1969-01-24

Mr. Speaker:: I received earlier today the following notice from the hon. member for Argenteuil (Mr. Major):
I hereby wish to advise you that, pursuant to standing order 17 (1) and (2), I should like to raise a question of privilege in the house, today, this 24th day of January 1969, at the eleven o'clock sitting.
I take this opportunity to point out to hon. members the provisions of standing order 17 and more specifically, subsection (2) of that order, the terms of which follow:
(2) Unless notice of motion has been given under Standing Order 42, any member proposing to raise a question of privilege other than one arising out of proceedings in the Chamber during the course of a sitting shall give to the Speaker a written statement of the question at least one hour prior to raising the question in the House.
The hon. member, as other hon. members in the past, merely gave notice to the Speaker that he wishes to raise a question of privilege and it seems to me that that interpretation of our standing orders is not quite accurate.
Not only must the hon. member advise the Speaker that he wishes to raise a question of privilege, but he must also reveal its nature. It seems to me the English version is perhaps more specific in that it stipulates as follows:
"-shall give to the Speaker a written statement of the question".
I think it would be preferable, in the future, for the hon. members who wish to raise a question of privilege, under the provisions of standing order 17, to not only advise the Speaker, within the time limit stipulated by the standing order, that they wish to raise 29180-3021
a question of privilege, but also to give an indication of its subject matter.


Mr.   Roberi-B. Major@Argenteuil: Mr. Speaker, since it was very late yesterday when we received the official report of the House of Commons Debates for Wednesday, January 22, this is the first opportunity I have to raise this matter.
On that day the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) put to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) the following question, and I quote:
Can he tell the house if he will make investigations on the mining rights presently owned by some financiers in the far north of Quebec, who are not only interested in seeing the future international airport built on the north shore of the St. Lawrence, in order to meet their needs better, but who have recently paid the cost of a study conducted by a certain firm, in co-operation with five members of parliament, in order to prove that the future international airport should be located at Sainte-Scholastique, in the constituency of Deux-Montagnes?
Mr. Speaker, the report on the study concerning the Montreal international airport, which was submitted to the Department of Transport by the Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes intermunicipal board was commissioned and paid for by that board, in a spirit of co-operation and motivation seldom displayed by public bodies.
The 43 municipalities in Argenteuil realized, as early as last summer, the economic significance for our area of the future international airport.
I take this opportunity to publicly congratulate all the mayor and reeves for their initiative-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understand the
desire of the hon. member to congratulate the mayor concerned. However, I have to interrupt him at this time. I do not think that there is a question of privilege unless he wishes to move a motion at this time in order to follow up the question which was raised. And, as I do not think this is the intention of the hon. member, I must therefore rule that there is no question of privilege and that there should not be any debate on the matter raised by the hon. member.
January 24, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry

[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)



AGREEMENT TO FORGO SITTING ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 28

['Mr. Speaker, in accordance with standing order 41 (2), I should like to table in English and in French copies of the preliminary report of the ministerial mission sent to Latin America from October 27 to November 27, 1968, as well as a relevant press release.']
Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, further to the announcement of business I made yesterday, I think there is general agreement to an order of the house that the sitting of the house on Tuesday, January 28, be suspended. Perhaps that could be made an order of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it so agreed and ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



Mr. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with standing order 41 (2), I should like to table in English and in French copies of the preliminary report of the ministerial mission sent to Latin America from October 27 to November 27, 1968, as well as a relevant press release.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Speaking on the problem of recognizing China the Prime Minister said on November 8:
Our concern is that the government of Taiwan not be disregarded in the process.
When the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) was asked on the evening of Tuesday, January 21, if relations would have to be broken with Formosa, he replied:
I would hesitate to answer that question, but it is quite possible.
Will the Prime Minister now say what the government's policy on this matter is at this time?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: No, Mr. Speaker. The government's further policy will be announced in due course. When
[Mr. Speaker.)
the Secretary of State for External Affairs replied in the house yesterday to questions asked on the subject, he repeated what the government's position in this matter is.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question that arises from statements I believe attributed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the Prime Minister now in a position to announce that definitive plans have been made to allow the exchange of views between the government of Canada and the new administration of the United States on the matter I referred to in my previous question, as well as on other matters of mutual concern?


Mr. Trudeau:: No, Mr. Speaker. No definitive plans have been made in that regard yet.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether he does not think that the game of uncertainty in connection with the recognition discussions should end, since it is creating difficulty in other parts of the world and particularly at the moment in Formosa. When the Secretary of State for External Affairs last Tuesday night was asked by Mr. Collins on the C.B.C. program "Something Else" if we will have to break relations with Formosa was he stating government policy when he said "I would hesitate to answer that question, but it is quite possible." What is the meaning of those words?
Will the Prime Minister make a statement that will restore a certain degree of hope that the people of Formosa are not going to be sacrificed in any action that is taken?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There is no question of
sacrificing the people of Formosa, Mr. Speaker. The position of the government is that the fate of the people of Formosa should be determined by those people themselves. But in the matter of accusing the government of conducting a shell game of uncertainty-


John George Diefenbaker: That is what you have been doing.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman says that is what we have been doing-


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -yet in this morning's
editorial page of the Globe and Mail I read that it was "govemment-by-surprise." We
January 24, 1969	COMMONS
cannot at the same time as we are conducting government by consultation and discussion be accused of conducting government by surprise. We are not conducting a shell game of uncertainty. We are discussing these questions at great length with the Canadian public, and there is hardly substance there for government by surprise.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmonl):: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, in view of the concern of many Canadians with respect to these moves by the government, and the respective interest both in mainland and nationalist China, would the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs very shortly make a statement with respect to our position on both of these countries, and the proposal we plan to set forward, so that we can have increased communications with mainland China and carry on some kind of effective communication with nationalist China?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we hope this will be the result of our policy; but once again I repeat the position of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, that we plan to enter into consultation with the Peking government. This will be done at a time and in a place which we will decide; but until both consultations have begun we do not want to take a position on the government of Taiwan.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I did not clarify my supplementary question enough. I think it is important, as I am sure the Prime Minister would agree, that before any major changes are made-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please-


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: -we should have a clear statement from the government.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have some questions for the Prime Minister relating to the same subject, and asked from the opposite position from that taken by the other hon. members who have asked questions. I would like to know from the right hon. Prime Minister if he would be kind enough to tell us whether the direct discussions with Peking regarding an exchange of representatives have started. I gather they have not started yet and, if so, would the Prime Minister indicate whether any definite date for the commencement of those talks has been set?
DEBATES	4769
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, the talks have not begun, nor have we fixed a date. We are now in the process of finding a foreign capital to which both Peking and the government of Canada are accredited, and which would be an appropriate place for these talks to take place.


David Lewis: In view of the fact that, contrary to expressions used this morning, the government of Taiwan does not represent any part of China, and in view of the fact that the government of that country occupies the absurd position of having a permanent seat on the Security Council, as a big power-


John George Diefenbaker: What is this-a speech?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please-


David Lewis: -and since it is not a big power-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member would start to ask his question.


David Lewis: With respect, Mr. Speaker, in view of the line which previous questions took, I had to indicate that I am asking this question to make sure that my question is understood in the proper context. I would like to ask the right hon. gentleman whether the government is also initiating discussions to have the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek removed from the permanent seat on the Security Council, in order to make room for a seat by mainland China, to which that seat belongs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, the house will recall that at the session of the United Nations General Assembly in 1966 Canada's position as stated by the then Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Hon. Paul Martin, was that this should be done, that some provision should be made-


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Not in 1968.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will explain the point if you will be patient. The position was taken that the People's Republic of China should be the China recognized in the charter. We were not able to get off the ground with that position, although we did a great deal of lobbying with some friendly countries. It was then that we decided perhaps the best way to proceed was through bilateral action by Canada; but we cannot persuade the 130 or so countries of the United Nations to do this, with some majority.


An hon. Member:: You mean one country.
4770	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No. It is not a vote of 130 to 1. Then we decided to proceed unilaterally. I am glad of the way the question is asked. I know the position of the hon. member on this particular question. I would point out that there has been a good deal of questioning in the house about the position of the government, and I have yet to see the position of the Conservative party on the question.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question, for clarification. Would the Prime Minister not agree that the recognition of mainland China and the substitution of mainland China for Formosa in the United Nations are two separate and distinct problems.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, I would, Mr. Speaker. [Translation]



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the government house leader.
I should like to ask him if he can give us some explanations concerning the fact that reports nos. 8 and 9 of the standing committee on health, welfare and social affairs which held meetings in early December, have not been published as yet. Could the government house leader give us some explanations about this matter and assure us that the reports will soon be made available, as today is January 24 and we are awaiting the French version?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I will make an inquiry and report to the house.



CAPITAL PUNISHMENT


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
In view of the considerable number of murders in Canada, would the minister tell us whether he considers re-establishing capital punishment?


Mr. Speaker:: Apparently there is no reply to the question. The Chair will therefore recognize the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.

DEBATES	January 24, 1969



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Does he expect in the near future to be in a position to make a statement to the house as a result of the study which his department has been making for the past several months on the question of the consolidation of Canadian military bases.


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I think I should congratulate the hon. member for his sustained interest in this problem. The decision flowing from the studies that have been made in the Department of National Defence I do not think would call for a statement in the house. That would be in the nature of an announcement or release in respect of administrative procedures, which would follow through whenever decisions are taken.


George Harris Hees: Does the minister expect in the near future to be in a position to make any of the various types of utterances which he has mentioned.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I do expect so, sir.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Do we
understand from the minister's answer that the base consolidation study has now been completed?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Yes.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breion-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister at an early opportunity report to parliament the details of the implementation of any and all cultural agreements involving France and Canada, including the amounts of any federal contribution, the amounts expended or contributed by France in Canada and the numbers and kinds of personnel exchanged between France on the one hand and Canada on the other?


Mr. Speaker:: The question is in order to the extent that the hon. member is asking whether the Prime Minister proposes to make a statement, and may be answered yes or no.
January 24, 19S9	COMMONS


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: No; I do not propose to make such a statement but I am sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs might consider one.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the umbrella agreement signed between France and the federal government is still in effect, and is it the government's intention to renew that agreement?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I know the umbrella is still open, but I do not know whether there is any terminal date to it. I am sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs would be delighted to consider such questions.



THE SENATE


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
As there were many vacancies in the Senate lately, and as there is an additional one due to the death, yesterday, of the hon. Wallace McCutcheon, would the Prime Minister consider appointing shortly Miss Judy LaMarsh, former Secretary of State, to the gilded cage of the Senate?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



VANCOUVER, B.C.-EMPTY SHIPS LEAVING PORT

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Economic Affairs whether he is in a position today to reply to the question raised yesterday, and indicate whether in fact empty ships are leaving Vancouver harbour?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and the information provided by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Homer) was accurate. One vessel has sailed without a cargo, with arrangements having been made for later shipment of the grain. Similar arrangements are being discussed concerning the second vessel.
DEBATES	4771
Inquiries of the Ministry



CLOSING OF OATS, BARLEY AND WHEAT POOL ACCOUNTS

Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I might use this occasion to say I have been informed by the Canadian Wheat Board that it is their intention to close the 1967 oats, barley and wheat pool accounts on the following dates: Oats, January 31; barley, February 14 and-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this is not the time for statements like this. If the minister wants to make it, he should revert to motions.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to answer questions that were raised in the house last week but if I am not allowed to do so-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: This is not a reply to the question asked. It is a smokescreen.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs stated on Monday, December 9, that he favoured the drawing up by his department of a charter of the rights of the consumers, could the Prime Minister tell us if such a charter will be presented together with the charter of human rights of if both will be merged into a single one?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: No, Mr. Speaker, there is no question of merging the charters. The question of the economic rights of man will be dealt with when the federal government brief is considered and we shall then explain why this aspect of the rights of the citizen must not be considered together with the one that deals with political and legal rights.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
I wish to thank the Prime Minister for his answer, and I would like him to clarify it so as to tell us if there will be two different charters of if they will be merged into a single one. Could he dwell a little more on that matter?
January 24, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I can only repeat, Mr. Speaker, what I have said. The two charters will not be merged into a single one; there is no question of putting into the charter of human rights, which shall be discussed at the federal-provincial conference, the consumer charter or even elements of it. I have already explained why.



VOCATIONAL TRAINING


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the answer received from the Minister of Manpower and Immigration on January 21, in which he indicated that no additional funds would be allocated for vocational training in technical schools, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether, having in mind his statement that with the elimination of the municipal winter works program additional funds would be provided for the upgrading of such technical schools as require it, he would now agree that there should be funds allotted for such a purpose, particularly because of the urgency connected with this situation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question is argumentative.


John Leroy Skoberg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do believe there is real urgency and I did not intend any argumentative purpose in asking the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I cannot interpret the hon. member's intention, I can only interpret the question.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. On December 17 I asked him a question regarding an Indian girl who had been incarcerated in Don jail. He replied that he would investigate this matter and report to the house. Is he now ready to do so?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, the minister was called to an urgent meeting. I will bring this matter to his attention and endeavour to have some kind of reply for the hon. member shortly.



ROYAL CANADIAN MINT


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. I ask him whether, because of the irritation of the public and the confusion caused by the fact that the present issues of quarters and nickels are almost identical, any consideration has been given to changing the shape of either of these coins.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some doubt whether this is a matter of urgency, but perhaps because of the interest in the question I will allow the minister to reply.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Not at the present time, Mr. Speaker.



POTATOES-TRADE COMMISSION TO SEEK MARKETS

David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I wonder whether, in view of the very large volume of potatoes still in storage and the continuing depressed market with regard, particularly, to potato stock and seed potatoes, the minister or his department has received a request for the establishment of a special trade commission to seek out new markets overseas for seed potatoes. If so, is the minister giving consideration to mounting such a trade commission?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, no such commission has been set up in the past. I have not received a request. I shall inquire whether the department has, and we will do our best to help in this matter.



ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development, but in his absence I direct it to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the term of office of the chairman of the Atlantic Development Board has expired, would the Prime Minister say whether a replacement has been made; and if not, what is the position of the board now?
January 24, 1969	COMMONS


Mr. Bell:: It is in limbo.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, the minister is not supposed to be in the house this morning, but he is supposed to be here on Monday. I wonder if the hon. member himself was here yesterday, because it is my recollection that the question was answered at that time.


Some hon. Members:: No.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS   CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE-ATTENDANCE OF PARTY OBSERVERS-POSITION PAPERS

David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question with regard to the forthcoming constitutional conference which is to open on February 10. I ask when we may expect advice as to observers at the conference from the various parties in this house. I gather the government party as well as opposition parties would be included. Also, when may we expect to have the federal position papers made public, so we might study them before the conference starts?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: With regard to the observers, Mr. Speaker, a decision was reached for the December conference, and it is my recollection that the same decision will apply to this one. But I will check on that. On the second question, we have followed the same procedure as previously, that is, the previous date which was set. The secretariat has written to the provinces suggesting two dates, one for the publication of the report of the continuing committee of officials, and another for the publication of the position papers of the various governments. I have had no reply yet, but I know these letters were sent earlier this week or last week.


David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Prime Minister recall the dates which were suggested by the secretariat for those two matters?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In the case of the memoranda, or position papers, of the governments, yes; it is the Friday before the conference begins. We suggested this date because that was what had been agreed in December, namely the Friday before the conference began. Concerning the date of the continuing committee of officials, this technically is not a matter for the federal government but for the secretariat. I do believe, however, that they 29180-303
DEBATES	4773
Inquiries of the Ministry suggested dates perhaps a week or five days previous to the papers of the respective governments, which would be the Monday before the Friday or something like that.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister on one of the non-social aspects of the current Paris talks. Can he advise if the Canadian government is being kept informed of negotiations between the governments of France and Quebec respecting co-operation in communications satellites, and whether the Canadian government regards communications as an area covered by the so-called umbrella agreement of 1965?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer that the Secretary of State for External Affairs be asked this question. I do not mind however giving the information as I know it. I do not believe we have been advised of the subject matters of the talks, but this is subject to check with the department. We are taking the position, or we are operating on the assumption, that they are only talks as covered by the umbrella agreement. The hon. member is also asking me, as a matter of opinion, whether communications would be covered by this agreement. It is my understanding that they would not, but once again this is just a tentative answer. This question would have to be asked of the minister, and he would have to take advice on it.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. On Wednesday last, in reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean), the minister indicated that the chief of staff during his visit to France would be primarily interested in securing some training manuals in French which the Canadian Forces are trying to procure in Canada. I ask the minister whether these are Canadian manuals translated into the French language, or French manuals which will be used in the Canadian forces; and are they applicable to Canadian training methods?
January 24, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: No, Mr. Speaker. The problem generally that we are facing is that since we have what we call French designated bases, we have to provide in some very specific trades a manual in French, the translation of which would be quite extensive if it was done from scratch. The idea behind this particular inquiry is to find out whether you could not in some specific trade-like, for instance, in the navy-use already existing manuals in French. This is the only purpose now. We have to ascertain whether these things could be co-ordinated with the kind of operations that we carry out in Canada.


Donald MacInnis: Am I to understand from the minister that these are French training manuals, and that they are compatible with Canadian methods of training? Possibly the minister could also tell me what has happened to the unification idea that was so forcefully put forward by the previous minister, because it seems to me that segregation is now taking place in the forces.



AGRICULTURE


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I was asked yesterday by the hon. member for Sas-katoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave), as reported in Hansard at page 4714, the right hand side of the page, if the minister would consider tabling the results of the study on the nationalization of the dairy industry. I must say that I was caught by surprise by the word "nationalization"; I never thought my department was that leftist.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Miller Bell: All departments are.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I inquired about the matter and found there has indeed been such a study, but it was concerned with the modernization of the industry. A program designed to encourage the modernization of dairy processing and manufacturing plants was developed, but difficulties with the Minister of Finance forced us to delay implementation of this program. We hope to reactivate it as soon as possible. In the meantime, the document to which the hon. member was referring is still an internal document and will not be tabled.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State is absent today and I have not yet had an answer to the reaction of the C.B.C. to the two shows the other night, "Neighbours" and "The Basement". Would the Minister of Justice consider placing these two films before the law officers of the Crown with a view to ascertaining whether their pornographic content is of such a nature as, in the opinion of the law officers, to constitute an offence against the obscenity sections of the Criminal Code? I ask this because there is no other way in which Canadians can be protected against one or two producers who flout pornography regularly on the C.B.C.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, for that type of subject I need the very mature advice of my colleague the Solicitor General, who is directly responsible for the police. We will have a chat about that.


John George Diefenbaker: Now that the Minister of Justice has bowed to the superior knowledge of the Solicitor General I shall expect a statement to be made at an early date.


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Solicitor General):: I have tried to analyse the significance of the right hon. gentleman's remarks, and will take his suggestion under consideration.


Mr. Barney Danson (North York):: My question is supplementary to that asked by the right hon. member for Prince Albert. Can the minister tell us when this disgusting broadcast will be rebroadcast?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



CLOSING OF CROP ACCOUNTS-DATE OF FINAL PAYMENTS

Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Now that the Wheat Board has announced the dates for the closing of the 1967-68 crop accounts, can the hon. gentleman indicate when the final payment cheques will be going out to the farmers?
January 24, 1969	COMMONS


Jean-Luc Pepin: By the first week in April, or about that time, Mr. Speaker.



ASSISTANCE TO NATIONAL SKI TEAM

André-Gilles Fortin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Last week, I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether the national ski team had made a request for financial aid and, if so, how much it had received. As the Parliamentary Secretary promised me an answer, I ask him if he can give it to us today?


Mr. Rosaire Gendron (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the presence of the
minister will be required in the house on Monday, and I believe he will be pleased to answer the hon. member.



ADVANCES TO ASSIST IN DRYING OPERATIONS

Stanley James Korchinski: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Can the minister tell us when he will be in a position to introduce legislation which will provide for further advances to farmers to assist them in the drying of their grain?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The Minister without Portfolio, who is in charge of this legislation, might wish to answer that question.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: It is our hope that we shall be able to do this at an early date.


Stanley James Korchinski: Is a month not long
enough?



FISHERIES


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: My
question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Speaker. In his absence today, though I think he is supposed to be here, I will direct it to the Minister of Defence Production, knowing the great interest he takes in the seal fishing industry. I would ask him whether, in view of the fact that veteran sealers believe the opening date for the seal harvest in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, set for 29180-3031
DEBATES	4775
Inquiries of the Ministry March 18, is too late, and want the date set ahead to March 12, the government has given any consideration to changing to the earlier date.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Defence Production):: I would have to take the question as notice and give a reply as soon as possible.


Walter C. Carter: A supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the disastrous condition of last year's fur seal market, due to the tremendous volume of adverse publicity about the annual harvest, can the minister say whether market conditions are expected to improve this year?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I doubt whether this question is in order. It seems to me the hon. member is asking the minister to express an opinion, and for that reason I do not think the question can be allowed.


Walter C. Carter: May I emphasize my question, then? Can the minister give the depressed fur seal industry a helping hand by persuading the Prime Minister to buy a fur seal coat to wear on suitable occasions?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I understand that the Prime Minister already has a fur coat.


John George Diefenbaker: That will not make him very popular.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I hope you were paying particular attention to that question-by whom it was posed, the type of question, and the portfolio held by the minister to whom it was directed, so that we can in future direct questions to the minister from the Maritimes-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am glad the hon. member brought this to my attention. Ex post facto I declare both the question and the answer out of order.



BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, according to a recommendation made by the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, which is dealing with the bill on the official languages, bilingual districts are to be set up in Canada. From what we hear, no bilingual districts would be set up in British Columbia and in Newfoundland. I

January 24, 1969
Criminal Code
would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he would consider establishing other standards so that bilingual districts might be created in those two provinces which are located at both ends of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The question put by the hon. member is much too general, and I do not think it can be asked at this time. The hon. member might put it on the order paper.
fEnglish1



AVAILABILITY OF EASTERN CANADIAN PORTS

Thomas Miller Bell: A question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce for the week end, Mr. Speaker: The next time he gives the house a rundown of the grain export situation in Vancouver, would he make available the latest figures and prospects for eastern Canadian ports, particularly Saint John and Halifax, with regard to grain exports, such ports being ready, available, and-I promise-free from bottlenecks.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, January 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) for the second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs of Bill C-150, to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act, and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act.
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)
Mr. Bernard Dumoni (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, today, the Canadian Parliament has to deal with a bill to amend the Criminal Code, in matters of morality and private behaviour.
It seems that the papers, as a whole, have been concerned with problems of morals and of sex and with some others which were discussed and examined with the utmost caution.
We are witnessing today a strong trend towards exhibitionism and the public display 
of obcenities. I was reading yesterday, in a newspaper, an article which made we wonder if here, in Canada, there is any need for amendments such as those recommended by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner). I would like to quote this article. The heading reads as follows:
Dutch homosexuals demonstrate ... peacefully. Yesterday, in the Hague, about a hundred homosexuals and lesbians held a noisy demonstration in front of the Dutch Parliament, protesting against a national law which stipulates that adults of the same sex having relations are liable to a four year jail term.
So, Holland, a country known all over the world for its culture and learning, is imposing a four year jail term with regard to relations between adults of the same sex, while here, in Canada, we seek to legalize such behaviour.
I wonder whether it is not this lack of responsibility which carries with it the right or the power to amend the Criminal Code because at the end of the article, we could also read:
The third sex supporters gave out to members of parliament-
-in Holland-
-small heart-shaped candies on which were inscribed slogans such as: "love", "kisses", and so on.
When we realize that by amending the Criminal Code we make it possible to legalize all these things in Canada, we, of the Rallie-ment Creditiste, object to it and I should like to say to the Minister of Justice that the Progressive Conservative member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) was right in presenting his amendment because it aroused public opinion which was becoming unconcerned. I thought the minister wanted to divide the omnibus bill.
In fact, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Calgary North made that suggestion because it reads:
(a)	referring to abortion;
The government could have introduced a bill on that subject.
(b)	referring to homosexuality and gross indecency;
That amendment should not be included in the omnibus bill. A separate measure should have been moved.
(c)	referring to lotteries and gambling;
In my opinion, these matters should have been dealt with in a bill. With a free vote which we, of the Ralliement Creditiste have
January 24, 1969

been asking for for several years, all hon. members could follow the dictates of their own conscience. They should not be forced to take a particular stand by the leader of a party or a Prime Minister who even subjects his party to a continuous dictatorship.
Finally, the fourth part of the amendment moved by the hon. member, referred to, and I quote:
(d)	all the remaining clauses of the bill.
We, of the Ralliement Creditiste, were in favour of this amendment and I think it sets a good example to the Minister of Justice. I hope the committee will heed this amendment to divide the omnibus bill in four separate bills.
Moreover, I would ask the Minister of Justice and the members of the committee to give special attention to a comment we received this morning from the Canadian association of automobile drivers to the effect that-
Refusal to submit to the breathalizer test should not be considered a criminal offence.
I think this constructive criticism should be examined very seriously for it would be a shame if an individual who refuses to submit to the breathalizer test were to have a bad record for the rest of his life. I will therefore ask the minister to give serious consideration to this suggestion.
May I tell the minister-I referred to this a moment ago-that there are certainly some very good things in the bill, such, for instance, as the means to control the use of firearms.
We are compelled, at the present moment, to oppose the omnibus bill, for the reasons I mentioned earlier. On the other hand, it has its good points and we would like to see those passed.
I would also like to remind him that, with the youthful drive he has demonstrated in drafting some bills, he said himself that he wanted the bill split, a statement for which I congratulate him.
I might tell him also that, the other day, I met the secretary of an hon. member who told me: "If I had been a delegate to the Liberal convention, I would have cast my vote for the Minister of Justice, to have him as our leader." Had he been chosen, no doubt the bill would have been split, for I am quite sure the orders come from above, from the "big chief", thus bringing dictatorship in the very midst of a party where people, like the Minister of Justice, are not free to say what
Criminal Code
they think. If it may be of some comfort to the minister, I will tell him that, happily for us, that hon. member's secretary is a creditiste, and she has promised she would go on voting for us.
I thought that the amendment moved yesterday by the hon. member for Calgary North was very responsible and I shall like now to make a few remarks, after listening last night to the parliamentary leader of the New Democratic party, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis).
I am surprised that as a socialist in Canada, the hon. member for York South does not realize that England, with its abusive legislation in every field-according to him the present bill does not go far enough-is courting disaster. As a socialist in Canada, he should understand better, in the light of the British experience, that by passing too strict a legislation, Canada is courting disaster and ruin.
These are somewhat the remarks I wanted to make about what he said, namely that the bill should be harsher.
Since those who spoke before were not lawyers and that I am not one either, I shall quote now an excerpt which I found quite relevant in a letter addressed to the Marquis of Argenson:
The reason I became so disgusted with the law is the abundance of useless notions with which they wanted to fill my mind. "To the point", that is my slogan.
We, of the Ralliement Creditiste, want to be aware of things concerning morality or the various bills which can affect tremendously the life of the Canadian people. Having listened to all those lawyers, I shall say to them: When justice has spoken, humanity must also have its say.
I am part of humanity, as the father of a family.
It is at home that I have the opportunity to exchange views, to discuss things and this is why I think that we should not listen to free thinkers who believe that, with a frank discussion of these things, it will no longer be possible to accuse society of dissimulation and hypocrisy.
We admit that hypocrisy, to cover up sins and moral perversion, has always existed. Men have always secretly attempted to hide every kind of scandalous behaviour for the simple reason that, because what they do is wrong, they prefer darkness to light.

January 24, 1969
Criminal Code
I must say that I am deeply disturbed by the fact that men and women persist in discussing openly these subjects which, for reasons of decency, should not be a matter of bold discussions, particularly in public, between men and women.
The problem of homosexuality and the resulting immorality has, in recent months, been dealt with too freely in the Canadian press. And the obscenities are only starting.
Even now parliamentary debates are crammed with useless details. Even now newspaper reports, public discussions, magazine articles, individual suggestions and advertisements deal freely with sexual and homosexual matters, which are becoming the butt of mockery and buffoonery.
An appeal is made to the avidity and curiosity of the reader, of the listener. Such programs, such writings flood the newspaper, book and magazine market. Now, many modern thinkers argue speciously that one is born a homosexual.
Similarly, some teach that alcoholism is not a sin but a disease. The alcoholic is simply the victim of an appetite for which he is not responsible. Alcoholism is merely an unfortunate thing, a simple result of the fatality which makes man what he is: a being to be pitied rather than blamed for his faults.
Accordingly, the homosexual, we are told, must not be blamed for his perversion. He is merely the victim of fate, and consequently not responsible for his antisocial behavior.
Of course, whether they be alcoholics, gamblers or homosexuals, they all refuse to accept any responsibility for their perversion, yet they give in freely to their appetites, proving that they have no desire to be rid of their passions.
[DOT] (12 noon)
In this omnibus bill, we read, among other things, on page 34, clause 14, which I will quote with the note in the margin:
Killing child
Subsection (2) of section 195 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
(2) ... A person commits homicide when he causes injury to a child before or during its birth as a result of which the child dies after becoming a human being-
The amendment states clearly "after becoming a human being, and subsection (1) of section 195 explains when a child becomes a human being:
A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded,

in a living state, from the body of its mother whether or not
(a)	it has breathed,
(b)	it has an independent circulation, or
(c)	the navel string is severed.
Now, the bill is amended by providing that an homicide will be committed when it has been established that life is present, and a proper explanation will follow.
Mr. Speaker, my 4-year-old child accompanied us when we went to visit relatives during the Christmas holidays of 1968-69 and getting close to his aunt asked her: "Auntie, may I hear your baby move"? How happy he was when he told us: "Mother, the baby moved!" When a 4-year-old child is able to detect the presence of life in the bosom of a woman who is 5 months pregnant, one wonders why they try to make us believe in this house that the presence of life in a child only appears in the 9th month of pregnancy or at birth. No, Mr. Speaker, we cannot as Christians accept that theory.
At this stage, and like the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who does it often, I would ask: "What does the people want? How could I hold a dialogue with them?
I have here a letter which a citizen of Montmagny addressed to the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert), who gave it to me this morning. I would like to quote it, because it is a source of reflection and bears witness to real Christian thinking. Here it is:
I take the liberty of writing to you to-night about the omnibus bill that will soon be brought before the House of Commons.
Monday evening, from 10 to 11 o'clock, on the rotten CBC network, we were shown a program that was apparently intended to cause the people to accept the human degradation of those who indulge in homosexuality. The result of this program is that many have been misled and think that these people are sick, while the real reason for their behaviour is an absence of God in their lives.
To prove my point, I refer to page 169 of the Bible, in the Testament, where Saint Paul the Apostle gives the reason for the sexual deviation of these people. Here are some extracts which I advise you to read and to have them read by your leader, Mr. Real Caouette. I am sure that you will find them interesting, as I know you are an earnest Catholic.
Here are the extracts from the Bible, by the Apostle Saint Paul. They are entitled: "The Universality of Sin'', l.-l, 18:32:
The Gentiles are away from the road to salvation. (20). For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse. (21) Because that, when they knew God,
January 24, 1969

they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; hut became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (22) Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. (26) For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature; (27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
(23) And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient. (29) Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers; (30) Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents; (31) Without understanding; covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:	(32) Who knowing
the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
So, it is all that. This person, who is following closely the proceedings in parliament, concluded by saying:
I hope that those quotations from the Bible will be for you a new inspiration in the arguments you might bring forward to try to stop this hateful bill which strikes even the child and takes away from him the right to be born.
But in this measure to legalize abortion on health grounds, the government leaves again that term without definition or qualification. This bill which allegedly calls for a minor reform is found to be something else altogether when carefully looked at.
The amendments to the abortion legislation, as they appear in bill C-150, are in my view based on a concept of justice lacking both depth and recognition of the true implications of abortion.
If a human being has any right at all, the most important implied in all the others is certainly the right to live. This right is the very first one and the others depend on it. All the principles brought forward on human rights recognize this implicitly, but the proposed changes in the abortion laws do not.
The universal declaration of human rights states that:
Every one, as a person, has the right to life, freedom and security.
The Canadian Bill of Rights asserts:
The right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property-
These two documents mention also that all men are equal before the law.
Criminal Code
Proposed changes to the Criminal Code deny that equality by giving to the medical committees a discretionary life-and-death power over human beings still unborn. They also run counter to that section of the Declaration of human rights, adopted by the United Nations, to the effect that children have a right to be protected before birth as well as after.
The Minister of Justice proposes to ensure a balance between the child's and the mother's rights. However, there is no balance between the life of the child and the health of another person, especially when the word "health" can be interpreted as "happiness".
Our comfort, our security, even our health may be seriously impaired, then given back to us. Moreover, the child deprived of his life, will be for ever deprived of all his other rights.
It seems obvious to us that no bill on abortion has its place in a really just society and that no government really concerned about human rights would force its adoption.
In a remarkable report entitled "Abortion and human rights", prepared by the Alliance for life at the request of its chairman, Mrs. Joan Lusignan, of Hull, one reads:
Those human rights belong to all men, without any exception and, in a civilized society, it should be an obvious truth. However, today, as in the past, in our country as well as in other countries, some human beings are deprived of the most elementary and essential rights. By an irony of fate, it is justice itself which supports that injustice.
One of the ways of depriving man of his rights is simply to declare that some categories of human beings are not after all human beings. Thus, it is asserted in the Criminal Code that a child becomes a human being at the time of his birth only. With such an assertion, one may rationalize abortion, on the ground that it does not destroy a human life.
I gave earlier the example of a 4-year-old child who can detect the presence of life, and we know that life exists three weeks after the conjugal act. If a 4-year-old child realizes that life exists in the womb of his mother, five months pregnant, how is it possible to make hon. members believe that life does really exist only after nine months of pregnancy?
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
I raise a fundamental question, and yet it is very seldom raised. If parliament wishes to decree that certain human beings are not human, how could a constitution guarantee

January 24, 1969
Criminal Code
human rights? What would prevent our legislators to limit these rights by restricting the meaning of the term "human being"?
Some legal fiction may be useful and acceptable, but a legal fiction which can be used for the very purpose of denying fundamental human rights is dangerous and cannot be condoned. No government, no legislative body, no judicial body can assume the right to redefine the term "human being" so arbitrarily.
There are very few assertions as arbitrary as this false statement, though widespread, that life begins at birth only. Its falseness should be obvious to the future mother who has already felt her child moving in her womb. And yet she may not know that these movements began even before she felt them during the second month of her pregnancy. The heart starts beating about three weeks after conception and it is at that time that the mother knows for sure that she is pregnant.
For centuries, there have been numerous discussions as to the time when life begins in the human foetus. However, as in those days one did not have the tools of modern scientific research, most of those discussions turned into sterile speculations. Modern science proves that life begins with conception.
This is not a theological opinion, but a scientific fact. In fact, contrary to what many people think, no Christian church has ever laid down a dogma in this respect. The findings of science in this respect are set forth in a non-denominational book, entitled "The Canadian mother and her child" published by the government of Canada, in which we read on page 24:
One of those spermatozoa and the ovule meet and unite and a new life begins.
Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that books, distributed all over Canada, contain certain statements and because we are trying to amend the criminal code to legalize abortion, I shall take the liberty, at this stage, to express the opinion of our leader, the member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) with whom I spoke on his return from a trip to Taiwan, and who asked me to summarize the Creditiste viewpoint.
First, as far as abortion is concerned, we are entirely against it; secondly, we are against homosexuality too. As to lotteries, if the bill was split up, we would be able to look fully into the matter. And finally, we are all in favour of breathalyzers but we urge

the government to consider seriously the constructive criticism we have received from the organization I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks.
If our leader takes such a stand, it is precisely because we discussed those matters at length in caucus. I am a faithful exponent of his opinion and, at the same time, I freely express my own. That is why I urge the Prime Minister, if freedom still exists in Canada, to allow a free vote on this question, in order to release the Quebec members who, in addition to being Christians, are like myself practising Catholics. They will vote in favour of this bill which must be passed at all costs.
The Minister of Justice would have preferred to introduce as many bills as the Conservative member proposed in his amendment. He had already mentioned it and I am convinced that were it not for the dictatorship that exists within the Liberal party and the majority government, Quebec members would all vote against that legislation designed to legalize abortion. I therefore ask them, as Christians and as Catholics, to unite and have that section forever removed from the omnibus bill which will be passed casually, but which will really legalize abortion.
On the other hand, we personally doubt that the draftsmen of the proposed legislation realized that in referring to obscenity between consenting adults they were using the same language used by St. Paul in Chapter I of his Epistle to the Romans, in which God abandoned men to a punishment inflicted upon them by themselves, either in a secret and infamous solitude or, what is worse, in a depraved society, by mutual consent.
Today, we abandon God and God has abandoned us. He surrenders us to complete slavery and to the bondage of our own lusts. When man has reached a certain degree of corruption, when he is determined to abandon God and declare Him dead and buried, the only way to cure him, if there is any hope left, is to let him wallow in his excesses and his corruption. No other means are used by God to bring about in man a result that all warnings and previous punishments had been unable to achieve, that is, complete repentance. It is exactly what the father of the prodigal son did, letting his son go his own way. He let this rebellious son go, giving him his share of property, even though that property, in addition to his bad conduct, was to bring upon him a terrible misery of his own making, that is, the excesses of his own lusts. He repented in his conscience and
January 24, 1969

mended his ways. The father of this prodigal son is naturally the sublime image of the Father of all prodigal humans. And if we choose to go our own way, He abandons us to our own desires. God's kindness should lead us to repentance, but when we scorn His mercy, His love, His kindness and we decide to go our own way, then, we are also going to the piggery to learn-perhaps from the pigs- what we do not want to learn from God.
Moreover, we, the catholic people of Quebec-and I include here the Liberal and the Conservative members who would have the various parts of the omnibus bill introduced separately-wish that a free vote be taken in order not to feel tied down. On the other hand, I know that they are now begging the prime minister not to be the shepherd who, with a wave of his hand, would compel his whole flock of sheep to jump into the sea. Those catholic members of the "belle province" would like to be treated as free men, able to speak their mind in a country, where some hope of freedom still remains. Besides, I myself recognize, as those hon. members do, that the Pope is our common leader and that he should be obeyed. Now, this is what the Pope thinks of legalized abortion, and I quote:
Let it be considered also that a dangerous weapon would thus be placed in the hands of those public authorities who take no heed of moral exigencies.
Who could blame a government for applying to the solution of the problems of the community those means acknowledged to be licit for married couples in the solution of a family problem? Who will stop rulers from favoring, from even imposing upon their peoples, if they were to consider it necessary, the methods of contraception which they judge to be most efficacious?
And this applies to the subject of abortion mentioned in the bill. And the quotation goes on:
In such a way men, wishing to avoid individual, family or social difficulties encountered in the observance of the divine law, would reach the point of placing at the mercy of the intervention of public authorities the most personal and most reserved sector of conjugal intimacy.
Consequently, if the mission of generating life is not to be exposed to the arbitrary will of men, one must necessarily recognize insurmountable limits to the possibility of man's domination over his own body and its functions; .. . limits which no man, whether a private individual or one invested with authority, may licitly surpass. And such limits cannot be determined otherwise than by the respect due to the integrity of the human organism and its functions, according to the principles recalled earlier, and also according to the correct understanding of the "principle of totality" illustrated by our predecessor Pope Pius XII.
Criminal Code
It can be foreseen that this teaching will perhaps not be easily received by all; too numerous are those voices-amplified by the modern means of propaganda-which are contrary to the voice of the church. To tell the truth, the church is not surprised to be made, like her divine Founder, a "sign of contradiction"; yet she does not because of this cease to proclaim with humble firmness the entire moral law, both natural and evangelical. The church did not create that legislation, and thus could not be the arbiter thereof; the church is only a depositary and an interpreter, without ever being allowed to proclaim lawful something which is not, because it is deeply and unalterably opposed to the true welfare of mankind.
o (12:20 p.m.)
By upholding marital ethics as a whole, the church knows that it helps the establishment of a truly humanistic civilization. It urges human beings not to avoid their responsibility by relying on technical devices, it thereby upholds the dignity of the couple. Faithful to the teaching as well as to the example of the Saviour, it shows itself as the sincere and disinterested friend of men whom it wishes to help, even 2s they start on their pilgrimage, here below, to share, as would beloved sons, the life of the living God.
This statement is supported by Dr. L. Kessel, Director of the Department of Biology at the University of San Francisco, who by the way, is a Presbyterian. I quote:
Scientific evidence clearly shows that life starts at conception.
He adds:
The rapid pace of the embryonic development shows us the human life in its most intensive stage of activity.
Confronted with such statements and such awareness, we as members of Parliament must do our daily duty, we, who are free men who must indicate it by voting freely, are demanding, loud and clear, with the public at large and with those intermediate bodies which will be notified tomorrow and will have to submit some briefs, that this shameful bill brought in the Parliament of Canada be withdrawn.
To confirm what I say I have in hand a statement from our bishops. I think that we, in Quebec, must be given the right to be Catholics and Christians just as we allow others to practise the religion of their choice.
As for us, we accept the Vatican's rulings. We recognize the Pope's authority and that of the bishops. I should like to quote a letter from the Catholic Episcopate of Canada:
The Catholic Episcopate of Canada, which comprises the Canadian cardinals, archbishops and bishops, has just published a statement denouncing unequivocally the federal bill tending to widen the scope of the legislation on abortion. The document first recalls the traditional way of thinking of

January 24, 1969
Criminal Code
the Church, reviewed by Vatican II, which condemns any direct attempt on the life of the foetus and makes it a serious duty to watch over life with extreme care as soon as conception has occurred.
Then, our bishops see the bill tabled in the House of Commons as clearly authorizing direct and voluntary abortion in some definite cases. The letter says: "Not only does that amendment to the law allows a direct and voluntary attack on the life of an innocent, but it invites the widest interpretations". The conclusion is clear and forces itself on us: the amendment is unacceptable, not only from the point of view of the Christian faith, but in view of the requirements of moral standards worthy of man and of public interest.
This article was published in the Quebec Action of February 8, 1968, under the name of Roger Bruneau. It went on:
The letter of our bishops is remarkably clear, concise and realistic. To those who think that life does not exist in the foetus in the sense of a protectable value, our bishops reply that the scientists hold, generally that life in the fertilized ovum has individual characteristics and that, in case of doubt, we are not allowed to destroy a human life.
The extreme cases provided for in the proposed amendment are obviously those which have the greater emotional impact on the population. The Canadian bishops recognize the tragic character of situations when a pregnancy threatens the mother's life or health, but even in those cases, to believe that voluntary abortion is permitted "is to ignore the sacred right of the foetus to live". When it is a matter of allowing abortion in order to protect the mother's health, "then it is the sacrifice of a superior value to a less precious good".
Since it causes the death of an innocent, abortion does not remove the tragic character of these situations.
To be in favour of progress does not nermit all licenses. "Must we be inclined to consider as an automatic step forward every measure proposed, sometimes rather strangely, as a liberalization or a broadening of the law?" This question is asked by the bishops who do not fail to make clear that "progress of civilization lies in the ever clearer recognition, both in theory, and practice, of the dignity of man, of its sacred character and inviolability".
This is a fine lesson for the followers of modernism, this theory already condemned by Pope Pius X. Modernists in the doctrinal sense are those who hold that we must, as we please, always redefine the traditional attitudes of the Church on moral and doctrinal matters to adapt to new theories and that the Church then must revise, transform, even abandon the traditional teachings.
This is the difference between orthodoxy and heterodoxy.
Our bishops are not cowed by those who hold that the amendment to the act would result in fewer illicit abortions. The facts registered in other countries, they suggest, would substantiate the contrary. Therefore, the argument does not seem valid, unless reliable statistics are produced. At present they are unavailable.
Legislation has an educational value, for the best or for the worst, and the legislator should not underestimate its power. These days, people stress

more and more the need for a distinction between religion and law, but it remains that men readily consider as morally right what the law itself allows.
The document issued by our bishops does more than recall Church doctrine on abortion or confute arguments in favour of a change in our faith. It offers real solutions to this serious problem and, from that angle, our bishops' statement is eminently constructive: the promotion of respect for human life by all possible means; a study on illicit abortions and on measures to eliminate them; some assistance to medical research; the enjoyment by mothers of all the facilities of medicine and psychiatry; a more understanding attitude towards unwed mothers and their children and a better response to their needs; additional help to mental diseases; ways and means of truly implementing a more adequate policy regarding society and family.
Any real emancipation depends on these solutions, which are not the easiest, but the most logical.
Every Catholic, every Christian and every Canadian citizen should make a point of reading and meditating carefully the Episcopate's statement on this matter of abortion. Let us hope that the government will take it into consideration and withdraw this amendment to the abortion act; if not, let us hope that at least the members of parliament will have the courage to vote against it.
Therefore if such articles are published and if they are so logical, I ask the Minister of Justice to seriously consider the few remarks I made on behalf of the Ralliement Creditiste, as a Christian and in addition as a practising Catholic.
I say again that we want a free vote so that each hon. member can vote according to his conscience and can come to his own decision as a free man.
Thus the Minister of Justice should at cabinet meetings seriously consider our remarks, because we are convinced that they are based on logic itself.


Mr. Gordon Sullivan (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, this bill contains many good and long overdue amendments. However, it has some objectionable provisions with which I cannot agree and cannot support. I specifically refer to the clauses of the bill relating to abortion.
I believe that life itself is a fundamental, basic human right from which all other rights spring. I believe there is no logical point between conception and death to which this right does not apply. I believe that a foetus is logically and biologically life from the moment of conception. I believe that no person can judge the comparative worth of one human being against another.
January 24, 1S69

I believe the law must protect human, individual rights, and particularly defenceless and innocent human life. I believe that if this house does not protect all human life then all human life will necessarily cease to have any secure foundation in law. I believe that any broadening of the abortion laws must have serious and deep-seated consequences for future generations. I believe that this house should not alter the abortion laws at the expense of unprotected human life.
We have heard, read and considered the arguments, the theories presented by doctors, theologians, philosophers, sociologists and just plain parents or prospective parents. The presentations made on behalf of both sides on this vexing question now before us were made with conviction and with the ultimate welfare of the people of this nation kept foremost in mind.
My opposition to this amendment stems from my conviction as a practitioner of the law that if the parliament of this land fails to protect the most basic right of man, the right of life itself, then any and all rights or ultimate welfare are sham and meaningless. The argument that a woman has a right over her own body misses the point involved here completely. She may have a right over her own body but she does not have the power of life and death over another distinct and separate life, that of her own child, even if it is unborn. Medical science recognizes a separate life; everyone does or we would not need this legislation. If it is not life then it is just a tumour or some other growth and no section of the Criminal Code is needed to remove a tumour. We know it is life. The reasons put forward for the taking of that life are not good enough. So let us hear no more of the argument that a woman has rights over her own body. Certainly she has, but she does not have the power of life or death over her child who has a separate life from hers.
I should like to read a letter by a professor of sociology of McMaster University which was written to the editor of the Hamilton Spectator and published on January 10, 1969. It is in answer to a letter from a woman who wrote to the same paper stating that abortion should be a woman's own choice. It is a short letter and reads as follows:
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
In an article (December 28), Myra MacPherson states that "a theory is evolving that abortion should be a woman's choice and that there should be no restrictive laws". Actually this is basically a very old theory. In ancient Rome, for example,
Criminal Code
a parent (in this case the father) had the absolute power of life and death over an unborn child.
The father continued to hold such power over his children after their birth. When a boy left his father's household he was more or less free of this domination, but in the case of a daughter, her father transferred his authority to her husband.
The head of a Roman household also held the power of life or death over his slaves. The Romans were very consistent: children, wives, slaves were regarded as property and the master could kill them if he wished-there were "no restrictive laws".
Since that time we have generally come to regard women, children, people of other races and countries not as property but as individuals possessed of full human rights. If this is progress, then we will clearly be taking a step backward by repealing that legislation that supports the human rights of the unborn child over the property rights of the mother.
It is signed by Franklin J. Henry, Associate Professor of Sociology, McMaster University.
I have read with great interest the minutes of proceedings and evidence taken before the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare and the many briefs that were filed before that committee. I am sure that every concerned member of this house has taken the time to do likewise. The discussions and cross-examinations that were permitted by the chairman ranged far and wide. There were differences of opinion that were basic and there was a good deal of hairsplitting which at one stage got to the point of whether or not there was life until five days after conception.
Through my reading of the proceedings and evidence including the briefs and other material it seemed to me that there was an inescapable conclusion that life began at conception. In other words, from the moment of conception a chain of activity was set up which when allowed to proceed would result in the birth approximately nine months later of a child. Opinions were expressed that for some length of time this living organism was perhaps only a potential child, that is, that this living organism did not implant itself on the side of the womb for five days, four days or six days. There was a great deal of hairsplitting concerning when the particular person who was giving evidence felt there was what he called life. The most reliable medical evidence-in fact nearly all the medical evidence-was to the effect that in the opinion of the doctors there was life at conception.
It is obvious that this life is innocent and unprotected. The amendments proposed ask hon. members of this house, therefore, to set a price on the taking of life. It is quite true it is life that we cannot see; but let us not be

January 24, 1969
Criminal Code
fooled that it is not life if we cannot see it. Dr. De Veber, Assistant Professor, Departments of Paediatrics and Pathological Chemistry at the University of Western Ontario and Dr. Walters, Professor of Obstetrics at the University of Western Ontario, testified and showed slides to the committee that the foetus was in fact a human being and alive.
Heartbeats have been detected and recorded as early as the 18th day after conception. Blood transfusions have been given to babies in the womb 26 weeks after conception. It has been proven that babies before birth react to pain. In some cases where it has been necessary to give a blood transfusion to a baby before he is born it has been observed that the baby will move away after the needle has been inserted. So far as medical science is able to determine there is some form of life at conception and it continues until death. Death may come to that unborn child before he or she emerges from the womb or it may come, as it will come to us, after we have exercised our right to live.
We must then consider what right we have to kill that unborn child. First of all, the child has a basic fundamental right to life. Second, by declaration in November, 1959, by the General Assembly of the United Nations and by statute enacting the Bill of Rights of Canada, both the United Nations and the parliament of Canada have recognized and declared the right of the child to life, liberty, security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof both before birth and after birth.
It is an indisputable fact that law recognizes the rights of the unborn. Legal authorities in Canada, England and the United States make this abundantly evident. I shall not take up the time of this house to review these authorities. Let it suffice to say that money and property can be left by will to unborn children; a child injured in the womb in an accident can bring action against the wrongdoer. There are many other examples that I need not recite because this matter is indisputable. How then are we asked in the house to pass this legislation? In essence we are being asked to give some people the right under certain circumstances to take life.
Only a year or so ago hon. members of this house were given a free vote on the question of abolition of capital punishment. This was the taking of a life by the state for the killing of another. It was the taking of the life of an adult who had been found by his peers to have deliberately taken the life of a fellow human being. On a free vote in this house

hon. members, and I would agree with their vote, voted against the taking of life.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
Let us examine the one prime reason that has been advanced for the alteration of the abortion laws. The proposed amendments ask that the members of this house approve of the taking of life-and I shall quote the section-"if the continuation of the pregnancy of such female person would or would be likely to endanger her life or health". I strongly object to widening the grounds to include the word "health". It is all well and good to set up committees in hospitals to define the word "health" but I do not believe on moral grounds that we can sacrifice one life to preserve the health of another person. Health is defined by the World Health Organization as follows:
Health is a state of complete physical, mental, emotional and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease and physical well-being.
Surely it must be obvious to all that any doctor could legally adopt this definition of health and we would then be faced under the present amendment with abortion almost upon request. I suppose on this wide definition of health an abortion committee could well find that a mother's mental health could be affected by worrying whether her baby would be deformed and grant her application for an abortion. Dr. John McKelvis, professor of obstetrics at the University of Minnesota, poses this very ironic question:
Do we kill nine babies to save one parent's emotional embarrassment at the production of an abnormal baby, where abnormalities may be reversible? Common sense would say, wait until they are bom. Find the ones who are deformed, find the ones who are blind and then kill them. Isn't this much more sensible than destroying normal babies?
Perhaps there are those who believe that a permissive society should indeed condone abortion on request. I cannot accept such an approach as being responsible, and as we watch our society develop I find more and more people concluding that this trend toward permissiveness is just not the answer.
Many socio-economic arguments were advanced for killing the unborn child. It must be the decision and the conscience of every member of this house when he or she is considering voting for this amendment to decide whether or not he or she has the right for an economic reason to kill. It makes it easier to kill something we have not seen, but if we think about it, it is still killing.
January 24, 1969

We next come to the consideration of the health of the mother. All of the doctors testifying before the committee said that the main reason the health of the mother would be affected would be for psychiatric reasons. Even the psychiatrists called rather pooh-poohed the arguments that abortion would help if, in fact, there was a real psychiatric problem with the mother. At least one of them testified that after some reassurance and the pregnancy continued the mother would be better off from a psychiatric point of view.
There are arguments used which can only be described as arguments of expediency. A family would be better off in dollars and cents if it did not have the added responsibilities of bringing up a retarded or deformed child. Some families and even some children might be better off without the unwanted child atmosphere that sometimes develops for economic reasons. But surely this is not a reason to kill. We are not dealing with crops which may be arbitrarily destroyed if considered inferior or surplus. We are dealing with human life even if unborn. We cannot encourage or even condone the destruction of such life merely because it may cost dollars and cents or cause inconvenience. Surely such a step is backward in the context of human rights.
As someone on the committee said, he would like to see the abortion law opened wide but he believed in proceeding bit by bit. So we have already had notice that this is only the start of the movement. If the members of this house permit the altering of these abortion laws as proposed there is no logical reason that can be submitted later why the unwanted, the unproductive, the deformed and the mentally retarded members of our society should not be exterminated.
I believe that, regardless of party affiliation, each hon. member of this house must vote on this issue according to his own conscience, as it goes far beyond party lines or other man made disciplines. For this reason I am opposing the proposed amendment concerning the law of abortion in its present form and intend to vote against this bill. This decision was not arrived at rashly or lightly. Opposition to this clause and the inclusion of this clause in the omnibus bill may distort the meaning of the votes cast by members who feel as I do. It is unfortunate that my opposing vote to this clause must also be cast against so many other clauses with which I concur. Unfortunately my conscience leaves me no choice.
Criminal Code
Contrary to some unfounded and untrue reports, Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform you and the members of this house that my position on this matter is the same now as it was before nomination day and as it was before the election, and I made this fact known publicly during the campaign. In conclusion I should also like to inform you, Mr. Speaker, and the members of this house that at no time did I get any request from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) to change or alter my position on this matter, and I would like to thank him publicly for this consideration.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, the speech of the hon. member who has just taken his seat is a clear indication of the reason the opposition advanced its proposal to the government to separate the various provisions of this bill. I have great sympathy for the hon. member and the manner in which he is torn. He has taken a position which happens to be similar to the position I take.
When one reads the bill, particularly a person such as I who works with the provisions of the Criminal Code throughout the weeks and the years, one finds many useful provisions in it. To be placed in the position of voting against the useful amendments contained in the bill simply because of the deep conviction one holds in respect of the objectionable parts is a very sorry position to be in.
The position taken by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat somewhat belies the position the minister took in saying that the bill had stood the test of a general election. He left the impression that because the Liberals were returned to office with a majority government that gave them a mandate to proceed with the bill as it stands. Not only that, he left the implication that the majority of the electorate in Canada, particularly those who elected Liberal candidates, were in favour of the provisions of this bill. That is not the case in respect of the hon. member who has just taken his seat. He made it quite clear to the electorate of his riding, that he was opposed to the principle of abortion, yet he was elected. The minister is wrong on that count.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
I suppose this bill could be called, as the minister has described it, part of the government's social legislation, the Magna Carta of the just society. When one reflects on it and what took place at the last session what have

January 24. 1969
Criminal Code
we got? We have divorce, abortion and homosexuality. This government has earned the distinction of dealing with divorce, abortion and homosexuality while the economy of the country is drifting extremely dangerously. It has not dealt with much else. I have raised these points in other debates. I am as broadminded as the next person, but I cannot help wondering whether the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) really knows what he is doing. He has had no hesitation in identifying himself with the provisions of this bill. He did so in March of last year.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) in his introductory remarks yesterday made it quite clear that he certainly is not the father of the bill and that the Prime Minister is going to be-I think this is what he said-indelibly linked with this legislation as its father. This is undoubtedly legislation of the Prime Minister. He is the father, rather than the Minister of Justice, of all these provisions relating to the permissive society. Now the Prime Minister has thrown the torch to the Minister of Justice, who with his usual elan has hurled himself into the breach in order to usher in that bright, new world in which we will all participate and which we all anticipate will come about as a result of these amendments. This is part of the Magna Carta of the just society.
Let us look at this legislation carefully. In its present form it is a mishmash of revision, amendment and redrafting of the Criminal Code. In this legislation, really the brainchild of the Prime Minister, the government opens the door not on the just society but rather on the permissive society. The question that occurs to me and persons like the hon. member who has just resumed his seat is, just how wide should this door be opened, and how wide is it going to be opened?
Let us consider the breathalyzer. The government has introduced compulsion and regimentation through the breathalyzer test. I speak as one-I do not like referring in debate to my background and do not do so very often-who has spent several years prosecuting as well as defending in criminal cases. What the bill says and what the law will say if it is passed in this form is: Take the breathalyzer test or be regarded as guilty. That is the attitude in this legislation. I take the position that such an attitude has no part in legislation passed by a free parliament in a free country operating on the basis of the democratic process upon which our system of justice has been built and is based.

In connection with homosexuality I say bluntly that while the Prime Minister may pride himself on his statement that the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation, he has in these various measures intruded to quite an extent into the bedrooms of the nation. In effect, so far as homosexuality is concerned the bill renders permissible what was previously a criminal offence. To that extent the Prime Minister, through his bill, has taken the government into the bedrooms of the nation. The basis of this legislation is the Prime Minister's belief that homosexuals will behave like gentlemen and that abortions will only be authorized when there is an overwhelming reason. Let me tell the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice that if homosexuals behaved like gentlemen they would not be homosexuals.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Erik Nielsen: In fact, they would be gentlemen. So far as abortion is concerned, the reasons for permitting it under any and all circumstances will prove to be as overwhelming as the reasons for inducing it at all. One assumes the Prime Minister feels that as a result of this legislation homosexuality can be restricted to the bedrooms of the nation. What guarantee is there of that? I believe the bill does refer to lavatories.
The government holds the distinction of liberalizing divorce, permitting homosexuality in private places between consenting adults, and allowing abortion under certain conditions. How wide are we going to open this door to the permissive society? The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) has gone on record as favouring a greater degree of permissiveness in narcotics regulation, particularly with regard to marijuana. One is permitted to inquire, or at least to conjecture, what kind of society we will have when all these amendments are in force, if what some of us fear is inherent in statements like those made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare comes about in legislative form.
What manner of society are we producing? Is this the Prime Minister's just society, a society where marijuana smoking, consenting adults, having secured an easy divorce from their previous spouses, childless as a result of repeated abortions, may now be compelled to take breathalyzer tests or be regarded as guilty of drunken driving?
Mr. Speaker, may I call it one o'clock?
At one o'clock the house took recess.
January 24, 1969



COMMONS DEBATES AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at 2 p.m.
Erik Nielsen: When we adjourned for lunch, Mr. Speaker, I was talking about the just society as opposed to the permissive society and pointing out how much more usefully the government could be using its time if it would devote itself to meaningful and constructive legislation for the creation of a just society rather than to what confronts us in the bill now before the house. Under this government the just society takes on an increasingly curious image.
In July of 1967 a commission of inquiry presided over by Mr. Justice Morrow was set up to inquire into a situation in the Hay River area. We often hear hon. members of this party, as well as of the N.D.P., speak about the sorry plight in which the Indian people find themselves in matters affecting the administration of justice. The recommendations made by Mr. Justice Morrow as a result of that inquiry have yet to be implemented.
I think it is worth while to bring to the attention of the house the fact that when the docket is dealt with in our northern courts each morning Indians comprise a sad and sorry parade before the justice of the peace or the magistrate. They are fined almost automatically and because they lack the money to pay they are automatically jailed for a myriad of offences. One wonders why the government is not acting on the recommendations which Mr. Justice Morrow of the Territorial Court of the Northwest Territories made almost a year ago.
The first recommendation was that the courts of the justices of the peace should be held either in proper courtrooms or in rented premises separate from police facilities. Imagine the mental impression which the Indian, in most cases uneducated and illiterate, receives when he appears before authority to be dealt with. How much more in the interests of justice it would be if these Indians could be dealt with in premises which do not smack of the authority of the police office.
The second recommendation was that new public buildings in northern communities should include some kind of courtroom with adequate seating for the public, and a minimum law library.
The third recommendation urged:
That justices of the peace be appointed only-after a broad process of consultation among knowledgeable persons, that appointments be for a fixed
Criminal Code
term, that they receive more assistance and information from the Department of Justice and the territorial government, and that they be paid by fees or honoraria, and not out of court costs assessed against the accused.
The commission next recommended that immediate consideration be given to the appointment of a second legally trained magistrate for the Northwest Territories. I would add that such a recommendation should apply to the Yukon also. The first recommendation was:
That the government of Canada give formal recognition to the principle of legal aid for indigents-
This is a subject about which we have been speaking in the present debate.
-in the Northwest Territories, not by the appointment of a public defender but by a system of legal aid by members of the bar for reasonable remuneration, and not dependent on court appointment.
Note that this is not just in connection with capital and semi-serious offences; it applies to all offences. How often a native Indian with limited intellect appears before the courts without even understanding the charge being read to him.
The sixth recommendation by Mr. Justice Morrow was that consideration be given to changing the whole attitude toward drunkenness so that it would cease to be treated as a crime. That falls within the purview of the minister. And so the recommendations go; I do not have time to read them all, but they have been public for a year and nothing has been done.


John Napier Turner: May I ask
the hon. member whether he is aware that the great majority of those recommendations have already been implemented.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I am basing my statement on, if not the last, the last but one issue of a newspaper which was instrumental in the commissioning of Mr. Justice Warren in July, 1967, in the first place. According to the lead editorial on the front page, we in the north are still waiting for the implementation of these recommendations. I do not get over to the Mackenzie very often because it is about 1,000 miles from my home town.


John Napier Turner: You are on
the wrong side of the river.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)


Erik Nielsen: I think I am on the right river though. In any event, the news media in the

January 24, 1969
Criminal Code
north are indicating that we are still awaiting the implementation of these recommendations. For example, I do not think that the second magistrate for the Northwest Territories has been appointed, which was one of the recommendations. I do not believe that counsel is now being provided for indigent native peoples in the north, certainly not in the Yukon, and this was another recommendation. I do not want to go down the whole list and embarrass the minister.


John Napier Turner: Is the hon. member aware that of 74 recommendations about 65 have been implemented.


Erik Nielsen: All I have here is a summary of 11 recommendations, the central, really important ones, and we are still waiting for their implementation. However, I will leave them with the minister and perhaps he will make some inquiries. I think he will find that at least on this occasion I am semi-accurate.
Now, about this just society. At the same time that the government is trying to create this society the ordinary Canadian, having had his right to possess arms seriously curtailed, will have no defence against the creatures of this new enlightenment if they should happen to invade his privacy. There are in Canada serious problems of reform, both economic and constitutional. These firearm provisions, which require that a person must have a permit signed either by the Commissioner of the R.C.M.P. or somebody delegated by him, cause me to wonder what the Eskimos in our isolated communities in the high north are going to do when they are required to travel several hundred miles to the nearest R.C.M.P. post to apply for a permit to carry a rifle so they can shoot their food. These provisions will be pretty difficult to implement in circumstances such as these.
Parliament must come to grips with the problems that arouse the conscience of Canadians. One of the more serious of those problems affects the living conditions of our Indian and Eskimo people in the north, indeed our Indians throughout Canada. Whether or not we agree with the approach proposed by the Minister of Justice it is in his favour-and I say this frankly-that he has at least attempted to deal with basic social problems. In so doing, of course, we cannot accept solutions which affront the conscience of a majority of our citizens. We have just heard from one member on the minister's side of the house, and there must be others who have similar remarks to make.

By the government having adopted the course it has adopted and forcing us to vote on this omnibus bill, members opposite as well as on this side of the house are placed in the position that they must vote for something this is repugnant to them.


Mr. Flemming:: Or against it.


Erik Nielsen: For example, they may not believe in abortion. Or, as my hon. friend says, they must vote against the measure. This is an extremely untenable position in which to put any member. Any member on the other side of the house who has the intestinal fortitude of the hon. member who preceded me will rise and declare that he is not going to be forced into the position of voting for this bill-after all we are debating the principle which includes all of the bill- because it includes something that he does not believe in, namely, abortion. I wonder how many of these members are going to be absent or behind the curtain when the vote comes.


Mr. Gray:: Where will you be?


Erik Nielsen: I may not be here. I may be at home attending an examination for discovery in proceedings that have been brought against me by the Liberal Association. I am likely to be absent from time to time by compulsion. I do not object to that, but if I am able to be here I am going to vote against the bill. Although I adopt 80 per cent of its provisions, I do not adopt the abortion provisions. It seems to me that the government is being entirely inconsistent. It abolishes capital punishment. We must not kill. But the government is going to kill human beings unborn. I suggest it is adopting an entirely inconsistent position.
I am speaking about the majority. It seems to me that somebody must speak on behalf of the majority. The great silent majority remains voiceless. The government has spent too much time, in my view, in a dilatory pursuit of marginal problems. That statement is not meant to be partisan but factual. It is perhaps a temptation to any government to pursue that which is remunerative in terms of headlines rather than those sober but necessary solutions that the times require.
We can no longer, for instance, put off remedial action to deal with the problems that face not only eastern agriculture but those which gave rise to the long debate last Wednesday evening. We must give serious consideration to the problems of education in
January 24, 1969

a number of provinces and territories. The need for the reform of government in our two northern territories is long past being urgent. Deep and wide cracks are appearing in our national life. It is not a question of patching over; it is a question of getting down to the basic problems.
The need for social legislation covering abortion and sexual aberration is apparent, but it must not blind us to the need for long overdue action in fields vital to our national integrity. The Prime Minister has said that the government has no place in the nation's bedrooms. That is an extremely facile generalization hardly worthy of one whose task it is to lead the nation.
I am going to leave the bulk of the remarks on this next subject to those more familiar with it than I, but I do say that the danger in homosexuality lies not in what occurs between consenting adults but in proselytism. In abortion the question is simply one of destroying human life, under whatever guise you want to give it.
The pattern that we are asked to accept in adopting a more permissive approach, which is creating a situation that is turning us into a permissive rather than a just society, to those things which mankind for centuries has kept under lock and key must be viewed with some scepticism. The argument is that in the electronic and space age human nature has reached a stage of development where we are no longer to be subject to the taboos and shibboleths of a more primitive era. It is a question of how wide we open the door.
Yet permissiveness is always characteristic of a primitive society. It is only in a sophisticated society that self-imposed discipline is tolerated. That is the whole ideal of the Criminal Code, indeed of all our laws that govern living conditions in the society in which we live. Human nature has remained pretty well what it was in the days of the Sumerians, in spite of McLuhanism and a greater facility in communications. We may be lapsing into an era of electronic permissiveness.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
The problem we have to face in legislation having profound social consequences and which is both moral and ethical in its implications lies in the extent to which the law should attempt to deal with matters of conscience. It would have been simple for the minister to separate the provisions having to do with mechanical amendments, such as
Criminal Code
those affecting bail and present sentences, from those dealing with moral aspects of human life. The provisions dealing with moral aspects could have been extracted from the bill so that hon. members who wished to could vote on them according to the dictates of their consciences.
Generally speaking, the law should not deal in matters of morals any more than should medicine. It is the social consequences of legislation which must concern us. We must not legislate to permit activities which are repugnant, morally degenerative or socially destructive. The legislator does not have unbounded jurisdiction over the human spirit. Let me make plain that I do not speak today as an adherent of the Roman Catholic religion, as will be the case with a good many hon. members who will be speaking in this debate. It is hard to separate matters affecting moral conscience and religious belief. In my view, to hold that the legislator has unbounded jurisdiction over the human spirit is to uphold spiritual tyranny.
I now want to speak about abortion. The bill provides for an abortion committee of doctors to be set up in hospitals under provincial or territorial authority. The committee or board would certify as to the need on health grounds for an abortion, following which an abortion could be legally procured. The effect of this is to bring within the purview of legality artificially procured abortions which now take place outside the law. It means that those who under the present law are securing or procuring abortions in a criminal fashion will be able to do so in future within the law in a number of cases. But what of those who go before such boards and are rejected? Having gone to a hospital board and having endeavoured to secure authorization for an abortion on grounds of health or danger to life, what do such persons do if they are rejected by the board? Some will accept the verdict. Others will go ahead and have the abortion anyway, and to do so they will resort to clandestine and illegal means. Therefore I suggest to the minister that the amendments will fall short of their objective in this regard in that they will not necessarily remove the sinister, shady, sordid and dangerous activity of the undercover abortionist.
And what sorts of pressures will these provisions of the bill place on the hospital board? Medical men are being asked by this bill to take in their hands the question of life and death affecting an unborn child. They

January 24, 1969
Criminal Code
will be asked to pronounce on human life, to decide whether that child, a human being, is to be allowed to stay alive or to have its life removed. They will be asked to decide whether that child shall be allowed to come into the world and become a person or be checked at the beginning of life. That is a decision which is social, moral, legal and humane. It cannot be divorced from the human and spiritual aspects in which it is clothed.
I ask, will it not in most cases be easier to allow abortion than to force a woman to have a child she does not want? Do we not by the provisions of this bill open the door to unrestricted abortion in fact and in practice? It is hard to reconcile the government's thinking on human life. It says on the one hand, "We cannot take the life of a convicted murderer" and on the other hand, "But we can take the life of an unborn child."
One hesitates to use the argument about the rights of the unborn child, not because it is not a powerful and valid argument but because those who have introduced this bill and support it have already made up their minds that those rights either do not exist or are inconsequential. Are we to take a view on this matter that is purely materialistic, hedonistic or scientific? The view that says the unborn child has no rights and is not to be treated as possessing human life with a claim to personality is neither scientific nor just. Is there any question that if an unborn child, a foetus, were the heir to a fortune or crown the destruction of that foetus for motives either pecuniary or political would be murder? One would have to agree it would be murder. Has not. the yet to be born child as great a right to life as, for example, the convicted murderer? The murderer has the right to live, and this government has said so. But according to the legislation before us the child who has harmed no one has no right to be born if his birth will be a cause of mental or physical injury, inconvenience or embarrassment. That is what the question will resolve itself into.
Wherever abortion has been permitted in the past, as in Greece or in Rome, it has contributed to the decline and downfall of that society. In Japan abortion is now practically unrestricted. One asks, how wide are we to open the doors in this permissive society? Taken in context with other adjustments having the effect of weakening a social fibre painfully built up over the centuries-I am speaking of relaxation in divorce, homosexuality, drug addiction, obscenity, and similar

provisions in the law-there is a distinct possibility that we have gone a long way toward writing off the future in building a permissive society. The experience of the past has been that certain areas of human conduct hold the keys to destruction and decay. Antisocial practices such as homosexuality, drug addiction, abortion, easy divorce and the toleration of obscenity have led inevitably to the destruction of the society in which they were unleashed. Experience has framed our laws so as not to permit the progressive corruption which such modes of conduct entailed in the past. Practices and activities which if carried out and accepted universally would make organized society impossible to maintain are by their nature antisocial. These are the practices we are today being asked to look upon with tolerance, if not with favour.
There should be no penalty against an unwed mother or her child. Where such children cannot be looked after they should be taken care of by the state, with no contumely attached. Instead of being concerned with the type of legislation before us the government might consider the plight of unwed mothers and their children. If the nation wants to fill a gap in social legislation, in that area there is huge room for improvement. In the handling of children without parents, our society leaves a great deal to be desired. It is an area with regard to which the federal government should sit down with the provinces and work out a program so that across this nation, without discrimination, without fear and without prejudice, the same standards can be applied in the handling of all children who through no fault of their own have been deprived of the love and care of their natural parents, either married or otherwise. Surely it is the children who must be our chief concern.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
When I visit some of the hovels and tents in the north I see children of native Indians living in the most abject squalor. It is beyond the imagination. One wonders why the federal government does not meet with the provincial and territorial governments and attempt to solve these problems instead of concerning itself with homosexuality. Surely children in this advanced, modern, enlightened nation, in this space and electronic age, have the right to decent, reasonable treatment across this country regardless of the circumstances in which they enter this world.
Rather than removing the life of an unborn child, is it not more progressive in this of all
January 24, 1969

countries to allow them to enter the world and then to look after them upon a basis of national justice and decency? Nothing is more urgent than that something should be done about the situation of children in this country. Some people call them unwanted. No child in Canada should be unwanted and it is not through the removal of the right to live that we shall solve the problem without other changes.
It is regrettable the government has not seen fit to allow the division or sequestration of the various propositions inherent in the bill. Had this been done voluntarily by the government, it would have been possible to vote in favour of some of the amendments which are reasonable, while opposing those which may well open the door to a host of evils. As it is now, the government has condemned those who vote for the bill to be presumed to be favourable to each and every proposal included therein.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Erik Nielsen: That is the position in which the government by its customary intransigence has placed its own members. They will adopt the easy course of going behind the curtains rather than vote because of a lack of courage to stand up and express their moral convictions and oppose those portions of the bill to which I am sure a number of them must be opposed. By adopting this position the government has made it more difficult for others who favour a measure of reasonable reform to accept this omnibus approach.


An hon. Member:: Ominous!


Erik Nielsen: As my friend said, it is an ominous approach. There is still time for the minister to reconsider and convince his colleagues that the right and moral thing to do, in fact the only thing to do, is to have a free vote on this measure. If it is to mean anything the government must remove the suffocating umbrella which they have placed over their members by calling it a government bill and telling them how they are to vote. There are only four important moral portions in the bill. I urge the government to adopt the reasonable course of allowing members to vote on each portion separately and apart from the mechanical and purely routine amendments contained in the bill.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walker-ville):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to canvass the whole of this vast bill before us but to make comments only on certain aspects, in
Criminal Code
particular those aspects which deal with sexual morality.
I believe the omnibus bill reflects an entirely new governmental approach to the criminal law. The criminal law, as that part of the law which regulates conduct in the broadest way and in the most fundamental matters, is the area of law which is most closely related to people's moral beliefs. Moral beliefs, in turn, are largely, though not exclusively, formed by religious beliefs. Whatever the relationship of morals to religion, and there are many theories on this subject, criminal law has traditionally been thought to be merely morals codified and backed by the authority of the state.
Since people's views as to what is sinful change slowly and almost imperceptibly, one would expect that the criminal law would change at the same pace. In point of fact, because of the unavoidable inertia in the legislative process, legal changes usually lag far behind moral changes in society, even though they ultimately come to reflect them. This is emphatically the case with the criminal law in Canada. The first Canadian Criminal Code, enacted in 1892, merely codified the existing common law on crimes. Changes made over the years were relatively minor and there was no general revision of the Code until the 1953-54 session of parliament at which time the revision was more remarkable for its rearrangement and consolidation of existing law than for its innovation. It is no exaggeration to say that the omnibus bill would, if passed, effect the most important change in the criminal law since it came into effect in the form of a Code in 1892.
The bill would bring about a change not only in criminal legislation but also in the philosophy behind it, for it apparently indicates a determination that law shall no longer be thought of as a mirror of morals, and that from now on crime and sin, law and morals, must be distinguished.
If this bill is passed, homosexual acts committed in private between consenting adults will no longer be prohibited. In other words, homosexual acts which do not involve the imposition of an adult will on a child's, or which do not offend against sensibilities through a public display, will be beyond the purview of the law. Similarly, unusual sexual acts will no longer be against the law if they are performed in private between two persons. The rationalization of these changes has been stated to be that the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.

January 24, 1969
Criminal Code
The notion of the limited capacity of the law in the enforcement of morals is not a new one in legal theory. St. Thomas Aquinas proclaimed some seven centuries ago that "human laws do not forbid all vices, but only the more grievous ones, and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others." He also insisted that only rules for the common good of the body politic could be made into law.
Venerable as it is in theory, however, it is comparatively new in practice, for by and large legislators have thought it best to forbid all actions which were generally disapproved of at the time. The recommendations of the Wolfenden committee, on which the new Canadian proposals are based, were themselves ignored for 10 years by the parliament of the United Kingdom. It is, in fact, recent theorizing sparked by the Wolfenden report which has helped to better define the desirable limits of legislation.
What are the desirable limits of legislation? The principle of this bill is clearly that the proper sphere of legislation is public behaviour and that purely private behaviour is not a legitimate area of legislative interest. I strongly support this principle because I believe that the competence of the state is limited and that private behaviour is beyond the purview of the state.
But what is public and what is private behaviour? About a century ago John Stuart Mill in his famous book, "On Liberty", chapter 1, said:
The only purpose tor which power can rightfully be exercised over any member of a civilized community is to prevent harm to others. His own good either physical or moral is not a sufficient warrant.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
Mill's statement incorporates the laissez-faire economic prejudices of the 19th century; I would not accept it as a complete statement of government power but in this area of criminal law I believe it states the principal thrust of government competence.
Even this principle of harm to others still lacks clarity. Is it physical harm or moral harm? In the context of this bill it must include physical harm, it seems to me, and exclude moral harm. For example, changes with respect to homosexuality could hardly be defended if this were not the bill's philosophy. Yet the harm which the state seeks to protect its citizens from through a criminal law must be somewhat broader than physical harm or we could not justify the fact that we

are not entirely wiping the law of gross indecency from our statute books.
It must be moral harm, too, in cases where the other person involved beside the committer of the act is in special need of protection. We are, in the result, very close to the philosophy of the Wolfenden report, and I quote from paragraph 13 of that report:
"(The) function (of the criminal law), as we see it, is to preserve public order and decency, to protect the citizen from what is offensive or injurious, and to provide sufficient safeguards against exploitation and corruption of others, particularly those who are specially vulnerable because they are young, weak in body or mind, inexperienced, or in a state of special physical, official or economic dependence.
"It is not, in our view, the function of the law to intervene in the private lives of citizens, or to seek to enforce any particular pattern of behavior, further than is necessary to carry out the purposes we have outlined."
It was on the basis of this philosophy that the Wolfenden committee recommended that homosexual behavior between consenting adults in private should no longer be a criminal offence. If this attitude is, as I believe it should be, the one guiding us here in the area of criminal law, then we have hardly scratched the surface of criminal law reform. Let me give a few other examples of where this principle may lead us in the future.
In the light of this principle, can the offence of blasphemous libel-section 246 of the Code-any longer be justified? Second, can the offence of attempted suicide-section 213-be justified, or is this not possibly an area which should rather be dealt with by psychiatric means? Third, can the offence of obscenity-section 150-be continued unless it can be shown that obscenity is a contributing factor to illegal sexual conduct such as indirect assault or rape, or except as it affects minors? Fourth, can the offences respecting prostitution be maintained in their present form? I ask these questions for the reflection of hon. members of the house.
It seems to me that hon. members will not only have the duty in the future of scrutinizing legislation on the basis of the harm-toothers principle, to the extent that they accept it, but that they have that same duty now with respect to the various amendments which are before us, the most relevant one, I believe, and the one upon which there is most dispute being that with respect to abortion.
In my opinion the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) in his very eloquent address last night begged the question when he took the view that there should be no law
January 24. 1969

at all respecting abortion. He did not directly face the implications of the harm to another principle. Of course I realize that if he had been able to deal in detail with all parts of the bill, with unlimited time, he might very well have met this point head on, but as his speech was delivered this question was not faced.
The human foetus is at least a potential human being. I think we can all begin with that measure of agreement. Perhaps if it is only that, hon. members might consider themselves justified in giving priority to the desires and needs of an actual human being, the mother, over this potential being. But if it is itself an actual human being, how can they logically take that position? Therefore the fundamental question, it seems to me, is whether the foetus is human, whether it is an actual human being.
It has always struck me as rather ironic that, to some extent at least, those who favour abortion oppose killing in war and capital punishment. Surely it is equally ironic that those who oppose abortion are often the same ones who seem to favour war and capital punishment. Perhaps this illustrates how closely we should look at a particular problem to see how our general principles should be applied to it.
Most therapeutic abortions are performed at about the 12th week when the foetus is in a comparatively early stage of development. It is before the time of the so-called quickening, which for some centuries was thought to be the time at which human life began or at which human life manifested itself.
On the other hand, science seems to be showing more and more the continuity of human life from conception to death, with characteristics of individuality perceptible from the very outset. The only sure fact seems to be that neither biochemistry nor medicine has progressed to the point where we can determine with scientific exactitude the time at which human life begins. At present it seems to be largely a matter of definition, of how we define human life. Because this is purely a question of a philosophical character the scientists are not necessarily any more competent than anyone else to give this definition. My understanding of the biochemical and medical evidence, is that the foetus is an actual human being from the beginning, but I recognize the matter is sufficiently in doubt that many hon. members look at the evidence differently.
Criminal Code
It seems to me, however, that where scientific evidence is so inconclusive the presumption should be in favour of the foetus and against abortion. If the foetus is an actual human being, the direct killing of this human being would be a greater evil, at least in my scale of values, than any evil which might indirectly befall the mother. In doubt on a matter of such importance the presumption should be against abortion and the onus of proof on those who advocate it. This is an onus which I believe they cannot fulfil in the present state of scientific knowledge.
If this were the whole of the question before us I would be totally opposed to any abortion law reform. But I believe there are several practical considerations of a very important character which must be taken into account, as well as the theoretical considerations which I have advanced.
First, if it could be shown that reform would reduce the over-all incidence of abortion, thereby decreasing the incidence of the evil, this would justify reform. Statistics from other countries which have allowed abortion are not encouraging in this respect, however, and I could not in conscience, as I read these statistics, act on this basis.
A second consideration is that there are a large number of abortions being performed in Canada today outside hospitals and under medically unsatisfactory conditions which sometimes result in the death of the mother. If such abortions could be eliminated by reform of the law this would be a factor in encouraging reform. But again the experience of other countries, as I read it, is not encouraging.
Third-and it is only this consideration which persuades me that some measure of legal reform should take place

there are a large number of abortions now taking place in the hospitals of this country, performed by the best physicians and according to the best canons of medical practice; yet these abortions are all illegal and the practitioners are subject to criminal offences.
I strongly disagree with the hon. member for York South that the bill before us is merely a clarification of the present law. Section 237 as it stands is without qualification or exception. It reads:
Every one who, with intent to procure the miscarriage of a female person, whether or not she is pregnant, uses any means for the purpose of carrying out his intention is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for life.
Criminal Code

January 24, 1969
[DOT] (2:50 p.ra.)
There are no exonerating words of any kind. The Bourne case in England, which established therapeutic abortion in that country, was based on a different statute, different by only one word, unlawful, but it happened to be the word which the court fastened on to uphold therapeutic abortion. The word "unlawful" is not now in section 237. I submit that the law is as stated by Dr. J. J. Leder-man, as set out in 1963 Criminal Law Quarterly:
The law of Canada contains no provision for lawful abortions In any circumstances ... Even where the life of the mother is threatened by the continuation of her pregnancy, and even when consultations are obtained confirming this threat to the mother's life, and even when all consents to the operation are obtained and valid, and even when the operation is performed by a qualified and registered doctor in a recognized hospital-even when all these conditions have been fulfilled, an abortion performed would appear to be, in the present state of the law, as much a crime as any ''criminal" abortion.
I believe this clearly states the law as it is now.
The fact that the law now proscribes all abortions makes for a grave situation when probably at least half the people of Canada believe that abortion is morally right, and when abortion is freely carried out by the majority of the members of the medical profession involved in prenatal care. The difficulty is compounded when the Attorney General of the most populous provinces is reportedly on record that he will not prosecute violators of this law. When a conviction for an abortion as presently practised in our hospitals is so repugnant to a large number of Canadians that no prosecution takes place, I think we must admit that the law as it stands is completely unenforceable. If we were to allow this legislation to continue, not only would the law be dead in this area but disrespect for the law would be engendered and might go far toward breaking down respect for the law in general. In some part this has already occurred. The public good is not served by allowing this situation- to continue.
I therefore reluctantly come to the conclusion that an absolute prohibition of abortion is no longer feasible. The proposed amendment is not a mere clarification of the present law. It is a reform of great moment. What it does is bring the law into accord with medical practice and popular expectation. For practical reasons I therefore am prepared to accept a limited degree of abortion.

I do, however, remain concerned about the language by which the proposed exception is to be recognized. In the light of my theoretical conclusion that there should be no change in the law, which I have varied only because of the impossibility of enforcing the present law, I believe it is incumbent upon us to define the amendment with extreme care. I am not persuaded that the bill now before us defines the exception with sufficient exactitude. I would prefer to see a recommendation that the danger to the mother's health should be a direct and serious threat. I therefore want to recommend in committee the insertion of the words which were in the report of the committee on health and welfare last spring: "seriously and directly impair the health of the mother".
With this qualification I accept the bill with enthusiasm. I believe it marks a great step forward in criminal law. I congratulate the Minister of Justice and his predecessor, the present Prime Minister, for their initiative in bringing it forward and in thus adjusting the law to the conditions of today.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I think the bill before us is a most important one. I have listened to the debate fairly closely. I have agreed with some of the points made and have not agreed with others. May I say first of all that the bill is a far-ranging one. It certainly gives one who has not had too much practical legal experience, at least during the years I have been in the House of Commons, an opportunity to refresh one's memory on various parts of the Criminal Code and criminal law in Canada today.
I was glad to note in the remarks of my friend the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) that the first code was adopted under Sir John Thompson, a native of my province, an outstanding leader of the Bar, and a parliamentarian who would have contributed even more to his country had he not been struck down after having served for a relatively short time in the parliament of Canada.
Many important points have been made in respect of this bill. Certainly one must look at it from his own point of view. Undoubtedly we will hear many speeches on the bill and will hear questions asked before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. As was pointed out by the hon. member for Calgary North, one's view depends a lot on the person himself, his upbringing, his religious background and his dealings with the public.
January 24, 1969

Criminal Code
My remarks today will not be in line with the remarks of the learned member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan), although I am always interested in hearing a man who has his roots in Prince Edward Island, close to us across the Northumberland Strait. I enjoyed at least the first part of his remarks in which he gave the background of the criminal law of Canada.
My remarks on the bill will be more of a practical nature based on my personal experience in my dealings with the public not only as a parliamentarian but also as a lawyer before I entered this historic chamber. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) in opening the discussion pointed out that this bill had received popular acclaim by the electorate of this country. I do not think that was the case. I do not think members were elected to this house on that basis. I will not go into the reason some of them were elected, although perhaps the Prime Minister had a part in that. The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Sullivan), pointed out that this was not the case and that this bill should be divided up to give members on both sides of the house the opportunity to vote according to their conscience on these important measures.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Howard Russell MacEwan: I believe a free vote is called for. I believe ample evidence to support this was given in the remarks of the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain and will be provided by other members who will speak on this bill before it is referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. The consciences of members will be tried in respect of the idea of morality and how far the law should go in dealing with Canadians. I will deal with that in my closing remarks.
I support the position taken by the hon. member for Calgary North as the leading spokesman for this party when he asked that the bill be divided. It should be divided in order to give members an opportunity to deal with these matters separately or at least in four different categories as set out by the hon. member.
I shall deal with some of the provisions contained in the bill. There is the matter of the breathalyzer test. Generally speaking, as a parent who has lived in an area where there have been a great many accidents during the last number of years, I certainly think the problem of the drinking driver must be looked into. I agree that perhaps it should be brought forward.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
I am a little unhappy about this proposed section 224. At page 4720 of Hansard for yesterday the minister is recorded as having said:
Under the bill the driver is not subject to a compulsory breathalyzer test unless at that time, or within the previous two hours, he has conducted himself in such a way that a peace officer, in the words of the bill, "would have reasonable and probable grounds" in arresting him for impaired driving.
The minister points out that the burden would be on the Crown to show this was the case. The bill goes on to state that if a driver does not take a test he must show a reasonable excuse for not doing so. If he cannot provide that reasonable excuse he can be fined and the conviction will be recorded against the individual. That is the part which bothers me. I think the committee should examine it closely. I believe the requirement to take a test infringes the civil rights of Canadians, I have grave doubts about it.
The Crown must prove that there was evidence of impairment before the policeman can ask an accused to take the test, but policemen, whether they be R.C.M.P. or local, are human. Under the law as it stands, the courts must decide what constitutes impairment. I understand the same conditions will apply under the amendment before the house. The idea of forcing an individual to take this test just does not sit right with me. When the committee is studying this provision 1 hope it will go into this aspect very carefully.
I am afraid I cannot fully agree with the amendments in respect of firearms. I do not agree with all the remarks of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) in this regard, but he has his reasons and I have mine. This is why we suggest there should be a free vote in respect of the various parts of this bill. There were parts of the first amendment on firearms introduced by a former minister of justice to which objection was taken by gun clubs throughout the country. The minister has made some changes in this bill. These gun clubs encourage a good sport in this country. I know of one such club in my own constituency which trains people in the handling of firearms. Some of its members have competed at Bisley.
I have in mind individuals like the former member for Colchester-Hants and others. I am sure he would be one of the first to say that we should permit gun clubs in' this country to carry out these activities. I am glad that changes were made. The minister has said that we cannot make any foolproof gun

January 24, 1969
Criminal Code
law, and that is so. After reading about what is taking place in the United States I have come to the conclusion that difficulties are being experienced in Congress there, just as the minister experiences difficulties here. Certainly, I hope we will go into this matter carefully when the firearms part of the bill is being considered by the committee. We must have regard for the laws as they now stand. Certainly with the increase in crime in this country the matter of firearms control is most important. We must scrutinize it very carefully.
There are some parts of the bill in respect of lotteries with which I cannot fully agree. I think I am correct in saying that under the present law lotteries could be held on occasion for charitable or religious purposes. I recall having a little trouble a few years ago in this regard. A lodge commenced to run a bingo, that well known indoor and outdoor sport in at least eastern Canada, and I think western Canada. I am sure even the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) has played bingo. The local authority felt that this was against the law and an action was commenced. In any event, the law in this regard has been in a questionable state. I hope the present legislation will clear up the doubt. Many organizations, including the Kinsmen clubs, as pointed out by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), sponsor bingo for charitable purposes.
Let me commend the minister for the measure in respect of harassing telephone calls. It has been my personal experience, since I have entered politics, that this type of call is becoming more prevalent. This has certainly been the case in my household. I hope in some way, as a result of this legislation, this type of thing can be stopped. I do not know how this can be done but I have read that telephone companies can trace calls. I do not know what might constitute evidence, but this is something that might be explained in the committee. I certainly support this part of the bill. I do not think any citizen, whether he be in politics or any other field, should be subjected to harassment through these calls. I know of this type of thing taking place, not only at my household but throughout my constituency. We will watch this necessary legislation closely.
The hon. member for Yukon and the hon. member for Calgary North spoke at some length about the matter of bail. I should like to refer to the matter of providing legal aid. I realize this is a costly proposition, yet in the
[Mr. MacEwan.l
province of Nova Scotia legal aid is being provided in one or two areas, including my own constituency. However, adequate provision is not made for legal aid. Many people come before the courts who are denied their rights, and not given the opportunity to defend themselves. I do not intend to mention any names, but I remember a pretty tough magistrate who grew up in the days when magistrates had to live on the costs they collected. These costs were directly related to the number of accused who either pleaded or were found guilty. After talking to some lawyers in my area, I discovered that on more than one occasion individuals who appeared before this magistrate without the benefit of counsel charged with fairly serious crimes were automatically sent on a trip to Dorchester penitentiary, even though it was the first time the individual had been before the magistrate. I think legal aid should be provided, and I hope that the federal government will give this matter some thought.
Officials of the province of Nova Scotia have discussed this matter and are undoubtedly in favour of providing legal aid. The provision of legal aid is costly but I hope something can be worked out between the federal and provincial governments. Canadians are entitled to be adequately defended before the courts. I am sure such a measure would receive the approval of the people of this country. The minister said in his opening remarks that he would be willing to make further amendments to our laws to keep abreast of the times. I hope he will give some thought to doing so in this regard.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
As was pointed out by the Minister of Justice, some of the amendments really come under the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith). The amendments with regard to the Parole Board are most interesting. In the justice committee not long ago we heard evidence from the Solicitor General and the chairman of the National Parole Board. At that time the chairman of the National Parole Board pointed out that in the nine years and ten months the board had been in operation, parole had been granted to 23,000 inmates and 89 per cent successfully completed their parole. That is quite a record. He further pointed out that it was necessary for him to have additional staff and more members of the Parole Board. I note this legislation does just that; it increases the membership of the Parole Board from five to nine.
January 24, 1969

I think this is a good move, because the chairman of the board indicated to the committee if he had more members on the board, panels of two could be sent to the various provinces rather than have the board sit in Ottawa. Those panels could visit the various institutions of the country and interview inmates on the spot. As I say, this is a good move. It was further pointed out to the committee that putting people on parole means they are not a charge on the public. They contribute to our economy because they secure employment. I shall therefore have no hesitation in voting for this section of the bill.
Another matter falling within the jurisdiction of the Solicitor General has already been referred to, namely the expunging of criminal records. I do not know whether this matter will be dealt with in the proper way. In the last parliament the justice committee heard evidence on this subject. The Solicitor General has set forth his ideas on this question in a memo. He intends, by way of pardon, to expunge criminal records. As I understood it, it was not thought necessary to physically destroy these records, but they would be put someplace where they would not penalize a person in later years. I recall the case of a young man, a constituent of my friend the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis), who applied to serve on the municipal council, but it was found he could not do so because of a criminal record going back many years. This certainly penalized him. I have read the Solicitor General's memo, and hope he will take action in this regard.


George James McIlraith: This legislation will be coming forward. Work is being done on it.


Howard Russell MacEwan: That is what I am suggesting should be done, Mr. Speaker. I am not saying that the Solicitor General, who has just come into the chamber, has not done his work; all I am saying is that this is a good step forward. Whether it is based on a pardon being given, or however it is done, it will be important to the people of this country. Canadians with a criminal record should not be penalized because of that record; they should be able to obtain employment the same as anyone else in this country. I am glad to hear the Solicitor General's comment. This is progressive legislation and in it the Solicitor General will work hand in hand with the Minister of Justice. These are two gentlemen who administer justice in Canada.
Another matter, and this was mentioned by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Criminal Code
Woolliams), is that of bail. He stated that it should be possible for those who are poor, as well as those who are rich, to obtain bail. I have seen instances in the courts where, although there were good and reasonable grounds for believing that a man would appear for his trial, bail was set at such a high figure it was almost impossible for the accused to raise it. I think that before long the Minister of Justice should look into the aspect of the law and bring forward changes in the code.
Several other matters were raised by the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan). Many other sections of the Criminal Code need to be amended in order to bring it up to date. I shall not go further into the clauses of the bill except to repeat that the speech of the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Sullivan), and other speeches which have been made, indicate that many of the clauses of the bill require the members of this house to examine their consciences.
The minister dealt with this question in his remarks. This is all the more reason the bill should be divided into its various parts. I make a final plea and ask the minister, who is a forward-looking Canadian in the younger age group when compared with other ministers opposite, to again take this suggestion that the bill be divided to the cabinet and his caucus. It has been pointed out that the bill will go to the committee and will be reported back to this house. Then, members will have an opportunity to vote on each and every clause. But the catch is, as I understand it, when third reading is given to Bill C-150 members will have either to say they are in favour of the bill or are not. They may have grave reservations about various parts of it. I do not think this procedure puts members in a proper position. I am glad that we in the official opposition will have a free vote on the Criminal Code. This is important because the code concerns every Canadian family and goes into every household in this country. We are in favour of a free vote. Let the government adopt the same attitude and make the necessary changes to this bill.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. C-150 will certainly leave its mark in the history of Canadian parliament and for several reasons, the most important being the fact that it will show the Canadian people that Canada has come to a turning point in its history and that it is able at last to recognize

January 24, 1969
Criminal Code
life as it is now, not on the basis of principles and theories but of facts. I know that this Bill No. C-150 can bring about a lot of apparent division but I do think that it is with a clash of ideas that we shall be able to enjoy in this house a greater unity since we agree on the principle but we do not seem to agree on the terms.
Actually, it is hard to understand what goes on when we want to introduce new things in Canada. We had the example of the flag and today those who were strongly opposed to it proudly wear a miniature flag on their lapels. When they travel in Europe, they are very proud of it. But think of all the speeches, of all the time it took before the adoption of an emblem which, to my mind, is essential to our national pride. Indeed, when we are abroad, what gladdens our hearts? The flag of our country floating on a mast.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Mr. Speaker, my speech will be essentially about abortion, and I shall leave the question of guns to warriors and hunters.
I shall leave the problem of lotteries to those who know that subject better than I do.
Finally, I shall leave bingos to those who have been organizing them for so long in Canada, knowing all the time of course that they were infringing the Criminal Code. But since in Canada, as usual, the central government, as it is called, has always taken a paternalistic attitude, it looked the other way and let parishes, charitable associations and benevolent societies get rich or to fill their tills. The aim was commendable at the time, and this is why one has no right today to tell the people that an existing situation will not be recognized.
This is why I say that many things will be remembered in history, including this famous bill which, fundamentally, tends to unite Canadians and to give them a better standard of living.
Mr. Speaker, I want to limit my remarks to the abortion problem, and I will go over the history of this famous controversy from the beginning. For the information of those who fear remorse, I must say that the law-as everyone says-is permissive. It is not compulsory and this is what makes the just society. It is to allow one's conscience to do what one can do, what one wants to do, what one must do or what one thinks one should do.

Moreover, as would say one hon. member who is an excellent lawyer, the change is not considerable in comparison with the former legislation, except that it is a little more precise. One admits that medicine exists in Canada and that it is the duty of doctors to take decisions concerning health. It is also said that it is the duty of doctors to perform these operations when the life of the pregnant mother is at stake.
This is why we speak of clarification. Indeed, there is no great change, not much is being done. The bill merely clarifies a point, and that, in essence, is what the whole chapter on abortion is about.
There has also been a great show of emotion. Some took great pleasure in using the words "life, health, woman, mother"; some even wondered whether it may not be possible for a man to give birth. That proves just how ridiculous things become when we start dissecting words. There is no single definition of health. I am not saying that there have not been several definitions of the word; I say there is no single definition on which everyone agrees. That is why the responsibility for taking that decision should be left to the medical profession.
Health is a lot of things which together make a man feel well. It is a feeling of wellbeing. Because a man has had both legs removed does not mean that he is not in good health. It is not the lack of something; it is a whole. So, I will not let anyone come and tell me that there is mental health on the one hand, and physical health on the other. It is true that both exist. But they cannot be considered separately. Some people are ill because they live in slums; others, because they eat or drink too much and suffer from gout, and so on and so forth. But that is not for lack of something. That is why I say that health is made up of a group of coexisting elements.
To cut short this preamble, Mr. Speaker, let me say that a few years ago, just to tackle the subject-this very old but also, paradoxically very new and modern subject of abortion-would have been a matter of high treason or, for a Catholic, a kind of apostasy. But things have changed a lot, as hon. member should know. Individuals have changed, everyone in his own way. Today, it has become possible to comment openly on any historical or other event.
That is why I feel at liberty today to deal with a subject of controversy all over the world, that of abortion. But this is something
January 24, 1969

that must be done. The best would be, as I said earlier, to take a quick sweeping glance at this burning issue.
Before discussing the problems facing us, we might perhaps have a look at artificial abortion, a practice which goes back as far as 4,600 years B.C. In those days, the reason for such a practice was to limit the number of children. Infanticide was sometimes practised, for the same reason.
The oldest known texts about abortion are those from Chaldea, and go back to 2,000 B.C. The Chaldeans had a penalty for the man who had beaten the daughter of a free man- as opposed to that of a slave-and who had messed up her innards. If the girl died, the daughter of the aggressor was put to death. Of course, penalties were always lighter when the woman was a slave.
In the eleventh century B.C. the Hittite code, in Assyria, provided a fine and flogging for a man responsible for the abortion of the daughter of a free man. If the husband had no other son, the aggressor was put to death. The woman who from her own free will, had committed abortion was impaled on a piece of wood and was denied a grave.
I tell you all this to show you the philosophy which has inspired all the countries in the world and led them to accept legislation on abortion.
There is no mention, in the Old Testament, of abortion practised intentionally.
The only reference made is to miscarriage: if men, while quarreling, knocked down a pregnant woman, thus causing a miscarriage, they were fined; the fine was decided upon by the husband of the woman-imagine that- and paid in front of the judges. In case of further accident the rule was: a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, etc. In brief, the law of retaliation.
Egyptian texts do not show either any sign of prohibition.
In Gaul the woman is glorified. They are described as:	"beautiful and well-proportioned, tall and fiercely brave, prolific mothers and excellent nurses, skilful in the fields and in gestation, sowing crops of children and wheat; in Gallic life they personified the ever-creating force while man was often simply the destroying force".
At the time the Gaul had the right of life and death over his wife and children-all the more that of destroying the unborn child.
Criminal Code
Hippocrates, father of medical science, in his oath stated:
I shall give poison to no one even upon request nor shall I take the initiative of such a suggestion; similarly I shall not give to any woman an abortion pessary.
However, Hippocrates went further and even advised midwives, giving them details of a preparation which could hasten the delivery of a child.
It must be noted that in Hipprocates' times, abortion was not punished since the foetus was not endowed with life.
A lot is still written today on the subject.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Athens followed the most ancient policy of democratically limiting population. Aristotle described this philosophy in these words:
If a woman conceives beyond this determined number of times, she shall have to have an abortion before animation of the foetus, but it would be criminal to make an attempt on its life, as soon as it has received the breath of life.
Further on, Plato asked that abortion be made compulsory for women over 40. In ancient Rome, this type of abortion was widely practiced, but in a secret way.
About the end of the Republic and under the Empire, it seems that there was some craze for this type of abortion, which became then more and more frequent. It should be noted that in those days abortion on consent was not punished. As I said earlier, the foetus was part of its mother and there was no penalty as long as the child was embryonic or inanimated.
If we refer to those ancient times, Ovid stated that in Rome, women were considered as old at 25 or 30. Therefore, to keep their physical beauty and the nimbleness of their muscles, they should no longer conceive. They wanted to keep their bust young and attractive and their belly fiat. However, the State reacted violently, and Cicero is quoted as saying:
She is destroying the hopes of a father, the pillar of his name and his kind, the heir of his family and, for the Republic, a citizen to be.
He was then referring to a woman sentenced to death for abortion. In the light of the increasing popularity of abortion, severe measures were enforced but still that offence often went unpunished. We had to await the influence of Christianity to see the enactment, under Septimus Severus, 200 years after Christ, of severe repressive sanctions

January 24, 1969
Criminal Code
against the woman guilty of voluntary abortion, like death penalty, corporal punishment and temporary exile, because it would be outrageous for a women to deprive her husband of the hope of a posterity with impunity.
In the Middle Ages, Christianity, from the outset, was hostile to abortion. Foetus, as soon as it is conceived, is an immortal being, to stop pregnancy would then be tantamount to killing him without baptism.
Then, there was the era of Saint Thomas Aquinas and his master, Albertos Magnus, who both maintained that the soul was directly created by God, and that it was infused into the embryo, not on the day of conception, but when the embryo was formed enough to receive it.
In the 13th century, Pope Innocent III, in his encyclical letter Sicutex Litterarum, termed abortion of an animated foetus a homicide, but there was no mention of a lifeless foetus. Pope Gregory XIV, in his encyclical letter Sedes Apostolica, also excommunicated only those who were found guilty of abortion of a foetus, after the first movements of life had been felt in the womb of the mother, which is supposed to be on the 116th day of pregnancy.
Saint Alphonse of Ligori said, and I quote:
Those who say that foetus is animated at the moment of conception are mistaken.
It seems that there were not only saints and popes who did not agree on the concept of life beginning at the moment of conception. Many pagans were also under the impression that life did not begin at the moment of conception.
Aristotle contended that the male or the man-this for those who would not understand-received a soul 40 days after conception, whereas the woman got one 80 days afterwards. I wonder why.
It was said that before such well-defined periods, there was only a kind of vegetative life. The Islamic law discriminated in the same way and stated that life began only 180 days after conception. A fine was the punishment for the provoked miscarriage of a nonviable foetus; the death penalty was the punishment for the expulsion of a viable foetus, whether it were alive or dead.
Let us recognize that current legislation is far from up to date.
Mr. Speaker, in the light of this historical review, we have realized that the question of abortion is not new, but has been a subject of public discussion since the most remote past.

As far as we are concerned in Canada today, let us say that the most important provision of the Canadian legislation on this matter is section 237 of the Criminal Code, which reads as follows:
(1)	Every one who, with intent to procure the miscarriage of a female person, whether or not she is pregnant, uses any means for the purpose of carrying out his intention is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for life.
(2)	Every female person who, being pregnant, with intent to procure her own miscarriage, uses any means or permits any means to be used for the purpose of carrying out her intention is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for two years.
(3)	In this section, "means" includes
(a)	the administration of a drug or other noxious thing,
(b)	the use of an instrument, and
(c)	manipulation of any kind.
The Criminal Code also imposes a penalty on whoever illegally provides or procures a drug or other noxious substance or an instrument to be used to provoke a miscarriage, when he is aware of this ultimate purpose. The Code goes even further and prohibits all publicity relating to such means, and I quote:
-commits an offence who knowingly, without lawful justification or excuse offers to sell, advertises, publishes an advertisement of, or has for sale or disposal any means, instructions, medicine, drug or article intended or represented as a method of preventing conception or causing abortion or miscarriage.
In addition to the abortion offence, described in section 236, the legislator has provided another provision which deems it to be a criminal offence to kill an unborn child. This text differs from section 237 in that the latter prohibits illegal intervention while section 209 provides for the punishment of a person convicted of destroying a foetus. It is to be noted, however, that in subsection 2 of section 209 the legislator enters a reservation in respect of the principle outlined in the first subsection. This reservation is most important since it opens the door to legal therapeutic abortion in certain cases.
In the Canadian legislation as it is now, the so-called legal abortion rests on two essential conditions: it must be practised in good faith, and only if the continuance of pregnancy is an immediate danger to the mother's life. But anyone can do that. Today, the same thing applies to planning: medicine is therefore responsible for these things.
For several years, however, Canadian and British courts have been interpreting the
January 24, 1969

reservation in subsection 209 (2) of our Criminal Code so that it is now generally accepted that to preserve the life of the mother, one does not have to wait until she is in immediate danger of death. In that connection, is there anyone responsible for the treatment of people, who can remain idle when bleeding is heavy and the mother's life is in serious danger before deciding to practise abortion, knowing that the mother is dying?
Those who never had such responsibilities may well speak of principles and theories, but if they had been through as much as those who are responsible for treating sick people, they would never have spoken as they did in the house and in the committee.
In the numerous cases which came before the courts, it was explained that preserving the woman's health meant preserving her physical as well as her mental health, because health is one and indivisible. It is not the absence of one thing.
Despite this liberal interpretation-I am not talking of the party-of the legislation, it is believed in various Canadian circles that this sole ground for legal abortion does not take into consideration today's realities and conditions.
According to certain medical associations in Canada, since nearly all abortions are prohibited by law, thousands of Canadian women may be prompted to resort to criminal abortion. Let me explain. In general, public opinion does not condemn abortions practised for reasonable motives-I would call them, to put my thought in concrete form, therapeutic abortions-as it was the case before. In fact, the main effect of the present act, as of the legislation that prohibits birth control advertising, is to establish class distinctions.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Well-to-do and well-informed women can usually get an abortion from a competent surgeon in sanitary and safe conditions, or even go to a country where abortion is legal; in Japan, for instance, it will cost her $2,000. She will remain in hospital there for a week, and on her return, everything is all right.
However, less fortunate women may have to resort to the services of dubious, illiterate, irresponsible quacks, whose methods will cause infection. It is estimated that in Canada up to 50,000 abortions are being performed yearly, and a great number of them result in death or in a serious disease.
And at this stage I must add that the passage of the legislation now before us, will not
Criminal Code
help to bring down the rate of criminal abortions. This is not a valid argument, because we know that the implementation of the bill will not bring about such a result. Indeed, it is not the purpose of this legislation. Its aim is to authorize therapeutic abortions.
At its annual conference in 1966, where the idea originated the Canadian Bar Association-passed a resolution proposing the legislation on abortion for three specific reasons, thus allowing doctors to perform abortion whenever they deem it absolutely necessary, without running the risk of being sued. This is the whole philosophy of the section on abortion and the general council of the Canadian Medical Association, numbering about 25,000 doctors, has already taken a similar stand and approved a recommendation regarding therapeutic abortions.
The two main professional groups: doctors and lawyers, who are most concerned with this problem in Canada agree on the need for reform and according to the Canadian Medical Association secretary, Dr. Peart, the council hopes that the recommendation will become law so that under certain circumstances, abortion may be authorized. Here are the circumstances referred to by the Canadian Medical Association:
Firstly, when abortion is procured by a qualified medical practitioner duly authorized, after consultation with a therapeutic abortion committee, appointed by a hospital, and subject to the approval of the latter.
Secondly, if such abortion is procured in the above mentioned circumstances in a public hospital of active treatment. Such an operation can only be performed in a suitable place.
Thirdly, if it is performed with the written consent of the patient and that of her husband or guardian, when the committee deems it advisable.
In addition of all cases where the life or the physical or mental health of the mother are in danger, the Canadian Bar Association would like to add two other grounds for legal abortion. Therefore, the resolution includes the following two reasons: when pregnancy is the result of a criminal offence rape or incest, and when there are high risks of physical or mental disability for the child. Under the present legislation, the victim of rape or incest cannot legally resort to abortion.
On January 24, 1966, a bill was introduced in the house and passed on first reading. Everybody knows that the purpose of that

January 24, 1989
Criminal Code
bill was to ratify, with the assent of both houses, a situation that courts had been accepting for several years, and to ensure some measure of protection against criminal proceedings taken against members of the medical profession who were responsible for performing such operations.
The bill does not extend the grounds upon which a pregnant woman may resort to abortion, but an interesting point is that it takes up again generally the Canadian Medical Association's recommendation, especially with respect to the conditions under which abortions must be performed.
Interruption of pregnancy under circumstances outlined in Bill No. C-150 was also included in the recommendation of the report submitted to the Board of Directors of the Ontario Medical Association by its therapeutic abortion committee, which was approved by the Board thereafter. It should be said however that this bill is not binding yet, that the matter is under consideration, and that it will be taken up again by the committee.
In the United States, between one million or one million and a half women are aborted every year, but only 8,000 would be eligible for legal abortion. About 5,000 women die every year as a result of illegal abortions.
But still more astonishing is the fact that 80 per cent of women applying for abortion are married women who have children and are still living with their husband.
According to a recent survey made in the United States, 71 per cent of the women wanted to see the law changed, that is, they were in favor of therapeutic abortion in some very specific cases. I shall not go into the details of penalties for illegal abortion in the United States. Suffice it to say that the law, in the State of New York, for instance- which is one of our neighbour states-is somewhat similar to ours.
As for the mental health of the mother, it is clear that the law will take it into account. However, in the United States and in Canada, the judgments passed on different cases have caused doctors to believe that sexual crimes- rape and incest-the victims of which are young girls, can provoke mental illnesses that would justify abortion.
Here again, it is not for me to go into the details, since it is a very complex subject which would require too many explanations. Let us say, however, that psychiatric causes have become more and more important in this field, at least during the last years, and

that, in the United States at least, closer consultations between surgeons, doctors and psychiatrists seem to be the thing. That is why, in many cases, a doctor will make an operation with the advice of one of these doctors.
In any case, it seems that in the United States an important change of attitude is being felt and becomes more and more obvious in relation to this famous problem of abortion.
In England-we have often copied closely British laws-a bill was adopted on the 27th of October, 1967, and came into effect six months later. However, I must say that for us, Canadians, the bill on abortion that was adopted in England would be unacceptable.
In England, I believe, the penalty for such a crime was one of the harshest in the world. With this new legislation, however, Albion is going to be the most liberal of all countries, where abortion is concerned. Abortion can be granted for almost any purpose including cramped lodgings, poverty, inadequate salary, high salary, etc. that is the way the cookie crumbles nowadays in England. Good grief!
In France, the punishments inflicted for criminal abortion make a very long story. In the days of the galant Charlemagne, abortion was punished by death if the foetus had started moving. As you may observe, the same basic principle applies:	when the foetus moved, the sentence was death; when the foetus was inanimate-the soul having not yet entered the body-the sentence was much more lenient.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Let us add-surely that will be remembered-that under the Vichy regime, even in the 20th Century, the death penalty was imposed on professional abortionists. Abortions were put on the same footing as sabotage and treason.
The law now in force in France is enunciated in section 317 of their penal code, and it reflects in substance an old article of that Napoleonic Code of 1810, which imposed imprisonment and hard labour as well on the woman as on the abortionist. That act was amended in 1864 to provide that, where an attempted abortion failed, neither the woman nor the agent who had obtained the instruments would be penalized. In 1920, new amendments were made and the words "for the sale" or "the putting on sale" of abortion drugs or instruments, even if they were not used or did not succeed, were added. The laws have become so awkward that today, in France, conservatism prevails in that field;
January 24, 1969

there has been neither progress nor regress; it seems that the status quo is to be maintained. Some of the members in this house want to leave things as they are.
Still, it should be noted that although the original text of section 317 of the French penal code did not contain any provision on therapeutic abortion, a text was introduced in 1939 which reads as follows:
When the life of the mother is seriously threatened and demands recourse to such therapy as might interrupt the pregnancy, the doctor in attendance must of necessity consult two of the doctors ... who, after examination and discussion, will attest that the life of the mother can only be saved by means of such intervention-
That provision has been in force in France since 1939.
In spite of this, illegal abortions are still widespread in France. That is nothing new. However, public support seems to favour more liberal laws on abortion, although it has failed to alter the official position which still advocates restrictive laws and their strict application.
Germany substantially amended section 218, initially enacted by the 1871 Imperial Decrees of Germany which carried capital punishment for those involved in illegal abortion. The whole of that Imperial legislation was gradually amended, and with the emergence of Hitler and the Nazi party in 1933, the penalties for abortion were made extremely harsh to the extent of providing for capital punishment in 1943 if the guilty party "had continuously"-and pay attention to this-weakened the vigour of the German race. It was a matter of eugenics, and the Nazi system would not allow abortion except for therapeutic reasons, which was for the first time legally recognized in Germany. And those new reasons were limited to the safeguard of the mother's life or health, and to reasons of eugenics which the new courts had to apply in connection with the "hereditary health".
One can see that almost everywhere in the world, legislation such as the bill before us has been enacted long before we are asked to do so. This bill takes into account the circumstances of our Canadian society and it does not include reasons of eugenics or merely social and economic reasons as is the case in England.
At the end of the war, the Control Commission legislation replaced the German Criminal Code, and capital punishment was abolished, while the therapeutic abortion was retained.
Criminal Code
But except for those changes, the general provisions of the 1926 legislation, as I said earlier, were restored.
We may say that theoretically Switzerland also has its legislation on abortion. It is considered a criminal offence involving a prison term. However section 120 of the Criminal Code allows therapeutic abortion when it is necessary to save the life of the mother or when her health is threatened. But for the last 15 years the number of abortion legally induced on women, Swiss or foreign (mainly French women), seems to have increased considerably owing to the large number of women coming from foreign countries and to the abuses resulting from that situation, in certain hospitals and clinics in Switzerland. For a few years there has been a tendency to give a very narrow interpretation of the legislation particularly of the section relating to the danger for the woman's health.
In the Soviet Union, let us say that the history of legalized abortion has been marked by two sudden changes of attitude by the government. Around 1936, Russian doctors began to denounce some undesirable secondary effects of abortions. Therefore, the Russian government reversed its stand on two occasions. Nowadays, this is rather fantastic. While abortions, even for therapeutic reasons, were prohibited and all grounds for abortion were restricted, divorces became more and more difficult to obtain. Under Stalin, as we all know, it was sought to increase the population. All remaining laws were then abolished.
However, it is interesting to note that twenty years later, in November 1955, the Soviet Union, following a further change in attitude, established for the second time an extensive program of legal abortions. But we are told that such operations are still being frowned upon.
Sweden, the promoter of several experiences in the field of social reform, was in 1938 the first Scandinavian country to pass a legislation on abortion, the liberal provisions of which took up most of the recommendations made in 1935.
It is needless to refer also to the legislation in Japan which is too vague. It is especially based on eugenics.
Mr. Speaker, I have tried to give a general outline of the history of abortion throughout the world. I did so for the following reason: Every country in the world has sooner or later in its history passed some pieces of

January 24. 1969
Criminal Code
legislation, often strict and at times too lenient, but most of the time, those countries have returned to a happy medium, to a fair sense of proportion, which is exactly what Canada is now advocating today under Bill C-150.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Before the next speaker is called, who I believe will be the member for Winnipeg North, (Mr. Orlikow), could we have an understanding on the plans for today? I have spoken to the chief government whip and he sees no objection to continuing this debate instead of having private members hour, in order to have one or two more speeches.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Is it
agreed that we waive the hour reserved for private members business and proceed with the order now under debate.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Napier Turner: I want to excuse myself to the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). I have an appointment at four o'clock. My parliamentary secretary will listen to the hon. member's speech and I will read it. I hope the hon. member will not interpret my absence as an affront.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, this bill was proposed in its original form by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when he was the Minister of Justice, and is now being brought forward by the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner). This bill has been depicted to members of parliament, the press, radio, television and the public of Canada as a revolutionary bill, a bill to bring the criminal law into the second half of the twentieth century.
This bill includes sections which are improvements that will begin to modernize the Criminal Code, but to suggest that it is indeed very radical is to misread the entire bill. The bill fails to deal with some of the most important matters which the Prime Minister proposed in his Charter of Human Rights when he met with the provincial premiers in February of 1968. This bill, Mr. Speaker, is brought forward by a Liberal government which people expect to be progressive, expect to be liberal with a small "1". It does not meet the recommendations of 
the royal commission appointed by the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Bertrand, when he was the minister of justice, the first report of which was brought forward this week.
Those of us who do not come from Quebec have been trained, or I might say brainwashed, to believe that the Liberals are really liberal, with a small "1", and that the Union Nationale represents those conservatives with a small "c" who hold reactionary views when it comes to social matters. Yet if one compares the recommendations in this first report of the royal commission with this bill we are dealing with today, one can see how small the steps, how picayune the proposals being put forward in this bill by this Liberal government.
I would like to quote from today's Globe and Mail in which some main thoughts of the Quebec royal commission are summarized.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
The article reads:
The report said Quebec does not have an overall justice policy and calls for basic reforms of laws and law enforcement so as to purge the province's system of justice of its tendency to be repressive rather than rehabilitative.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that what this newspaper says about Quebec is true of our system of justice in every part of Canada.
The commission report rejected as retrograde the prevailing practice in which punitive aspects of the law take precedence over the possibility of rehabilitation.
That is true not only of Quebec but of every other province in the country. Here are some of the things I commend to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) and the government because they are not even mentioned in these omnibus amendments to the Criminal Code:
Abolition of the bail system, or if that is not possible, a reform which would allow a person to go free while awaiting trial with only a pledge to forfeit a certain sum if he does not show up for his trial;
That has been proposed by a number of hon. members but obviously it is missing from these draft amendments.
A new system of fines which would take the income of the accused into account and which would allow him to make payments on an instalment basis rather than in a lump sum.
The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has talked about the difficulties which Indians have. Hundreds of Indians go to jail because they cannot pay the $15 or $25 fine which the judge metes out as a sentence. This proposal
January 24, 1969

would give them the chance, which most other citizens of Canada have, of avoiding a jail term.
The separation of the process of delivering verdicts and handing out of sentences so that judges would continue to pass judgment, but sentences would be imposed by panels of social scientists using the possibility of rehabilitation as a criterion;
Is there anything like that in this omnibus bill? Of course there isn't. When you compare the proposals of this government with the proposals of a Commission appointed buy a Union Nationale government, you can see that this government's proposals are far from being very radical or very revolutionary.
The Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) proposals to the provincial governments, contained in his Charter of Human Rights, were greeted with great approval by the press and T.V. media. There was a great deal of merit in them. Some of us realize that to implement his Charter of Human Rights would require an amendment to the constitution and that such an amendment cannot be obtained without the unanimous consent of the provinces. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that consent has not yet been forthcoming and I doubt that it will be forthcoming in the near future.
The idea of entrenching the basic human rights and freedoms of Canadian citizens in a Bill of Rights is not a new idea. It was proposed years ago by the former prime minister, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). It was proposed by the former Dean of the Law Faculty at McGill, Professor Frank Scott, and by many other people, but we have not yet been able to achieve that objective.
What were some of the things which the Prime Minister proposed in his Charter of Human Rights and which, because of the objections of some of the provinces, have not yet been implemented? I will quote from some of the press comments at the time. I read from the Ottawa Citizen of February 2, 1968:
An accused person's right to a lawyer during police interrogation would be established by the proposed constitutional Bill of Rights.
The judicial ruling now accepted is that even where counsel is denied, evidence obtained during questioning is admissible.
Not only would the new proposal outlaw the admission of such evidence in a criminal trial but would invalidate convictions "if they cannot stand in the absence of inadmissible evidence."
Even now a person taken into custody has the right to remain silent. But many persons do not know it and often make admissions to police which might not be made if a lawyer was present during questioning.
2918(1-305
Criminal Code
Many members of parliament have spoken in other debates about the fact that we have one law for the rich and one law for the poor. There is no question that people who have money can afford a lawyer. There is no question that they usually know they are entitled to have a lawyer. There is no question that professional criminals know that they have a right to a lawyer and will refuse to be questioned by police until their lawyer is present. But, Mr. Speaker, there are thousands of ordinary citizens who have never been in trouble with the law previously and they do not know their rights. In many cases when they are questioned by police admissions of guilt are obtained which probably would not be obtained if they had counsel present. That goes on all the time. Let me refer to just two cases that come to mind.
I am thinking of the case of Steven Trus-cott. It is not my intention today to discuss the guilt or innocence of Steven Truscott but to my knowledge there has not been one challenge of the facts related by Mrs. LeBourdais in her book. She states that when the police came to the conclusion Steven Truscott, a boy of 13 or 14 years of age, might be implicated in the rape and murder which they were investigating, they came to his house. His parents were not present. They took him to the police station and they began to question him.
Some time later his parents came home and found that he had been taken to the police station. They went to the police station and there they were told to wait in an anteroom. The police questioned that boy, who was later charged with murder and rape, for five or six hours without legal counsel being present. I suggest that is a perversion of the most elementary right to justice which any person in Canada has.
I have here a quotation from a column by Ron Haggart in the Toronto Star of July 27, 1966, discussing the case of two girls, one of them a resident of Ottawa. I do not know whether her parents are voters in the constituency of the Minister of Justice or in the constituency of the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith), but they may well be.
This girl and another girl were before a magistrate on a charge of vagrancy. As usually happens in a magistrate's court they had no counsel. I would like the Solicitor General to listen as I read just about ten lines from the transcript of the case to show how the magistrate conducted the so-called trial. I think in fairness I should mention that the

January 24, 1969
Criminal Code
magistrate was Magistrate D. F. Graham, and that the case was heard in Toronto on May 31, 1966. Here is part of the transcript:
Magistrate: You have a family in Ottawa; are you prepared to get on the bus and get back to Ottawa?
Ann: No. I can get a job.
Magistrate: You haven't got a job, that is the point.
Ann: Yes X have.
Magistrate: Are you prepared to stay with the Salvation Army for a week?
Ann: Why?
Magistrate: Because I say so, that is why. We are not going to have you girls come to the city-
Ann: Well-
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Magistrate: Listen to me when I am talking! I don't have to listen to you, do you understand? I am not your father and I am not somebody on the street, I am the magistrate in charge of this court and you have two choices-to do what you are told, or go to jail, do you understand that? That is your position now. Evidently you were wandering about without any home.
I suggest two things in this regard. First of all, that kind of talk by a legal officer of a court is the kind of talk one might expect in Fascist Germany or Communist Russia. I suggest further that no magistrate would dare use that kind of language if the person appearing before him were represented by counsel. Yet that kind of thing goes on all the time. I believe the government should have included in this omnibus bill a section to deal with the right to counsel.
I am interested in this subject. Several years ago the United States Supreme Court went into this question in great detail. A ruling was brought down which spelled out the right of every person to counsel. This right to counsel did not apply only to appearance in court but to the period during which a person may be interrogated by the police. My colleague the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) had a member of his firm draft a bill which would spell out this right. I have placed a notice on the Order Paper in respect of that bill. I suggest that the Minister of Justice look at that bill. It is Bill C-189, an act to amend the Canada Evidence Act. I will read one of the relevant clauses:
54. No statement shall be admissible in evidence against its author in any criminal proceeding if such statement was made while its author was in the custody of a person in authority unless prior to making such statement its author was duly warned by a person in authority that
(i)	he was not obliged to make any statement, and
(ii)	if he voluntarily chose to make a statement, it would be taken down in writing and may be given in evidence and,
[Mr. Oriikow.I
(iii)	he was entitled to counsel and that if he could not afford counsel, one would be assigned to act on his behalf if he so desired.
It is not a very complicated subject. If this government means what it has been saying, if it really believes in a just society, I suggest that this bill should include the basic right of every citizen in this country to have counsel. That provision ought to be implemented now, not later as the Minister of Justice suggested it might be.
There is another important clause which 1 think is omitted from this omnibus bill; that is a clause assuring the right of every citizen to privacy. This clause should prohibit, if not completely at least except under very stiff conditions set forth in the law, wiretapping and electronic surveillance. The Prime Minister, in the brief which he submitted following his publication of this charter on human rights spelled out such a provision. I should like to quote from the Ottawa Citizen of February 2, 1968:
The right of the citizen to privacy from snooping would be included in a draft for a Canadian Charter of Human Rights, Justice Minister Trudeau told reporters.
The same thing is spelled out in detail in the Charter on Human Rights. The Prime Minister made clear that he is opposed to wiretapping. This subject has been discussed in this house and outside this house recently. There is now no question that wiretapping goes on in this country fairly extensively. Recently an article appeared as a supplement to the Canadian Bar Review in which this fact was spelled out. The article by Stanley Beck listed cases in respect of which there was complete evidence that wiretapping had been carried on. Also there was the inquiry by the royal commission in Vancouver, B.C. which revealed evidence that wiretapping had been carried on by a private investigator who was recommended by officials of the R.C.M.P. to the person who wanted the wiretapping done. When the royal commission wanted to bring before it witnesses from the R.C.M.P. in Vancouver, the Solicitor General forbade their appearance using the official Secrets Act as his reason for not permitting the members of the R.C.M.P. to appear. This is a fact which I am sure cannot and will not be disputed by anybody who knows that has happened.
There was wiretapping in Saskatoon. Some years ago, as reported in the Saskatoon Star Phoenix, evidence was produced that the only telephone that people incarcerated in the town jail could use had been tapped to permit
January 24, 1969

the police to listen in on their conversations. The police would, of course, be able to hear the telephone call which the prisoner might make to his lawyer in which he might make the most incriminating admissions. Then, there are the recent cases in Toronto, including the case in which one or more magistrates were investigated on the basis of evidence obtained because the police had been listening to the telephone calls of a man they suspected of being involved with the underworld. This was done not for one hour or one day but for two months. For two months, the police had been listening to the telephone calls of Victor Alexander. It was on that basis they obtained information in respect of the magistrate or magistrates who were later put on the carpet.
It may be that wiretapping and electronic surveillance is necessary. I am not a lawyer and I have never been a policeman. It seems to me, however, that it is the duty of the police, the attorneys-general of the provinces, the minister of justice, or the Solicitor General of this government, if electronic surveillance and wiretapping is necessary to combat crime, not to ignore what has been happening. The way to do it is to write into the law exactly what they want. If we want to give the police the right to wiretap, then let us say so in the law. If we want to put limitations on that right and say before the police can listen in on somebody's telephone line they must get an order from a supreme court judge, a judge of the county court or a magistrate, and state the reasons, then let us say so. If we want to follow the example of Great Britain where the police must go to the Home Secretary and explain exactly why they want this right, then let us do it in that way. I say that it seems incomprehensible that we would permit wiretapping to take place. It is not only the police who are engaged in wiretapping. Industrial espionage goes on every day of the week.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Drug companies spy on other drug companies and oil companies spy on other oil companies. I am told that wiretapping is used frequently by one of the parties to a marriage who may want a divorce in order to get evidence against his or her partner. This is the kind of thing that goes on and these are the invasions of privacy against which the Prime Minister has spoken so eloquently and frequently. That being the case, why is there no 29180-3051
Criminal Code
clause in this bill either outlawing wiretapping or defining the conditions under which it can be carried out?
I suggest to the Minister of Justice that if his officials are having difficulty in drafting such a measure he should consult with the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury). If he is not talking to him these days he should look at Bill C-24 which is entitled "An act to amend the Criminal Code (Control of electronic eavesdropping and wiretapping)". This bill was submitted by the hon. member for York-Scarborough and given first reading in this house on September 20.
I am not one who is particularly suspicious of motives. I do not believe that the hon. member for York-Scarborough was anything but sincere in respect of this question when he proposed this bill. I do not believe for a moment that this hon. member, who has spoken in and out of this house about the inequities of wiretapping, did not really mean what he said. I am sure he is really disappointed that the basic principle contained in this bill does not appear in the form of a clause in the omnibus bill. I have news for the Minister of Justice and the hon. member for York-Scarborough. We believe the hon. member's bill is so good that at the appropriate time we propose to move an amendment to add an additional clause to this omnibus bill which will be based on the basic principle contained in Bill C-24. I hope when we move that amendment the hon. member for York-Scarborough and the Prime Minister will be here so that they will be able to vote for that amendment. We are going to give them a chance to put their votes where their mouths are.
I should like to speak about something else contained in the Charter of Human Rights about which the Prime Minister spoke so eloquently and which is conspicuously absent from this bill. Let me quote again from an article reporting on the Prime Minister's briefing in respect of the charter of human rights. This article appeared in the Ottawa Citizen on February 2, 1968 and it reads:
The main additional legal right proposed in the government's white paper would be a guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures.
"At present in Canada" the white paper stated, "evidence obtained not only by means of an unreasonable search but by actual illegal means (theft, for example) is generally admissible in the courts.
There are many people who are much more knowledgeable in the law than I who could, and I am sure will, give precedents for this.

January 24, 1969
Criminal Code
One of the main cases in connection with wiretapping involved this principle. The police in Toronto had a search warrant and went into a house to make a legal search. While they were there they installed a listening device. They listened in on conversations which took place in that house during a period of 24 hours and they illegally obtained evidence which they used to charge and convict an individual. The judges were disturbed but they ruled that even though the evidence had been obtained illegally it was proper to use it in the courts in order to convict that man.
The United States Supreme Court has very clearly ruled that evidence obtained illegally cannot be used to prosecute a person in court. I suggest that kind of a clause ought to be included in this omnibus bill. Such proposal was made by the present Prime Minister when he was the minister of justice, and it ought to be in this bill.
Following a federal-provincial conference at which there was no agreement that we should proceed with a constitutional amendment, the Prime Minister was asked whether he would consider carrying out those things he had enunciated by amending the Criminal Code. He said he would prefer not to because it would be much better to put them into the constitution. I agree with that, but it may be another ten, fifteen or twenty years before the provinces will agree to a Charter of Human Rights. I suggest that the time to do something is now. Let me commend to the Minister of Justice that slogan used so effectively for so many years by the national employment service in respect of winter works. Every winter we saw on billboards across the country the message, "Why wait till spring, do it now".
In introducing this bill the other day, the Minister of Justice said that at some later date he would be prepared to bring in a bill to implement some of the things to which I have referred. There is no reason for waiting. The matters I have raised have been discussed for a long time in legal circles, in parliaments and in legislatures. There is no reason for delaying; we ought to do this now.
In the few minutes left to me today, I should like to deal briefly with one or two very controversial matters supposedly dealt with in this bill, and about which there has been a good deal of discussion both inside and outside this house. I am sure there will be a lot more discussion as this debate continues about abortion and homosexuality.
(Mr. Orlikow.]
It is not my desire today or at any other time to question the rights of those people who disagree with the provisions of this bill or with me when I say I do not think it goes far enough, I think they have every right, as does every Canadian, to reject the proposals of this bill on the basis of religion, morals or codes of ethics. Every Canadian should have the right to make up his mind on these questions and base his judgment on conscience. I respect anyone for doing so.
It seems to me that the present proposal on abortion will do very little. I wish the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) were here because I should like to pose a practical question which in all likelihood can only be answered by a doctor. The figures I have seen concerning the number of illegal abortions performed in Canada each year are fantastic. They vary from a low of 75,000 to a high of 300,000 per year. I do not suppose anybody knows the actual number, but it is certainly large.
Let us suppose a young girl of 15 or 16 found herself pregnant. Let us suppose also that this part of the bill is made law. If that girl went to one, two or three doctors, whatever the law requires, and said that she was pregnant, that she would have to stay at home or meet the scorn of her schoolmates and the community which would have an adverse effect upon her health, do you really think that the one, two or three doctors would feel they had the authority under this law to approve the legal abortion? I do not think so. Will a married woman of 43 or 45 who has two or three children in their upper teens and suddenly finds she is pregnant, who feels that she really is not physically or psychologically equipped at that age to have another child, be able to get a doctor or two doctors, on the basis of the danger to her health physically or mentally, to approve a legal abortion? I doubt it.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
It seems to me, therefore, that much of the debate we are having in this chamber on the question of abortion is to a large extent theoretical and irrelevant. A large number of abortions have been performed legally every year for many years, as other members of parliament have said, by very well qualified doctors, in the best hospitals in every city in Canada. These will continue. There have also been thousands of illegal abortions. I believe that this provision which, if we pass it will become the law, will not change the actual situation one iota.
January 24, 1969

There has been a good deal of discussion about homosexuality. Maybe the very fact that we can discuss it openly is a sign that people in Canada are finally beginning to face up to the realities of life. We can think what we want about it. We can agree with the old fashioned people who say that it is unnatural, it is a perversion or whatever you want to call it; or we can take the view of the most permissive, the most understanding, modern psychiatrists. The fact is that, like it or not, homosexuality does exist.
Will the proposal in this bill really change anything? I am no expert, but I commend to the Minister of Justice a book which came out in the last week or so, "Sexual Deviations in the Criminal Law." This book was commissioned by the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry, probably the largest and most influential institute of its type in Canada. It was written by Alex K. Gigeroff. What does this book say? It says that a study of 60 prosecutions which took place in one year in Toronto, of people accused of homosexual acts, showed that 59 of those prosecutions would not have been affected at all by this change in the law. Why? Because all the offences were committed in public places, in parks and other places. I do not have to go into that. In fact, under the law as it stands now we have not been prosecuting people and finding them quilty of homosexual acts committed between adults in private. Therefore, I do not believe this change in the Criminal Code will really do very much. It may take away from those people who are homosexuals the fear they may be blackmailed. I cannot see any other effect that this change in the law will have. That is very important, certainly. But again I say that this clause of the omnibus bill, which has been greeted by so many people as being a really forward-looking piece of legislation which will change, if not the mores the attitude of the Canadian people to something that has been going on, I suppose since the dawn of time, really will not mean very much.
My time is almost up, Mr. Speaker. I want to finish by urging the government and the Minister of Justice not to take the attitude which I think they are going to take, namely, that this bill contains everything which this parliament and the Canadian people are willing and ready to accept. I say to the Minister of Justice that the people of Canada, perhaps not the police or the R.C.M.P., are prepared to accept a law which will prohibit or at least limit wire-tapping in this country. The magistrates may not like it.
Criminal Code
I remember recently a Toronto magistrate complaining in court that it was three o'clock in the afternoon and he still had half of his cases to hear; that before the Ontario bar and the Ontario government provided legal aid he would have disposed of all his cases before lunch. He was complaining bitterly. I am not too worried about the magistrate. I think the people of Canada would welcome a section in the Criminal Code which would spell out the right of every citizen to have counsel.
I finish on this note, Mr. Speaker. I think the people of Canada are ready to be at least as progressive as the citizens of the United States, who have said to their Supreme Court that evidence obtained illegally cannot be used to prosecute and convict a person accused of having committed a crime. I commend these thoughts and principles to the Minister of Justice. I hope that before we have concluded this discussion he will bring in amendments implementing these three points which were promised by the Prime Minister when he was minister of justice. We have a right to at least expect that the Prime Minister will implement the promises which he made to the people of Canada.


Mr. Colin D. Gibson (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pride that I rise to speak in support of the omnibus bill, a bill which represents the first major revision of the Criminal Code in many years. The remarks made by the previous speaker about eavesdropping and wire-tapping legislation are, I submit, really irrelevant in a discussion of this bill. I commend to that member the wisdom of the Minister of Justice who is treading extremely carefully, with caution and research, into this complicated and difficult problem.
This problem involves electronics; it does not merely involve rules of evidence. It requires the control of electronic equipment, something that should not be hastily thrown into a complicated bill such as this amending the Criminal Code. I commend the Minister of Justice for wisdom and sagacity in not acceding to a last-minute attempt to pile this question into a bill which will require considerable attention, in detail, in the justice committee of this house. Already we have many sections of a long, carefully studied, brilliantly thought out statute to consider at the committee stage.
It is my sincere belief that while the legislation referred to by the last speaker is desirable, it requires more careful consideration and deliberation among the attorneys general

January 24, 1989
Criminal Code
of the provinces and the Attorney General of Canada (Mr. Turner). I heartily endorse this bill and urge the members of the house to vote in favour of it. It brings into effect many badly needed humanitarian reforms in the spirit of the just society.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
It was inspired by our brilliant Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and drafted under his supervision when he was Minister of Justice. It was endorsed by the people during the last election and I therefore submit it is ready for serious consideration in committee, then speedy adoption.
The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) suggested yesterday that the bill be split. Splitting of hairs is not desirable. Many of the provisions in this legislation have already been studied by a committee of this house and I therefore consider that making those provisions the subject of separate reports could lead only to delay in their implementation. I am pleased the house has decided to leave the bill as one unit for discussion. I anticipate, with respect, that there will be unanimous agreement in the committee on many of these issues and that the controversial matters for consideration will be restricted to three or four only. These, it is true, will require time for patient study, and I am sure they will receive it in this house.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) complained that we on this side were delaying matters. The opposite is true. Speaking as one who has had 18 years of trial experience in the courts I believe, as, I am sure do other hon. members, that the wire tapping aspects of this legislation should be given careful consideration and that the necessary time should be accorded to such a study.
I commend the Minister of Justice on the able manner in which he spoke yesterday outlining the bill. In discussing some of the provisions I should first like to refer to the proposals in connection with firearms. I believe these provisions relating to firearms and defensive weapons will lead to a greater measure of public safety for the Canadian people. These are times of turmoil and strife, and it is a fact of life that assemblies and riots can take place unexpectedly, in unexpected quarters. I submit the wisdom and leadership shown by the Minister of Justice in bringing down this forward-looking piece of legislation is particularly apropos at this time.

With respect to driving offences, the spirit of the legislation before the house is summed up by the principle "if you drink, don't drive." The hazards of modern highways compel the exercise of strong control over drinking drivers. The government has had the courage to move in this direction. The presence in the bloodstream of .08 per cent of alcohol will henceforth be considered evidence of impairment. This is tough law, but it is realistic 20th century law in an age when cars are one of mankind's greatest dangers.
With respect to the question of conscience which a number of hon. members have raised, I submit it is hypocritical for anyone to suggest that this bill, or certain aspects of it, should be subject to a free vote. The Canadian people have already endorsed this legislation and it would be a mockery of democracy if the government were to wash its hands of responsibility and say: we shall leave this question to the consciences of individual members. The conscience of the people will be satisfied when the government carries out the mandate which was given to it on June 25 to bring in this forward looking legislation as speedily as possible.
In any event, I feel confident that most members of the house will support at least the greater part of the provisions contained in this omnibus bill. With respect to the proposals concerning abortion, I commend the Minister of Justice for introducing the provision that when the life or health of the woman concerned is in danger, abortion may legally be carried out. I feel strongly that the woman should be in control of this situation. I would go further, myself, and allow abortion on consent. However, I am prepared to support this bill as an important step forward toward the just society. I believe the bill is humanitarian in spirit and in fact, and that this country will be a greater country once this legislation has been passed.
Another significant amendment deals with harassing telephone calls. I am sure almost every member of parliament will be glad to see this clause enacted. The subject of cruelty to animals is also dealt with. These provisions appeal to the hearts as well as to the minds of all Canadian people and represent a forward step. The proposed restrictions on the publication of evidence adduced at preliminary inquiries bring to mind a number of trials which have been spoilt by injudicious publicity in the press.
January 24, 1969	COMMONS
In the past, great injustice has been caused to individuals by the adverse effect of such publicity. The steps now taken to deal with this situation represent a great advance. I feel the government party is virtually united in connection with all these provisions, and we seek speedy implementation of them.


Thomas Miller Bell: Well, Mr. Speaker, it has been a long week, particularly when one thinks of that Wednesday night session, and hon. members, including myself, seem to be a little tired. I wonder whether Your Honour
DEBATES	4811
Criminal Code
could say it is five o'clock and I could move the adjournment of the debate?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: It being five o'clock this house now stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Monday and I wish hon. members an enjoyable and less wet weekend.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
same to you, sir.


[Stage Direction]
At five o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, January 27, 1969