1969-05-07

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill C-112, an Act to amend the Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act, without any amendment.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Bruce S. Beer (Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe)
presented the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Eighth report of Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, in French and in English-Mr. Fernand-E. Leblanc (Laurier).
[Editor's Note: Text of foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the house will recall that last week we made comment on the reference to the Standing Committee on Transport of the report of the Canadian National Railways for 1968. It has been suggested that it might also be useful to have the report to parliament of the auditors on the accounts for the C.N.R. for the year ended December 31, 1968, tabled on April 30, 1969, and the report of Air Canada for the year ended December 31, 1968, and the report to 29180-533
parliament of the auditors on the accounts of Air Canada for the year ended December 31, 1968, both tabled on April 1, 1969, referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. If the house is agreeable perhaps that could be made an order of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Muir (Cape Breion-: The Sydneys):
1.	Was an application for one year's extension of service received by the Department of Fisheries from Captain Felix Hatcher of North Sydney, Nova Scotia, and, if so, on what date?
2.	Was a similar application received by the Department from Chief Officer Herbert Lukeman and, if so, on what date?
3.	If such applications were received, what was the final disposition in each case and what was the justification for the decision in each case?
4.	Were these two applications dealt with by departmental officials at departmental headquarters in Ottawa and, if not, at what departmental level were they disposed of?
5.	Is bilingualism a consideration in deciding whether or not to grant an extension of service on ships operated by the Department of Fisheries in the Atlantic region and is it a consideration in filling positions on such ships?


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: 1.
Yes. On August 8, 1968.
2.	Yes. On September 12, 1968.
3.	Captain Hatcher's case was reviewed in the region and a decision made that a recommendation to continue his services could not be justified, since qualified persons were available to succeed him.
In Mr. Lukenan's case, it was considered to be in the Department's best interests to continue his services for one further year since the First Officer on the vessel on which
84X4

May 7, 1969
Questions
he serves was not in good health and Mr. Lukenan had been temporarily replacing him. The one year period would also permit the third Officer to up-grade his certificate of competency so that he would be qualified to replace Mr. Lukenan.
4.	Captain Hatcher's case was dealt with regionally, although there had been one consultation with headquarters officials. Mr. Lukenan's case was approved by the Deputy Minister.
5.	Where bilingualism is considered desirable, it is taken into account when filling positions on ships or in considering reasons for extension of service.


DISCIPLINARY ACTION FOLLOWING INSURANCE OVERPAYMENTS
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	Is it intended that any disciplinary action will be taken against officials of the Unemployment Insurance Commission or other public servants in consequence of the discovery that overpayments in unemployment insurance during the 1968-69 fiscal year amounted to some 3 million dollars?
2.	Has any disciplinary action been taken so far and, if so, what is the nature of the disciplinary action?


Hon. Bryce S. Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: The Unemployment Insurance Commission advises: 1. No, since this is not a matter which can be entirely controlled by the Commission and its staff. From its inception, the Commission has always exercised enforcement and control measures to ensure that the payment of benefits is made to people who are entitled under the law. In programs of this type, however, a degree of loss through overpayments is inevitable because of false or erroneous declarations on the part of claimants which are initially accepted at face value in order to make payments as quickly as possible and with a minimum of formality. The Commission attempts to keep the loss within one or two per cent of the amount of benefits paid, which is a rough guide used by agencies in this type of operation in other countries. The Commission's efforts have been particularly evident since the end of last year when a major campaign of public education and benefit control was launched to reduce the loss to the Unemployment Insurance Fund to a minimum. Although this new program has been in operation for only a few months, substantial improvements have already been achieved.
2.	Not applicable.
[Mr. Whelan .1


J. WALTER MILLER-FRENCH LANGUAGE COURSE APPLICATION
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Did J. Walter Miller, supervisor, Laboratory of Hygiene sub-registry, Registry Services Branch, Department of National Health and Welfare, make application for a French language course given by the Public Service, and, if so (a) was his application accepted (b) if not, by whom was this application rejected and on what grounds?
2.	What is the policy of the Public Service Language Bureau with regard to enrolment of public servants in French language courses?
3.	Is the administrative support category of public servants, of which Mr. Miller is a member, listed outside of the preferred categories for French language training?
4.	Is bilingualism currently a required qualification for appointment in Public Service administrative support categories?
5.	When is it estimated by the Public Service Language Bureau that administrative support categories will be permitted to enroll in French language courses in order to qualify for promotion within that category?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: 1. The Department of National Health and Welfare submitted an application for Language Training for Mr. John Walter Miller on December 18, 1967. The type of training course requested was for either two hours three times a week or one hour daily, (a) The application was accepted and Mr. Miller's instructional level was the beginning of the first level; (b) Mr. Miller could not be put on course at that time because the courses he requested had started in September 1967, and students were already 40 per cent of the way through the year's work. Beginning in September 1968 one-hour daily and two-hours three times a week courses were mostly replaced by intensive courses. Only those students participating in slow-paced courses as at July 25, 1968 who could not be integrated in the intensive courses were permitted to continue training in this type of course.
2.	The policy of the Public Service Language Bureau with regard to enrolment of public servants in French language courses is: (1) First order priority for language training is given to members of the Executive and Administrative and Foreign Service categories (or the equivalent in agencies not subject to the Public Service classification system).
Next in order of priority are first (lowest) level supervisors in the Professional and Scientific and Technical Categories who
May 7, 1969

supervise both unilingual English and unilingual French employees. (2) If training capacity is not taken up by the two above groups, members of other groups will be taken, in order, from the following categories:
(a)	Professional and Scientific; (b) Administrative Support; (c) Technical; (d) Operational.
(3)	However, if circumstances arise which, in the view of departmental officials, merit special consideration of a higher priority for a particular employee, departments are free to submit nominations with supporting explanations. The number of special cases that can be accepted is small.
(4)	Within the priority groups described above, four levels of selection criteria must be applied by the nominating agency to determine the order of priority; (a) Those who have immediate need to use second language skills and who have partially developed skills; (b) Those who have immediate need to use second language skills and who have little or no proficiency in the second language; (c) Those who have no immediate need to use second language skills and who have partially developed skills; (d) Those who have no immediate need to use second language skills and who have little or no proficiency in the second language.
(5)	While those participating as at July 25,
1968, at Levels 1, 2 and 3, in slow-paced courses are permitted to continue training, no further nominations are accepted for these courses. To ensure the attainment of the Government's objectives in language training, all nominations from the Executive and the Administrative and Foreign Service categories and from the first (lowest) level of supervisors in the Professional and Scientific and the Technical categories are assigned to:	(a)
Complete immersion courses; (b) partial immersion courses.
(6)	Employees from other occupational groups and levels are assigned, as space is available.
3.	See answer to Question 2.
4.	The selection standards approved by the Public Service Commission pursuant to Section 12 of the Public Service Employment Act provide that proficiency in both official languages may be either an essential or a desirable qualification. The determination of whether proficiency in both official languages is a desirable qualification, an essential qualification, or neither in the case of a particular position, is made in accordance with Section 20 of the Public Service Employment Act
Questions
and Sections 4 and 5 of the Public Service Employment Regulations.
5.	Employees in the Administrative Support category are permitted to enroll in French language courses at the present time as indicated and under the conditions stipulated by answers (2), (3) and (6) to Question 2.


LICENSING OF LOBSTER FISHERMEN
Mr. Comeau: 1.	Were new regulations regarding licensing of Maritime lobster fishermen and boats recently promulgated and, if so (a) what is the main objective of such regulations (b) what were they designed to achieve (c) what motivated such regulations?
2.	Were these regulations made solely on the basis of departmental ideas and experience or was there prior consultation with individuals or groups within the lobster fishing industry as to economic and other conditions and the possible results such regulations might have upon the lobster fishing industry in the Atlantic Region?
3.	What steps are planned to control marketing (buying and selling) of government lobster licenses?
4.	Is it government policy to encourage centralized operation in the Maritime lobster fishing industry and, if not, what steps are planned to ensure economic justice and equality of opportunity to individual lobster fishermen?
5.	Is an early re-assessment of the new regulations provided for and has provision been made to revise the regulations to protect individual fishermen and the principle of free enterprise should experience indicate such revision is necessary?


Eugene Whelan: 1.	Yes. A licence control program in the lobster fisheries of the Maritime Provinces was announced on January 20, 1969: (a) To place an upper limit on the size of the fleet harvesting the lobster crop. Eventual elimination of casual or part-time fishermen will result,
(b)	To strengthen the earnings of the lobster fishermen; (c) The lobster fishery is fully exploited at the present time and growth is limited by biological factors. It is evident that there are too many participants in the fishery, and that their capital and operating costs are high. This has resulted in generally low incomes.
2.	There has been a demand for several years by the bona fide lobster fishermen in the Maritimes that there be restriction of entry to the lobster fishery, and the subject has been discussed many times with fishermen's organizations and individuals.
3.	In 1969, no one, be he an individual or a company, can license more lobster fishing

May 7, 1969
Questions
vessels than he had registered with the Department of Fisheries last year. The Department will keep record of all changes of ownership and a new owner must register his purchase of a lobster fishing boat with the Department within 30 days or face loss of the valuable lobster fishing privilege.
4. The steps outlined in the answer to question number three will p-revent centralization of lobster fishing operations.
5.	The new licensing policy will be reviewed in 1970 and such revisions made as deemed necessary. The principle of free enterprise is protected in that anyone who can purchase an existing licensed lobster vessel can enter the fishery provided there is no increase in the number of vessels.


COOK DECKHAND ON FISHERIES PATROL VESSEL
Mr. Crossman: 1.	Has an appointment been made recently to fill a position of Cook Deckhand on the Department of Fisheries patrol vessel 11A 5831?
2.	If so, what is the name and the address of the appointee?
3.	Were the services of the Department of Manpower and Immigration used?
4.	What are the names and addresses of the applicants?
5.	Was priority given to applicants residing in the area served by the vessel?
6.	If not, for what reason?


Eugene Whelan: 1.	Yes.
2.	Robert R. Cameron, R. R. #1, Pugwash, Nova Scotia.
3.	No.
4.	Not applicable.
5.	No.
6.	Priority was given to Mr. R. R. Cameron because of previous employment with the Department in another capacity, and because a commitment had been made to find him alternative employment.


PETROLEUM IMPORTS WEST OF OTTAWA VALLEY
Mr. Mahoney: What quantity of refined petroleum products was Imported or transferred into that portion of Canada, west of the Ottawa Valley, for each month during the most recent 24 month period for which figures are now available?
IMr. Whelan.]


Hon. Olio E. Lang (Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: National Energy Board reports as follows: According to reports made to the National Energy Board, the following net quantities of refined petroleum products were moved into Regions 3, 4, 5 and 6 by way of transfers within Canada or through importations in the period shown:
	1967	1968 (barrels)
January	983,603	1,087,796February	589,956	1,714,044March	508,710	1,371,334April	1,949,728	2,131,354May	2,652,455	2,814,153June	3,063,393	2,173,181July	2,896,561	1,834,079August	2,753,951	3,839,635September	1,532,897	2,869,541October	3,712,325	3,657,412November	3,006,786	2,911,501December	2,116,451	1,972,606Total	25,766,816	28,376,636
Regions 3, 4, 5 and 6 comprise the whole of Canada with the exception of Region 1-the Atlantic Provinces-and Region 2-the Province of Quebec and that part of Ontario lying east of the "Ottawa Valley line".


PETROLEUM IMPORTS EAST OF OTTAWA VALLEY
Mr. Mahoney: What was the average daily consumption of refined petroleum products in that portion of Canada, east of the Ottawa Valley during 1968?


Otto Emil Lang: National
Energy Board reports as follows: The estimated daily consumption of refined petroleum products in Regions 1 and 2 in 1968 was 619,700 barrels.
Region 1 is comprised of the Atlantic Provinces and Region 2 is comprised of the Province of Quebec and that part of Ontario lying east of the "Ottawa Valley line".


CORPORATION PRE-TAX PROFITS
Mr. Skoberg: What are the total and percentage increase of pre-tax profits reported by Canadian corporations for the years 1967 and 1968?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: The Dominion Bureau
May 7, 1969

Questions
of Statistics reports that: The pre-tax profits of corporations in Canada, less the losses of companies incurring losses, in 1967 and 1968 are estimated to be $5,020 million and $5,877 million in the two years, respectively-a year-to-year increase of 17.1 per cent. This information is based upon a sample of corporations, and may be revised when more complete data become available at a later date. This measure of profits is a component in the measurement of gross national production and excludes dividends received from other Canadian companies to avoid the overstatement of profits on a national basis that would result.


AURELE DE FOY SUZOR-COTE STAMP
Mr. Nesbiii: For what reason did the Post Office issue the Aurele de Foy Suzor-Cote commemorative stamp in a fifty cent denomination rather than in one of the lower and more frequently used denominations of six to ten cents?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Minister of Communications):: In so far as the Post Office Department is concerned: Canada Post Office has been issuing commemorative postage stamps in various denominations periodically since the Diamond Jubilee issues in 1897. In 1967 following the release of the current definitive eight cents to $1 stamps illustrating the works of such renowned Canadian artists as A. Y. Jackson and Tom Thomson, criticism was directed at the monochrome reproduction of these paintings, which was a manufacturing limitation at that time. The Aurele de Foy Suzor-Cote commemorative stamp was produced by a new printing process which enabled the reproduction of his painting in its natural colours. It is considered that this stamp is one of the most colourful and attractive postage stamps issued by the Post Office and it was felt that a 50 cents denomination would be much more appropriate than one of the lower denominations.


GREECE-CONCERN OF CANADA AND OTHER NATO COUNTRIES FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-: Cowichan-The Islands):
1.	At the NATO Ministerial meeting held in Washington last week, did the Canadian Government make strong representations denouncing the military Greek Government for violating the European human rights convention through oppression and torture and, if not, for what reason?
2 Did any other member countries of NATO express their concern regarding activities of the military Government of Greece?


Mr. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs):: No. In the view of the Government, the Washington meeting was not a suitable occasion on which to comment on such matters.,
There was no specific reference to Greece or its government in the statements of any of the representatives at the Washington meeting.


HEALTH AND WELFARE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Lundrigan: 1.	Has the Department of National Health and Welfare moved field officers in the Programme Administration category to the Head Office of the Canada Pension Plan Administration in Ottawa?
2.	If so (a) are these transfers of a temporary nature (b) for what reason were they made (c) are these officers filling the terms of reference for which they were hired, and (d) what was the total cost of these re-assignments in travelling expenses and other related costs?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. The Department of National Health and Welfare did not move field officers in the Program Administration category to the Head Office of the Canada Pension Plan Administration in Ottawa on a permanent basis.
2.	(a) For about a year, however, it was necessary to utilize the services of some field officers in Ottawa for short periods of time. These assignments usually lasted for three weeks and usually involved eight to ten officers at a time, (b) This temporary assignment of field officers was authorized so that they might assist in processing the large backlogs of applications which occurred after survivor benefits first became payable in February 1968 and when the eligible age for retirement pensions was reduced to age 67 in January 1968, and to age 66 in January 1969. If this had not been done substantial delays would have occurred before payments could have been made to applicants. This was also the only way in which these temporary backlogs could be cleared quickly without hiring additional permanent staff. A secondary reason for bringing these field officers to Ottawa was to expose them to the detailed procedures involved in the processing of claims and to give them some insight into other operations at Headquarters, (c) It is

May 7, 1969
Questions
not considered that these temporary assignments at Head Office were in conflict with the terms of reference under which the field officers were hired. Rather they were beneficial in the sense that the field officers increased their knowledge of the legislation and claims processing and thereby improved their abilities in dealing with the public on Canada Pension Plan matters. The Plan is quite new and there is still much to learn, (d) The fiscal year which ended on March 31 1969, is the only significant period during which field officers were assigned to Head Office operations. For that year there were a total of 77 field officers so assigned for temporary duty and the cost involved is allocated as follows: Transportation, $11,005.12; Meals and Accommodation, $36,201.65; Total, $47,206.77.


ELLERSLIE, P.E.I., FISHERIES STATION
Mr. MacDonald (Egmoni): 1.	Were two mobile homes or trailers, approximate sizes 60 x 12 and 50 x 10 purchased recently for the Department of Fisheries station in Ellerslie, Prince Edward Island?
2.	From whom were they purchased and at what price?
3 Are they new and, if not, how old and what is their approximate worth?
4.	What did it cost to transport these trailers to Prince Edward Island and was that cost included in the selling price?
5.	Was any attempt made to purchase them on Prince Edward Island and were tenders circulated to prospective contractors in this regard?
6.	Are these trailers of American or Canadian construction?
7.	Are they considered to be constructed and insulated for all weather Canadian use?
8.	What is the expected life of service of these two trailers?
9.	Have any repairs been made to these trailers since purchase or is it expected that any repairs will be made in the immediate future?


Eugene Whelan: 1.
Yes.
2.	Woodlawn Mobile Homes & Parks Ltd., Ottawa; total price $13,350 F.O.B. Ellerslie, Prince Edward Island.
3.	No. One unit was a 1968 model used as a demonstrator; the original price was $9,450 F.O.B. Ottawa. The other unit was used approximately six years and was refurnished; the original price of this unit was $7,650 F.O.B. Ottawa.
4.	Haulage from Ottawa to Ellerslie, listed at $500 per unit, was included in the selling price.
[Mr. Munro.l
5.	Tenders were not called, but prices were checked in the Halifax area and, after a review of available units and prices in the Ottawa, Montreal, and Cornwall areas, it was considered that the two second-hand units purchased provided an economic purchase arrangement.
6.	One unit was of Canadian manufacture; the other, American.
7.	They are considered to be of adequate construction for the area in which they are to be used.
8.	As these two units were purchased to house summer students, it is extremely difficult to estimate their life expectancy.
9.	Minor damage which occurred during transportation from Ottawa to Ellerslie will be repaired and paid for by Woodlawn Mobile Homes Ltd.


INDIAN AFFAIRS-TECHNICAL SERVICES BRANCH
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Is there now, or will there be soon, a Branch or Directorate of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development known as Technical Services Branch and, if so (a) has the Branch any personnel officers (b) if any of them are not Canadian citizens, who are they in terms of name, age, birth-place, degrees and diplomas held, present and former classifications and salaries within the federal service?
2.	(a) Within the Technical Services Branch, is there a "Physical Planning" section or sub-section and, if so, who heads it, what was his birth-place, what is his citizenship, what degrees and diplomas does he hold from what institutions (b) has the Physical Planning Section any sub-sections and, if so, what are they, who heads them, what is their citizenship, degrees, diplomas, present and former classifications, salaries, etc. (c) how many professional personnel as distinct from technical and clerical personnel is there in the Physical Planning Section, how many are not Canadian citizens and how many are American citizens and of these, what are the degrees, diplomas, classifications, etc.?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. There is now a Technical Services Branch of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, (a) The Branch has no personnel officer; personnel service is supplied to the Branch by the Departmental Personnel Adviser; (b) N/A.
2.	(a) There is a "Physical Planning Division" headed by Mr. E. W. Wallace in the capacity of Acting Division Chief. Mr. Wallace was born in America and is an American citizen with a status of "landed immigrant"
May 7, 1969

in Canada. Mr. Wallace studied Architecture at Syracuse University and Landscape Architecture at New York State College of Forestry. He is a registered landscape architect, has been a member of the American Society of Landscape Architects for 20 years, is presently being sponsored as a candidate for membership in the Canadian Society of Landscape Architects; (b) The Division has
Questions
two sub-divisions-(1) Mapping and Community Planning, and (2) Development, Area and Site Planning.
Unit Name	Head
Mapping and Community
Planning	H. Toogood
Development-Area and Site
Planning	Vacant
Statistics
Classification
Name	Citizen	Diplomas & Degrees	Former	Present	SalaryH. Toogood	Can.	Bristol Univ.-	TOll	AR5	$13,790
Public Admin.
London Univ.-
Bach. Law U. of Toronto-
Masters Planning
(c)	There are eleven professional people in the Physical Planning Division. Six are American. All are landscape architects. There are three B.A.'s, two M.A.'s, four Arch. 4's, and one each of Arch. 5 and 6.


WEST MAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Has West Man Regional Development Corporation submitted a brief to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development outlining a project for an Indian Handicraft Industry that will employ Indians on seventeen Reserves in Manitoba?
2.	Has the Indian Affairs and Northern Development Department accepted the project and, if so, on what terms?
3.	When will the project be formally launched?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. Yes.
2.	The Department has arranged with West Man to explore more fully the proposal with Indian people. Meanwhile, the Department has agreed to continue financing for the sales outlet at Brandon and employment of an Indian manager to supervise the outlet.
3.	The Department, in consultation with Indian people, in the Brandon area, will review the West Man proposal and until such a review is completed the Department is not in a position to state whether the program will be launched or in what form the program will be launched.


REPLACEMENT FOR ARGUS AIRCRAFT
Mr. Forresiall: 1.	Further to written question No. 1,629 in which the Minister of National Defence affirmatively indicated that active consideration is being given to a replacement aircraft for the Argus, presently in use by Maritime Command, what specific aircraft are being looked at and to-date, have any evaluations been made and, if so, with what results?
2.	When will a firm decision be reached?


Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence):: 1. As
indicated in Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence No. 36 of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, both the ORION and the NIMROD are being looked at as possible replacements for the Argus aircraft. Evaluation has not yet been completed as studies are also being conducted on the development of advance maritime patrol aircraft which would embody in both the vehicle and its systems the latest technological advances.
2. No decision will be made until phase II of the defence review has been completed.


INCOME OF RESERVATION INDIANS
Mr. Robinson: 1.	What	is	the	average	income	of	gainfully
employed Indians on reservations for each of the years 1960-1968 inclusive?
2.	What	is	the	average	income	of	gainfully
employed Indians off reservations for each of the years 1960-1968 inclusive?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1 and 2.
Information is not available.

Questions


AMHERST, N.S., POST OFFICE
Mr. Coates: 1.	What firm was awarded the contract for renovations to the doors of the Post Office at Amherst, Nova Scotia?
2.	What was the amount of the contract awarded to the firm, were other bids received and, if so, what were the names of the firms submitting bids and the amount of their tenders?
3.	Were the doors that were formerly on the Post Office designated as the property of the contractor and, if so, for what reason?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: 1. E. J. Mills Ltd., Amherst, N.S.
2.	$4,974. This was the only bid received from invited tenders for replacement of doors, repairs to the floor and the construction of lobby partitions.
3.	Yes. This is the normal practice for such projects.


LEBRET, SASK., POST OFFICE
Mr. Burton: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to build a new post office in Lebret, Saskatchewan and, if so, when is it intended to proceed with such plans?
2.	Has it been decided where the new post office will be located and, if so (a) what is the location in Lebret, and (b) has land been obtained or purchased for this building?
3.	Was the Council of the Village of Lebret consulted regarding the location of the post office?


Arthur Laing: 1. Yes. Build lease tenders will be opened on May 12.
2.	No.
3.	Yes.
May 7. 1969


LISTED MISSING
Mr. Muir (Cape Brelon-: The Sydneys):
1.	By provinces, how many persons were listed as missing in Canada in 1968?
2.	Of these, in each province, how many were (a) under 21 (b) under 18 and over 14 and, in the case of (a) and (b) what was the breakdown between male and female?


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1. and 2. Information on number of missing persons for 1968 and the number located, by province, is not yet available. Missing persons data for adults and for juveniles for 1967 reported by the police in accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Crime Reporting Program are provided in the attached table.
The following definitions given in the Uniform Crime Reporting Manual are used by police in compiling these data: Adult: An adult is any person of 16 years or over, or such other age as may be directed in any province. Juvenile: Is any girl or boy under the age of 16 years or such other age as may be directed in any province. Reported: Adults or juveniles, who are residents of or persons temporarily residing in your area of jurisdiction, who are reported missing during the year-regardless of the period of time-excluding children who are temporarily lost at public gatherings, exhibitions, etc. Located: Adults or juveniles missing from your area who have been located by your force or by some other police force during the year. Located does not necessarily mean returned to your area.
No information is available on sex of missing persons.


PERSONS MISSING AND LOCATED, BY PROVINCE, CANADA, 1967
[Stage Direction]
Adults
Juveniles
Province
C^anada	
Newfoundland	
Prince Edward Island
Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick	
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
British Columbia....
Yukon	
N orthwest Territories,
Missing	Located	Per cent Located	Missing	Located	Per cent Located21,746	20,893	96.1	33,412	32,941	98.6370	367	99.2	273	273	100.046	44	95.7	20	20	100.0691	648	93.8	710	695	97.9511	502	98.2	793	790	99.63,972	3,797	95.6	5,594	5,477	97.910,754	10,291	95.7	14,641	14,441	98.62,063	1,987	96.3	1,367	1,327	97.1491	482	98.2	1,250	1,246	99.7568	515	90.7	3,894	3,851	98.92,191	2,177	99.4	4,828	4,779	99.080	77	96.3	36	36	100.09	6	66.6	6	6	100.0
Souece: Dominion Bureau of Statistics publication "Crime Statistics-Police"-catalogue number 85-205.

May 7, 1969

Mr. Corbin: 1.	What is the working relation between the Canadian Seed Growers Association and the Canada Department of Agriculture?
2.	On what basis is a $44,000 annual grant made to the CSGA and is the CSGA accountable for this grant?
3.	Are any parts of this grant distributed to lesser member associations or members and, if so, who are they and what amount of the grant does each receive?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. The Canadian Seed Growers' Association is the seed pedigreeing agency as authorized by regulations of the Seeds Act. The Association prescribes the crop standards while the Department sets the grade standards for seed of the various pedigreed classes. The Department inspects the growing crop and reports its findings to the Association. Acceptable crops are granted pedigreed status and recorded by the Association. The Department controls the labelling and sealing of pedigreed seed.
2.	To help defray the costs associated with the granting and recording of pedigreed seed crops. The CSGA is not accountable for this grant.
3.	No.


IMPORTS OF LIVING INSECTS
Mr. Corbin: 1.	How many import permits of living insects and disease organisms for research and educational purposes were granted in 1966, 1967, 1968 by the Department of Agriculture?
2.	What was the country of origin of these insects and disease organisms?
3.	Who were the recipients of these insects and disease organisms?
4.	What were these insects and organisms?
5.	Under what specific conditions were these permits issued?
6.	Have there been instances, in the past ten years, of voluntary or accidental liberations of any of these insects or disease organisms?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: 1. 1966, 301 import permits; 1967, 291 import permits; 1968, 334 import permits.
2.	The majority of importations were from the United States of America. Other importations were from Europe, Asia, Africa, South America, Australia and New Zealand.
3.	Research Institutions, colleges and universities, high schools and individuals.
4.	(a) Numerous genera and species within the class Insecta, mostly of non-quarantine
Questions
significance; (b) Numerous species of fungi and bacteria, mostly of non-quarantine significance; (c) A limited number of virus cultures.
5.	(a) That the insect or disease organism would be maintained by qualified personnel in such a manner as to prevent escape from the laboratory in question, or (b) That the specimen did not present a risk to Canadian agriculture, or; (c) That the specimen was useful or beneficial as a biological control agent.
6.	Voluntary-There have been intended liberations of insect specimens for biological control purposes. Accidental-There have been no reports of accidental liberation or of injury to Canadian agricultural crops which could be attributed to pests granted entry for the purposes indicated.


BON ACCORD POTATO SEED FARM
Mr. Corbin: 1. Did the Department of Agriculture participate with the Province of New Brunswick in setting up the Bon Accord Potato Seed Farm and, if so, in what way?
2 Is the Department presently participating in the project and, if so, in what way?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: 1. Department of Agriculture participation in the setting up of the Bon Accord Potato Seed Farm was confined to providing technical advice in the field of seed potato production.
2. Seed potatoes produced on this farm are inspected by Department of Agriculture staff.


GRANT TO HORSE IMPROVEMENT SOCIETY
Mr. Corbin: 1.	Is an annual grant still given by the Canada Department of Agriculture to the Canadian Hunter, Saddle and Light Horse Improvement Society?
2.	Who are the president, vice-president, the secretary and the treasurer of this Society and what are their addresses?
3.	For what specific purposes is this grant given?
4.	What are the activities of the Society?
5.	What is their membership?
6.	How many foundation mares were inspected and registered under the Society's programme in 1966, 1967 and 1968?
7.	How much money has this Society received since the start of these grants from the federal government?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: 1. Yes. An annual grant of $5,000 is provided by the Canada Department of Agriculture to

May 7, 1969
Questions
the Canadian Hunter, Saddle and Light Horse Improvement Society.
2.	Officers of the Society are: Mrs. J. G. Holbrook, President, R.R. 3, Dundas, Ontario. L. J. McGuinness, 1st Vice-President, Algoma Street, Mimico, Ontario. Mr. Thomas Gayford, 2nd Vice-President, R.R. 2, Gormley, Ontario. Mr. & Mrs. John Wilson, Secy. Managers (also carries out duties of Treasurer), R.R. 5, Orangeville, Ontario.
3.	For the purpose of assisting in the development and improvement of the light horse industry in Canada.
4.	The Society has three main activities: Conducts an inspection system whereby animals meeting the required standards are enrolled in the Society. Encourages members to exhibit their animals in competitive classes at fairs and exhibitions. Purchases and makes available the services of high class stallions in suitable locations, for improvement of light horses. At present they own a total of nine stallions.
5.	At present there are slightly more than 500 active members in the Society.
6.	Foundation mares inspected and registered with the Society: 1966, 304; 1967, 427;
1968,	340.
7.	Since 1927, the Department has provided an annual grant of $5,000 to the Society.


ALLEGED DIVERSION OF NATO AID TO SOUTH AFRICA
Mr. Broadbeni: 1.	Does the Government of Canada obtain assurances that the materiel offered as military aid to NATO countries is not later supplied to Rhodesia and the Union of South Africa?
2.	Is the Government of Canada aware of a statement by the Secretary General of O.A.U. at the meeting of that organization, February 17-22,
1969,	that stated (a) the Government of West Germany and the Government of The Netherlands are supplying military and financial aid to Rhodesia and the Union of South Africa and (b) that West Germany is aiding the Government of Rhodesia to build a missile system?
3.	If the answer to part 2 is yes, has the Government of Canada taken steps to confirm or deny these assertions?
4.	If the assertions have been confirmed, has the Canadian Government communicated with the West German Government or The Netherlands' Government on these matters and what have been the results, if any?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. The only NATO countries receiving Canadian military aid are Greece

and Turkey which receive small amounts of spare parts for aircraft previously donated by Canada. I have no reason to suppose that this equipment is not used exclusively within the NATO area by Greece and Turkey.
2 and 3. It is understood that the report of the Administrative Secretary General of the O.A.U. made in February, 1969 contained assertions that Western countries, including West Germany and The Netherlands, have increased the volume of their exports to Rhodesia and that West German scientists were assisting South Africa to establish a missile system. There is no indication that the Administrative Secretary-General referred to (a) the supply of military and financial aid to Rhodesia and South Africa by the West German or Netherlands governments or (b) West German aid to Rhodesia to build a missile system.
4.	It was not considered necessary to communicate with any government regarding the assertions actually made in the report of the Administrative Secretary General of the O.A.U. A report (dated December 30, 1968) of the United Nations Committee on Sanctions against Rhodesia established by Security Council resolution 253(1968) of May 29, 1968 indicated that, while West German exports to Rhodesia had increased, those of The Netherlands had decreased, not increased, over a period under review. This report is a public document, circulated to all member governments by the United Nations.


SASKATCHEWAN ASSISTANCE PLAN APPLICATIONS
Mr. Gleave: 1.	Has the Government of Saskatchewan made any application under the Canada Assistance Plan since its inception?
2.	What amounts of money have been paid to the Saskatchewan Government in respect of each of these programmes?
3.	What were the financial claims submitted by the Government of Saskatchewan in respect of each of these programmes?


John Carr Munro: 1. Yes. The Government of Saskatchewan signed an agreement under Part I (Welfare Assistance and Services) on March 22, 1967, and under Part III (Work Activity Projects) on September 24, 1968. Claims for federal sharing in respect to expenditures incurred under these agreements have subsequently been submitted for payment.
May 7, 1969

2.	Part I (Welfare Assistance and Services):
1966-67, $3,115,664; 1967-68, $13,403,925; 196869,	$14,102,529. Part III (Work Activity
Projects): 1968-69, $27,071.
3.	See (2) above.


INVESTIGATION OF MISLEADING ADVERTISING
Mrs. Maclnnis: Is the Combines Investigation Branch of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs investigating misleading advertising practices of car and appliance leasing companies?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: In reply to questions asking whether inquiries have been instituted under the Combines Investigation Act, the general practice is that no information is given out as to whether a particular inquiry has been or is being pursued with respect to a particular group or company unless or until a report is published or some legal proceeding of a public nature is taken. If the Honourable Member has any information or evidence which indicates to her that there may have been a violation of the Combines Investigation Act, this information should be sent to the Director of Investigation and Research.


QUEEN'S PRINTER-POSITION OF ROGER DUHAMEL
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	Was Roger Duhamel the Queen's Printer as of May 1, 1969?
2.	If not, when did he cease to occupy that position?
3 Did he resign from said office and, if not, what were the circumstances under which he ceased to be such?
4.	Is there any person as of said date holding the position of Queen's Printer and, if so, what is his name and since what date?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1. No.
2.	March 31, 1969.
3.	No. Mr. Duhamel was appointed by the Governor-in-Council as Queen's Printer under the provisions of the Public Printing and Stationery Act, Revised Statutes Chapter 226, Section 5. This Act was repealed on the coming into force of the Government Organization Act, 1969 (Bill C-173) on April 1, 1969.
4.	Yes. Mr. C. B. Watt, Director General of Printing and Publishing in the Department of Supply and Services, has been appointed Acting Queen's Printer effective April 1, 1969.
Motions for Papers QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND-CONSOLIDATION OF FISHING HARBOURS
Mr. MacLean: 1.	Is there in operation at the present time or in contemplation, a programme of consolidation of small fishing harbours in Prince Edward Island built and maintained by the federal Department of Public Works into a small number of facilities?
2.	If so, was this decision taken unilaterally by the federal Department of Public Works, without consultation with the provincial government?
3.	(a) Was advice sought from fishermen's organizations or from any other organizations or persons regarding such a policy (b) if so, from whom was advice sought?
4.	What are the locations into which fishing facilities are to be concentrated?
5.	For how long, and under what conditions are the remaining wharf and other fishing facilities in other locations in Prince Edward Island to be maintained by the federal Department of Public Works?
Return tabled.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion No. 115 is acceptable to the government, subject to the usual reservations as to privileged documents and the consent of the government authorities concerned.


CONTRIBUTIONS TO COST OF LANDS FOR FLOOD CONTROL
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 115-Mr. Kaplan:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of certifications issued by a representative of the Government of Canada pursuant to section 9(1) of the Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Province of Ontario, dated June 14, 1961, approving claims for contributions to the cost of acquisition and development of certain lands for water conservation and flood control purposes in the Toronto area.
Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the house

May 7, 1969
Motions for Papers
that notice of motion No. 115 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, would you kindly call notices of motion Nos. 86, 96, 106, 111, 112, 116 and 125?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining notices of motion be allowed to stand.
IEnglish]
RESEARCH STUDIES ON LABOUR RELATIONS Motion No. 86-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of each of the research studies commissioned and completed by and for the Labour Relations Task Force.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, these documents fall into two categories. As was previously announced the government has decided in due course to publish approximately 20 of these studies. These are to be published by the Queen's Printer. The government would be quite agreeable to these being tabled at once, subject only to the understanding that the reports when ultimately published may contain the normal prepublication editorial changes with regard to grammar, references and reorganization of material.
The second category of studies includes those which the government has itself decided not to publish, but under the arrangement the authors were entitled to make their own private arrangements for publication. Leaving aside the question of copyright, the motion would be acceptable subject only to obtaining the consent of the authors in question to have them published. If the hon. member is in a position to accept those two bases we would be in a position to honour his notice of motion.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: It is
agreeable.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the minister, is it the pleasure of the house that notice of motion No. 86 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL BALLET OF CANADA Motion No. 96-Mr. Osier:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of Annual Reports and Annual Financial Statements of the National Ballet of Canada for the years 1964-68 inclusive.
Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to information provided to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Osier) to the effect that there is no such corporation known as the National Ballet of Canada, he has agreed to withdraw this notice of motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the notice of motion be dropped?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


REPORTS TO SENATE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE POLICY-PAGES 4385 TO 4387
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 106-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of each report referred to in the submission of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to the Senate Special Committee on Science Policy on February 26, 1969, listed on pages 4385 to 4387, No. 31 of the proceedings of the Senate Committee.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) I wish to report the following: Because the surveys mentioned in this motion resulted in the publications the hon. member has requested in his motion for the production of papers No. 105, I wonder whether the hon. member would consent to withdrawing the notice of motion.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, if the government previously agreed to tabling the information requested in motion No. 105, I am agreeable.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that this motion shall be transferred for debate?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Transferred for debate.
NATIONAL BALLET GUILD Motion No. Ill-Mr. Osier:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of Annual Reports and Annual Financial Statements of the National Ballet Guild of Canada for the years 1964-68 inclusive.
May 7, 1969


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion No. Ill asking to issue a copy of annual reports of the National Ballet Guild of Canada for the years 1964 through 1968 inclusive is acceptable. However, corporations such as this one, incorporated under Part II of the Canada Corporations Act, are not required to file or deposit any annual financial statements with my department. With this reservation the motion is acceptable.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations or conditions expressed by the minister is motion No. Ill acceptable?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
PUBLIC RELATIONS CONTRACTORS MEETING Motion No. 112-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order ol the House do Issue for a copy of all papers, information or other documents presented at the public relations Contractors meeting held in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Headquarters in Ottawa from November 27 to 29, 1968 inclusive and a copy of all notes made at the said meeting.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development I wish to report as follows: As the papers the hon. member for Skeena is requesting in this motion for the production of papers were included in motion for production of papers No. 77, which was tabled on March 19, 1969, I wonder whether the hon. member would consent to withdrawing this motion?


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I think I would, Mr. Speaker, subject to the caveat that I may put it back on the order paper. I have read the particular document to which the hon. member has referred and there are no such papers included.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the motion shall be dropped?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


INDIANS-WORKING GROUP TO RECOMMEND STRATEGY AND POLICY
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 116-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the document entitled "Report of Working Group I-Indians to the Executive Committee"
Motions for Papers
which Working Group had its terms of reference set out in February, 1968 and which was formed to examine and outline the problems relating to Indians and to make recommendations concerning strategy, policy and programming.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development I wish to report as follows: The hon. member for Skeena requested this same information in his motion for the production of papers No. 82. The hon. member was informed then that the document he requested in the motion for the production of papers No. 82 could not be identified. On April 23 the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, on behalf of the hon. member for Skeena, agreed that this motion be withdrawn. As the motion for the production of papers No. 116 is identical to the motion for production of papers No. 82, and the document still cannot be identified, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw the motion.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was misled by the reply given on an earlier occasion. Perhaps I could assist the efficiency of the government by tabling the particular document in question now. This might help them find it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is it agreed that the motion be transferred for debate?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motion stand?


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmoni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to pose what has become almost a weekly question. Has the President of the Privy Council had any success in getting permission from the provinces in respect of documents relating to the Northumberland Strait Crossing?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to apologize to the hon. member because I am afraid I do not have the report today. I will make an inquiry.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motion stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

May 7, 1969
Business of the House



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement attributed to the President of the Privy Council that there are only 18 sitting days left to deal with government business and that some legislation may have to be put over, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he will agree to putting the Criminal Code amendments over until the end of the session, and immediately bringing forward legislation on housing and other urgent matters? Will he, in any event, undertake that the house will not adjourn for a summer recess until the housing and other legislation has been dealt with by the house?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Thank you very much.


An hon. Member:: More?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Why not? Mr. Speaker, I can give neither of those undertakings. On the first point, I do not see how the question would be solved or how the motion would be adopted any more quickly by putting it later in the session. I think we all realize that the Criminal Code omnibus bill has been dealt with sufficiently and that it would be a mistake now to risk postponing its adoption to some other session. On the second point, the government intends to introduce concepts of planning into the use of legislative time, and as much as possible we will stick to our goal of adjourning before the summer is too advanced. I think it is up to the house to take its responsibility; when there is a filibuster such as we are now seeing, I hope that all responsible parties will unite in conceiving some way of allocating time for bills, when that time is obviously being wasted by some members of the house.


Mr. McCleave:: What about the Liberal members who spoke yesterday?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, without being in any way provocative, will the government not accept responsibility for having introduced the Criminal Code legislation in the manner in which it was introduced, and will the government not accept responsibility for getting important legislation before the house before we adjourn for the summer recess?
IMr. Speaker.]


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. If it is the government's intention to stay with the Criminal Code bill until it is finished, will the Prime Minister give the government house leader freedom to discuss with other house leaders which of the other items of legislation we shall deal with after the Criminal Code bill is finished?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I believe it is up to the government to decide the priority with which it wants to introduce bills which are on the order paper, or which should be dealt with at this session. Of course once this priority has been established by the government, it should be discussed and tested with the opposition to see if we have cause to change that priority.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Burnaby-I mean, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: I am glad we have that fellow identified.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I can understand your having difficulty knowing who is the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour. I understand the Prime Minister had the same difficulty.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The voters
knew the difference.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Having in mind the statement made by the deputy commander of NORAD, General F. R. Sharp, to the effect that on a purely military basis the anti-ballistic missile system should be brought under NORAD, will the Prime Minister assure the house that no commitment will be made by the Canadian government to bring the anti-ballistic missile system under NORAD without the matter first being referred to parliament?
May 7, 1969	COMMONS


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the most I can say on that is that General Sharp obviously implied that it was a matter for political decision and not to be decided only by military considerations. It is of course the intention of the government to take its political responsibilities in such matters. But it may be that the government will not want to discuss this question in front of the house, if it does not feel it has to come up with a decision.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I ask the Prime Minister whether parliament will have an opportunity to discuss this matter before the government takes the political decision which is now under review.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not understand the question very well, Mr. Speaker. The matter is before the committee, and General Sharp is testifying before it. Members of the house can express their opinion before that committee, and we hope they will.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the Prime Minister if, in the government's review of the anti-ballistic missile system, he will undertake to see that the comprehensive report commissioned by Senator Edward Kennedy which is now completed is included in the study, and when does the government expect to complete that study?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We have been pressed by the house to make some announcements as soon as possible on phase 2 of Canada's defence system, and I believe we will give that top priority before deciding on the defence systems of other countries.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Having failed a moment ago to get an assurance from the Prime Minister, I wonder if he would give the house an assurance that he will not make an announcement regarding the NORAD policy the day after the house adjourns.



NORAD-POSSIBLE EXTENSION OF NORTH BAY INSTALLATION

Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister in connection with NORAD and the statement made by Lieutenant General Sharp, deputy commander of NORAD. Is the Prime Minister in a position to inform the house on
DEBATES	8427
Inquiries of the Ministry the correctness of the statement that the government is now considering an extension of the NORAD headquarters at Colorado Springs to a supplementary command post at North Bay?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this sounds like a rather complicated question. I will have to refer it to the minister to see whether we can give the hon. member an uncomplicated answer.


Harold Edward Winch: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker., I will take with pleasure the advice of the right hon. Prime Minister and direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. I should like to ask the minister if his department is now considering the extension and expansion of North Bay as a supplementary headquarters to the NORAD headquarters in Colorado Springs as was announced by General Sharp.


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: First of all, the question does not involve an extension of the facilities. As conceived and as operating now the installation at North Bay could be used as an alternative base to Colorado Springs. The only thing that would be new in this particular case would be for the government to accept the proposition and formalize an arrangement with the United States government to use the North Bay base as an alternate base in case Colorado Springs is knocked out.


Harold Edward Winch: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it now being considered by the government as outlined by the minister?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: No, Mr. Speaker.



A.B.M. SYSTEM-COMMUNICATION WITH U.S. AUTHORITIES

David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the Prime Minister returned from Washington and reported on the conversation he had with regard to the A.B.M. system I wonder whether he or his colleagues have communicated any position, even of an interim nature, to the government of the United States with respect to the establishment of A.B.M.s.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: When I came back from Washington I reported in general terms that I had expressed some concern over the A.B.M. system and its consequences on the equilibrium of forces of deterrence between the Soviet Union and the
May 7, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry United States of America. As I reported to the house, we also received certain explanations from the United States government concerning that system, but no specific decision has been taken beyond that and therefore no representation has been made based on such a decision. I merely want to repeat that, of course, the A.B.M. system is of importance to us but it is important to the whole world, and we are one of the countries considering it.
NORTH BAY-POSSIBLE REMOVAL OF BOMARCS Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands): I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister whether the Bomarc missiles at North Bay are are going to be removed.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: There are no plans at present to remove the Bomarc system. This is a phase that is envisaged with the development of O.T.H. and AWACS, and I think it is slated for some time in the mid 1970s.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Is it his intention to rectify the mistakes he made, according to an editorial in Le Devoir, regarding the cost of the site of the Montreal international airport?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in due time I would be very happy to correct those mistakes, and I am a little surprised that the editorial writer concerned did not get information from Ottawa as he surely did from Quebec sources, before writing his article.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



NON-MEDICAL USES-DISCUSSIONS AS TO PERSONNEL OF COMMITTEE

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, Mr. Speaker. Has he discussed with the provincial premiers and with the Alcohol and Drug Research Foundation the make up of the committee Which he proposes to establish?


John Carr Munro: No I have not, Mr. Speaker.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Does the minister not consider it worth while to tap the reservoir of experience and research available in this foundation?



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Barney Danson (York North):: My question is intended for the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker, but in his absence I will address it to the minister who is answering for him. Since authorization has been given to international air carriers en route to and from Montreal to seek landing rights at Halifax and Gander I should like to ask the minister whether similar authorization might be given for landing rights at a point where some 75 per cent of the passengers originate and terminate their flights-Toronto.


James Armstrong Richardson: This is the sort of question which is being reviewed by the Transport Commission. I shall be pleased to pass this suggestion along to the Minister of Transport.


Mr. E. B. Osier (Winnipeg Souih Centre):: should like to ask the minister whether at some time consideration could be given to using, as a gateway, Winnipeg International airport where people are willing to work-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



POSSIBLE STRIKE OF CANADIAN PACIFIC AIRLINES MACHINISTS

Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: Could the minister tell us whether he has received a request to set up a conciliation board in the matter of the differences between Canadian Pacific Airlines and the machinists union?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I understand that such a request is on its way, though I have not received it yet. There is no particular reason why such a request should not be granted. The procedure, as hon. members know, is for the minister to take a week or ten days in which to study the matter and decide whether or not such a board should be set up. If he reaches the conclusion that it should, the next step is to set up the board and appoint a suitable chairman. After the board has examined the situation a report is made to the Minister of Labour and
May 7, 1969

he either accepts it or rejects it, depending on whether he thinks it is complete or incomplete.



ASSISTANCE FOR AREAS IN WESTERN PROVINCES-USE OF ARMED FORCES

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Is the Prime Minister in a position to say whether or not the premier of Saskatchewan has placed before the Government of Canada any claim for assistance in connection with the recent flood damage in that province? Second, has any estimate been made by the Department of Agriculture, officials of P.F.R.A. or any other federal authority as to the extent of the damage?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Without getting into details I can say that the premiers of several western provinces have applied for federal assistance. We are waiting to learn the extent of the damage and to receive more concrete figures before deciding in what way we can answer such requests.
Now that the danger of the floods has receded it might be worth while to point out that the federal government did play an outstanding part in providing needed assistance. Hundreds of members of the Canadian Armed Forces were at some time or other manning the dykes, and other departments, such as the Department of National Health and Welfare, and P.F.R.A. officials were involved in the operation.


John George Diefenbaker: I agree entirely with what the Prime Minister had to say in the latter part of his statement. We are all very grateful for what was done. I would ask him now to answer the second question: Has there been any estimate made of the damage in the province of Saskatchewan? When he mentions other provinces he must be referring to the province of Manitoba.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: And British Columbia.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, and British
Columbia. Has there been any estimate as yet on the part of the federal government as to the extent of the damage?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: To my knowledge the costs involved have not yet been fully appraised but I shall check to find out whether there has been some later development.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: While the federal government is considering
Inquiries of the Ministry making contributions in respect of flood damage, will it not also consider contributing toward the cost of flood prevention? I am thinking specifically, now, of the town of Lumsden in the Qu'Appelle Valley, and of similar areas.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: At various times the federal government has taken action to help prevent floods. I believe the Canada Water Act will have something to say about that; it is due for introduction before the end of the session.


Harold Edward Winch: In
connection with the use of the armed forces to restrict the danger of flooding in the provinces, would the government consider refraining from making the usual charge to the provinces for such services?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In view of the fact that the charges are seldom paid anyhow, Mr. Speaker, it might be worthwhile looking into that suggestion.



AIR CANADA


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour arising out of the welcome news-I hope it remains true-that Air Canada and the International Association of Machinists are again in negotiation. Is the minister considering steps to have a mediator present in order that the second round of negotiations during the strike might be more productive than the first round?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I am happy to say that the machinists and Air Canada have been meeting since two o'clock this afternoon. I am particularly encouraged by the fact that the meeting was arranged on their own initiative. I hope these talks are productive and that they will bring an end to this strike, because I can assure both Air Canada and the union concerned that if they do not settle it of their own volition at this particular round of talks they can be prepared for a long strike, if they expect the government to step in and put an end to it through legislation.


David Lewis: I agree with the minister's last remark-that the government will not attempt to interfere in that way. However when a striking union and the employer get together for a second time during a strike, the result must be satisfactory or there will be difficulty for a long time, and in these
May 7, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry circumstances I ask the minister whether he is considering stepping into the picture himself, or getting someone else to do so on his behalf?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I apologize for not having answered the original question fully. I think it is in the best interest of both Air Canada and the machinists, at least for a few days, that they should negotiate in the absence of any representative of the Department of Labour. They concur in this particular philosophy. Since this meeting was arranged mutually, I am hopeful that the spirit of co-operation will continue and that they may be able to arrive at a collective agreement on their own initiative.


David Lewis: I should like to ask the minister this supplementary question. Since the parties are meeting of their own volition, and in view of his decision, which I am prepared to accept without qualification as a wise one at this stage, to let the parties meet on their own, has he arranged for machinery to keep him informed of the progress of the negotiations, so that should there be any danger of a breakdown he will be in a position to intervene before a breakdown actually takes place?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Both parties have been particularly co-operative in this matter and are aware that the full resources of the Department of Labour are available to either or both sides, if such services are felt to be needed.



CANADIAN CONFEDERATION


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: My
question is directed to the Secretary of State and it relates to an important event in Canadian confederation. I refer to the entry of Manitoba into confederation in 1870,-the first "in" province-making possible a Canada from sea to sea. When will the Secretary of State and the government be in a position to announce the extent of Ottawa's financial participation in this historic centennial occasion.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, this matter is being looked into and I hope to be able to inform the house at an early date in this connection.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether I could ask

the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and indeed all members of the house if they have completed their personal plans to participate in this important event in the keystone province?


Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State.
Could he tell us whether it is the intention of the government to subsidize the erection of a monument commemorating Louis Riel, in front of the Manitoba parliament buildings?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think this question should be put on the order paper.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Supply and Services. Would the minister make available to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts the report of the audit team that audited the books of Davie Shipbuilding in regard to the cost of the Bonaventure refit?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that this is a question that should be considered by the committee itself rather than by the house.



THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
REQUEST FOR TABLING OF REVISED LIST Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):
Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. Would the minister table for the information of the house the revised list of ministers, acting ministers and second acting ministers, as he did earlier in the year, so that we can have a complete rundown?
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would be glad to do that, Mr. Speaker.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: controllers at Montreal, Toronto, Edmonton, Moncton and other important air centres in Canada?


James Armstrong Richardson: I will be pleased to convey that request to the minister, Mr. Speaker.


Charles Humbert Thomas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Recognizing the fact that it takes five years to train a controller, and that five years from now we will need twice the number we presently have, will the minister undertake to make a second statement on motions in the near future to outline his plans for increasing the number of men training to be air traffic controllers?



WATER RESOURCES


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries. Can the minister say whether consideration is being given by the government to assisting fishermen in the St. Marys and Placentia Bay areas whose livelihood has been affected by the pollution problem there?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker.


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can the minister inform the house whether officials of his department have reported to him as to their findings regarding the same problem?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker, they have. I presume the hon. member is referring to the Placentia Bay area. I am hopeful that members from Newfoundland will meet with those officials later on this afternoon.


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humfcer-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister of health. Would the minister advise as to the results of the investigations made by his department in the St. George's Bay area in western Newfoundland in regard to evidence of possible pollution?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I may have misled the house yesterday when I indicated that my officials were in that area. They were in the Placentia Bay area rather than St. George's; but they do advise, as the hon. member will learn this afternoon, that the situation in St. George's Bay is not serious.
Inquiries of the Ministry FISHERIES



SALT COD-IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW POLICY

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a related question for the Minister of Fisheries. Is the minister in a position to announce whether or not the advisory committee under the new salt cod policy has been established, and when can we expect implementation of this new policy?


John (Jack) Davis: All of the members of this committee, Mr. Speaker, have been approached by letter. Most of them have already agreed to serve; the others, I hope, will do so very shortly. The committee will be meeting within the next ten days. The policy, as the hon. member knows, has already been announced, and it will be implemented in that form.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question that I should like to direct to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In light of the recent decision by the Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations to ask the provincial government to ban the sale of beverages in one-way bottles, can the minister now report on the outcome of his promise to try to get co-ordinated action with the provinces to deal with this dangerous, expensive, unsightly and increasing problem?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that the hon. member is raising a question which, in my view, should be discussed by way of a statement on motions. I hope the hon. member will agree with me on this point.


Winona Grace MacInnis: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question was going to point to the fact that we are just at the edge now of the litterbug season, and both from the standpoint of public safety as well as unsightly littering-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Had I known what the supplementary question was going to be I would have allowed the question.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Then may I put that question to the minister.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, there was some discussion of this subject with the
May 7, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry ministers concerned at the recent federal-pro- Abitibi as a special area with regard to the vincial conference. As the hon. member granting of financial assistance to promote undoubtedly knows, the Consumers Associa- industrial development in that area? tion of Canada is conducting a widespread	.
inquiry into the whole question of disposable Mr' Speaker: I feel that the question should bottles, and I would not want to take action normally be put on the order paper or dis-until they had completed their study and I cussed at the tlme of adjournment.
had had the benefits of the views of the Con- Mr. Laprise: At ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker, sumers Association.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a
further supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would suggest to the hon. member that the question has been asked. We are running out of time, and if there is an urgent supplementary it might be discussed at the time of adjournment.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, all I want to know is whether the minister knows when this study is likely to be complete and the results made public.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I cannot speak for the Consumers Association of Canada, Mr. Speaker.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Waller Deakon (High Park):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is obvious we cannot have the last word because the girls take precedence. My question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Can the minister advise the house whether the federal government has provided for, or intends to provide for a subsidy to the United States firm, Texas Gulf, for the purpose of erecting a smelter in the Timmins area?


Harold Edward Winch: Author?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minisier of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I think it has already been announced that we are going to give a grant of, I do not know the exact amount but I think it is over $1 million.



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Could he tell us whether consultations are taking place between his department and the Quebec government for the designation of
IMr. Basford.]



SEARCH AND RESCUE


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday last the minister of manpower told the house that the government had a plan for summer employment of students, though he did not say what that plan was. My question is to the Minister of Transport. As part of the government's drive to provide jobs for students, is the Department of Transport going to establish a summertime network of search and rescue co-ordination centres in the inland waters of Canada to be manned by students?
Is the minister considering hiring students for the summer months to run routine checks on the large numbers of pleasure craft to ensure that the provisions of the Canada Shipping Act are carried out, plus relieving the police of these additional time consuming duties?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I am certain that the new Minister of Transport will want to consider that question.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweafher@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. What progress is being made to provide parliament with the expurgated edition of the report on security procedures which the right hon. gentleman has promised from time to time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will not surprise the house by saying that progress has been slow. There has been progress. I hope to be able to announce the date soon.
May 7, 1969	COMMONS



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I would like to ask my good friend the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs whether the extraordinary delay in announcing the appointment of the commission on prices means that the minister has abandoned this idea? Does he believe the government has already licked inflation or is he actually going to set up a commission?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I would like to tell my good friend the Leader of the Opposition that the government has not abandoned its policies to establish a prices and incomes commission. I am most anxious to have this established as quickly as possible. I have had some difficulty in the selection of personnel for the commission. I expect this difficulty will be resolved very shortly.


An hon. Member:: Jim Tucker is still
available!


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am delighted to hear a nomination from members of the opposition. However, under the circumstances it is one I cannot accept. I hope to make an announcement shortly. The prices and incomes commission will be part of the program of this government's determination to beat the inflation problem.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker. I have had bad luck with assurances today, but could the minister assure us the commission will be announced and appointed in 1969?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


James Aloysius McGrath: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the difficulty the minister is having in recruiting members for the commission, would he consult with the Leader of the Opposition, who will be most helpful in this regard?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



TRAIL, B.C.-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON FINANCIAL AID

Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: would like to direct a question to the Minister
DEBATES	8433
Inquiries of the Ministry of Public Works. In view of the continuing and disheartening delay of any firm commitment from either the provincial or federal authorities in respect to the flood disaster in Trail, B.C., may I ask the minister what recent discussions, if any, his department has had with the provincial authorities in British Columbia on sharing the costs of the disastrous Trail flood?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, we have had no discussion with the province of British Columbia. That province has not asked us for aid. As the Prime Minister explained, the matter of floods in three provinces is under study and a report is expected momentarily. In the meantime, we have not turned down the possibility of giving assistance in Trail. We are waiting for the report to assess what would be proper.


Randolph Harding: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that federal assistance has been given to other areas, such as the city of Alberni where similar disastrous floods hit, what guidelines for cost sharing have been laid down by the federal authorities-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. D. R. Tolmie (Welland):: I wish to direct a question to the Solicitor General. Will the minister be bringing forth legislation at the next session of parliament pertaining to the subject of the sealing of criminal records?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Solicitor General):: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member referred to the next session. Perhaps the question might be asked then.


Donald Ross Tolmie: I think it is rather urgent, Mr. Speaker, that the government should start this legislative program. It is a matter of urgency.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. To answer
May 7, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry shocking rumours in Nova Scotia, have the goals for the number of personnel in the armed forces remained approximately the same since April of last year?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question should be placed on the order paper.



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: My question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Will he be bringing in any new legislation concerning designated areas before this session expires?


Jean Marchand: I hope so, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Could he tell us if he intends to take other means than those he announced last week in the house to correct the deplorable situation that exists at this time about the issuance of passports at the passport office in Ottawa?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me the hon. member's question was considered by the minister last week, but it is possible that the minister may want to answer it.


Mitchell William Sharp: As a result of the measures taken, the volume of passports being issued is increasing very rapidly. Yesterday for example 2,674 passports were issued. We are gradually overcoming the backlog.



STUDENT UNREST


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingafe):: My question is for the Solicitor General. Could the minister make a statement on motions as to the extent of evidence and information obtained by the R.C.M.P. with respect to student activists outside Canada and their role in precipitating student unrest?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I will consider the suggestion

and statement. I regret the hon. member did not put the question yesterday in the Estimates Committee when this subject was before the committee. Appropriate officials with detailed information were available at that time to answer detailed questions.


John Howard Lundrigan: A supplementary question. Could I ask the minister what action has been taken by his department in trying to curtail such infiltrated activist movement which is precipitating this student unrest?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the information
sought by the hon. member might be included in the statement which the minister may make to the house.


John Howard Lundrigan: The minister did not mention he would make a statement; he said he would take it under advisement. We are not all members of this committee he referred to.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Does the minister intend in the interest of consumers to have his department undertake a study of the effect of skyrocketing interest rates on the cost of living?


Stanley Ronald Basford: This is really a question for the Department of Finance which is responsible for financial matters in the country. It could be a suitable subject for the prices and incomes commission to look at.



REQUEST FOR REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON AMATEUR SPORTS

Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to direct a question to the minister of National Health and Welfare.
Could he tell us when the special committee on amateur sport will table its report?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I expect to be in a position to table the report of the sports inquiry next Monday, May 12.
May 7. 1969



THE MINISTRY


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Can the Prime Minister advise the house whether he intends to name another Minister without Portfolio with duties specifically related to Indian affairs, beyond those carried out by the present minister, in response to the legitimate aspirations of all Indians in Canada who have now reacted to the last changes in the cabinet?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. We are responding to those legitimate demands in a very effective way.



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Does he consider the reports of the Atlantic Development Board, published recently, since the winding up of this agency, as valid as far as the formulation of the policy of its department is concerned?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is requesting an opinion from the minister. I do not think that the question such as formulated is acceptable.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Ray Perrault (Burnaby-Seymour):: have a question for the Minister of Labour. Have Canadian Pacific Airlines and the Transportation and Communications Employees Union completed their negotiations?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I am pleased to say, Mr. Speaker, that not only have they completed their negotiations, but they arrived at a settlement which I believe was ratified yesterday. This is a very important union representing close to 800 key employees of Canadian Pacific Airlines. I congratulate both parties.


Raymond J. Perrault: I wonder if the minister is in a position to tell us the nature of the wage settlement.
Criminal Code


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether this is the kind of information which ought to be given. If hon. members wish to hear the information they might indicate so, but I really do not think this is the time. I believe this is the kind of information which normally is given by way of a statement, but if the minister wants to make a statement perhaps we might take thirty seconds, to allow him to make it.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I bow to your wisdom. I do not think I should elaborate on the statement, other than to say the basic settlement is 8 per cent in the first year and 7 per cent in the following year.
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East
Richmond): Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the House Leader. Is there anybody attending Liberal caucus meetings these days?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. On a C.B.C. radio program "Sunday News Magazine" last Sunday I was referred to as a Conservative member of parliament. Mr. Speaker, I waited two or three days thinking the Conservative Party would register a protest, so now I feel it desirable to inform the house that I am still a full-fledged member of the Liberal party.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, May 6, consideration of Bill C-150, to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, and motion No. 34, Mr. Allmand.
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, while considering the previous amendment, I

May 7, 1969
Criminal Code
dealt generally with the word "health" which is used in a vague sense in clause 18 of Bill C-150.
As motion No. 34 tends to qualify the word "health" used in respect of abortion, I am glad to congratulate the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) who laid down and defended so eloquently his approach to the problem. I was quite astonished, however, to see the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) throw cold water on his enthusiasm.
Not so long ago, the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Clermont) also moved an amendment. You will remind that it was beaten all hollow. I thought then that perhaps the amendment was not of a swinging type or that it did not get the approval of the new Liberal members since the hon. member for Gatineau belongs to the old guard.
At any rate, in so far as the amendment now before us is concerned, that cannot be the case, since it is moved by a Montreal lawyer, a new member of parliament, a member of the young team.
Mr. Speaker, during the last election campaign, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) took pleasure in emphasizing across the country the importance of dialogue. Since the election, he has proved his point by hiring defeated Liberal candidates; in fact, many offices have been opened. Several of those defeated candidates are meeting people across the country. Several of them have been mobilized and they travel across the country to carry on a dialogue with the public. In the meantime, in this house, the members normally elected by the people, such as the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace and the hon. member for Gatineau, are ignored. The views of those members, the views of even the Liberal members are of no interest whatever to the Prime Minister.
The proposal of the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace is rejected in advance. The Minister of Justice made it clear yesterday, as reported on page 8399 of Hansard., and I quote:
Despite the obvious sincerity and the wealth of argument introduced by hon. members who support this amendment... I suggest to the members who are supporting this amendment that the words in the bill itself more adequately and conclusively convey the meaning that they themselves wish to convey than do the words that they are offering to the house.
How stupid can you be?
In Poland, where abortion is commonly practised, any reason is good. Health grounds

are also recognized. In order to set women free, any reason is valid. For health reasons, women undergo abortion and a week later, those very women are engaged in road building like men.
Everyone will agree that is the way to recover quickly. It was certainly advantageous for the Polish government to legalize abortion since the legislation in that regard, passed without opposition, is profitable to the state, which is the main employer. Polish women are not healthy enough to have children, but they are in perfect health to work for the minister of highways at $13 a month.
In that socialist country where there is a guaranteed monthly salary of $11, the department of highways is so generous that it pays as much as $13 a month to women working at the construction of roads. Not healthy enough to be wives, with everything that is involved in that state of life, but in perfect health when it comes to working in plants, building highways and bridges and farming. One third of Polish farms are owned by women. In approving abortion for Polish women-[DOT]


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must interrupt the hon. member and beg him to come back from Poland to Canada and more especially to the amendment before us.
It seems to me the hon. member's comments of these last few minutes have nothing to do whatever with the amendment under consideration.


Roland Godin: I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I shall get back to the matter since, for all kinds of reasons, people talk of abortion in that country.
I was in Poland and I wish here to thank the Canadian government for having given me the opportunity of making such a trip.
Abortion is accepted in order not to lose three months of work.
Mr. Speaker, I believe it important that Canadian women should know what the future has in store for them when this famous bill is passed or when, unfortunately, clause 18 is passed.
I wish to point out, once again, that so as not to lose three months' work, women agree to resort to abortion. Yet, the average salary in Poland was $25 per month. In that country, where a 9 cubic foot refrigerator costs $450, you can imagine how many months one has to work in order to buy one, Mr. Speaker.
May 7. 1969

Criminal Code
Here in Canada, the government's refusal of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace proves that clause 18 of the legislation before us is a totalitarian measure.
Maternity leaves will become non-existent, for the benefit of Insurance companies which have been collecting fees for those leaves, for several years.
The Minister of Justice has said that he is against the amendment proposed by his colleague. May I go back to the amendment, of the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace which proposes to modify Bill C-150, and I quote:
-by deleting in clause 18 the words "or would be likely to endanger her life or health" on lines 4 and 5 on page 43 and by inserting the following words:
"endanger her life or seriously and directly impair her health".
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice is against the amendment because pregnancy, childbirth, would not be considered as an illness by the Canadian government and consequently does not endanger the life of the mother.
Through his contract as an employer, the Canadian government proves that pregnancy does not endanger health because the Canadian government does not even grant a maternity leave to his "female" employees.
Generally speaking, female employees are fairly well treated. Regular work, time off for lunch, time off for coffee, weekends off, leave on important feast days, annual leave, accumulated leave, call it what you will, they benefit from them. All in all, we can say that the working conditions are fairly good. We are glad to work with secretaries in top condition and who retain their youth.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that when a human being is well treated, he or she stays healthy longer.
Mr. Speaker, none of the secretaries of the House of Commons, 80 per cent of whom are married have maternity-leave clauses in their contract. This shows that the government recognizes that pregnancy is not a sickness but a natural event.
In the legislation now before us, why give so much importance to pregnancy? Why try and educate by pointing out inexistent dangers?
Who else but the financiers would profit from section 18, legalizing abortion?
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
Maternity leaves are disappearing, the birth rate is falling and, as a result, there are less family allowances to pay, and all this is profitably replaced by taxes deducted at the source. So the question of abortion should not be raised in the parliament of Canada. Everything should be done to help the married woman to play her role in our society. It is well known that childless married couples not only are less costly to the state, but they pay more taxes as well.
Collecting taxes is important, but to make investments is a necessity. And for the survival of the country, the Canadian government should first take into consideration the opinion of the 70,000 Canadian women who expressed their views to the right hon. Prime Minister a few days ago.
It is obvious that the proposed amendment tries to clear things up and I hope that the government will take the opportunity to clarify this ambiguity and, hence, will prove that the participation of the people, the dialogue recommended by the head of the government not so long ago on the hustings was not a promise made in jest.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?

The question is on motion No. 34, (Mr. All-mand) which reads as follows:
That Bill C-150, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act, be amended by deleting in clause 18 the words "or would be likely to endanger her life or health" on lines 4 and 5 on page 43 and by inserting the following words:
"endanger her life or seriously and directly impair her health".
Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost on division.
Motion No. 34 (Mr. Allmand) negatived.
Criminal Code

May 7, 1969

Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford), on behalf of Mr. Rodrigue, moves the motion No. 35.
That Bill C-150, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act, be amended by deleting in clause 18 the words "or health" on line 5 on page 43.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house agree to adopt the said motion?


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, because of the absence of the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Rodrigue), who has just got visitors in good health in his office, I would like to sponsor this motion.
Amendment No. 35 aims to delete from section 18 of Bill C-150 the words: "or health".
This would only mean deleting two words but would change the whole meaning of the bill and would be in line with the principles we have already put forward in this house.
In the course of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I shall try to confine myself to the subject of health. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that you look the picture of health today. Generally, a healthy person has a ready smile. We hope that good health will long keep you smiling in this house.
Mr. Speaker, we want to speak about health. Health is not easy to define. What is health? Where does it start, where does it end?
It is a subject which, according to medical books, does not require long developments, since health can be defined as the absence of illness.
It is the absence of all forms of illness, because often even a healthy man is a sick one who does not realize he is sick.
The present bill provides that for health reasons abortion may be allowed. Well, the word "health" has not been defined. We have not been told, clearly what illnesses pregnant women could contract due to pregnancy.
We have not been given in the bill what health reasons a doctor or an abortion committee could invoke to carry out an abortion. That has not been defined.
Books on medicine are all wrong when they deal with health, because it is a difficult subject to define.
In the Quillet dictionary, page 5175, health is defined as a state of a living being where all organs perform their functions freely.

In the Larousse Dictionary, at page 586, almost the same definition of health appears; it is the state of a person whose body functions well.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it is not easy to define health, unless we say that it is an absence of illness.
In the text of the bill, we are not told which are the illnesses that abortion could cure.
On the other hand, while studying medical books, we find that the illnesses pregnancy may bring about in a woman cannot be stated. However, some illnesses that pregnancy can correct in certain cases are specified.
I do not intend here to mention all the medical experiments of the past which have shown that some women who had been suffering until then of various illnesses had been cured for ever on the occasion of their pregnancy.
Personally, I have known a lady who had always worn glasses until her marriage. The moment she was pregnant, the doctor told her: as soon as you have your first child, you will no longer need glasses. Why? Because pregnancy brings maturity to a woman and involves unique biological, psychological and physical consequences.
Now, in certain cases, pregnancy corrects illnesses that otherwise a woman could not get rid of.
Since no such reference is made in the wording of the legislation, Mr. Speaker, we cannot accept minor ailments as diseases. A person might have an indisposition without necessarily being ill. One may feel indisposed one day, have a headache. Those are discomforts-not diseases. The wording of the legislation does not clearly specify what is health, was is illness, what is discomfort.
So because of everything we are told about health, because it is vaguely defined or even not at all, women will be able to claim they suffer minor ailments and still get an abortion.
And here, I refer to a doctor's testimony, that of Dr. Marcel Boivin, who says about such discomforts, and I quote:
In the name of such subjectivism, must the doctor or all professionals concerned readily comply with their patients' requests who are in a state of stress, because this is actually the case in point. Are doctors usually ready more or less to prescribed penicillin to every patient who asks for it?-
May 7, 1969

Criminal Code
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Does a physician give penicillin to any woman as soon as she feels unwell? Is morphine given to any patient who asks for it? Are X-rays, laboratory tests or hospitalization recommended for no reason at all?
If it is therapeutic to comply with a request or a wish, to yield to feelings of freedom or immediate compassion for anything related to medicine, we only have to rationalize all our sympathy and compassion, to cry with depressed persons, to he frightened with those suffering from phobia, anxiety or obsession and to give them at any time the therapeutic care they ask.
I therefore suggest that medicine should be really, adequately and efficiently organized to take care of all underlying conflicts of those who believe that an abortion is essential.
A physician has said in the logical way of scientists:
It seems that medical science has always tended to prevent rather than to cure. There may be circumstances when abortion appears necessary, but all things being considered, we realize it is a desperate solution. I do not think medicine should endorse despair, but by basing its actions on symptoms, incite a re-organization of the patient's global energies. Who, in his medical or personal conscience, has not often considered abortion as a therapeutic solution but has finally found other possibilities? The function of a physician has never been to deny pain or suffering, or to prevent death, but rather to help and release recuperative powers, to stimulate curative powers on the physical, psychological and mental planes.
Mr. Speaker, this is a proof that we cannot accept at first hand, the definition of health given in this bill and that it has been impossible for the Minister of Justice and even for physicians to say what is meant by health, when it starts and where it ends.
And when, for instance, the employees of the various health departments are sworn in, before serving in various health services, here are the words they utter about health:
Faced with the abortion problem, employees in health services turn more and more to the code of ethics which says, among other things:
Any health services employee must consider abortion as something harmful biologically, medically, psychologically and sociologically. The principles of socialist humanism and of medical knowledge require that human life be respected from its very beginning. Consequently, the health services employee should strive to consider the human privilege of motherhood as of greater value than the privilege of abortion. As a health services employee, it is his duty, in each individual case, to seek the professional help which is likely to be to the best advantage of the woman and of the family. At the same time, he must, because of his profession, work towards making useless, through responsible parenthood, such extreme measures as abortion.
That is the code of ethics by which health services employees must abide, whatever the services they are called upon to give to the sick.
Prevention more than cure is the object of medicine. If we accept abortion on grounds of health, it would mean that we are putting aside the principles of medicine, that we are saying that physicians are not sufficiently skilled to cure the discomforts of pregnancy. I do not say the ills of pregnancy because pregnancy is not an illness.
There are no ilnessesi either that can justify abortion during pregnancy. To accept abortion for reasons of health is to deny the beneficial effects of medical science, to deny medical science, to deny also that there is now on the market good and efficient medicine to cure various indispositions and, if need be, real illnesses.
It is to deny also that our hospitals have at present to provide medical care to sick people and pregnant women, when the removal of the foetus is decided upon for reasons of health. To do that is to want to kill instead of curing. To want to kill instead of caring for. To want to kill instead of providing treatment.
For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, we cannot accept that because the words "or health" are not defined in the Criminal Code, abortion should be permitted. I wish the provincial governments, that are now against the abortion legislation, could pass a law in order to define health and prevent the Criminal Code from being used in such cases as a means to procure an abortion.
Mr. Speaker, we do not accept abortion for reasons of health. First, because it is an act of folly, it is pure nonsense and it runs counter to real medical science. It means admitting a pregnant woman is right by accepting to procure her miscarriage instead of giving her the proper care, so that the pregnancy may be completed in due time.
Unfortunately, in the Liberal party, even outside that party, no doctor has given clear, definite and precise grounds as to health or illness that could be used for resorting to abortion.
There was but one instance in the past, which was the most frequent one, where abortion had to be automatically performed: in the case of German measles. But nowadays, German measles can be very effectively cured, because medical science has developed' efficient vaccines against it. Besides, we have no more cases, no other medical indications

May 7, 1969
Criminal Code
according to which a doctor can, today, practice an abortion tor true reasons of health.
Therefore, we think that this amendment, notwithstanding what the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) says or what is said by the government members, is most serious because we want to remove from the Criminal Code reasons that cannot be defined, diseases that are not specified, discomforts even that could be put forward in order to get an abortion, though it would be a matter of discomfort and not a disease.
Because abortion is a very important subject and because people tend to use spurious reasons to save the mother's health such futile or commonplace reasons seem unacceptable to us.
Mr. Speaker, I would still like to mention testimonies of physicians who have studied all aspects of medicine, they are to be found on page 6200 of the book "Biologie et mede-cine" which deals with what is normal, and statistically normal. I quote:
In very general terms. It can be said that the majority of human beings for most of their lives, are not prey to conscious sufferings. This state is subjectively that of good health.
And a little further:
One day, in Geneva, some young women asked surgeons whom they trusted to remove unsightly tumours from the anterior part of their necks; these tumours were goiters.
First stage: goiters suddenly become a pathological phenomenon. It did not happen until the middle of the XIXth century, in an enlightened Western society, because these goiters, in fact, were undesirable only from an esthetic point of view.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Formerly, a person with a goiter was said to be ill, but the medical science says it is nothing but an esthetic flaw. I resume the quotation:
Third phase: a surgeon is sure enough of his technique to allow himself to operate goiters.
Today, surgeons have confidence in themselves, and statistics prove that goiters can be operated on with good results. What used to be considered as an incurable disease can now be cured by a minor operation.
Third phase:	The patients present a special
pathological picture, resembling certain states of cretinism with cutaneous infiltrations, the nature of which was unknown.
I could give other examples of illnesses which used to be incurable but which to-day, thanks to medical science, have become curable.
Wanting to kill a foetus because a pregnant woman believes she is ill, is contrary to medical knowledge, medical science.
Further on under the title Standards and Time in the same book, one reads, and I quote:
A normal man is indeed an infant, then a child, an adolescent, an adult and an old man.
Still, it must be recognized that certain organic crises such as puberty or menopause, certain periods such as pregnancy, although they must be considered as physiological and normal-
No longer, in this day and age, as illnesses but as discomforts.
But, Mr. Speaker, this amendment deals with "health",-it was mentioned earlier that certain illnesses were considered as discomforts-and we cannot accept to kill a foetus on the basis of temporary discomfort.
For instance, if a woman at the beginning of her pregnancy had discomfort, she might have applied for an abortion pretending that she was sick. And, because pregnancy is something natural, normal, after two or three months, everything is back to normal. The discomfort disappears but not the illness, as she was not sick; the discomfort disappears and from then on she begins to love her child and afterwards the idea of an abortion gets off her mind.
But, Mr. Speaker, when we look at this bill we find that it is not based on any scientific or moral principle. It is not based on any biological or scientific fact. On what is it based then? On the protection, not of medical skills, but on the fact that some doctors, with this bill, will have a free hand and will have no concern because they will be protected by the Criminal Code. They will be able to allow abortion on request, not on the basis of sickness', but of discomfort.
Mr. Speaker, that is why these proposed amendments are absolutely in order, logical, and should be accepted by the minister.
If for any discomfort the foetus should be eliminated for such trifling reasons, I would not want to have on my shoulders or on those of future generations, the heavy responsibility of a stupid act, of an abominable killing which, for the sake of "health"-which is not defined-will lead to the elimination of foetuses in this country. To reduce the population and even be finally threatened with extermination, as is now the case in Japan where the number of abortions exceeds that of births, is a terrible thing. Within ten years, the Japanese race will be altogether exterminated. Why? Because any disease, which

May 7, 1969

actually is not a disease but a minor ailment justifies an abortion.
That is why this amendment is most serious, because we do not want to allow abortion on request for mere reasons of health.
The government members should speak on this bill, because they are concerned with the same people we are concerned with, and instead of sitting there, sucking their thumb, as the Liberal party whip (Mr. Pilon) does, they should now and then give their opinion on such an important amendment.


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) has absolutely no idea of the government's position, simple and clear as it is.
The government wishes to leave the practice of medicine to the doctors. The government wants them to look after the health of Canadian citizens. The government believes that this health will be in better hands than in those of our Creditiste friends. After all, it is rather surprising that these would-be defenders of life are willing to wait until a woman is at the point of death before a medical committee can decide whether or not a therapeutic abortion is necessary.
I wanted to give in a few words the position of the government and the reasons why this amendment is unacceptable to the government.


Mr. Romuald Rodrigue (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I moved this amendment to make it clear that it is the mother's life that will be endangered, and not only her health, if therapeutic abortion is not performed
Paragraph 18 (4) (c) of Bill C-150 reads as follows:
-has by certificate in writing stated that in its opinion the continuation of the pregnancy of such female person would or would be likely to endanger her life or health.
This paragraph may be interpreted in various ways, and have quite a wide scope according to the person interpreting it.
Some people think, it seems to me, that the new legislation on abortion will only legalize abortion on serious grounds, namely to save the mother's life. Even if that is seldom necessary, it is generally admitted that abortion made on such grounds is already legal. The changes proposed in the bill opens the door much wider.
Bill C-150 proposes to legalize abortion to safeguard health. The decision on such a matter is' left to the discretion of a small abortion
Criminal Code
committee. In fact, the act will allow two medical practitioners to authorize abortions on grounds of moral, physical or mental health.
During a television program, on December 27 last, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) said that the abortion committees would lay down the law. He stated that the word "health" would not be interpreted by courts of justice, but by every therapeutic abortion committee. In other words, the decision of those committees lies beyond the scope of the legislation and could have a different meaning according to the members.
In Colorado, in California and elsewhere, the result of legislation similar to the one which is proposed to us has been to increase the number of abortions. Up to 90 per cent of abortions performed in hospitals are made on so-called "mental health" grounds, a term which is used abusively to cover anything.
If there are more abortions in hospitals this does not mean that the number of criminal abortions has decreased
In Great Britain, for instance, under a liberalized legislation, the rate of deaths due to criminal abortions is higher than in Canada.
In 1966, the Dominion Bureau of Statistics reported only nine deaths due to criminal abortions in Canada, whilst in a six-month period, sixteen were reported in England. This amounts to 32 deaths a year.
Then what is the reason which could justify the change? To clarify the present legislation? In fact, it is not through the use of words which we are unable to define that we will reach that goal.
Could it be to meet an urgent medical need? Doctors recognize themselves that such need does not exist and our decreasing maternity death rate proves it. Today, it stands at only 3 deaths on 10,000 living births, which is over ten times less than the 1940 rate.
On February 7, 1968, Dr. FitzGibbon stated to the Committee on health, welfare and social affairs the following, and I quote:
As it has been said on several occasions during the audience of the above mentioned case, there is no sound medical reason to interrupt a pregnancy. Abortion requests addressed to doctors are almost invariably of a social nature-
Could the proposed amendments to the law be a concession granted to a small pressure group of doctors who want to free themselves from all legal restriction?

May 7, 1969
Criminal Code
The main justification put forward is that the bill will clarify the existing law on abortion. The spuriousness of this claim may be demonstrated thanks to the evidence gathered by the parliamentary committee on health, welfare and social affairs.
Abortion, we are told, should be legalized for "health" reasons, but what does the word "health" mean? In the Minutes of the Proceedings of the said committee, it is obvious that there was no consensus on the significance of that word. This ambiguous term can be taken in its broad or narrow meaning. According to an Ottawa doctor, "health" may even mean "happiness". How can a word that nobody can define clearly help clarify the law?
In reading the evidence given to the Standing committee on health, welfare and social affairs, we found that generally speaking, everybody agrees that abortion is an attack on human life. Out of the 26 doctors who have appeared before the committee, only one has tried to deny this. Will the broadening of the law on abortion increases the necessary respect for a human life or will it lessen it?
It is time that we should get down to the facts concerning the amendments to the abortion law as proposed in Bill C-150.
Is the government really anxious to protect the life and health of women? If so, where is the evidence that the proposed changes will achieve this goal?
Never was the health of Canadian women as well protected as it is today. At the present time Canada has one of the lowest mother death rate in the world.
Can we really believe that the changes as proposed in paragraph (c) of the bill will bring still greater improvements?
During this debate on abortion, there was nothing to show that such improvements would take place. It is somewhat surprising that nobody up to now has thought of asking that obvious question. It is significant also that no doctor has tried to prove that some social advantage would be forthcoming.
In Japan, as in many other countries, abortion is legal and is granted on request, even for sanitary reasons, according to a broad interpretation of the facts. Now, according to U.N.O. statistics, the death rate among mothers in Japan is three times as high as in Canada.
In Yugoslavia, with a similar legislation, the mother death rate is four times as high as ours.
How are we then to believe that permissive abortion laws promote health?
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Let us keep in mind also the tremendous medical progress achieved over the last ten years. The maternal mortality rate has decreased from 10 to 1 in a single generation.
Today, there are less medical indications than ever before. Medical authorities accept that fact and statistics prove it. So it is ironical to claim that the amendments to the abortion legislation proposed in the bill now before us reflect the needs of modern society.
On the matter of saving the mother's life, I should like to quote part of a document prepared by the Medical Council of Laval Hospital, and I quote:
An abortion performed because the mother's life is endangered, may be considered not as euthanasia, but as a case of self-defence.
But before an act can be considered to be in self-defence, there must be, on the one hand, some proportion between the defensive act and the aggression and, on the other hand, the defensive act must also be the only possible means of protection.
Now, according to experts, cases where the foetus must be killed in order to save the mother's life are extremely rare.
Dr. Rene Simard, director of obstetrics at Laval University, states that he has never seen any.
For his part, Dr. Roy J. HefTerman, a famed American gynaecologist, states:
To perform a therapeutic abortion, is either to overlook modern methods of treating pregnancy complications or to refuse to take the time required to apply them.
Moreover, the inefficiency of the therapeutic abortion is proved by-
-several studies.
Considering the scarcity of the cases where therapeutic abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother, we can ask ourselves if legislation to allow it is justified. Thus, if the legislator wants, through legislation, to rule on those extremely uncommon cases, he should include in that legislation some very strict guide lines similar to those advocated by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
Through the ages, several persons have tried on many occasions to define the word "health". Health cannot be defined by a legal term and this is the reason why I have proposed this amendment striking out the words "or health", in order to clarify paragraph (c) in subsection (4) of clause 18, in this bill amending section 237 of the Criminal Code.

May 7, 1969

In order to make more clear the views of certain physicians, I would also like to quote Dr. Whyte:
I am not aware of the World Health Organization's definition. That is a very hard word to define, I agree; you can define it as meaning happiness if you like. But I would certainly say that in my opinion the words "physical and/or mental health" would cover what normally we have in mind.
It is therefore commonly recognized that the word "health" as used in the bill concerned will have the necessary extension to encompass physical and psychic health and the socio-economic grounds which certain persons of means could include under the term "psychiatric indication".


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, just a few comments on the remarks made by the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mr. Cantin) because quite frankly I had decided, not to speak on this amendment. But in view of the comments of the hon. member for Louis-Hebert, I feel compelled to challenge his statement.
Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Louis-Hebert says we do not know what we are talking about, I simply want to tell him that, on the contrary, we have understood the bill full well for having read it line by line, and it is because we have understood it that we move amendments like this one.
The hon. member for Louis-Hebert says that the government wants to leave it up to doctors to settle abortion matters. This is all very well and so do we, but what kind of doctors, that is a different story, and what kind of problems is another one too.
We ask for a better definition of those very aspects in amendments such as No. 13, for instance, which seeks to remove any mention of the health of the mother, because we are in favour of a full protection of the life of the mother, but-I repeat as I did yesterday- we reject a measure that allows abortion in cases when pregnancy "would be likely to endanger her health".
We are also opposed to such expressions in the statutes. Considering that in the medical profession as in any other there are profiteers, it is easy to imagine that it will always be possible to find two doctors to say that the life of the mother or the unmarried girl "would likely be" endangered.
For those particular reasons, we want to remove this question of "health" from the bill, because while the government insists on being vague regarding the life of the mother, we wanted to replace "likely" by "indirectly"
Criminal Code
in danger. Nobody can blame us for requesting the clarification of a text so obscure and so permissive on the matter of abortion.
Instead of debating the subject in direct relation with abortion, it would have been more profitable to pass a law against abortion in order to protect the health of the mother, because I think a pregnant woman enjoys the best of health, and the fact that she is pregnant is sufficient proof. I think it is a natural state for her; it would be abnormal to reject maternity. A pregnant woman is one that is living a full life.
I do not see why we should be trying to pass legislation today in order to make abortion easier, when we should be legislating abortion out of existence, as far as reasons of health are concerned. It appears as if we were striving for the past few months, and especially since the coming to power of the new government, to adopt laws against nature. We shall soon have to change direction, in order to pass legislative measures aimed at protecting not only pregnant women but society as a whole, and to stop legalizing this or that and permitting everything in the end.
Mr. Speaker, my only purpose in rising was to warn the house that I shall vote in favour of this amendment, which is very sensible, because it states exactly what is expected of the bill, and that is full protection for the life of the mother. By protecting the life of the mother, we oppose life to life.
But, we have no right to sacrifice a life on grounds of "probable health". It is useless to discuss the question of saving two lives; one must choose the lesser of two evils. Two lives are threatened at a given moment, that of the mother and that of the child. Which one should be saved? We say that of the mother. That is our intention. But if the choice is between the health and happiness of one person and the life of the other, we do not have the right to sacrifice life for some small happiness or some uncertain health.
And when we are told that we did not understand anything, I think that there are some in this house who do not want to understand, who do not want to be logical, not only on a legislative point of view but on a rational point of view. I think that everybody will admit it.
It was even said in this house that if such a woman-and examples were given-had not been aborted, she would not be dead. This is perhaps true. But, as for me, I know by experience that if a certain woman, a close

May 7, 1969
Criminal Code
relation of mine, had not been aborted she would not be dead. But, here again, I do not blame those who did it. The doctors acted according to their conscience.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
But, all this means it is relative. I want to stop quoting these factual examples suggested by fatherly, motherly or brotherly love. It is only normal. But, let us stop all these comparisons because it would never end. We have cases where if nature had been left to take its course, it would have accomplished its work marvelously well. But nature was violated, was acted against, and death occurred.
I think that there is still the great doctor, as an Old doctor in my area used to say. The great doctor is still good old nature.
Let us stop acting against nature in this parliament. Since this government came to power, the only pieces of legislation I have seen were against nature. Are we finally going to act like men and stop reversing the natural processes?
Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that we must restrict ourselves to the matter being discussed, and deal with equations rather than with impressions. Let us discuss the problem of two lives or two healths, but let us not discuss one life and one probable health. It cannot be discussed.
We simply say that when the probable health of a person is involved, that such a term should not appear in the legislation on abortion, which is a murder, which is the murder of an innocent being or the murder of another person. But that we must choose between two lives, that is fine. The middle course between two lives? There is no middle course between life and probable health. And I want to draw the attention of the house and of the members to this point. It is more serious than the members of the other side might think, and even if they play politics, that is enough, because this is the crux of the matter. And I wish the people will pay them back in their own coin.
Mr. Speaker, without being a physician, a lawyer, one can be a head of family, human and logical; we can judge, of course. Are we going to be called idiots because we are neither physicians nor lawyers?
Mr. Speaker, as someone said in a letter I received yesterday, the world, with that type of professionals, will not often go very far.
Once again I urge all the members to study this amendment, to consider it seriously; this 
is no joke. We must consider the health of the mother, 100 per cent. We must protect her life 100 per cent, but it is different to say that we probably should also protect her probable health, that of the pregnant woman, when the word "health" cannot even be defined. I cannot see it. Does the word "health" apply to her social relations, her sports activities or social function? It has not been defined.
That is why I feel that certain groups of doctors, that I admit, will use this act with reservations1; on the other hand, others may use it for financial purposes. We will have them, just as they can be found in every other country, the world being what it is.
In England, an attempt is being made to pass legislation designed to restrain abortions, because 20 years ago mistakes were made. We are plunging head first into the same errors which were made in the old countries and which they are now trying in every way to correct.
We need not go into the details of every other country but it seem to me it is often wise to study what went on in other countries in an attempt to avoid making the same errors and to do better than they did. History should serve that purpose, amongst others.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I ask sincerely and openly to those members who have a conscience, who are humane, who want above all the good of the Canadian people, to think of the life of the Canadian mother.
As the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Laflamme) said yesterday, we are going towards abortion on request. Canada will err in this as England did and other countries where they started with a small insignificant act. They are caught now and they are wondering how to get out that trap.
I think the best way to get out of it is not to get into it. I have full confidence in the medicine of sincere doctors. Doctors are like businessmen. In fact, they are businessmen. Some of them are honest, and some are crooked. The laws are not made for honest people. Laws must be made for crooks.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: I have always thought so.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, the doctors will think of the health of the mother, and seriously, but there might be 50 per cent of crooks among them, who will take advantage of the flexibility which is allowed.
May 7, 1969

Even for 20 per cent, even for 15 per cent, it is necessary that restrictions be clearly mentioned in the law.
I hope that I made myself understood, and that the government members will stop shouting at us that we do not know anything about it. I think that when one has raised eight children and when one wants them in good health-our daughters and boys too-I believe that we have our word to say, and the government will realize that the Canadian people of Quebec have still a lot to say in these decisions and in these laws, these two laws against nature which are going to be voted on in a few days.


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Maiane):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member wants to speak he must be in his seat. I recognize the hon. member for Richmond, and possibly I will return to the hon. member.


Pierre De Bané: Since my speech was meant for the members of the Ralliement creditiste, I wanted to get on the same level so as to be better understood.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I must remind the hon. member of the rules of this house. He must speak from his seat.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to delay the business of the house, but I believed I ought to speak for a few minutes in order to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Rodrigue) and explained by our colleague from the Ralliement creditiste, the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau).
First, so as to set the problem in its proper perspective and emphasize the absolute necessity of this amendment, one must know its true nature. The amendment says in part, and I quote:
That Bill C-150, an act to amend the Criminal Code ... be amended by deleting in clause 18 the words "or health" on line 5, on page 43.
One needs only to know what health means here. Where does it begin? Or is it possible, certainly possible, or probably possible, to lose health?
Criminal Code
I believe that word implies many things and especially a lot of ways of thinking. In order that doctors may come to a positive and sure diagnosis, one must, know, when analyzing the word "health" as regards pregnancy, if such a pregnancy is or will be successful, as far as the mother's health is concerned.
Here again, Mr. Speaker, looking at the words "or health" in the wording of the bill before us today, such wording must determine the right of the therapeutic committee, comprised of three members, to decide whether abortion is to be performed or not so as to protect the mother's health.
Mr. Speaker, I think that to make a positive diagnosis, with sufficient certainty, and to decide whether to practice or order an abortion, doctors certainly need much instinct and knowledge, because they have told the hon. members of the committee on health, welfare and social affairs, that it is very difficult to decide whether a pregnancy is likely to undermine the health of a woman.
The bill before the house, which we want to amend by eliminating the words "or health", in terms of science and medicine and according to the doctors who have come before the committee, is very difficult to understand and even more so to explain.
This is a very serious question, to decide whether prejudice should be caused to a living being, be it a foetus or even a child, one or two weeks before term. I think it is very important to know where we are going. That is the substance of what many doctors or specialists told the committee on that subject.
Neither the gynecologists nor the specialists in any field could come up with a certain and definite conclusion.
First of all, regarding moral health, it was often mentioned by previous speakers that there can be no psychological reason for prescribing a therapeutic abortion.
It was also mentioned times after times that a nervous breakdown or other psychological troubles cannot be cured by an abortion. It is the abortion itself which causes theses troubles and not the pregnancy.
We cannot kill a child in his mother's womb because she suffers from psychological problems.
Why should innocents pay for others' diseases? If this bill is passed as it is now, if it is not amended, psychological grounds will often be invented out of whole cloth to justify the decision or, perhaps, a divided decision of

May 7, 1969
Criminal Code
the medical practitioners making up the psychiatric committee.
All hon. members know that, but only those of the Ralliement creditiste dare to say it, and even claim it. Members of the government, of the Liberal party, why have you not express your views? I apologize, one or perhaps three or four out of a large number did so. It would have been easier to circumscribe the problem had some of you stated what they think of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, the passing of the bill as it is means that if a mother gives birth to a child, she always suffer from psychological troubles from the very beginning of her pregnancy.
As I said earlier, this is as if we were saying that the infant must be killed as soon as he is born, because many people suffer from psychological troubles.
Now, as far as physical health is concerned, how many times does this situation occur? I have been told that the ratio of 1 to 10,000 was close to the truth. I do not have on hand that doctor's statement, but I know he quoted these figures before the committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
When the pregnant mother catches some disease, the doctor ordinarily prescribes an immediate treatment to neutralize it, so that the mother can have a normal delivery.
Mr. Speaker, owing to the great advance in the field of medical science, the emergency cases where it is necessary to make a decision as to the life of the child are becoming less and less frequent.
[DOT] (4:20 D.m.)
It is therefore useless to include in this bill the words "or health". How many times have you seen a mother suffer from any illness after a childbirth? That happens very seldom and I have explained why. I firmly believe, for those are my convictions and my principles, that there are only the most urgent reasons-and they are very few and far between-that can justify be it even a discussion on a possible abortion.
I don't like the words "or", "if", "perhaps or likely". I would like to feel myself on firmer ground. That is why I favour the amendment in order to remove the words "or health".
In so doing, we would prevent innumerable abuses and protect medical practitioners. That is very important, because if a committee of doctors decides to prescribe a therapeutic abortion and a patient makes up her mind to

institute proceedings against the doctors, because she suddenly felt remorse, or for any other reason, she will damage the reputation of the gynaecologists, of the specialists of this hospital, of the therapeutic Committee or even the reputation of the hospital itself.
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. members want to participate in the debate, I invite specially my friends,-I have several among the Liberal members,-in order to see if any Liberal members in this house know exactly the importance and the seriousness of the bill under consideration. That would make me very happy.
For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of deleting in clause 18 of Bill C-150, the words "or health".


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, I should like first of all to point out on the occasion of that nth amendment introduced by my colleague from the Ralliement creditiste that our parliamentary institutions, through the Creditiste's fault, is becoming a laughing-stock.
Mr. Speaker, when I see people who, for the sake of their conscience, their moral principles, their scruples, in the name of democracy, have been paralysing the business of this house for 19 days-


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: I believe that the hon. member is not speaking to the amendment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think it is only fair to the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane) that the Chair at least hear his opening remarks. As I have explained to other hon. members of the house, the Chair has tried to be as generous as possible in applying the rules of relevancy, sometimes possibly too generous in the case of some hon. members.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would say that we have been particularly generous in terms of the Ralliement Creditiste. I think it is only fair that we hear the hon. member for
May 7, 1969

Matane for a while and I hope that eventually, or may I say very quickly, he will get to the amendment itself.


Pierre De Bané: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Pierre De Bané: I thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was saying that for 19 days now, the Rallie-ment creditiste has brought the work of this house to a standstill with innumerable amendments, including this one, in order to paralyze this democratic institution.
You will undoubtedly recall that this bill, which is brought again without too many changes before the house today, has already undergone the test of an election. The Ralliement creditiste then concentrated all its forces and the people backed up the government.


Léonel Beaudoin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out to the hon. member that those amendments have been accepted by the Speaker before they were discussed. Therefore they were in order.


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, the Ralliement creditiste is entitled to its opinion and I respect it, but what I do not accept is that a minority try to impose their opinion to a majority, and to a majority of people from the Province of Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre De Bané: In the same way, Mr. Speaker


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: What have you done since you have been in office?


Pierre De Bané: -Clam up and let me finish!
In the same way, Mr. Speaker, that I respect their opinion and that they are entitled to it as well as to their conscience and morals, I say, however, that a minority has no right to impose its way of thinking to the majority.
Mr. Speaker, all kinds of bugaboos are thrown at us, when it should be realized that the proposed amendment to delete the term "health" is a ridiculous argument, because the term is found in all laws on abortion, in all 29180-5351
Criminal Code
Western countries, and mostly in Latin America where 99 per cent of the population is Catholic.
I would go even further, Mr. Speaker. The newspaper Le Droit which is owned by the Oblate Fathers, has said that it was shameful to see people-


An hon. Member:: It was not an Oblate Father who said that.


Pierre De Bané: -use religion to serve political ends.
You no doubt recall that the Governor General in the Speech from the Throne at the beginning of the year said that Canadians no longer had any confidence in their parliament.
Mr. Speaker, it is through demonstrations of this kind that a group, in the name of democracy-which respects the views of all- tries to paralyse this democratic institution. Mr. Speaker, it is through such manoeuvres that we shall destroy our institution.
I wish to blame the government for not having forced upon us rule 16A as amended of the standing orders because of fossils and demagogues.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to say once again that the members of the Ralliement creditiste are entitled to their opinions which I respect, but they cannot impose their views on the majority.


An hon. Member:: Cut if off, then.


Pierre De Bané: This is precisely what I am saying. I regret that the government did not impose it. But what the members of the Ralliement creditiste are trying' to do is to paralyze the government and then they will tour the province of Quebec and arouse the passions by what I would term disgusting means in order to get re-elected. Those are the methods they resort to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I wonder if the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is rising for the same purpose as I am.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Very likely, Mr. Speaker. I am wondering what the remarks of the hon. member have to do with the amendment before the house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is exactly the reason I was rising myself. I do remind the hon. member for Matane that during the past few days the Chair has tried as faithfully as

May 7, 1969
Criminal Code
possible, yet as fairly as possible, to administer the rules of relevancy. They, of course, apply to both sides of the house and I would invite him at this stage to restrict his remarks to the amendment.


Pierre De Bané: I thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The point I wanted to make was of course that, since it would be ridiculous and untimely to take part in the discussion on every amendment, I wished to express my views on the whole of them, and, in particular, at the end of my remarks, if I am permitted, I wish to comment on this specific health issue.
I was trying to say, Mr. Speaker, that, for one of the few times in the history of our country, we are studying a bill which went through the test of an election and which, because of the Ralliement creditiste in particular, has become a controversial issue in the province of Quebec.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Abortion was the main topic in my constituency during the whole election campaign. It was the same thing elsewhere.
Some people voted for the Creditistes, others voted for the Conservatives, some voted for N.D.P., and the majority voted for. the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, you and I seem to be rising together a few times. I wonder if the hon. member should not be asked to relate his remarks to the amendment before the house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I
would point out to the hon. member that the rules of relevancy restrict debate at this point to the specific amendment which is before the house which deals with the deletion from clause 18 of the words "or health". At this point, speeches must be confined to this specific amendment. I would suggest to the hon. member that possibly some of the remarks he is anxious to make now-I do not want to interfere with his right to make these remarks-might be made on third reading. If the Chair is to apply the rules of relevancy, they have to be applied to each hon. member. I think it is in the interest of our procedure that we should restrict our remarks as much as possible to the amendment.


Pierre De Bané: I would respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, that in my remarks I might deal

not only with the amendment but with the speeches which have been made by members of the Ralliement Creditiste on that amendment. They have supported the amendment with arguments which I would like to rebut, if that is in order.

What I mean, Mr. Speaker, is this: I am of course unable to speak on each of the 38 amendments. We are now dealing with health, on which I spoke specifically earlier in the day-and I say this for the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who was not in the house when the hon. members of the Ralliement creditiste spoke and who did not hear the arguments they used to justify their own amendment. I would like, at this point, to speak on this sensitive matter.
As I was saying, our debates here have become irrelevant, because, as the Speech from the Throne indicated at the beginning of the year, the people have nearly lost confidence in an institution paralyzed by a minority. A minority is tyrannizing us.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Hold a referendum, then.


Pierre De Bané: With regard to the referendum, that is precisely what you had in the province of Quebec at the time of the last elections. What did you talk about if not of homosexuality and abortion?
With regard to health, Mr. Speaker, let us put things back in their right perspective. To do so, with regard to abortions for reasons of health, those who would speak in the name of their conscience should be reminded that never in the history of Canada has a doctor ever been prosecuted for having performed a therapeutic abortion. If the members of the Ralliement creditiste had been well informed before turning to demagoguery, they would have known that if a topic is that important, it is high time it should be regulated. Go around the hospitals in the province of Quebec and you will see that therapeutic abortions are performed there. But no, you are not interested in that; what you want is demagoguery, you want to paralyze a democratic institution.
I say, therefore, Mr. Speaker, to those who do not have the time to study comparative law and to see what goes on in the Western world, that we are one of the last countries in that world to adopt an act on abortion. Contrary to the recommendations made to Parliament by the Canadian Medical and Bar Association to the effect that the government
May 7, 19S9

should accept therapeutic abortions for various reasons, we have one of the most strict acts of all.
But once again, that is not the point I want to make. I am not interested in those people who would deliberately paralyze a democratic institution and then go beg for votes in the province of Quebec, through false representations and demagoguery.


Mr. Andre Forlin (Loibiniere):: I am most pleased to contribute in a positive way to the discussion on this amendment, moved by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Rodrigue), amendment to delete from the bill the words: "or health".
I would like to ask the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane) not to run away, to stick to his seat. It is the first time we see him since the beginning of this session. I should like him to have at least the courage of his convictions, and to remain here.


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. De Bane@: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker-


Pierre De Bané: On a point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


André-Gilles Fortin: -when the hon. member for Beauce-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


André-Gilles Fortin: -moves his amendment


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member resume his seat? That is not a point of order. I would make the observation again to hon. members that points of order and questions of privilege are important parts of our procedure. If hon. members use them in an exchange with each other, that only serves to diminish their importance. I would caution against this kind of exchange which has occurred before. If the hon. member has a point of order and would cite the relevant Standing Order which pertains to his point of order, I would be pleased to hear it.


Mr. Ouellel:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Criminal Code
I think that in the course of his remarks the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane), who was often interrupted, was telling a few home truths to the members of the Rallie-ment creditiste, and-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


André Ouellet: Such truths were not taken into account-


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order or a question of privilege?


André Ouellet: I rise on a point of order.
The members of the Ralliement creditiste have constantly interrupted the hon. member for Matane while he was making his speech, which shows a lack of decorum at this stage of the debate, and I would have this to tell them: For about fifteen days, I have seen them in the house wearing a white beret, and I think this shows a total lack of decorum. Let them take oft their white berets.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, after these
remarks,-


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Stupid-


André-Gilles Fortin: After these remarks-which the member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) rightly said were stupid, to respect the decorum of the same member-I would like to come back to the proposed amendment.
I appreciated the remark of the hon. member for Matane when he told us that the Ralliement creditiste is wasting the time of the house, that the Ralliement creditiste is boycotting or filibustering the debates. I will tell him that when he makes such statements, he is entirely wrong. What we have been doing, for over fifteen days, or nearly nineteen days,-time is not important in this house, what counts, Mr. Speaker, is the legislation we pass and not the stupid speeches that can be made by the hon. member for Matane.
It will take all the time required, but when we are through, the Canadian people will recognize that the Ralliement creditiste has the courage of its convictions, that it is faithful to its constituents, and that it has made its best sincerely and honestly-and not paid to

May 7, 1969
Criminal Code
be here doing nothing, like the member for Laurier (Mr. Leblanc)-to improve the legislation so that it may meet the needs of the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, I think this was the first speech made by that member since he came to the house, and he had to launch his political career with such an irrelevant speech.
Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate your leniency. The hon. member for Beauce moved an amendment to delete the expression "or health", an expression which can also be found in the bill, in the clause concerning abortion, a clause which was recommended by the very member for Matane, who used to be the secretary to the Prime Minister when he was Minister of Justice.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Let him stand up and tell us what his motives were. He does not have the courage of his beliefs, all he can do is rail against the others.


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, if it is to raise a point of order as foolish as the others, I have a right to my 20 minutes and I intend to use them.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has asked me to get up and answer a statement he just made-


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, he is wasting my time. I have much more serious things to say.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member can only rise on a point of order, not on the invitation of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin). Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Pierre De Bané: It was on his invitation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I point out to the hon. member that simply because the hon. member for Lotbiniere invites him to make remarks, that does not give him the right to make those remarks.


André-Gilles Fortin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. How can the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De

Bane), know the standing orders when he has never read them and is never here.
So the hon. member for Beauce-I will be able to make my speech if they stop interrupting-proposes to delete the words "or health" from the clause on abortion.
Mr. Speaker, I shall start all over again and I hope that will not be counted on my time. So the hon. member for Beauce wants to delete the words "or health". The bill before us says:
-would or would be likely to endanger her life or health-
We should then ask ourselves sincerely, and not with preconceived and narrow-minded ideas, as some hon. members opposite can show, but ask ourselves sincerely and seriously-if the hon. member for Matane could remain in his seat, Mr. Speaker, we might have a chance to complete his education-if the fact of being pregnant for a woman can endanger her health.
As for the first part, "would endanger her life", I am inclined to believe that in certain border-line cases, this can happen. This is why, when I made my first speech in this house on the omnibus bill-that was some time ago, and the members opposite still have not understood anything-I stated that I would perhaps be in favour of a therapeutic operation to terminate a pregnancy in certain border-line cases, provided it was a proven fact that the woman's life was seriously and directly in danger.
Now, in the same bill, even if I wanted to vote in favour of abortion in the case where the life of the mother would be in danger and support those provisions, I cannot do so for the very simple reason that, at the same time, the expression "would endanger her health" would be included.
What is meant by "health" and "would endanger her health"? The other day, the Minister of Justice gave his own definition of the word "health". He said: We do not know the exact meaning of "health". Besides, the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin) made that point very clear.
They cannot give a definition. That is why the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice, the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mr. Cantin) could not say more than a sentence in reply to the suggestion, because he does not know either what he is talking about.
May 7. 1969

Mr. Speaker, before adopting or rejecting the amendment, I think we must ask the following question-before I go any further I would ask the whip of the Liberal party to count his members, because there are less and less Liberals in the house.


Mr. Boulanger:: Stop those platitudes!


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, the member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger) wastes his time saying that we utter platitudes! Let him stop being so dull and still in his seat. Let him rise and speak! That would be interesting.
As for me, Mr. Speaker, in view of the many questions that we can rightly ask ourselves concerning the liberalization of homosexuality-when I see Liberal members, the word "homosexuality" comes to my mind, Mr. Speaker-but I mean the liberalization of abortion, in view of the number of questions we are entitled to ask ourselves as to the definition of the word "health", if we take into account all the evidence we can find in libraries, the briefs which were submitted by the Medical Association, etc., and the consultations we had in our respective committees, and this, Mr. Speaker, throughout Quebec and Canada, one realizes that it is not a minority which is imposing its views to the majority. I would rather say it is a majority government which wants to impose its views to a majority of Canadians which are against the bill. Let us not reverse the roles, Mr. Speaker, let us be honest and recognize facts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


André-Gilles Fortin: In support of what I say I will add this: a brief from the Quebec Association of Hospital Medical Boards contains a few interesting things regarding the bill on abortion. I would like the attention of the hon. members on the other side of the house, should they still be courageous enough to listen to us. I hope they are because up to now they have been rather narrow minded. At page 11, under the title: Medical data regarding the "health of the mother in abortion cases", I quote:
The so-called therapeutic abortion is an abortion which is performed in order either to save the life of the mother, or to safeguard her health. Various laws use shades of meaning such as: danger to life danger to health grave danger to health danger to physical and mental health certainty of foetal malformation probability of foetal malformation, etc.
Criminal Code
Before pursuing that most interesting and important quotation, I should like to tell this house which problems may crop up if we allow the words "or health" to remain in the bid.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, many problems can arise; they are not imaginary or minor points but major ones. If we intend to fight and induce hon. members to examine the matter thoroughly, it is precisely because we believe that the words "or health" bring about problems, and not because we would promote political interests. We have no electoral fund and, on our side we do not land in helicopters to kiss girls.
First of all, let us say that cases where abortion is the only way to save the life of a pregnant woman have become exceedingly rare-
I repeat that point, Mr. Speaker, because it is extremely important.
First, let us say that cases where abortion is the only way to save the life of a pregnant woman have become exceedingly rare, not to say in-existant, because of the therapeutic means available.
I am not quoting the newspaper Le Droit, nor the Liberal or the Progressive Conservative parties, nor the Ralliement ereditiste, Mr. Speaker, but the Quebec Association of Hospital Medical Boards. And I continue the quotation:
On the other hand, some people give a broader interpretation to the words "danger to life" and take into account the cases where it can be presumed that continuance of pregnancy might shorten the patient's life.
As concerns danger to health-
And this is where it becomes most interesting. As members of parliament, Mr. Speaker, it is extremely important that we hasten to study thoroughly the meaning of these words. I quote:
As for the danger to health, it presents a whole problem of interpretation, if we refer to the definition of health given by the World Health Organization: State of physical and mental wellbeing.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, I should like to have your co-operation in order to silence the hon. member for Mercier or to ask him to make a speech also. Only, I am tired of being interrupted unnecessarily and stupidly.


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member for Mercier is rising on a point of order.

May 7, 1969
Criminal Code


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, it was precisely one of his colleagues who was speaking to me. I would ask you to turn on the lights for him also.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I would ask the co-operation of all hon. members so that we may go on with this debate in an orderly fashion.


André-Gilles Fortin: I thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like the hon. member for Mercier to read the Standing Orders and to be more often in the house. Perhaps he would then be able to understand them and above all to value them.
The legal definition of health-and this is acknowledged by specialists-given in the Criminal Code is extremely vague.
And this is why they go on to say:
In many concrete cases, it is quite difficult for doctors, confronted with the various shades of meaning listed above-
-to take a stand.
Those are not my words, Mr. Speaker, but those of physicians.
We do not ask for anything as members of the Ralliement Creditiste, but rather as legislators taking a positive part in this discussion. We must specify or, if we cannot do so, let take those words off the act, as you will agree that when we leave in the Criminal Code expressions which are impossible to define, this opens the door to every pretense and every possibility.
That was experienced by other countries because of the interpretation that was given to legislations purported to be restrictive. For instance, the phrase "in danger of death" includes cases where-
And we could go on, but I do not want to carry on quoting what anybody can refer to.
But we should have enough courage, goodwill and sincerity to look into the matter and reflect upon it.
The amendment moved by the hon. member for Beauce is a real contribution to this debate compared to that of many members opposite.
We are entitled to ask questions. This is a strong argument-and I was struck by the point-when listening to the speeches delivered by my hon. colleagues of the Ralliement creditiste who are also doing a tremendous job.
Mr. Speaker, when one says: Delete the word "health", the consequences are extremely serious. In fact, should a woman appeal to
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard).]
the therapeutic abortion committee, if the bill were adopted, the doctor and the patient would have to choose between the life of the woman and the life of the foetus or between the health of the woman and the life of the foetus. Whatever the case, in a request for an abortion, more lenient, since that evidence that is threatened. The foetus is an innocent being and unable to defend itself. The mother can, if she argues that her health is endangered. She weighs the pros and cons and she places her health in the balance, something that cannot be defined. The minister of Justice himself is unable to define it.
She then on the other hand weighs her health against the life of the foetus.
Mr. Speaker, I said it at the start that personally, I would not be against therapeutic abortion, by a committee of specialists, in a recognized hospital, when the life of the mother is threatened and when there must be a choice between the life of the mother and the life of the foetus.
It will be agreed, in all honesty, Mr. Speaker, that these are border-line cases and that, consequently, in order to legislate on those border-line cases, it is not possible to propose clauses 14 etc., concerning abortion and so open the door wide to all kinds of pretexts, and accept as valid reasons every alleged disease, because this results in jeopardizing the health of the mother. Let the therapeutic committee decide whether her health is really endangered, since it is not even possible to define what is health.
On the other hand, when the foetus is killed, Mr. Speaker, everybody admits that it is a case of homicide, it is a crime, since a human being is killed.
Therefore, I think that all the talk about the just society, is sincere. One cannot compare the life of the mother-


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


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I suppose I have still three minutes left, because of the number of interventions and of points of order which were not valid.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member knows that he must get the unanimous consent of the house since his time is up.
Does the house give its consent.


Some hon. Members:: No.
May 7, 1969


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: There is no unanimous consent.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I am told that I am about to make the same speech. I speak about my hon. friend for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch). I wish he could do the same thing. He has been here a long time, and when he defends his bills he can do it very well.
So, as far as this bill is concerned, I am against it. I am defending an amendment and I think I have the right to do so.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane) who earlier made to this debate a contribution he thinks important. I, for one, do not feel that he should be proud of it. He gave us new arguments, should we run short.
But when the hon. member for Matane has acquired a little more experience, first, he will know that he can speak only to the Speaker and he will know also that he cannot speak from anywhere but from his seat. Any member has to know that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I want to remind the hon. member that the Chair exists specially to call hon. members to order.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Beauce (Mr. Rodrigue) introduced an amendment to the effect that the words:
"or health"
be deleted from clause 18 of Bill C-150.
I support this amendment, Mr. Speaker, because I sincerely believe that if these words are left in the bill, they would open the door to many abuses and give rise to fantastic interpretations and to complications which we might regret some day, and perhaps soon, after this bill is passed.
I objected yesterday to an amendment of that kind, but I objected because yesterday's amendment did not go far enough, while the one before us now would completely delete the words "or health" so as to make the bill very clear.
As for me, Mr. Speaker, I accept the idea that whenever the mother's life is endangered, the medical practitioner, who must procure the abortion, or the doctor who has attended that woman during her pregnancy, could perform an abortion.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
People speak at length on such a broad subject, on health, a word that is by no
Criminal Code
means defined in the law. It is liable to the most fanciful interpretations, as indeed has been the case up to now, since in the evidence given, in favour as well as against Bill C-150-or Bill C-195 previously introduced- or also as regards certain bills submitted by the members in order to make the law on abortion, more lenient, since that evidence has shown that doctors, lawyers or social workers allowed themselves the most fanciful interpretations of the word "health".
Besides, we know that wherever abortion is performed on request, some women will seize upon any excuse to justify abortion.
Mr. Speaker, one could ask certain questions. Why are some women sickly? Why should or would certain women tend to ask termination of their pregnancy for reasons of health?
Let us put the question frankly, sincerely: In what situation do too many of our Canadian homes find themselves at the present time?
Let us just look at the results of surveys made by our unions who follow closely the situation of our workers. A fantastic number of people, for a country as rich as Canada is supposed to be, have to content themselves with living in an unbearable situation, in the type of situation found in the so-called underdeveloped countries.
For instance, let us look at the housing problem. How many housing units are clearly inadequate, for Canada, to house families properly, to house the families we are entitled to have?
Our housing system or economy clearly does not meet the needs of Canadian families. First of all, there is a housing shortage. That is a fact. A lot of housing units are no better than slums and while some of them might be considered as decent, comfortable houses, they only have one or two bedrooms, and seldom three. Under those circumstances, how can children develop properly in houses that are much too small?
When a family finds itself in such a situation, they ask themselves: Should we have more children?
Mr. Speaker, economists and social workers have looked into the matter. Problems have been found to exist but adequate solutions have seldom been proposed.
There is another point which is very important and must not be overlooked. Since the family income is too often inadequate, the young wife must work.

May 7, 1969
Criminal Code


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
remarks of the hon. member are very interesting, but I cannot see how they are related to the amendment moved by his colleague for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) to delete in clause 18, line 5, page 43, the words "or health".
Soon the housing bill will be dealt with in this house and it will then be proper to discuss housing in Canada.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I think I am not out of order, because I am seeking the reasons which would prompt women to request an abortion for reasons of health. Those are the reasons I am trying to set forth in order to make my point.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gérard Laprise: If the income is inadequate, then the woman worries all the time. She will not be able to feed her children properly, and give them a decent home.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I see no relation between the mother's health and the arguments put forward by the hon. member.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I accept your remarks, but the amendment makes it quite clear, as you said yourself a while ago that it is meant to delete from clause 18 of Bill C-150 the words "or health", to avoid ambiguity in this legislation.
So I think that we have the right to express or explain our interpretation of health. If not, the debate on the bill is as good as over. These are grounds that may lead a woman to ask for the termination of a pregnancy, on grounds of health.
Another excuse can be put forward: the danger of mental deficiency. Yesterday, in another debate, I stated the opinion expressed by Dr. Marcel Boisvert in that respect. I am not going to quote him all over again. It is all in yesterday's Hansard.
But, I have in hand another interpretation from another doctor just as prominent, who can very well understand women's behaviour in such a situation, since this doctor is a women, Dr. Suzanne Carreau. She states and I quote:
-if we refer to the most recent biological data, all the characteristics of life are found in an embryo of less than four months, the period during which abortion is usually carried out.
The abortive methods then applied are, in general, curetting or injections designed to bring on the miscarriage.

But I think that the fact that abortion is ten times more dangerous than childbirth is not emphasized enough.
There, Mr. Speaker, is the evidence of a woman doctor on the matter. If we make it easy for any woman to get an abortion for health reasons, Dr. Suzanne Carreau warns of the risk involved when she says, and I quote:
[DOT]-abortion is ten times more dangerous than childbirth. Moreover, since health is a state of physical and mental well-being, it leaves a very large margin of interpretation. For a doctor, it is sometimes difficult to make a very clear diagnosis as to the state of health of the patient faced with another pregnancy.
That is the question, Mr. Speaker. Sometimes we hear doctors tell a woman that her health will be endangered if she pregnants again. But in that case, every time, and I believe rightly so, the doctor gives the necessary advice to prevent another pregnancy. It is right at that time that the question should arise.
Those are the reasons why I support the amendment of my colleague, the hon. member for Beauce, in order to prevent any misunderstanding and so that the legislation on abortion will ijot be jeopardized, but given all the required scope, as I hope we are willing to do. That is why I said a while ago and am repeating now that, personally, I accept that a pregnancy be interrupted if the life of the mother is in danger, because it is a potential life at that moment. We must also respect that one.
For those reasons I accept the amendment on the question of life, but I object to the inclusion of the health clause, because I believe in the conscions developments of medical science, and I feel there are other ways of improving the health of a woman apart from taking a life or terminating a pregnancy.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I believe it is easier to provide medical care than to perform surgery and that is why, Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment of my colleague the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Rodrigue).


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to speak, but after listening to the nasty remarks, the wrong interpretation given by the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane), I feel it my duty to bring out some facts. We, in the Ral-liement creditiste, are the champions of the truth and of Christianity-and we have been
May 7, 1969

Criminal Code
so since we came into the house, because we are not backed by an election fund. We therefore want to speak up in this parliament for those who are afraid to do so.
The hon. member for Matane has been interfering in several occasions during your absence, Mr. Speaker, and he tried to ridicule the Ralliement creditiste which represents the voice of truth.
I shall say it over and over again. We would have passed the omnibus bill in three days, if the government, that is to say the Prime Minister, through the dictatorship he is exerting on his ministers and on the government members, had accepted to delete the provisions of the bill regarding abortion and homosexuality. For this reason, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the hon. member will agree that since he took the floor, he has been completely out of order, since he has not dealt with the amendment under consideration, and I should like to remind him that the Chair has been informed that the hon. member for Matane had also been called to order.


Bernard Dumont: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe it was only normal that in my opening statement, I should explain why I would have spoken of the word "health" in the bill before us.
Then, we have here an amendment moved by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Rodrigue) which reads as follows:
That Bill C-150-
We find the quotation somewhat long, whenever we have to refer to it, and some people have even called that legislation the "autobus". The amendment ends as follows:
-be amended by deleting in clause 18 the words "or health" on line 5 on page 43.
We have to admit that the word "health" has been interpreted by many people in many ways. Few problems compare with "health", for, in that case, the lives or deaths of thousands of human beings are at stake. Few problems are more important since, on that question, Parliament will be called upon to reject or to maintain ways of thinking on which our legislation and our social values have been based so far.
Has the problem been really thought out? Whenever an important and complex question confronts our nation, we spare nothing, indeed, whether in money or personnel, to 29180-536^
achieve a complete study and reach proper decisions.
It is a serious problem to define the word "health"; has it been studied with all due care? What funds were devoted to such a study? What experts were hired and what subjects were they experts in? What amount of time would have been devoted to debate on that point, if the Ralliement creditiste had kept its peace? What amounts of money have been spent to inform the people properly?
In accordance with his own representations, why did not the hon. member for Matane visit his constituency, tour Canada all over to explain the meaning of the word "health", so that the people, by means of a referendum, as requested by us, might decide on the amendments we have moved and on the one just introduced by the hon. member for Beauce. We might then have a chance to get to the truth once and for all, for, at the present time, we receive too many protests from everywhere and we would not want to witness in Canada a re-enactment of the century-old Riel affair.
People have said, and the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) has repeated some time ago, that the French Canadians had adequately represented the province of Quebec in Ottawa. For once there are free members who can rise and speak according to their conscience. This is the favour that we are asking, to be in a position to resort to every authorized democratic procedure, because on the government side, we know that closure has been imposed by one of the most intransigent prime minister we have ever known in the last 100 years and who was called Macdonald.
Therefore, coming back to the clause on "health", I will say that no solution is proposed to the problems of illegal abortions, the causes of which are not well known unless the word "health" could be given a rather broad interpretation to include the grounds put forward by women who want to be aborted.
Would it not be better for the common good if before enforcing a legislation which would endanger human life, our leaders would devote five to ten years to study thoroughly the problem and to find out if such a legislation is necessary?
In some cases, we need ten years to realize what is being asked, but why when Christian life is jeopardized in Canada, would we not accept to discuss the word "health" in order to find a good definition of it so that the legislators will be recognized as responsible

May 7, 1969
Criminal Code
people. Tomorrow, the lawyers will have to interpret the laws which we will have passed. And as mentioned by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier), there will always be some falsifiers to misinterpret the law, enabling unscrupulous people to be heard and backed up.
Is it not the responsibility of the state to sanction the respect of life?
Because life is the first human right and that our fundamental social values are based on respect for it, I would think it is the duty of Parliament to protect any life and to make this known in its laws, and to give the term "health" a definite, precise and clear meaning.
If, by allowing abortion, we ruin the health of people as a matter of fact, with a confusing law, how could the entire population fail to find as anything but irresponsible.
Some physicians may question the value of life, but value judgments are not medical decisions, and physicians are no more competent than others to pass them.
In medical terms, they know the problem and the situation. That is why, at present, too much responsibility is given to physicians who want the automatic rejection of the bill or, at least, mitigating action through which amendments would clearly define the law.
There could be special cases when the mother could die unless an abortion were performed. It would then be impossible to save the child, since the mother's death would kill them both.
But every time the child can be saved, he is entitled to our protection because, tomorrow, under the protection of our laws, which will be sensible laws we hope, this healthy child will keep the democratic institution of parliament going-if there still is a parliament; indeed the present dictatorship makes one wonder if tomorrow our country will not have turned socialist.
This eliminates abortion for any other reason than for the purpose of saving the mother's fife. For instance, abortion is ruled out as a means to increase the mother's life expectancy. To justify an abortion by putting forward such a reason is to deny that all human lives are of equal value, because it is to take for granted that the few years added to the mother's life are more important than the whole life of the child.

[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, I have only a few words to add, but I should like, as a last recommendation, to ask once again the 264 members of the house to listen to the voice of truth calling for a referendum in Canada and for the immediate rejection of all these abortion and homosexuality measures. I urge that all our amendments concerning the word "health" or any other terms be taken into serious consideration.
Members of the Comite d'action Hull-Gatineau-some are very familiar with this organization which is against abortion-are asking and I support them:
1.	That a serious study be undertaken on the abortion problem before the legislation is amended;
-by considering, for instance, amendments such as the one tending to delete from the text of the legislation the word "health".
2.	That positive and immediate steps be taken to reduce the social pressures which drive women to seek an abortion and that enough time be devoted to the review of the findings arrived at before condemning a life;
We are convinced that this amendment aimed at deleting the word "health", would give an automatic opportunity of studying more seriously the recommendations we have brought forward:
3.	That all necessary services be set up for the purpose of educating the people in the fields of family life, sexuality and birth control before replacing by the so-called "remedial" measures the preventive methods not yet existing;
4.	That, in the meantime, the respect Canadians have towards life be reaffirmed by Parliament by clarifying the wording of the law and by refraining from extending the grounds for legal abortions;
-which could ipso facto jeopardize completely the health of a person, but if the word "health" were allowed to be deleted, we could then, ponder seriously over the amendments we are proposing and which have been quite serious from the beginning.
We are not the ones who have wasted the members' time. If the two amendments I referred to earlier had been scratched, those dealing with abortion and homosexuality, the bill known as the "autobus" bill would have been carried, because, three days ago, we were willing to accept the other amendments. But, in our minds, we can never accept abortion, let alone homosexuality.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, we have had the opportunity, in the course of th eafternoon, of hearing numerous arguments having regard to health. That proves, I
May 7, 19G9

think, that the problem of health may be considered from many angles.
To say that we are simply repeating ourselves may not be entirely accurate, since what we are discussing now, that is health, is such a vague word that it may include many different things. And, judging by the exclamations heard from government members, we have seen that the health of the members themselves could be affected.
We have reached one of the most important aspects of clause 18 of the omnibus bill, for the simple reason that the matter gives rise to a flow of protests. And it is precisely because of this word "health" that the protests have arisen and continue to rise from all sides.
That is understandable, since everybody is almost ready to accept therapeutic abortion, that is an abortion that is necessary because, in the opinion of the physician in charge of the case, there is no other way to save the life of a pregnant mother. We do not object to that, to that kind of abortion where it is a choice between the life of the mother and the life of the foetus. Surely no one, even among members of the Ralliement creditiste, is opposed to that. That is what is being done now when a therapeutic abortion is authorized. In such cases, the abortion is self-defence, I repeat self-defence for the mother, the woman in question.
It is her life or that of the foetus; in those cases, therapeutic abortion is acceptable, but not without reservations, since even in such a case, we must admit that the role of a conscientious doctor is to try to save both lives, if possible.
Even with regard to the mother's life, there are some reservations, some doubts, and it is not every day that a case occurs where the mother's life is weighed against that of the child. Such cases do not occur every day. That was emphasized yesterday, and I will not dwell on that.
But, when we come upon the second expression to be found in the bill, when it is no longer just a question of life, but the question of "health" is added, especially when one reads "likely to endanger her health", that is the substance of the whole discussion about abortion. It is the main element, the reason why so many public as well as private organizations have protested. They have realized that the only free spokesmen in this house are the Creditistes, and it may be that they have entrusted us more specifically with their submissions because they knew that we had the greater freedom of action.
Criminal Code
Mr. Speaker, we are now playing a role as essential as that which some are trying to suppress, the role of doing away with the normal transmission of life. Some will say I am exaggerating. This goes entirely beyond the purpose of the legislator.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
We do not have to discuss the purpose of the legislator, because we are known for having both feet solidly on the ground and not to get lost into the clouds. Consequently, we know very well that the intentions of the legislator, as noble, as logical and as admissible as they may be, are nevertheless something else in practice.
That is why we are fighting. On some points we might be inclined to say: In theory, this is true, it is not funny to be sick, to lose one's health because of a pregnancy and all that.
We are often charged of playing morality and sentimentalism. This is sentimentalism. That is where sentimentalism is.
When one wants to permit abortion under the pretense that the health is affected, that the pregnant woman will miss a series of social events, and that she wants to get rid of the product of conception, of course she will get sick.
It took only a few days of discussion to make the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane) really sick.
This essential point raised in this amendment deserves that we look at it most seriously and perhaps,-I said perhaps,-if the words "or the health" were deleted and if the clause was limited to life, that the present discussion would end and that we would be most happy to deal with something else.
Amongst the organization which got in touch with us, there are excellent ones which will be called upon to apply the act we are now discussing.
Those organizations are the hospital associations to which will be entrusted the duty of applying the act on abortion. Now those organizations are doubtful, to say the least, that clause 18 is justifiable. They have doubts to the extent where if we refer to the amendments to the Criminal Code proposed last year, when Bill C-195 was studied, and to the 880 pages of Proceedings and Evidence of the standing committee on health, welfare and social affairs, we see that the various interpretations of the word "health" given by the witnesses uphold one position as well as the other.

May 7, 1969
Criminal Code
Mr. Speaker, when the committee on health, welfare and social affairs sat in 1967, many doctors, many specialists, could have discussed at least as long as we have on the definition of the word "health".
We must realize that if numerous doctors, who know what they speak of, and numerous specialists do not agree on the meaning that should be given to the word "health", especially with regard to abortion, how are intentions ever to be justified, even the best of them?
There is only one possible solution, the only one on which we should have dwelt: to amend the Criminal Code in such a way that the doctor who, because of his diagnosis, must treat his patient in such a way that it finally leads to abortion cannot be prosecuted under the law.
If ever, following the treatment which he gives the patient who is really ill, he decides to perform an abortion, it is because the doctors or the hospital wanted it that way.
That is why when we see the extremely broad meaning that they want to give-I will be told that it is not, in fact, broad, that it has indeed a lot of good sense, life and health-we know, of course, that there are millions of people who are ready to broaden the meaning of the little word, and who are ready to extend it in such a way that inevitably, as all those who lived through the same experience-I mean here all the countries that had the same experience-and that we will automatically reach abortion on request.
That is what some people foresee and that is why we are asked to be far more precise in regulating abortion. We are requesting for tighter regulations. We are requesting in fact, that the doctor, the surgeon, the gynaecologist have no responsibility which they could not assume. And even the psychiatrist does not want to be compelled by all kinds of pressures coming from the patient herself, from her parents, from her family, from her neighbours and friends. The psychiatrist does not want to be confronted with this frightful problem in which he will find a patient who, in the beginning, is not at all ill, but who wears herself out slowly and surely to reach at last a real state of illness.
They do not want to have this problem on their shoulders, simply because the law is too broad, simply because the word "health" has not been defined. And I understand them, because it is very easy to understand.
And the time must come for every member in this house to understand the meaning of
IMr. Matte.]
such findings, which are not merely those of the Ralliement creditiste as some are led to believe, because we are the ones who defend life, because that is a part of our concern about the freedom of the individual and because we do not want to impair our country's development through inadequate laws that I would go as far as to call terrible.
If we look at the series of definitions given by doctors, agencies, hospitals, we realize that the interpretation of the word "health" becomes a major problem.
And strange as it seems, hon. members do not realize that, if a group of experts cannot agree on such a meaning, we, even if we are from Matane, are not any wiser than all those people put together and cannot claim the right to decide, in a field as vital and essential as the right to live, that the foetus itself cannot defend.
And when we talk about "health", it should not necessarily have to do with illness. One may talk about good health and one may talk about health in jeopardy.
The word "health" may mean many things, and it may mean among others, to be in good health.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Motherhood, pregnancy is precisely the state, in the highest sense of the word, where we see a woman blossom, where we see a woman really in full possession of all her potentialities. It is perhaps the only occasion that a woman has to reach her maximum of fulfillment.
Mr. Speaker, I am most happy that my wife is now pregnant. I already have three children-it will then be my fourth one-and I assure you that it is an extraordinary pleasure for me to see my wife blossoming because she is pregnant.
I would like to stress the positive side. Health, it is precisely that which is health, because it is natural, and many old women and young ladies have difficulties, precisely because they have not had a taste of motherhood. They lack something to enjoy life fully.
Thus, why say that an instinctive thing, that a natural phenomenon, a really true phenomenon owing to which we are all here, is something which is connected with illness? Here we make a serious mistake. It is unfortunate that we should not insist more on the "good health" aspect of the thing and that we should linger on some very particular exceptions in which "health" could be affected
May 7, 1969

owing to pregnancy. That would be extremely strange, and I would say it does not exist.
As a matter of fact, the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) was pointing out earlier that he could see cases in which a woman who did not enjoy good health could recover owing to her pregnancy.
That is why I am in complete agreement, for instance, with the "Serena" teams who talk about love and fecundity, and who, as regards abortion, said as was reported in the newspaper La Presse of yesterday:
The "Serena" teams believe that abortion was not considered with the attention such a serious question deserves. The members of the congress, convinced that abortion is a direct aggression against the developing life of a human being, beg the government to withdraw from the Omnibus Bill clause 18, dealing with abortion and to refer that subject to a Royal commission of enquiry.
The leader of the Ralliement creditiste, the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette), also asks for a referendum and we give him of course our full support.
The Serena teams point out that over 50,000 signatures of protest were sent.
In order to prevent abortions, the members suggest as positive measures:
Let us stop talking about disease, let us stop talking negatively. Let us stop trying to allow indiscriminately something intended for only a very small part of the population. And let us think positively.
Various medical services sponsored by the Quebec government intended for all expectant mothers so that they will find solutions to the problems caused by pregnancy.
We know that we can help-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.
Has the hon. member the consent of the house to continue?


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. There is no unanimous consent.
Is the house ready for the question?
All those in favour of this motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: those against will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: In my
opinion the nays have it.
Criminal Code
Pursuant to standing order 75, paragraph (11) and a special order of the house agreed to last Tuesday, May 6, the recorded vote on the proposed motion is deferred until the report stage of this bill is resumed tomorrow.


André-Gilles Fortin: motion No. 38:
That Bill C-150, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act, be amended by deleting in clause 18 the words "a majority" in lines 38 and 39 on page 42 and substituting therefor the words: "unanimous decision"-
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to amendment No. 38 moved by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Rodrigue) and which essentially provides that when the therapeutic abortion committee will meet to decide and discuss the specific case of a patient, it will have to make a unanimous decision as to whether the abortion will be approved or if a certificate authorizing the abortion of a patient will be issued.
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to support the amendment of the member for Beauce, in order to better safeguard the work of the various therapeutic committees in the hospitals where such committees will be established. In short, the amendment is easy to understand, the bill provides that a mere majority of physicians on the committee can decide if they will deliver a certificate stating that the continuation of the pregnancy would or would be likely to endanger the life or health of the pregnant woman.
Through our amendment, since the provisions of the bill are extremely indefinite, since we are unable to define the word "health" and extensive academic discussions are still going on among physicians as to whether a pregnancy can endanger life or health, since there is no unanimity in most cases, since some doubts remain not only in our minds but especially in the minds of experts, we suggest an amendment providing for the agreement of three doctors, since a life is at stake.
I think, and this is the principle of the amendment, that since a human life is the most fundamental value, the members of a therapeutic abortion committee of a hospital should agree, from a scientific viewpoint, and consent unanimously, regarding the issue of a certificate allowing or refusing abortion.
Therefore, from the physicians who are members of a therapeutic abortion committee,

May 7. 1969
Criminal Code
we do not expect a majority vote, but rather, and still better, an unanimous decision so that there will be no possible mistakes. Human life will be protected and the rights of foetuses will be recognized.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
On the other hand, supposing the members of the therapeutic abortion committee admit that pregnancy endangers the woman's life then, Mr. Speaker, it would not be difficult for them to agree unanimously.
But for cases when one or more of the three members doubt that the life or health of the mother is threatened on account of pregnancy, we must legislate in favour of the preservation of life, and avoid murders or homicides that might otherwise be encouraged by irresponsible legislation which did not receive thorough consideration.
We are seeking unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, for security purposes in every respect, and I should like, with your permission, to touch on those points.
The first important point we have to deal with, with respect to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Beauce, is the following.
Mr. Speaker, if the mother's life is really endangered because of her being pregnant, then it would be easy to obtain unanimous consent within the committee.
However, Mr. Speaker, all cases that are likely to come up will have to be considered and studied by the committee. The therapeutic abortion committee will have to consider each individual case. It will have to consider scientific data, documentary information, X-rays, etc. in order to determine whether the life of the woman is threatened by the pregnancy.
So, the therapeutic abortion committee would not base its decisions on all kinds of considerations not directly related to the life of that woman, but on scientific considerations, to determine whether or not the life of the woman is in danger.
The members of the committee will have to be in agreement. Each one has his personal experience. Each one has his own skill. Each one has acquired knowledge in those fields and is able to give an opinion in which confidence may be placed I think, in the majority of cases.
Mr. Speaker, if two of the members of the committee say: "We are in favour of issuing a certificate allowing the abortion of such and 
such a person" that is legitimate because her life is in danger. They have established that, through examination. If the other doctor does not agree-we have every right to suppose that he too is competent, that he too is respected and respectable from the point of view of professional ethics-he must therefore have personal reasons to oppose the abortion.
Now it will be very difficult for him to defend his case if the other two can give scientific proof of their stand, that the life of the mother is really in danger.
There might then be some discussion within the committee and probably, or rather certainly, the two doctors who agree will manage to convince the third, who disagrees, that obviously the life of the mother is in danger. That carries a lot of weight in the decision.
That is why we say that, in such a case, where the life of the mother is really in danger, unanimity will force the doctors to seek out scientific reasons, to seek out scientific proofs.
We do not request unquestionable evidence-nothing is certain in this world, particularly in the scientific world. Everything is developing and progressing, so that it will be more and more possible to determine and to establish if really the life of a woman is endangered because of her pregnancy. Therefore, it will be easy for the members of this committee to decide unanimously whether the mother's life is really in danger.
In another case-it was the second point I wanted to discuss-the woman can go to a doctor and ask for an abortion. She can put forward all sorts of reasons. She can refuse her husband because she disagrees with him, she wants to divorce, she does not want to be encumbered with another child, or because she does not want to stay attached to the house. Or if she is unmarried, she can refuse motherhood.
There might be an infinite variety of cases. Let us just take one case that every member could imagine: if a woman presents herself before a therapeutic abortion committee, and asks them to issue a certificate, then, the committee would have to establish whether scientifically, from the medical point of view, the life or the health of this woman are probably and certainly endangered.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this committee will not be able to establish scientifically that the life of this woman is in danger, because, scientifically professionally these doctors will not be able to establish that in some of the cases
May 7, 1969
which I was enumerating a while ago that the physical health of the mother or her health, as the minister wants to define it, are endangered. The therapeutic abortion committee will still be responsible for a crime and will be answerable for it if they grant a certificate authorizing an abortion without scientific considerations.
And we can hope that, of those three physicians, at least one will be conscientious enough, will respect his professional ethics enough to say: Hon. members of the committee, we cannot deliver a certificate allowing the abortion of this patient, since neither from the scientific point of view nor from another point of view is the life of the patient or her health really in danger. We have no evidence of it.
Then, Mr. Speaker, in that case, this physician who is conscientious enough to do his duty according to his professional ethics, will protect not only the foetus but the woman as well, whose abortion could have been a danger and a misfortune rather than something
Criminal Code good, because absolutely negative reasons or psychic disorders induced her to seek abortion.
And that doctor will have protected-and that is the joint I am interested in and which I want to emphasize-not only the foetus but also the patient, because her motives were negative.
The important point is that the therapeutic abortion committee of that hospital will also feel secure, will also be protected, for the simple reason that it could not be made responsible of a decision that was not in accordance with the law.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock and call an ambulance for the Liberal members?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. It being six o'clock the house stands adjourned until tomorrow afternoon at two o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
[Stage Direction]


Thursday, May 8, 1969