We are free on this side.
Mr. Speaker, when we say, for instance, that we must not wonder from the subject, namely the fundamental values, I do not believe the objections the minister could raise could be valid. In fact, the therapeutic committee of each hospital-and there I should like to set again the problem-will make a decision depending upon the possible danger in which such or such a woman could find herself from being pregnant and not upon the social, family, civic or other circumstances in which that same woman could find herself.
Criminal Code
The therapeutic committee takes into account only the fact that the woman requesting an abortion wants it actually. The committee does not have to judge the intentions of the patient or the social or family consequences of such an abortion. We are entitled to consider the following case, to compare and examine the possible consequence of the amendment of the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace.
Let us take the case of an unmarried mother. The therapeutic abortion committee will not consider the fact that this pregnant woman is married or not. But the committee will consider the fact that she is pregnant, that the law tells her that, for this reason, her life or her health is or likely to be in danger. Consequently, the committee will take its decision, which will be favourable.
Therefore, there are here two things to consider, not to say, at least, two important things. The first one is the fact that this woman is pregnant. It is quite obvious. Therefore, the committee does not have to judge the circumstances that have made this woman pregnant. One does not have, therefore, to judge the unmarried mother. But one must judge the consequences. As in the case of a mother, does the fact of being pregnant impair her health? No, because when she asks for an abortion, in 99 per cent of the cases, it is a refusal of motherhood, as I said in the beginning.
Secondly, the fact of being pregnant would or would likely endanger her life or her health, and this is what the bill says. If this was to be adopted, the committee would be entitled to decide whether an abortion is advisable in relation to the broadening of the legislation. But here again, there is so much latitude left by the words "would" or "would be likely to" and by the words "life" or "health", which have not yet been defined, that here again, the committee would create a bad impression if it was to refuse a doctor permission to perform an abortion.
This is why I said in the beginning of this very short speech that, from certain points of view, I was in favour of the amendment of the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace. He said that it was at least necessary, for the committee, to authorize an abortion, that the fact of being pregnant would impair seriously and directly the health of the woman involved, which is a little more precise-but

May 6, 1969
Criminal Code
still insufficient-than what the bill itself says.
Indeed, the therapeutic committee under the law will always be able to contend that the abortion will be done by a recognized qualified doctor and that consequently the danger of sequelae from such abortion are limited and practically nil.


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


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walker-ville):: I rise to say a few words in support of the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. All-mand). It is the same as the amendment I proposed on March 27 in the committee when the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs had this important bill before it. At that time I referred to it as the "two adverbs amendment" because by using two adverbs, "seriously" and "directly", a change would be made in the bill without changing its substance which would be important in limiting the terms of the legislation and determining its interpretation before the courts in years to come.
I am sure I need not give this honourable house a lecture on jurisprudence, or talk about extended judicial interpretation which sometimes takes place over the years despite the best intentions of the legislature. As a matter of fact, I do not disapprove of this idea of judicial interpretation. The fact remains, however, that in a bill as important as this, one which in the opinions of many people involves life and death, it is important we should state clearly what we mean, and use words whose meaning is unlikely to be extended by the courts in years to come.
I believe the insertion of those two adverbs in the bill would not limit the effect which the government intends the bill to have. On the other hand, they would constitute a safeguard against the extension of the provisions of this bill in years to come into areas which are not now contemplated. It would not be wise for us to attempt to define the word "health". Health is a medical concept which it ill behooves lawyers to attempt to express in words. Although we cannot express directly any satisfactory definition of health, I believe we can achieve satisfactory results by the use of these adverbs.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
I know some hon. members feel that because the bill in its present form was, so to speak, approved by the electors of the country, we are therefore committed to it. May I remind hon. members that during the election campaign two forms of this proposed legislation were before the people of this country. One of those forms was the bill introduced in the previous parliament in December of 1967, the other being the recommendation of the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare which had advocated use of the two adverbs. It is that version I support. I am speaking of the version of the bill recommended in the second and final report of that Standing Committee on Health and Welfare. May I point out that that report was made subsequent to the introduction of the bill in the House of Commons by the then minister of justice. Actually, it was made after opportunity had been given to that committee to consider the import of the words used by the government in the bill. The committee considered that it would be useful to have the two adverbs included. I am of the same mind as the committee was last year, and I urge the house to adopt the motion now before it.


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, will we be allowed to speak after the Minister of Justice?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the debate this afternoon and to the very able way the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) explained his reasons for presenting this particular motion. Of course, the motion reflects the wording of the report of the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare of the last parliament of Canada. That committee studied this matter for some time.
The hon. member is supported by certain members of the Creditiste Party who oppose certain parts of the clause absolutely. I assume they are willing to accept any limitation of that clause if their acceptance means they will obtain the support of the house.
I was impressed by the speeches of hon. members on this side of the house, and particularly so by the speeches of the hon. members for Ontario (Mr. Cafik), Montmorency (Mr. Laflamme), Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) and the hon. member who has just

May 6, 1969

spoken, the hon. member for Windsor-Walk-erville (Mr. MacGuigan).


Gordon Harvey Aiken: There were a couple of other good speeches, too, while the minister was out of the chamber.


John Napier Turner: I heard
speeches from all sides of the house, but I was particularly impressed by the speeches of the hon. members I have mentioned. Not only was the eloquence of the hon. members attested to but, as I said previously, the remarks of the hon. members underline our position that while this is a government bill, neither the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) nor I intend to trespass on the conscience of any member of the party we represent.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Napier Turner: Every member of our party is free to look at this issue and free to consider his own private conscience. I think the speeches made from this side of the house bear ample testimony to the correctness of what I have said.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Napier Turner: I think the house should analyse with care what the motion proposed by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace really means.


Stanley Howard Knowles: entirely agree.


John Napier Turner: What the motion suggests is that clause 18 should be amended and that the test presently proposed relating to therapeutic abortion should be taken out and the test contained in the report of the last Parliamentary standing Committee substituted. The hon. member suggests that we should adopt the test recommended by the previous standing committee on health and welfare.
Let us analyse the two tests, the test in current Bill C-150 and the same test called for in the predecessor Bill C-195, introduced in the house on December 21, 1967, during the previous parliament. That bill has been under the scrutiny of the people of Canada for over one year and a half.
The test under this bill is this: Can the continuation of the pregnancy endanger the life or health of the mother? The test proposed by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace in his motion is this: Would the continuation of the pregnancy endanger the health of the mother or seriously and
Criminal Code
directly impair the health of the mother? Despite the philosophical under-pinnings for his argument, the only difference in the two tests relates to the health of the mother.
For both the motion proposed by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace and the bill, the test is whether the pregnancy will endanger the life of the mother. But, whereas the bill says "endanger her .. .health", the hon. member's motion says merely "seriously and directly impair her health". In point of fact, we are comparing the significance of "endanger" with the significance of the words "seriously and directly impair" as they relate to the mother's health. That is the substance of the proposed change. So, any discussions relating to the life of the foetus, to morality of abortion itself or to some of the issues which have been rejected in the bill, namely, whether abortion should be permitted for eugenic reasons because of the possible deformation of the child, whether abortion should be permitted for sociological reasons because of possible dislocation of the family, whether abortion should be permitted if the pregnancy results as a consequence of the criminal sexual offences of incest or rape are irrelevant. All these issues are irrelevant. The bill has rejected the eugenic, sociological or criminal offence reasons. The bill limits the possibility of therapeutic abortion to these circumstances: It is to be performed by a medical practitioner who is supported by a therapeutic abortion committee of medical practitioners in a certified or approved hospital, and the abortion is to be performed only where the health or life of the mother is in danger.
The only departure of the amendment from the wording of the bill is this. The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace proposes to substitute for the word "endanger" as that word relates to the health of the mother, the words "seriously and directly impair". So, with respect, I suggest to the hon. member and to all those who supported him that the philosophical under-pinnings to the motion were probably irrelevant in this debate. What the debate really ought to concentrate on in considering this specific motion to amend is the difference between the effect of the word "endanger" and the effect of the word "impair", when that word is preceded by the words "seriously and directly". It was to that latter question that the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) addressed himself earlier this afternoon.
The word "endanger" as used in the bill imports or connotes the elements of hazard,

May 6, 1969
Criminal Code
peril or risk. In the opinion of the law officers of the Crown the meaning of the word "endanger" is every bit as clear and significant as is the meaning of the words "seriously and directly impair". It appears to us that the elements of seriousness, directness and impairment are all present when a person's health is said to be in danger. The word "danger" in itself implies the existence of direct peril or risk.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
I submit to the house that everything sought by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace in this amendment is covered by the words in the bill. As the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton put it, the more adverbs we put in to qualify the verb, the more confused becomes the language of the bill. The more confused the language of the bill, the more difficult it is for members of the medical profession to assess the situation within which they are to discharge their responsibility.
It is our submission that it is far more difficult for a doctor or a medical committee to attempt to evaluate the significance of the words "directly and seriously impaired" than it is for them to evaluate in medical terms what the word "endanger" means.
I suggest to the house that the sense of immediacy sought by the hon. member is there, that the sense of peril is there and that the sense of risk is there. If we compare the words "endanger" and "impair" the word "endanger" does far more to further the intent of the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace than does the word "impair". It casts into far sharper relief the directness of the risk that is meant within the terms of the bill. To introduce qualifying adverbs makes it far more difficult for members of the medical profession to discharge the responsibility that is cast upon it within the terms of the bill.
I have the greatest respect for the work the members of an earlier parliament did in the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare. I know the number of meetings that were held.
I know the number of witnesses that were interviewed and I know the turmoil in terms of private conscience that the members went through. But I also know that the words that finally evolved from that committee's deliberations were a-


Stanley Howard Knowles: They were a compromise.


John Napier Turner: -were an intensive compromise. The words "seriously and directly impair" did not represent the unanimous view of that committee in the parliament which preceded this parliament.
The votes were not recorded, but from my own private research and conversations with members who sat on that committee I know that the vote was either 10 to 8, or 9 to 6, or 10 to 6, depending on with whom one talked. So that the value of that committee report in terms of its weight and influence upon this parliament should be limited by the controversy and division among the members of that particular committee.
On the other hand, the words that are found in clause 18 of the bill are the original words that were contained in Bill C-195, tabled in this House of Commons on December 21, 1967 by the then Minister of Justice, the present Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau). They were available to the scrutiny of that former parliament and to the people of Canada. They were debated in public across this country for over a year and a half. Their meaning is quite clear, and it is embedded in the understanding of the people of Canada.
Weighing those words, which contain the very clear verb "endanger", against the words proposed by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, which are qualified by two adverbs and supported by a divided committee of the earlier House of Commons, the conclusion of the government can only favour the present wording of the bill, especially in view of the fact that the former bill and this bill have survived public scrutiny. In this regard, representations have been made to me as Minister of Justice from every quarter of the country. My door has been open to these representations and so has my telephone. Petitions on both sides of this delicate issue have been received. The words in the bill to which I refer are clear to the people of Canada and they deserve the support of this house.
In addition, I believe that what the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace seeks to achieve in terms of imprinting upon the minds of the people of the country-upon the women of the country, if you will-and upon the medical profession in the country, that there ought to be a direct or serious risk or peril to the life or health of the mother, is adequately and more precisely met by the word "endanger" than it is by the word "impair", qualified as it is in the amendment by the adverbs "seriously" and "directly".
May 6, 1969

Criminal Code
An amendment in the same terms as the one moved by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace was proposed in the standing committee on justice and legal affairs of this parliament on March 27 last. It was proposed by my good friend the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan). The standing committee considered that amendment and rejected it. So that in supporting the bill as it stands I am supporting the committee report as it stands, that standing committee of this House of Commons having rejected an identical amendment.
As minister responsible for this bill I want to say that there were parts of the bill that did not survive that committee. I have accepted those parts of the committee report that went against the original bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Napier Turner: It is because I believe that members of parliament on both sides of tlie house should have their day, that they should have an opportunity to scrutinize the legislation, to cross-examine the minister and his officials, to question the witnesses and to make it a collective decision in their own good judgment, that I submit that the committee decision of this parliament, as opposed to the decision of the committee of an earlier parliament which was hopelessly divided on the issue, ought to govern the will and wishes of this House of Commons.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Would the minister permit a question?


John Napier Turner: I will in a minute. It is for that reason, despite the obvious sincerity and the wealth of argument introduced by hon. members who support this amendment, that I urge them to support the justice committee report and to support the bill as it stands. I suggest to the members who are supporting this amendment that the words in the bill itself more adequately and conclusively convey the meaning that they themselves wish to convey than do the words that they are offering to the house.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Would the minister now permit the question that I was going to ask him. Does he feel as strongly about the report of the committee on transport as he does about this one?
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Bechard): Order.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am glad I did not take that question in the course of my speech.


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to inform the house that we are not the ones who delayed the debates of the house since, as soon as this bill was introduced, we asked that the clauses on abortion and homosexuality be withdrawn. Everything else would have been passed in three days. As the government refused to listen to the voice of truth, we have to acquaint the people with that truth.
That is why I begin my remarks by answering to the minister who just made remarks on the difference between the clause in this bill and the amendment moved by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) which, in my opinion, is but a drop in the ocean.
He would have the whole Canadian people believe that by changing the word and adding "seriously her health", that could bring about some changes. We still say that we object to abortion as it is advocated by the bill, as well as to the clauses concerning homosexuality. Let these two clauses be deleted from the bill, and then you can go on discussing wheat, housing, etc.
Therefore, with regard to the bill before us, we must define what is meant by the word "health". I think that this bill was meant to clarify the Criminal Code. Would this purpose be achieved by a legislation allowing abortion on "health" grounds? I think that is the main question we should ask ourselves.
A study of the 880 pages of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the standing committee on health, welfare and social affairs, enables us to make various interpretations of the word "health"; interpretations given by witnesses who were defending one position as well as the other.
You will not mind, Mr. Speaker, if I do not quote all of them, because I know I have only 20 minutes, but I shall take the liberty, at least, to point out a few statements made by authorities on the matter.
That is why I am wondering why the minister and the members who pretend to be justified in voting in favour of a bill that would promote abortion, have not travelled across Canada and repudiated the amendments we are moving. Why are there so many protests to the effect that these amendments should be deleted from the omnibus bill? Once and for all, why not establish a royal

May 6, 1969
Criminal Code
commission of inquiry so that the truth may be made known to the public.
I have in hand a statement printed on page 601 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the standing committee on health and welfare. Dr. Patricia Whyte stated, and I quote:
Yes, I believe it should include psychiatric conditions.
Speaking of health matters-
-I realize this is a very difficult area to define and those who have had to work with this definition have had a problem.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
In some people's minds it can even include social health. It can be a complete disruption, for instance, of their way of life.
At page 695, Dr. Whyte also states:
That is a very hard word to define, X agree; you can define it as meaning happiness if you like.
Before such statements, where can we find the word health and how can that word provide information in a bill which in our opinion, Mr. Speaker, should not even be agreed to?
Then, at page 716, we have evidence from Dr. Mongeau and I quote:
Because when you qualify it by saying: "seriously", you are at the mercy of the definition given to "serious".
That is why here, yesterday, I stated that I am not an expert. I am not a doctor, nor a lawyer; however, I am a legislator, and our purpose in parliament is to make legislation clearer, so that the public is not mystified that the great Christian world that we have always defended is not destroyed but, on the contrary, strengthened and at last gets the last word, Canadians having joined forces towards that goal.
And Dr. Mongeau adds:
This is where I say there is a danger of interpretation. There will always be a psychiatrist who can say that from a psychological point of view the health of the mother will be affected.
Then we can continue with the evidence of Dr. Beime. He said:
To define help, if you will allow me that expression, we refer to two definitions: the conservative one and the liberal one. The conservative or negative one is the absence of illness; the positive or liberal one includes well-being, absence of tension and goes as far as nutrition, housing, education and so forth. There lies the danger. What interpretation shall we give?

We could go on to quote a statement from the representatives of the Hotel-Dieu du Sacre-Cceur de Jesus of Dolbeau:
-We believe that the mother's health is a flexible criterion that might lend itself to a rather broad interpretation of the law especially when psychiatric reasons are taken into account-
Dr. Quigley replied and I quote:
-We maintain that your committee and the government have proposed an amendment to the act so as to include health grounds without being well-informed on this vital question and without having defined the word "health".
For that reason, we cannot accept the amendment because we would then have an abortion bill which the Canadian people do not want.
I was listening to the minister telling us that neither him nor the Prime Minister were gagging anybody. I must say that many Liberal members tell us in the lobbies: You must go on with the battle because we are prevented from speaking the truth.
And that truth is still being expressed on page 487. The public must be told, must be informed, and then the people will rise in protest and we shall know exactly where the truth lies. On page 487, it is stated and I quote:
X am not being entirely facetious when I state that somebody could say: "I am-
-"I am so upset; I am so nervous about this pregnancy that you have to abort me." Now her health at this particular moment is interfered with. She is a nervous, upset, anxious, possibly depressed woman. Is this going to be sufficient justification for terminating that pregnancy?-
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) said and I quote:
-I gather that you are not happy about the inclusion of the words "and health", the health of the pregnant woman, as proposed in the Criminal Code.
Dr. Quigley replied and I quote:
I am very unhappy because I do not know what is meant;-
Now if such authorities ignore what it means, how can we believe that we can impose our views to medical authorities as competent as Drs. Jutras and Legare who testified before the committee and put forward such sound arguments.
On page 540, Dr. Walters stated and I quote:
-How you are going to change this law is something that disturbs many of us.
I think the omnibus Bill, which has already been submitted, extends it into a field which is going to be very difficult to interpret, and I would
May 6, 1969

Criminal Code
submit that we are getting out of a frying pan into a fire. "Health" as defined by the World Health Organization or by a final year medical student on an examination paper, entails a tremendous area-economic, social and emotional... Again, it is going to come down to interpretation of what you mean, what we in London mean, or what somebody in Ottawa means by "health''... This is going to be the problem in including "health" as well as "life".
In this definition, have we not the true way of thinking of an expert who wants the bill on abortion and homosexuality to be withdrawn, so that a Royal Commission of Inquiry can define, first of all, what is "health"?
Dr. Walters added further:
-There is difference of opinion in the medical profession. When you have a group discussing this in a specialty, or a multi-specialty-the general practitioner group-you have differences of opinion on a purely medical basis. If it could be established only on the life of the mother being endangered there would be much firmer solidarity.
As soon as you get into health you are into a very grey area again.
And in order to make myself quite clear, since in this house, on the government side, some hon. members are physicians I shall quote a statement published in the March 20 1963 issue of Le Soleil and made by the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) before the Richelieu Club-and I am thinking of the government members who are muzzled and cannot cast a free vote in the house, because it was explained by the hon. member for Hull-and I quote:
If in the past the province of Quebec has protested against the federal regime, it was because the Quebec members in Ottawa have not sufficiently emphasized the Quebecers' stand-
If the hon. member for Hull, who doubles as a doctor, is able to make such a statement and can say that the "deputation" who, most of the time, was a liberal "deputation", did not achieve its purpose, we should not be surprised that even today not one member from the province of Quebec dares to express the slightest opinion.
That is why I feel some sympathy for the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace who spoke a very good English but delivered a very good speech a short while ago because he has at least the courage of its convictions and he told the house what he had in mind. The same cannot be said of the one we refer to as the whip of the Liberal party. The members of the house have experienced-


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


Bernard Dumont: -Caouette's whip.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I believe the hon. member for Fron-tenac is wandering away from the amendment now under study and I would ask him to come back to it and to stay with it as he did at the start.


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted to say that the Liberal party whip, who has felt Caouette's whip, is unable to obtain from all government members a precise definition of the word "health". I have received a six-page letter from one of his electors in which he expressed his opposition to the omnibus bill and stated that there were strong supporters of proposals that would at least have watered down the omnibus bill which, in my opinion, should not be accepted. I shall read a few lines from it:
The party whip received my communication on April 2, during the long session and the holidays and as he is a cipher in Ottawa, I wonder if he suffers from locked jaws-at first I had read blocked-whether he is deaf and dumb or whether he is stuck to his seat.
So, in the six pages, this elector defines accurately a government member who prevents the house and the whole country from knowing what is meant by the word "health". We know that the hon. member for Chambly is very efficient, that he fully understands the problem. So, we simply ask him to have the courage to give an answer to his electors and to speak up in the house and define, as we are doing, the word "health".
At page 548 of the standing committee on this bill, we find this and I quote:
I know what life is, but I am not sure what health is... "health" is a very ambiguous term, I think it is fine for the legislature to use it, but somebody else is going to have to interpret it. This is the problem with many laws. I think "life" is clearly defined. We all know what we are talking about and we can, as a profession, say that this woman's life is going to be lost.
We deal with housing, with food, with education, we deal with so many things we know very little about. We know it affects the life of the mother, but it is a very difficult problem to decide that you are going to snuff out one life for a nebulous thing called "health", which we all would like to have so that we do not lose our life.
And on page 553, we find this:
I think the doctor could give medical evidence concerning the life of the patient under such and such circumstances, but I would submit it is leaving too much to the medical profession to interpret the word "health".
Considering all those objections, all those things that the Canadian people need to

May 6, 1969
Business of the House know, again I ask this house, by means of a free vote that should take place tomorrow, to refer all those amendments, to refer this bill on abortion and on homosexuality-as at the present time only 1 per cent of the people are in favour of the amendment-to a royal commission of inquiry, so that the Canadian people may know the truth.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, in order to give hon. members a full opportunity to express their views on this matter, I should like to recommend to the house that it might be a useful idea to extend the sitting another couple of hours. Therefore, pursuant to section (5) (a) of Standing Order 6 I move:
That this sitting he continued until midnight this day for the purpose of considering all aspects of the "Report Stage" of Bill C-150, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act, including any or all proposed amendments and the motion to concur in the said bill, as amended.


Mr. Speaker:: It is the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those who object please rise.
And more than ten members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: As more than ten members have risen to oppose the motion, it may not be put before the house.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of Bill C-150, to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons 
and Reformatories Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, and motion No. 33 (Mr. Laprise).
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak to the amendment of the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace because I do not agree fully with it.
For once I agree, partly, with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner). But as one of my colleagues has an amendment with which I am in total agreement, and which will be discussed later on, probably tomorrow, I cannot accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, because I feel it does not go far enough.
It would still leave room for doubt in the bill, which might lead to far more complications. Therefore, if we are to amend clause 18, I feel it should be amended properly to avoir any ambiguity.
Having said this, Mr. Speaker, I want to mention again that although if I speak at this stage it is not to say that I am for or against the bill. In principle I am against the liberalization of the legislation on abortion and I shall have the opportunity during the debate on third reading to object once more to this bill.
At this time, I do not want to stretch the debate too much; I think that it might be possible to have done with the amendment of the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace tonight.
But before I resume my seat, I want to emphasize the objection I have against the term it is proposed to add to Bill C-150 in section 18, and which would allow abortion not only when the life of the mother would be endangered but also when her health would be likely to be endangered they are not quite sure about it, but they are ready to accept it, even in doubt.
As the minister said in his statement, he is ready to accept doubts in regard of the health of the woman. So the minister, as a lawyer, might not have as much sensitivity and knowledge as the doctors or specialists in this field.
And, tonight, I want to emphasize the evidence given by Dr. Marcel Boisvert, a Montreal psychiatrist who spoke readily and very clearly, on February 6, 1968, before a seminar
May 6. 1969

organized and prepared by the Foyers Notre-Dame which had then invited people such as members of the bar, of the medical profession, of the clergy and of family organizations.
So here is what Dr. Marcel Boisvert had to say on the subject, and I quote:
As a psychiatrist, I believe that this bill on abortion would not be likely to promote health but, on the contrary, it might have a detrimental effect on the health of both individuals and society.
Clause 18 of Bill C-150 is intended to make the legislation stipulate that physicians will be able, if they think that the woman's life may be endangered, to perform an abortion.
According to the wording of the clause proposed by the minister, it is intimated that a certain proportion of medical cases could give the right to procure miscarriages.
And now psychiatrists, gynaecologists, highly qualified physicians, are saying the contrary, and the statement by Dr. Boisvert that I have just stated is further evidence of it. I go on:
He carried on, appealing to psychological arguments: "Biology, as it progresses, is more and more positive as far as the human character of a fecundated ovum, as early as its origin, is concerned. Thus, it is clearer and clearer that to procure a miscarriage means for everybody: to destroy a human being.
And this is the beginning of the psychological problem. To improve the physical or mental health of the mother can we destroy this human ovum? I answer that from the psychological point of view, every abortion is unhealthy in itself;
It is a psychiatrist who is speaking.
-to want and to perform an abortion is a neurotic symptom and cannot be considered as therapeutics."
To back his argument, the psychiatrist asserts that every action is accompanied with and followed by psychological reactions: it is the principle of the equation action-reaction with a proportional value. "Thus, he says, the value of abortion includes the suppression of the existence of a human being-a very important value-which must bring about a reaction of an equivalent value. The fact of destroying a human life brings about a reaction which originates from the instinctive depths of every individual. So, to facilitate abortion, is to facilitate repression, deviation of feelings towards a pathological evolution."
According to Dr. Boisvert, by permitting an abortion for doubtful health reasons much more evil will be created than cured. I continue:
After having also put forward psycho-sociological, professional and practical arguments, Dr. Boisvert concluded: "During my 18 years of medical and psychiatric practice, I have never heard anybody speak highly of abortion as a therapy. Neither
Criminal Code
our fellow-members nor our colleagues, nor even my patients have ever reported any kind of improvement as a result of abortion. But I could observe regularly deep and serious complications of all kinds resulting from abortion.
That is the testimony of a very famous psychiatrist who is against adding in the legislation on abortion, that abortion may be allowed for health reasons, especially if they are doubtful reasons, as stipulated in clause 18 of bill C-150.
Mr. Speaker, I think we are right in opposing the principle of this bill.
As for the amendment moved by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, I had the pleasure, a few minutes ago, to notice that other members had finally decided to express their views, but some are upbraided by the Minister of Justice who defends his argument and his bill.
When he said in his statement that the members of his party are free to study the bill, we never doubted it, but he did not say that they were free to vote according to their convictions.
He said the opposite when he presented the bill on second reading. I said so at the beginning of the debate and, if need be, we will mention it again on third reading. The indications then given by the minister left no room for doubt.
Mr. Speaker, I for one am not completely satisfied with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace. I would prefer that the word "health" be completely deleted from clause 18.
For that reason, when another amendment on the subject will be moved, and at the first opportunity, I will speak again.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I know that some people are quite anxious and would like us to proceed with the vote on these amendments. Let them not worry, we will come to that, and even if the government does not want to change its mind, we must say everything we have to say on each amendment.
I do not blame the minister for being impatient, because we are also.
Mr. Speaker, we want to take advantage of the procedure which allows us, not to filibuster but to put on record our objections, because history will prove that this debate was ridiculous and should never have taken place here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

May 6. 1969
Criminal Code


Mr. Speaker:: I draw to the attention of the hon. member for Shefford that what we are discussing now is not a debate, but an amendment moved by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I said that we were getting hot under the collar because it seems the hon. minister and his government do not want to admit that anyone of our amendments is logical. We want the arguments we have been putting forward to remain in the records of this Parliament so that we shall be able to say that we have foreseen the odious effects of this bill, and that we, at least, have not let the bill pass without saying a word in protest.
Mr. Speaker, some members do not seem to be able to determine when life begins. What is a human being?
I would like to base my remarks on a book which was published by the federal government and made available to Canadian mothers-I did not say "mayors" but "mothers". The title is "The Canadian mother and her child". At page 24, we read, and I quote:
When one of the spermatozoa and the ovum meet and unite, a new life begins.
On the government side of the house, they tell us that life begins when the child is born or when it is 4 months old. However, doctors have proved during the hearings of the committee that there is no doubt-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wish to remind again the hon. member that he must address himself to the amendment before us. The hon. member says that it is important to air his views and those of his colleagues on the subject. Under the present circumstances, we are only studying an amendment proposed by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace.
It seems to me the argument submitted by the hon. member for Shefford goes somewhat beyond the narrow limits of the discussion and therefore I am asking him after he has completed his introductory remarks, to address himself to the question before us.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I thank you once again for your usual kindness, and because of it, I shall try to restrict myself to the amendment before us, dealing with the health of the mother when it is endangered.
Well, Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) wondered when life began.

In support of my argument, I referred to the above-mentioned to prove that today, there is no doubt about it, even in the house, or in the books that the federal government makes available our Canadian women.
It is strange to find that on the opposite side they do not seem to want to put forward the arguments of our scientists or medical associations who, regarding the proposed amendments have given us very good suggestions.
As far as I am concerned, I shall not be able to vote for the amendment moved this afternoon by the hon. member for Ontario, because that would mean we are in favour of abortion.
Since the beginning of the fight we are putting up in the house, we cannot accept the arguments concerning the threat to the life of the mother, because Quebec or Canadian doctors are not quite sure that if the abortion is not carried out, the life of the mother will be endangered.
Now, we cannot accept the argument of life against health, that is to say that to protect the mother's health, we have to kill the foetus. Such arguments do not weigh enough in the balance and are not sufficient to convince us of the worth of that amendment.
That is the reason why I shall abstain from voting for or against that amendment, because from now on we will recognize that abortion should be procured in Canada, in some cases, to protect the life or health of the mother.
Mr. Speaker, in this house, some hon. members have quoted various authorities, but the major part of their evidence has been put aside by the Association of the medical practitioners of the Hopital Laval in Quebec, whose representative told us the following, and I quote:
Any abortion is homicidal, for the foetus is a human being.
Here, in the amending bill, that fact does not seem to be acknowledged. And I continue the quotation:
Some allege that the foetus is not a human being as long as it is not viable. Now, the notion of viability of the foetus outside the mother's womb is dependent upon medical knowledge. At the present time, we consider that the foetus is viable outside the mother's womb, in practice, only from the twenty-eighth week of gestation (that is to say when its weight reaches 1000 grams); however, that period might be reduced through acquisition of new knowledge and the elaboration of proper techniques. The viability outside the mother's womb actually depends on
May 6, 1969

the maturity of the foetus. However, can we define a being as human according to a more or less obvious degree of maturity especially when that maturity requires years for achievement?
On the other hand, the fact that the foetus is totally dependent upon its mother-
And here we get closer to the opinion expressed by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, when he spoke of the mother's life which could be endangered. I go on:
On the other hand, does the fact that the foetus is totally dependent upon its mother give her or those who look after her health the right of life or death over it? The dependency of a living being on its surroundings is a general biological phenomenon. The child developed to term is as dependent as the foetus, but in a different way.
Now, Mr. Speaker, when the child is a foetus, it needs its mother to live.
But furthermore, when the child has become, according to the Criminal Code, a human being, that is after its exit from the uterus, it is still dependent upon its mother's care. Outside the uterus or inside, the foetus depends upon its mother's care, and that is why we cannot impair its life either outside or inside of it.
I go on.
In fact, it is only a difference of surroundings and birth is but the passage from one to the other, without any appreciable modification in the degree of dependency. Would it, be the respiratory assistance and the special type of nutrition needed which would render the foetus unfit to become a human being?
The human being's dependency decreases in time-
We know that a six-month old infant is more independant than one of three months. We know that a three-month old infant is more independent than one of three months. And, we also know that a foetus needs its mother to survive. I shall go on:
The dependence of the human being diminishes with time and is in inverse ratio to the degree of maturity.
We cannot accept, considering all the medical and scientific information we have been given, the killing of the foetus, when the latter would "endanger the life of the mother or seriously and directly impair her health".
As my hon. colleagues and as some government members have admitted this afternoon, we cannot accept such health grounds to justify abortion.
On the other hand, this amendment states that abortion is acceptable if the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother and, for that reason, I could not vote either in favour or
Criminal Code
against it. The reason is that subsequent amendments will enable us to prove once again that we are against abortion not only on moral grounds but also on scientific grounds.
I proceed with the quotation:
Legally, the foetus is considered as a human being as its rights to inherit are recognized.
As the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace said this afternoon.
And I go on:
An abortion for the purpose of improving the health or the welfare of the mother or of preventing the birth of a deformed infant is euthanasia. If it is permitted to kill a deformed infant while it is in the mother's womb, why should it not be permitted to do so after its birth?
Among the various forms of murder, abortion appears to be the one against which the State should intervene most strongly. The role of the State is to protect the rights of every citizen, all the more so when the aggrieved citizen is less able to defend himself and to see that his rights are respected. If the law is written for the protection of the weak, the child still in the mother's womb is entitled to the protection of the State, which should be in proportion to its weakness.
Mr. Speaker, the minister is wondering who is the author of those words. It is the medical board of Laval Hospital, which the minister does not want to hear, nor to listen to, giving scientific arguments.


An hon. Member:: An established hospital?


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Yes, an established hospital which can certainly treat the sick. There would be a large number of patients to be found across from me.
I continue:
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
If abortion is performed when the life of the mother is endangered by pregnancy, it can then be considered not as euthanasia but as a case of self-defence. To warrant self-defence, however, the act of defence and the act of aggression, should be comparable and the defensive act must be the only possible method of protecting oneself. But cases when, in order to save the mother's life, it is obviously necessary to kill the foetus-
And here we think of the amendment under consideration.
-are extremely rare according to experts.
But not according to the minister. And not according to Liberal experts, but to medical experts.
Dr. Rene Simard, Director of the Obstetrical Department at Laval University, stated he has never

May 6, 1969
Criminal Code
met any such cases. On the other hand, Roy J. Hefferman, a famous American obstetrician, says that to perform a therapeutic abortion is to disregard the new methods of treating troubles inherent to pregnancy or to begrudge the patient the time such methods require.
These amendments are setting back the medical clock; they imply that today's medicine is not advanced enough to save the foetus while protecting the life or health of the mother.
The Minister of Justice is showing his contempt for physicians by defending his bill so stubbornly and by turning down the advice of experts. This is to laugh at the physicians who during the past 25 years have made fantastic progress and have cured illnesses which 50 years ago were incurable and to suggest that since medicine is now advancing, we want to hold it back.
The government members are unable to accept the scientific arguments which are put to us and which we receive in the mail every day. Moreover, the inefficiency of the therapeutic abortion is proven by an American study which indicates that on 1,600,000 deliveries, the death rate is 0.98 per cent on 1,000 in the hospitals where abortions are performed and .087 on 1,000 in the hospitals where they are prohibited.
Considering the scarcity of the cases where the therapeutic abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother, we can ask ourselves if legislation to allow it is justified. Thus, if the legislator wants, through legislation, rule on those extremely uncommon cases, he should include in that legislation some very strict guide fines similar to those advocated by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
Mr. Speaker, we have moved in the house some amendments similar to the provisions included in the abortion legislation by the American College of Obstetricians. No amendment accepted in the United States and included in the American legislation has been accepted by the minister.
Why? They are experienced and have been performing the so-called therapeutic abortion for years and today in the light of experience, they say to us, with figures to support their claim, that this legislation is inoperative, that it was not supposed to save the fife of the mother or to take care of her health, but rather to protect the thousands of physicians who want to perform abortions openly and do not want to be affected by the legislation.

It is mainly for that purpose that the Minister of Justice fights for his bill with such stubbornness, because some physicians will benefit from this legislation. They will no longer be indictable.
But no attention is paid to medical experts, hospitals, health officials in Canada. The intent is to protect those business or medical swindlers.
Mr. Speaker, I have here the newsletter of the Catholic Nurses of Canada, for March-April, and at page 56, it says:
Cases when pregnancy-


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Minister of Justice on a point of order.


John Napier Turner: Perhaps instead of reading this document, the hon. member could be encouraged to table it to save the time of the house.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I shall table those papers, and I accept the minister's suggestion with pleasure. But, at the same time, I would ask him to table in the house, all the letters of protest that he has received from physicians. If that is agreeable to him, I am willing to produce those papers and letters of protest. Is he prepared to do so? I am waiting for his answer.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to call it ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has called it ten o'clock. I would like to point out to him that there are only a few seconds left before his times expires. The house might perhaps allow the hon. member to use up the thirty seconds he has left to finish his speech.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: I am extremely touched by the kindness of the minister.
On page 56, one reads, and I quote:
There are so few, if any, cases where the pregnancy really endangers the life of the mother, that legalizing abortion in those cases would not constitute, quantitatively, a serious menace to the common good.
Mr. Speaker, I have here many more documents. I shall use them another time.
May 6. 1969



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact there is already one deferred vote and there may well be at least one more, it might be to the benefit of lion, members if Your Honour, acting on the discretion which is granted to you under the appropriate Standing Order, asks the house to agree to an order that all deferred votes up to the time of orders of the day on Thursday might be taken at that time. It seems that Thursday is a propitious time for such a vote since a larger number of members will then be present for the ritual of the vote. The added advantage will, of course, also be that hon. members will know when the vote will be taken.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We would be agreeable to that, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let us hope there will be some to take.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, about two weeks ago I asked a question about housing. The then minister of transport, who was in charge of housing and was on the roster, was out of the house. On the advice of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald), I directed my question to the Minister Without Portfolio from Manitoba who did not attempt to answer me. Then you, Mr. Speaker, advised me I could assume that my question had been noted.
DEBATES	8407
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
After notice of this length, I still want a reply. The question was one which, in my opinion, simply required "yes" or "no" for an answer. It was this:
In view of the sharp rise in the first quarter of this year in the profits of Canadian lumber producers in British Columbia, coupled with a sharp increase over the past year in the price of lumber and other building supplies, will the minister urge upon the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs the need for action to roll back the price of such building materials needed to meet the housing shortage?
Since I did not get an answer, I followed up with a supplementary question:
Will he himself undertake to discuss with these British Columbia lumber firms the need for restraint in the matter of the prices of their product, to keep down inflation?
Again, I got no answer. I suppose this was because-though I had not heard so at that time-there is no housing crisis. But I still want an answer and I would appreciate one, now.
My question arose from the following facts. On April 17, shares of MacMillan-Bloedel Limited of Vancouver, Canada's largest lumber producer, rose 50 cents to a four-year peak of $36.50 on the Toronto Stock Exchange reflecting expectations that the company would report a sharp rise in first quarter profits. The stock has gained 30 per cent this year, from a low of $28 in January. Two other Vancouver based forest producers had already reported big gains in first quarter profits. One was Crown Zellerbach (Canada) Limited with a rise from $1.9 million a year ago to $3.1 million, a 63 per cent gain. The other was British Columbia Forest Products Limited, which reported a rise from $1,545,000 a year ago to $2,609,000, a gain of about 70 per cent.
Meanwhile lumber and plywood prices had risen to record highs by the beginning of 1969. One large Vancouver producer, Weld-wood of Canada Limited, reported that average lumber sales in the first quarter of this year were at prices $25 per thousand board feet higher than a year earlier. After a period during which prices dropped somewhat they are now on the way up once more.
On April 30, David Satok, President of the Toronto Home Builders Association, declared that the January and February price increases added about $500 to the cost of a small house. No wonder the rate of housing starts dropped from 307,200 in February to
May 6, 1969

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion 266,100 in March. In the face of such a situation, it seemed to me logical to ask that the minister in charge of housing should urge on the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) the need for a roll back in the price of materials used for housing. Will he do so now? I address these representations, of course, to the new minister in charge of housing. Will he discuss the need for restraint with these British Columbia firms which have made such profits?
The government appears to be on the edge of setting up a prices and incomes commission whose main function, in the words of the white paper called "Policies for Price Stability" will be to rally a sense of public responsibility leading to voluntary restraint. Its first job might be to urge price restraint on the lumber kings of the British Columbia forest empire. Will the Minister without Portfolio, the minister now in charge of housing (Mr. Andras) urge this labour of Hercules on the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: In reply I should like to say that I share the hon. lady's concern about the high cost of building materials such as lumber. We are also concerned about the high cost of other things such as money, land, services and labour. Hon. members know that the government is well aware of recent developments in the lumber market and that appropriate action has been taken by federal cabinet ministers to ameliorate the situation. The government's position was clearly outlined a month ago in this chamber by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin). After having consulted his colleagues in cabinet he announced the steps that were being taken, namely, that the former minister of transport had made representations to the railways urging that enough box cars be made available for the movement of wood products. He announced also that the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) had launched discussions with the provincial governments concerned on the matter of additional supplies of timber to be made available to industry until such time as a more stable supply-demand balance is achieved. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) has assured us that the officials of the Combines Investigation Branch are vigilantly watching any 
threat of anti-competitive developments in the present special market circumstances.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce himself made an appeal to the lumber industry to safeguard the requirements of traditional customers, both domestic and foreign, and to resist any tendency to neglect Canadian demands in favour of speculative, short term exports.



PUBLIC SERVICE-UNDUE EXTENSION OF BILINGUAL REQUIREMENTS

Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, I bring forward this matter because of the ludicrous, self-admitted political posture of this government on questions of bilingualism in the public service. My remarks pertain to the question I asked of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on April 24 which arose from some statements made extramurally by his parliamentary secretary at the time he was speaking at the Grenville-Carleton Liberal Associations annual meeting on the Saturday previous.
With regard to his remarks, may I now quote from the Ottawa Citizen on Monday, April 21. They carry a report of the remarks of the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Walker). The article is headlined, "Bilingualism situation critical" The main text of the article is as follows:
Departmental directives have pushed Civil Service bilingual requirements beyond the intent of Parliament's legislation, says James Walker, parliamentary secretary to Prime Minister Trudeau.
"As a result, we are getting legislation by regulation and something must be done about it."
Elected representatives should have veto power over these regulations which are issued by senior public servants to interpret the law, Mr. Walker said.-
The intent of the legislation, he indicated, was set out in a speech by former Prime Minister Lester Pearson which, among other things, assured the job opportunities of unilingual public servants would not be adversely affected.
"I believe it is time we took a look at the situation again. I think the regulations have had a stronger effect on people than the legislation intended.
"Some people may believe their judgment is better than that of the politicians, but I believe in the democratic system and that means rule by the elected representatives, be they good or bad."
Leslie Barnes, executive director of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, warned that the bilingual question ranked with superannuation as the most critical in government-employee relations.
The difficulty arose out of administrative application of the policy, he said.
May 6, 1969

The ruling in favour of bilingualism for all positions in the national capital area reduced job advancement opportunities for many from outside areas, he said.
The government, if it had the will, could ensure that its intent was carried through in application, he said.
"The cabinet cannot duck responsibility for the situation".
I agree with the parliamentary secretary. Something is wrong and unfair in our bilingual and bicultural regulations as they apply to the salaries and job opportunities of our public servants. That is why I asked the following question on April 24, as reported at page 7900 of Hansard:
Was the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister stating the view of the government when he said that departmental directives have pushed civil servant bilingual requirements beyond the intent of the legislation by parliament?
I also had a supplementary ready to ask. I did not ask it on April 24, but it would have been as follows: "Arising from the statement made by the parliamentary secretary that elected representatives should have veto power over regulations which interpret the law issued by senior public servants, will the Prime Minister indicate whether the government has any specific measure in mind to provide for the exercise of such veto power?"
What a strange anomaly now exists as a result of Mr. Pearson's legislation applying to bonuses for bilingual and bicultural public servants. Since the Prime Minister is the sponsor of the next big jump this country may take into more legislation respecting the status of the official languages of Canada-I refer to Bill C-120-why do not the opinions and remarks voiced by the parliamentary secretary come from the Prime Minister himself? This would be far better, since it is now agreed and stated by his able parliamentary secretary that mistakes have been made. This legislation does not make for a just society; it does not even amount to participatory democracy, both so-called unique and vaunted ideals of the Prime Minister. Why cannot this country now have some leadership from the Prime Minister?
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
We need a reconsideration of the legislation put forward by the previous government. We need a reconsideration of the 7 per cent bonus to bilingual public servants because of its trouble making and divisive results in our public service. No one can deny this, Mr. Speaker; ask any member of this house, any
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion member of the Senate, any member of the public service.
I have spoken out against this measure several times. In this connection I cite Hansard for November 18, 1966, November 22, 1966, November 23, 1966 and particularly November 24, 1966, where will be found opinions regarding public service regulations respecting bonuses for bilingual employees. This government has had ample warning about this, warnings that they would not heed. Now, the parliamentary secretary makes a strong protest and agrees with me as well as with all others who have argued against this measure. The parliamentary secretary recommends the typical Liberal dictatorial method of dealing with it, saying that elected representatives should have veto power over the very regulations that a Liberal government has created. Mr. Speaker, none other than parliament should straighten out this mess and amend this error.
While I am on my feet I want to warn the Prime Minister that he be very careful in his advancement of Bill C-120, especially regarding the provision pertaining to linguistic minorities of 10 per cent having lingual parity with the remaining 90 per cent of a district. What about the other ethnic minorities in this country which I mentioned in my remarks in 1966?
Yes, we are thankful for men who will fearlessly state their opinions, as the parliamentary secretary has done in this regard. I want the Prime Minister to know that the people of Canada will not swallow his hodgepodge of bilingual legislation in Bill C-120 with regard to the public service, such as the people of Canada were forced to swallow by the former Prime Minister and which they have now regurgitated.


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am very flattered that the hon. member agrees with what he thinks I said. In all friendliness, I must tell him that 1 do not agree with many of the things he has just said. Frankly, I prefer to quote myself and to make comments, rather than refer to the Ottawa Citizen, however good that paper may be.
I am very pleased to have this opportunity to reply to the hon. member. I simply say that because of my deep interest in parliament and in the vital role of the elected member in our system of parliamentary democracy, I recently expressed the view that the time might well be at hand when
8410	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion parliament itself should periodically or regularly review various departmental regulations and directives to see if there were any cases where such regulations or directives went beyond the scope and intent of the actual legislation upon which they were based.
It is quite conceivable to me that prior approval by a group or committee of knowledgeable members of parliament of the effect of these regulations might be desirable. As a former municipal councillor, I can attest to the fact that this problem occurs at that level of government. I believe the provincial area would not be immune to this1 problem either. The view I expressed did not deal with any one particular government department or piece of legislation, but if there were cases that anyone wished to bring to my attention, including regulations or directives relative to the administration of government policy on bilingualism in the public service, I said I would be interested in hearing about them.
In answer to the first part of the hon. member's question on page 7900 of Hansard, may I just say that I doubt that the Prime Minister has attached any conditions to my particular job as his Parliamentary Secretary that would make it mandatory for him to agree with everything I think or saiy.
My concern in respect of government policy regarding bilingualism in the public service is that the laudatory aim of the government in making federal services available in the two official languages to all Canadians be administered in such a way and these services provided in such a manner that there is no bar or hindrance to any public servant who wishes to perform such services.



FINANCE-NORTHERN ONTARIO-ALLEGED INVESTMENT DISCRIMINATION

Mr. Ralph Stewari (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) and his Parliamentary Secretary have to be away, but I believe someone else is here in the minister's stead and I am sure the Minister will take cognizance of my remarks when he returns.
Last Wednesday, as recorded at page 8173 of Hansard, I asked this question cf the Minister of Finance.
Since the minister has announced that there will be new regulations governing the trust companies can he assure the house that there will no longer be a double standard on the part of lending institutions, which discriminates against capital investment in Northern Ontario?

DEBATES	May 6. 1969
When I speak about this discrimination on the part of the lending institutions, I do not necessarily speak about willful discrimination against Northern Ontario. Rather it is something that is unconscious. It is because of a lack of knowledge of the north and of the great wealth and the future that we have in that area. However, the net result is a double standard because a loan for a project in the industrialized southern cities is relatively easy to obtain, but a similar loan in Cochrane, Kapuskasing or Hearst would be impossible to obtain.
I know that most hon. members of this house who are not familiar with Northern Ontario are not aware that this is actually the case. There is no one who will admit that this kind of double standard exists, but nevertheless it is there.
I do not suggest for a moment that the Minister of Finance can advise the trust companies and other lending institutions to whom they must make loans, but I wonder if it is not possible for a certain percentage of the funds of trust companies to be placed aside for the development of such areas as Northern Ontario. A certain percentage could be put aside and not used in the large cities of the industrialized south.
Perhaps the minister could use persuasion, if not legislation, in this regard. As I say, I believe this is an unconscious thing because people do not know about Northern Ontario. For this very reason, Mr. Speaker, I intend to have an economic conference in Northern Ontario which may perhaps partly solve this problem. At least it will bring businessmen from the industrialized south to the north so that they will become more familiar with our problems.
I have organized a two day conference which will bring forward the top executives from the financial community in general, from large industry and from government, who will come to Northern Ontario and spend those two days discussing these problems. There will be present the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, (Mr. Marchand) who will make a major speech in Cochrane, putting forward his ideas on the regional development of Northern Ontario. There will also be present the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) to speak about matters of transportation and freight rates1 which are so vital to our area.
But there is nothing we can do in the North without proper capital investment. This is why I have invited a number of these people to come and look at our problems, to see
May 6, 1969

what vast wealth there is in the north, to see what the potential is, and perhaps change their methods of lending. It is not only one group that can look at this problem. For example, if it is tourism that we want to promote, tourism in the area of Moosonee, it is not possible to do that without capital investment.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
So it goes in respect of a number of things. If we want secondary industry in northern Ontario we must be able to ensure that the product will be brought to market at a reasonable rate. Therefore, the transportation commission should be concerned about freight rates. All these problems are interlocked. This is the reason these various people must get together to hold a meeting of this type. Perhaps this would serve to make the companies more aware of the problems of northern Ontario.

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) should be commended for making all hon. members of this house aware of the lack of capital investment which at present is the reason for the slow growth and development of northern Ontario. I should like to assure the hon. member that all of us in this house share his concern and that I personally will bring his recommendations and suggestions to the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson).


Mr. Speaker:: It being after ten o'clock this house stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Wednesday, May 7, 1969