1969-02-11

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce I would like to ask a question of the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the imminent decision to be made in regard to the billion dollar oil pipe line from northern Alaska and the effect the route could have in connection with the development and transport of Canadian oil from the far north, will the government make immediate and strong representations to the United States government and to the United States Secretary of the Interior to look favourably upon a route down the Mackenzie River, and thus south through Canada to the United States?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the government has been in constant touch with the United States authorities in regard to this whole matter of oil, and of course we are looking forward also to the day when there will be a good supply of Canadian oil from the region of the Arctic. The announcement of the pipe line across Alaska would in no way lead us to discontinue our discussions and our planning about a possible pipe line and other alternative routes for Arctic oil from the region of Alaska and the Canadian north to the eastern and midwestern markets.


Gerald William Baldwin: Despite the assurance that the hon. gentleman has given will he, when dealing with this matter in the discussions with the United States authorities, bear in mind the very considerable impact the choice of route could have on our national oil policy and our markets in the United States?


Mr. Lang (Saskaioon-Humboldl):: Of course, Mr. Speaker, these are exactly the matters that we have very much in mind and that
are the background to our discussions at all times.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary Norih):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the minister. I know he has just taken over this portfolio because the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is ill, but in view of the fact that exports and domestic use of petroleum are down to 40 per cent of our production in western Canada, would he consider making a full statement to this house in the very near future as to the negotiations with the United States as to oil exports, particularly since we are now importing $200 million worth of petroleum more than we are exporting?


Daniel Aiken Lang: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very glad to give consideration to the hon. member's suggestion regarding the possibility of making a full statement for the information of him and other hon. members.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct another supplementary to the minister. When he is making this statement will he also give us an indication of whether the government is prepared to consider building a pipe line to Montreal?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to look into that matter for the hon. member.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I think I should point out that the applause is not for me. The applause is for parliament, which last night got the good word that Tommy Douglas is coming back.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the assurance he gave me on November 27 last, that before any
February 11, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry action was taken by the government with regard to a merger of Air Canada and Canadian Pacific Airlines the matter would be presented to parliament for discussion, can the minister confirm that undertaking and can he say whether there is yet anything to present on this matter?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: Yes; I can confirm the undertaking. There is nothing further to report. It was merely an idea, which is being discussed by interested parties. There has been nothing more formal than that at any time, that I know of.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is
the undertaking the same one the minister gave in November, that parliament will be consulted before there is a fait accompli?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, that is true. Among other things, legislation I am sure would be required. I think I am correct in saying that no action could possibly take place until there was approval by parliament.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether any discussions have been held between the head of Air Canada, who referred to this matter recently, and the minister about this question.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I cannot recall all the things we have chatted about privately. They include a wide variety of subject material, so I would not like to say. There might easily have been, but certainly more in a speculative vein than as a basis for concrete action at this time.



TRANSPORTATION


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, this question is directed to the Minister of Transport, and it concerns a speech made by the President of the Canadian Transport Commission. Was the president of the commission expressing government policy when he referred to the necessity of the government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is not in order. A question may be asked in respect of ministerial statements, but not statements made by officials of departments or commissions.


James Aloysius McGrath: Then, Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether it is the intention of the government of Canada to involve itself in the urgent matter of urban transportation.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If and when any decision is made in this regard it will be made in the usual course. At the present time, as I think was so well expressed today, our responsibilities are already so extensive that they tax the financial resources available to us. I do not think we are really looking for additional ways in which to spend money at this time.
Nevertheless, as I believe was expressed a year ago, there is a matter of concern in areas of research and co-ordination, and there may be a role for the government to play at this time which might be useful to all parties.


James Aloysius McGrath: Would the minister take the President of the Canadian Transport Commission into his confidence and give him that information?



AIRPORTS


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport?
As discussions are now concluded between the Quebec government and the federal Department of Transport authorities concerning the future site of the international airport, will the minister tell the house soon what site has been chosen?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I must admit I did not know negotiations had ended. If they have, perhaps the hon. gentleman could tell me what the results were.



FINANCE


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Could the minister answer the question I asked yesterday, which the Secretary of State for External Affairs said he would refer to him. The question was whether Canada was represented at the meeting of western central bankers at Basel, which is reported as having reached an agreement on a plan to combat the flows of speculative funds from one country to another, and did we agree to the plan.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I believe we were represented
February II, 1969

at the meeting, but I should like to take the question as notice, until I can consult with the Governor of the Bank of Canada.



EXPO '67 WRITING OFF OF MONTREAL AND QUEBEC INDEBTEDNESS

Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. On February 5 I asked the minister a question concerning the indebtedness of Expo '67 Corporation to the federal government. The minister has not answered that question.


Edgar John Benson: believe the question was in respect of the position of the city of Montreal. I inquired about the matter and find that there is no present liability due in this regard. I believe at the end of March or April the deficit becomes due, and settlement will have to be considered.


Alfred Dryden Hales: What does the minister intend to do with regard to the indebtedness that was not honoured as of June 30, 1968 by the corporation?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take the question as notice, because I am not aware that the corporation has failed to pay the government of Canada any amount of money.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked a question about the situation which developed at Cornwall, when Indians acting under the Jay treaty brought into Canada certain goods and chattels and had their truck and purchases seized. What is going to be done in this regard? I should like the minister to advise us that these people will be assured that their treaty rights are to be kept sacred, regardless of the law.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the events that took place over the last weekend at the St. Regis Indian reserve were due to the implementation of regulations dealing with the import and export of goods by the Department of National Revenue. In 1956, the Supreme Court of Canada decided
Inquiries of the Ministry on the legal status of the Jay Treaty and, as a result of the problems encountered over the Christmas holidays I reviewed this situation on my own. I hope a public statement can be made on this subject in the near future.


John George Diefenbaker: In view of the fact the Supreme Court did decide that the Jay treaty was not in effect, does the minister not feel that treaties made with Indians should be upheld as a first consideration in assuring good relations with our first citizens, and that action should be taken by parliament to declare that, in so far as the provisions of the Jay treaty are concerned, they are in effect for those Indians to which it directly applied?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the question of the treaties concluded with the first inhabitants of the country is a difficult one. The government intends to comply with past treaties signed by the Crown with the Indians. In the case of the Jay treaty, it is a different matter, because it was not entered into directly by the Canadian Crown and the Indians, since it was signed around 1787, by the governments of the United States and Great Britain.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, is it not a fact that other treaties affecting Indians, particularly those in western Canada, were made before the government of Canada existed, in so far as western Canada was concerned, and are being upheld?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, this is why I said precisely that as a result of those difficulties during the Christmas season, I have personally undertaken to review the situation and I hope to be in a position to make a statement in that connection during the next few weeks.


John George Diefenbaker: Indians want action, not statements.


Mr. Len Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister of Indian affairs whether, during his review, he will consider the possibility of extending this privilege to all Indians across the country? I should like to buy a new car and a new colour television set. Perhaps some of my friends would like to buy them also.
February 11, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry IMMIGRATION
REFUSAL TO ADMIT ALLEGED DRAFT DODGERS Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):	Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Minister of Manpower and Immigration whether an investigation has been instigated by the department in respect of difficulties that occurred at the United States border when United States citizens applied for permission to enter Canada but were turned down on the basis of their being draft dodgers? When will the department be prepared to report to parliament on this important matter?


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take the question as notice and refer it to the minister.



BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM


Mr. Paul St. Pierre (Coast Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State I should like to address my question to the minister who is acting for him today. It relates to the third and fourth reports of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Bicul-turalism. I understand that one of these reports was sent to the printers last October. My question is: Why was at least one of these reports not ready in time for the use of those attending the current federal-provincial conference?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: I would be glad to bring this question to my colleague's attention, Mr. Speaker.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question to the Minister of Transport.
Could he tell us if he did meet or intends to meet the employees of Rod Service Limited who have been fired?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, my officials are in contact with the union of the employees of Rod Service Limited.
[Mr. Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo) .1


David Orlikow: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Postmaster General. In view of the distinct possibility of a work stoppage by the letter carriers, what action is the minister himself planning to avert such a stoppage?


Eric William Kierans: I do not think there is any distinct possibility, Mr. Speaker.



NATURAL RESOURCES


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Roy-al: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Perhaps he would like to take it as notice. Has the government made a plan, in co-operation with the provinces concerned, to prevent damage to fish, birds and other natural resources which may be the result of offshore oil drilling?


Otto Emil Lang: I would be glad to take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Is he in a position to advise us today as to the possibility of developing a federal park in the province of Quebec?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, on October 7, 1968 I sent a tentative agreement to the Quebec government and I am still waiting for an answer.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister, as a supplementary question, whether or not he intends to do something to invite Quebec at least to acknowledge receipt of the federal government's proposal?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, they did
acknowledge receipt, but they did not say either yes or no. I wish they would give us an affirmative reply, even if it took a few more days.
February 11, 19G9



HOUSING


Mr. Mac T. McCulcheon (Lamblon-Keni):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport in his capacity as housing minister. I ask the minister whether he has arranged a meeting with the mayor of London, Ontario, to discuss that city's urban renewal program, which was suspended by the federal government last November.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Not yet, Mr. Speaker. There are three or four cases which are similar in some respects; London is one of them. I hope the government will have a chance to review its policy within a matter of a few days, after which I will immediately get in touch with the mayors of the several municipalities directly concerned and discuss with them the problems of mutual interest.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister tell the house why his officials have told the officials of the city of London that it would take up to three months?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is a matter of debate. The supplementary question is argumentative and is not in order.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the wording of my last question was taken by Your Honour to be argumentative. It certainly was not meant to be. May I ask the question in this way: Will it take three months before a decision can be made on the fate of that project?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If I had to answer in one word, Mr. Speaker, the word would be no. I expect the decision to be made much more promptly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It
will probably take six months.



TASK FORCE-DISCUSSIONS WITH PROVINCES ON RECOMMENDATIONS

Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Is it the intention of the minister to commence discussions with provincial housing representatives concerning the recommendations of the task force; and if so, when does he hope to commence?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Informal discussions will be held in a few days, Mr. Speaker, and we will have an opportunity to discuss all the various aspects of this problem, those which concern the jurisdiction of each level of government, and determine in what ways we can co-operate so as to produce the maximum amount of housing for Canadians at the lowest possible price, in order to get the best value for every taxpayer's dollar being spent.


Gerald William Baldwin: Hallelujah!


John Gilbert: Is it the intention of the minister to approach directly the law societies and real estate boards across the country concerning the recommendation as to the high legal fees and real estate charges of these persons?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I suspect that many of them have read the report, or certainly some parts of it as reported in the newspapers, and I hope that all members of the professions represented here, as well as others, will use their influence to make sure that there is a reaction to the recommendations made, in the interest of getting housing prices down in Canada.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In view of the reference in the report to the high cost of legal feels in respect of housing, would the minister give consideration to eliminating the list of patronage solicitors for the C.M.H.C.?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: One thing I might recommend to my hon. friend is that, since he is from the province of Newfoundland, he might make representations to the bar there, asking them to reduce their exhorbitant and, in my opinion, unconscionable fees in respect of housing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why single out Newfoundland?


Mr. Henri Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Would he indicate to the house if he has the firm intention of implementing his report to start residential construction as soon as possible and thus meet the urgent needs of the population?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is precisely the objective we have in mind, namely to find ways in

February 11, 196?

Inquiries of the Ministry which all levels of government in Canada as well as the private sector can, by co-operating together, meet the needs of the Canadian people in respect of housing in an even more satisfactory way than has been done in the past.



ALTERNATIVE TO BUILDING MATERIALS TAX

Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Can the minister inform the house if he has thought of an alternative to the 11 per cent sales tax, which has been refused by his colleagues in cabinet, to help Canadians who are endeavouring to buy homes?



FISHERIES


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Fisheries with regard to the hunting of seals. Have representations been received by the government from the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies urging that the methods so far employed against sealing cruelty be extended, and specifically that the use of aircraft in the taking of seals be ended?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: thank the hon. member for his question. Since receiving written notice of it I have had a check made in my office and the answer is that I have not received any submission. I cannot speak for other ministers of the government.


John George Diefenbaker: I have a supplementary question. Would the minister give consideration to doing something in regard to improving the killing operations of seals, and in particular to offset the bad image of Canada that is being created in consequence of what was set out by two foreign magazines, one with a circulation of eight million and the other with a circulation of five million, that the Canadian sealing operations are cruel beyond any excuse.


John (Jack) Davis: The answer to the right hon. gentleman is that the regulations have again been tightened up this year. We are also holding discussions with the Norwegians, Norway being the other principal country involved on the front and outside Canadian jurisdiction in the Atlantic area.
[Mr. Hellyer.l



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
CLOSING OF RURAL POST OFFICES Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saini-Hyacinihe):
Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General.
Considering the general dissatisfaction resulting from the closing of several rural post offices, does the minister intend to keep depriving the citizens in the localities concerned of the postal services to which they are entitled?
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will agree that several similar questions have already been asked these last few days-at least one identical to his-and I doubt that the same thing should be asked again. If the hon. member believes that the matter is urgent and the case a special one, he could give notice of it and discuss it on the adjournment motion.


Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellington-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There can be no supplementary question since the question has not been accepted.


Mr. Ricard:: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to try again because I think the minister was willing to reply to my question.


Mr. Speaker:: This is precisely what I am suggesting to the hon. member and the minister will be all the more pleased to come back to that matter and reply at the time of adjournment.


Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General.
As expenses are expected to reach about $91,000 for the international bureaux et Berne and Montevideo, does the minister intend to close them?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think that the question is in order.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of
February 11. 1969	COMMONS
National Defence, Mr. Speaker. Can the hon. gentleman say whether the bomb explosion in Montreal last night had any connection with the security of national defence property, weapons in particular?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: The building in question housed technical transport, I think,-something like that. We are investigating the incident. I suppose we shall have to take more stringent measures to protect our property.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys asked when the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development would be in a position to announce the date on which the pre-retirement program for Cape Breton miners proposed by Devco would go into effect. I took the question as notice in the absence of the minister and undertook to advise the hon. member and the house as to the situation. I am told the date of implementation is now under review by the corporation, and an announcement will be made as quickly as possible.



FINANCE


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: My
question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the definite concern expressed by Montreal bond dealers to the minister over the budgeting of $370 million for medicare, which is making it extremely difficult to sell bonds, is the hon. gentleman giving any thought to making further cuts in the government capital budget or to deferring medicare?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking for a reply of a general nature, and this type of statement should be made by the minister on motions.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: My
question is directed to the minister designate
DEBATES	5371
Inquiries of the Ministry for communications. Some time ago the hon. gentleman indicated he wished to study further the McIntosh report on the corporation to develop domestic satellites. Is he yet in a position to tell us when he may be tabling that report and associated documents?


Eric William Kierans: I shall discuss that question with my colleagues.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Selkirk.


Mr. Ed Schreyer (Selkirk):: The last question was mine, too, Mr. Speaker.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: I should like to ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development whether he can tell the house when the pending legislation concerning an Indian claims commission will be brought forward.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I said a couple of weeks ago that it would be brought forward as soon as possible, Mr. Speaker.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: A question for the Minister of Transport to test his newly discovered interest in transport. Has the hon. gentleman had a chance to consider the matter of the expiry of the freeze of maritime freight rates on March 27 and, if so, what is his plan to deal with the situation?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The answer to the first part of the question is, yes. The answer to the second part is that I hope within a very short period of time, perhaps early next month, to be in a position to make an announcement which will receive the enthusiastic support of the hon. gentleman.


Thomas Miller Bell: Does the minister not think that before the committee leaves on its maritime trip next Saturday-and we all wish them good luck-it would be good to clear up apprehensions on this point by an announcement some time this week?
February 11, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry FARM MACHINERY



ACTION ON ROYAL COMMISSION SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: have a question for the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker. Some time ago I asked what consideration he would be giving to the report on farm safety arising out of the work of the Royal Commission on Farm Machinery. I was told, then, that time was needed in which to study the report. Has the minister since had time to study it, and is any action proposed in the area of farm safety?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: It is clearly stated on the outside of the report, or of the so-called report, that this is not the opinion of the royal commission which is studying farm machinery problems and related matters, but that it is, in fact, the opinion of one of the research consultants retained by the royal commission. In these circumstances I do not think it would be proper for me to comment on the report one way or the other. It is the opinion of one man, as far as I understand it.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have to accept the reply, that it represents the opinion of one man; but it is the opinion of a researcher well qualified-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: A supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker. Having regard to the deep concern expressed by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture at its annual meeting in Quebec last weekend in connection with what is said to be a two-price system applied to farm machinery, can the minister say whether the Barber Commission will be dealing with this serious matter?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: If the hon. member is referring to the price difference between machinery obtained in the United Kingdom and in Canada, I can say that Dr. Barber has indicated he is looking into the allegations which have been made in that connection. However, some preliminary investigation has been made of certain of the claims, and if consideration is given to the question of comparable machinery, comparable attachments and so on, it appears the allegations are somewhat exaggerated.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Would the Minister of Agriculture indicate whether he

intends to be guided in any way by the recommendations of the Barber Commission report, since this is a one man commission in the same sense as the report on the farm machinery safety is a one man report?


Mr. Speaker:: The question as asked is argumentative. The hon. member is not in order.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board? In view of the assurance the minister gave on January 8 to representatives of retired civil servants that the question of increasing their pensions would be studied by a committee with the hope that a report would be forthcoming in three or four weeks, can the hon. gentleman say whether such a report is yet ready?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Not yet, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask whether the matter is still under serious study?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: It is, Mr. Speaker.


John Angus MacLean: I wish to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Will the study in connection with the pensions of superannuated civil servants also include a study of the pensions of retired servicemen from the permanent force?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Not directly, Mr. Speaker.



GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION


Alfred Dryden Hales: I should like to address my question to the President of the Privy Council in his capacity as leader of the house. Is it necessary for the government to bring forward legislation giving it authority to combine departments of government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking for an interpretation of the law and his question is therefore not in order.


Alfred Dryden Hales: May I rephrase it, then? Is it the intention of the government to introduce legislation to combine departments?
February 11, 1969


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The government reorganization bill should be coming forward within the next week or so.


Alfred Dryden Hales: A supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board. If that is a fact, will this legislation be introduced before we study the estimates of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I am not sure when the estimates of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce will be considered. The leader of the house has indicated when the legislation will be brought down for consideration.



SESSIONAL INDEMNITY OF MEMBERS

John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Is it the intention of the minister to set up a committee to study the shocking salaries of members of parliament and their pensions?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to hear the views of the hon. member.



FISHERIES IMPROVEMENT LOANS ACT


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of his statement in the house last night, is it now the intention of the minister to withdraw Bill C-151, to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act?


John (Jack) Davis: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Postmaster General, in view of the large amount of correspondence that I am sure all members are getting in regard to the delay in delivery of mails of all classes, whether he would consider referring the dispute over postal facilities to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Eric William Kierans: I see no need to do that, Mr. Speaker. However, if the committee decide to call me and ask for explanations, I would be glad to appear before them.



ESTIMATES


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. On February 5, in answer to a question from the hon. member for York South, the President of the Treasury Board indicated that there might be an error in the table attached to the estimates having to do with professional services. He said he would check to see whether there really was an error. Has he made this check, and can he now tell us whether there is an error or that he can now confirm that the figures are correct?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, there is no error. I was beginning to say that the hon. member was in error in attributing all these expenditures to professional services. In fact the expenditures relate to service contracts in addition to the so-called professional services; but rather than charge him with error I backtracked.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So
it is now clear there is no error in the table?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


John George Diefenbaker: In the absence of the Secretary of State, I would ask the Acting Prime Minister to communicate with the C.B.C. with a view to securing an apology from that organization for having described northern Saskatchewan as one of the most violent, hate filled areas of North America. When asked for an apology the C.B.C. refused to give it. Would the minister have brought to the attention of the C.B.C. that painting western Canada and its northern areas as something straight out of the stone age, and without law and order, is not in keeping with the Canadian tradition?
5374
February 11, 1963

Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to ask the Secretary of State to transmit to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation the request of my right hon. friend.



FISHERIES


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. Can he inform the house whether a decision has been made to establish a salt fish marketing board?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, that matter is under very active consideration.


Walter C. Carter: A supplementary question,
Mr. Speaker. Can the minister inform the house whether this board will be formed in time to take care of the 1969 catch?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would not expect it to be ready for 1969-perhaps for 1970.


Walter C. Carter: A further supplementary question. Would the minister say whether the government is considering setting up an interim arrangement to take care of the 1969 catch?


John (Jack) Davis: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker.


James Aloysius McGrath: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If such arrangement is made, will the government take steps to ensure that the fishermen get a fair return for their fish?



TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the government house leader. Since concurrence in the second report of the standing committee on transport has not been moved, may I ask the government house leader whether he has any procedure in mind for moving forward that part of the report that is not before the Committee on Privileges and Elections, namely claims against the C.N.R. relative to the Great Slave Lake railway?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the entire report is before the Committee on Privileges and Elections therefore it is not possible to follow the hon. member's suggestion.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, January 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) for the second reading and reference to the standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs of Bill C-150, to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act, and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when I had the privilege of commencing my remarks at the second reading stage of this bill on January 27, I spent the ten minutes or so that remained that evening on a phase of the matter to which I should like to return for a few minutes.
I feel very strongly that in the course of this debate we should not waste any more time on the complaint about our having to vote for or against Bill C-150 as a package, either at the second reading or at the third reading stage. The fact is that we have a new provision in our rules that we have only recently begun to practise and which will come into play fully and effectively with respect to bill C-150. I refer of course to the report stage, at which time any amendments put down by members to any of the clauses of the bill are debatable and subject to a vote.
It is quite clear that there are a number of subjects in this bill which are highly contentious. I need mention only the provisions with respect to abortion, homosexuality, breathalyzer tests and so on. I might also mention- because I will have something to say about this-state lotteries.
It is also quite clear that on each of these contentious issues amendments will be put down for debate at the report stage. The other night I gave notice, notice that I repeat now, that as one who feels that we should not establish in this country state lotteries I have already prepared a report stage amendment to clause 13 of the bill. That amendment will be clear and straightforward. It will not be a package, it will not be obscure; it will be a straightforward amendment on the question of whether or not we shall have state lotteries in Canada. When the vote is called on that amendment there will be no package, no
February 11, 1969

obscurities; it will be a straightforward issue on which members will have to stand up and be counted.
There are members in this house-they are found in any party, but I think in particular of my creditiste friends who are opposed to what the government proposes in regard to abortion. Therefore I imagine one of them will be putting down an amendment to delete clause 18 from Bill C-150. If that is done, then there will be a debate on that question; and with Mr. Speaker in the chair and the bells having been rung, members will be called upon to vote on the straightforward, clear-cut question: Do we want the law on abortion to stay as it is, or do we want the law on abortion to be as proposed in Bill C-150?
I might say that there will be one other amendment in this same area. There will be an amendment to alter clause 18 in the opposite sense, taking the question of abortion right out of the Criminal Code altogether. With that amendment the issue will not be obscure. It will not be a multiple one; it will not be a package. It will be a straightforward vote on that question by itself.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
I think also of some of the subjects that are missing from this bill, such as the proposal to abolish corporal punishment and a few others I will name in a moment. Under the provisions of our new rules these can be set down as amendments at the report stage, and we can have a recorded vote on each and every one of these issues. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that no harm is being done to the privileges of parliament, no harm is done to any individual member because the bill to amend the criminal law over a wide range of subjects is one bill so far as second reading is concerned. The plain fact of the matter is that at the report stage we shall have a clear-cut opportunity to vote as we want to vote on each and every one of these issues. Each member will be responsible to his own conscience No one will be able to hide behind the excuse that there is a package. No one will be able to say that he voted against something which he liked because there was something in the bill which he did not like, or vice versa.
Provided hon. members put down the appropriate amendments at the report stage, there will be a clear-cut decision made by the house, and every member's vote on each of 29180-3405
Criminal Code
these issues-abortion, homosexuality, breathalyzer tests, state lotteries and others- will be recorded by this house. When I made this point the other night an hon. member said, "What about third reading?" On third reading, Mr. Speaker, it works both ways. This is a government bill. If the majority of the members of this house vote to remove the section on abortion or the section on state lotteries, then that is the way the bill will appear at third reading. Although the government may not like it, it will have to vote for or against a package on third reading without those items which the government wanted in the bill. It works both ways.
Third reading is an important vote, in the sense that it is the final one; but I suggest that in terms of parliamentary debate and in terms of members taking their stand the most important phase will be the report stage at which each of these individual items, particularly the contentious ones, will be before us for debate and for a vote. It will be the kind of vote which comes after the bells are rung and all hon. members are here. I hope, Mr. Speaker, the allegation that it is unfair to have all these matters before us in one bill will not be repeated too often.
Most sections of this bill meet with my approval, but there are one or two to which I am strongly opposed. I do not find it uncomfortable or embarrassing to vote for second reading of the bill so that it can be referred to committee and studied. I know that I have the opportunity at the report stage to try to delete those items to which I do not agree, and to try to have amended those sections which I believe could be improved.
Mr. Speaker, I should now like to deal with a few of the subjects which are covered in this bill. The first one I would like to mention is perhaps the most contentious of all, namely the question of abortion, about which many letters have been written. Our parliamentary leader, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), who understandably will be happy to relinquish his role in the next week or so when the new member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands takes his seat, stated the position of most members of our group on the subject of abortion. I would like to put it this way, Mr. Speaker.
When voting on this bill in the House of Commons we will not be voting for or against abortion. What we have to decide, and I commend the government for giving us the opportunity to make this decision, is whether abortion is a crime or a human problem.

February 11, 1969
Criminal Code
What has been wrong is that this human problem has been listed as a crime in the Criminal Code. Most of my colleagues and I take the view that the subject of abortion should be removed from the Criminal Code and recognized for what it really is, a human problem. I believe that women who face this problem should have the opportunity to obtain the best advice possible, whether it be from a religious counsellor, psychologist, social worker or medical practitioner. It is that kind of a problem. A pregnant woman facing the problem of abortion should be able to get advice from those people. She should be able to get it without fear that she herself is committing a crime, and without running the risk of calling upon these advisers also to commit a crime.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that we should get into the 20th century on this issue. We should recognize it not as a crime, but a human problem to be dealt with in the most realistic, straight-forward and humane fashion. The present law on abortion creates and causes a great deal of human suffering. It is not good to have a law which does that. In my view the improvements being made do not go far enough. A great deal of suffering will still be caused to women who need an abortion or desire to have one for reasons which may be good to them. They are still faced with limitations in the Criminal Code. No one is being called upon to agree to an abortion, but I hope, Mr. Speaker, the house will turn down any amendment that would try to delete clause 18 from the bill and put the law back the way it was. I hope we will admit that this is a human and social problem to be dealt with in a humanitarian manner. There should be a sense of compassion for those who face the difficulties which sometimes lead to the necessity or even the desirability of an abortion.
I cannot get over the feeling, Mr. Speaker, that somehow or other our law in this area is a relic of the kind of world in which men have made most of the laws. I do not say that if this House of Commons consisted of 263 women and one man instead of the reverse, as is now the case, that all the women would vote for the proposal which is in Bill C-150. I would not expect them to be unanimous, but I think their approach would be different from ours.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
I think there is an element in this law that seems to suggest that men are saying to women, "Well, if you get pregnant, and if

you did not want to be, or even if there are reasons why that pregnancy should be terminated, it is too bad, we have made the law." This is not the way to do it. I want to see humanity, compassion and common sense with respect to this important subject and, as I said when I opened my remarks on it, what we are being called upon to vote on in this matter is not for or against abortion. What we are being called upon to vote on is whether in our view abortion is a crime or a human problem. I think it is the latter and believe our law should deal with it in that respect.
As I have already said, Mr. Speaker, from someone in our party, if somebody else does not propose it, there will be an amendment at the report stage suggesting that the improvements in the law be even better than those proposed by the government's bill. As I have also said, I have no doubt that there will also be an amendment to throw out clause 18 altogether. Thus there will be three positions before the parliament of Canada at the report stage: leave the law as it is, make the law a little better as the government proposes, or make it better still. And by our votes, by standing up and being counted, we will make our decision on this matter, and when we are making our decision it will not be mixed up with breathalyzers, lotteries or any of the other things in the bill, legalistic or otherwise.
I would like to suggest the same thing about the proposals to change the law regarding homosexuality which, I believe, are set out in clause 7 of the bill. Here too, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the kind of distinction I have tried to make with respect to abortion applies. Those of us who think we are normal seem to have taken the position across the years that those who are not like us, those who are abnormal, are committing a crime. I just do not think it adds up.
I think what we need to do is to approach this matter with understanding and compassion, with some psychological appreciation of the problem, and I welcome the decision of the government to make a change in this area. I recognize that the whole question of proselytizing is something we have to be concerned about. Maybe there is a case for having something on that aspect in the Criminal Code, and it is there by inference. But at any rate it does seem to me that we should move forward in respect of this matter.
Parenthetically, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say I have been very appreciative of the letters I have received on these two subjects, as well as on others, from many of the
February 11, 1969

churches, both the national bodies and local churches. There is a tendency lor some people to assume that the churches will be narrowminded and traditional, but in the last little while I have had communications from churches as widely varied as the United Church of Canada, the Baptists, the Mennon-ites, the Lutherans, and the Unitarians. That is quite a broad spectrum of churches. If we got them all together the ecumenical movement would be well on its way.
In the letters I have received I find there has been basically the kind of approach to the problem of abortion and the problem of homosexuality that I have been trying to set out this afternoon. They do not all agree in every little detail. Some of them, and I respect their views, would like to keep abortion in the Criminal Code and to make more precise the authority of the therapeutic abortion committees and so on. These are points that should be considered by the standing committee to which this bill is referred.
But I think it is significant that in the main the churches and the church people who have been thinking about this are saying to us, "Apply reason, apply psychology, apply compassion, apply human understanding to these problems." And if 1 may, since I have referred to the churches, I would like to congratulate most warmly those who have written to me telling me about the meetings they have held, the study groups they have set up, and the specialists who have discussed these matters with them. This is what we are trying to get these days, participatory democracy, but at any rate, Mr. Speaker, I am sure we will be going along with the serious-minded and thoughtful people in this country if we move in the direction I have suggested, if we treat these two matters not as criminal offences but as human problems deserving the best attention and consideration we can give to them.
Now, sir, I would like to take a minute or two to refer to a number of subjects-and because I see my time is running along I shall do no more than refer to them in the form of headings-that have been mentioned by others in this group, notably by my parliamentary leader, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), and my colleague from Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). I speak in this context of things that have been left out but which we think ought to be in the Criminal Code amendments.
I refer first to the proposal that corporal punishment should be abolished. We are not
Criminal Code
living in the dark ages, in the 17th, 18th or 19th century. We are living in the 20th century. Surely corporal punishment should go.
I also think that the code should include a clear statement on the right of persons to counsel. We assume that right exists but it is not protected by law.
Lately a great deal has been said about the desirability of expunging a criminal record where the person who has been found guilty lives for a period of time without any further violation of the law. A few glaring examples have been brought to our attention of persons who have had to suffer double punishment throughout their lives because of some minor infraction that became part of their records.
Also, Mr. Speaker, I think that legislation regarding wire-tapping should have been included in this bill to amend the Criminal Code. Like others in my party I am little surprised, the hon. member for York-Scarbor-ough (Mr. Stanbury) having produced such an excellent bill dealing with this matter, that his proposals were not incorporated in Bill C-150.
As I understand the new rules, Mr. Speaker, especially the report stage to which I have been referring, we may be able to deal with some of these matters at that time as well. The rules say that at the report stage there can be amendments to delete, to alter, to restore, or to add. Most of the rule changes we made were for the purpose of avoiding duplication and of saving time, but we knew what we were doing when we brought in the report stage. We were not saving time but we were providing a clearcut opportunity for decisions to be taken by parliament on these individual issues. I hope we will avail ourselves of that opportunity at the report stage to deal in the way I have suggested with the items I have listed.
That leaves just one other subject to which I would like to refer for a minute or two. It is the question of state lotteries. Others who have taken part in the debate have said this, so I underline what they have said, that to me it is moving back two or three centuries to think that we can solve any of our problems, whether in terms of getting money into public treasuries or in terms of undergirding welfare programs, health programs, education programs or what have you by resorting to state lotteries.
A great deal has been said about the Irish sweepstakes, but we have never had any suggestions that that country does very well

February 11, 1969
Criminal Code
out of its sweepstakes. The idea of sweepstakes has been tried recently in the state of New York and the reports coming from that state already suggest it has been a failure. It has also been tried in our own country, in the city of Montreal, and that city seems to be in greater financial difficulty now than it was before this venture was undertaken. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that state lotteries cannot be operated without giving to the people the notion that this is going to be an easy way of providing for public needs, whether they are welfare, health, education or what have you programs. The money obtained in this way simply will not be sufficient to underwrite these programs. Furthermore lotteries, particularly state lotteries, are really the most regressive form of taxation the mind of man can conceive.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
We have enough regressive taxes already from this government across the way. There is the social development tax which is being collected from the people of Canada now even though it is not yet the law of the land. It is a highly regressive tax. It is a tax of 2 per cent payable on the first $6,000 of taxable income but anyone with a taxable income over $6,000 does not pay one cent more. So the result is very regressive. However, when there is an attempt to raise public money by lotteries the people make their contribution not according to ability to pay but according to their dire need and their desperate hope that somehow they may break out of their poverty. The fact is it is the poor who will put the money into state lotteries. As a result they will be caught in a scheme of regressive taxation that is utterly wrong, utterly unscientific and utterly out of line with any economic theory that applies in this country today. So I hope we will make this distinction.
As I said a moment ago, I have been pleased with the letters I have received from a number of churches, both national bodies and local congregations. I have noted with interest their comments on this very subject. The churches write to me to say they do not like gambling at all. They think it caters to the worst in people, that it degrades and cheapens life; but then they say they realize it is unrealistic to try to legislate today against private games of chance or against the fun people have in various kinds of small private lotteries. In other words, the churches are being realistic in admitting there is a point beyond which they or we cannot go.

Having said that, however, the churches come down exactly where I have come down, that is, whatever else we may agree to, let us not make the social and economic mistake of establishing or even permitting state lotteries at the federal, provincial or municipal level. I agree with them and I welcome their support. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), when bringing forward this bill and speaking on the matter, said it was a kind of local option the government had in mind in bringing this forward in the bill in this way. I submit it is more than that. If this bill passes containing the provisions about state lotteries this will be parliamentary approval of the principle of raising money in this way and of the principle of the most retrogressive form of taxation there is. Therefore when I move an amendment at the report stage to clause 13 of the bill to delete the reference to state lotteries, unless the standing committee has already taken it out, I hope my amendment will receive the support of a majority of the members of this house.
When I move that amendment it will not be cluttered, obscure or part of a package. It will stand on its own feet just as will the amendments regarding other contentious subjects. I look forward to the report stage of this bill. At that point we will stand up, we will be counted, and we will take our decision on these various points. I hope the result will be a bill that is even better than it is now. It will be better if it deals with the problems of abortion or homosexuality in human terms, and it will be better than it is now if it deals with such problems as corporal punishment, the right to counsel, the deletion of criminal records and wiretapping which are not contained in the bill. It will also be better than it is now if we take out the retrograde proposal to approve state lotteries. Therefore it will be a pleasure for me to vote for the second reading of this bill so that it can be studied by the committee, but either in the committee or back in the house I hope we will make the kind of improvements I have tried to suggest.


Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my purpose in speaking to this bill is to bring to the attention of the house and the country the little things that appear in bills. When we discuss vast subjects, as we did in respect of the house rules, the comment can be made that things are passed that are not even debated. The point I want to bring to the attention of the house is a small one in this bill. It has to do with clause 16 which involves drinking and driving. I wish to
February 11, 1969

Criminal Code
assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I have no personal interest in this because I do not drive whenever I can avoid driving. We have heard and I am sure will hear many good speeches on the various subjects contained in this bill such as the gun law, weapon law, abortion, homosexuality, lotteries, and others. I should like to point out, however, that most of these subjects have been debated by Canadians over a period of time and in fact we are following, if I might say so, the general trend or feeling. I shall not debate the question whether all these points should be covered in one bill. Of course it should be one bill; there is no other way to deal with them.
But I do wish to bring to the attention of the house and the parliamentary secretary clause 16, the amendment to section 224, which appears at page 36 of the bill. It deals with driving with more than 80 milligrams of alcohol in the blood. That means about .08 per cent. I have been assured that this means two drinks. I am not opposed to this clause but I am saying that it will have a fairly serious effect on the social habits of Canadians. I suggest they may be taken by surprise because up until now the law in the provinces has not been based on the number of milligrams of alcohol in the bloodstream but on the question of drunkenness, impaired driving or driving while under the influence of alcohol. There is a great difference when we establish by law as we are doing here an automatic guilt just because an accused person's blood contains a certain percentage of alcohol. This is a complete change in the law as we have known it up until now. This cannot be denied. Even the Minister of Justice has not denied it.
Under this clause and the preceding clause it is not important whether a person can or cannot tolerate alcohol. If he has had two drinks at lunch, at a wedding or at dinner, he is automatically subject to being indicted for an offence with all the consequences that follow that indictment. It does not mean there must be an indictment, but there could be an indictment. This means there would be a record on one's passport, that no bond of any kind could be obtained for employment and that one could not go across the border to the United States. These are serious consequences when one considers that what is involved is not a question of guilt in the common law sense but is merely the fact that a person has so much alcohol in his blood.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
I want to bring to the attention of the house, the minister and the parliamentary secretary that we are dealing with a fairly serious matter. I am not suggesting that I do not support this amendment because it has certainly been argued, if not proven, that a number of motor vehicle accidents are the result of drivers having partaken of alcohol. I do not deny or argue against this, and possibly this is the time to bring in a law to prevent drinking and driving or any combination thereof. What I am saying is that if we are going to do this we had better bring to the attention of the public exactly what it means.
I should like hon. members to consider the change we are making. There is a difference between negligence and criminal intent on the highway and elsewhere because the courts have consistently ruled that when you take your automobile on the highway you can expect certain dangers and that some people may fall asleep at the wheel. You can expect that you may encounter on the highway something other than absolute safety. If we say now that one can expect anything but someone driving who has had two drinks, then that will be the law and I would have no quarrel with it. The minister and the government should consider seriously whether the people really understand what is being done and whether they are willing yet to accept such a law. If this is not the case we will have police forces not too willing to follow the letter of the law. This will result in ineffective enforcement.
It is very important that we stress what 80 milligrams means, and what the law means when it says that the punishment for each subsequent offence is imprisonment for not more than one year and not less than three months. This involves quite a change. People know they should not drive when they have been drinking or they probably will lose their licences, be liable for damages and not be able to obtain insurance, but perhaps they are not yet willing to accept the fact that they might go to jail for three months.
As I have said, social attitudes have changed. People do go to lunch and sometimes have a drink or two. They go to banquets and weddings and they drink. What we are saying now is that if someone has had a drink or two he must not drive. We are not referring to drunk or impaired driving. There is no question that an individual may have a drink or two but not be drunk or unable to

February 11, 1969
Criminal Code
drive. With this change it is not necessary to prove that an individual was impaired. All the authorities must do is show that his bloodstream contained .08 per cent alcohol.
We must also consider the other change dealing with the breathalyzer test. If an individual refuses to take a breathalyzer test he is guilty. The minister argues that he is not really guilty of an infraction of this law but is guilty of refusing to take a test. The punishment for refusing to take a breathalyzer test is identical with the punishment on a conviction for drinking and driving. When the punishment is the same for a conviction under the section or refusing to take the test, there is not much rationalization in the argument that it is not really the same offence. If you refuse to incriminate yourself then you are guilty.
At this moment the minister is probably discussing a charter of human or individual rights. One of the sections of that charter is likely to be to the effect that a Canadian need not incriminate himself. How can we possibly justify these two points? If we say in the proposed charter that an individual need not incriminate himself and, on the other hand, that he can be forced to incriminate himself under this law, how can we justify our position? We suggest on the one hand that an individual must take a breathalyzer test unless he has reasonable grounds to refuse. That is a strange attitude to adopt when dealing with police forces and administrators of the law. We cannot very well justify or reconcile these positions.
In discussing this matter the minister said that, after all, it is the same as being forced to be fingerprinted. In some cases an individual may be forced to be fingerprinted but that does not necessarily mean he is guilty of an offence. An individual's fingerprints may be found at the scene of a crime. That individual may well have been there and his fingerprints may be the only ones found, but he still has the opportunity to show that he was not guilty and the Crown must prove that he is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.
The proposed change states that if an individual has a blood alcohol content of .08 he is guilty of an offence. This is tantamount to suggesting that if your fingerprints happen to be found at the scene of a crime you are guilty without recourse. We must really consider whether we want to go this far.


An hon. Member:: And you end up with a criminal record.


Steven Otto: We are trying to have records expunged after a certain period of time; yet we are instituting now the creations of records for drinking and driving. Perhaps this is the time to place an absolute prohibition on drinking and driving, and when I say that I mean even one drink. If that is the case, then perhaps this will be a good law. We must indicate to people that from now on they cannot drive after drinking. We must also consider whether Canadians will understand what the fact is. I have no objection but I think Canadians should be made aware of the situation. They must understand that they will have to change their social habits.
I cannot understand how anyone can possibly justify that a refusal to incriminate oneself is tantamount to being guilty of an indictable offence. I am sure we will hear other arguments in respect of other facets of this bill. My purpose in rising today is merely to bring to the attention of the minister and the government this one provision which I think is not in accord with the general feeling of the public. I certainly think that the proposed changes to section 224 should be removed.


Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to delay unduly the passage of this bill or its referral to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs where I am sure it will receive very careful scrutiny, but I do think there are certain observations which can perhaps be more conveniently made at this stage.
In spite of the admonition delivered a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), which I will deal with it in greater detail in a moment, along with many others on this side of the house and on the other side, if they were free to express their opinions, I feel this bill should have been presented in a divided rather than in its present omnibus form. I realize there are parts of the bill which are very good and that it contains amendments to the Criminal Code which are long overdue. But at the same time many other matters could and, I suggest, should have been included in the bill by way of amendment. I suggest that in many respects today our Criminal Code is indeed archaic and is not moulded to or in time with the times in which we are living. I would like to put on the record just a few of the sections of the Criminal Code which are indeed archaic. For example, section 72 says:
February 11, 1969

[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Every one who challenges or attempts by any means to provoke another person to fight a duel, is guilty of an indictable offence-
I do not think we have had very many duels in Canada lately. This is a section that is indeed archaic and could very conveniently be struck out. Another section says:
Every one who for valuable consideration carries on or plays or offers to carry on or to play, or employs any person to carry on or play in a public place or a place to which the public have access, the game of three-card monte-[DOT]
And so on. When did we last hear of three-card monte being played in Canda? The Fathers of Confederation may have played it, but I am sure it is not played in Canada today. Another section says:
Every one who fraudulently pretends to exercise or to use any kind of witchcraft-
And so on. Is anybody practising witchcraft now?


Thomas Miller Bell: Yes, the government.


Melvin James McQuaid: Witchcraft is an offence punishable on summary conviction. These are only some examples. There are many other sections which should be taken out of the Criminal Code because they are meaningless. I suggest that now that we are going to amend the Criminal Code the government should have done a real job and taken out some of the sections which we do not need.
The minister has assured us that such amendments are on the way. I am prepared to accept his assurance in this respect, but at the same time I must express my very sincere hope that the necessary revision of the code will be made just as soon as possible.
Setting aside these considerations for the time being, I would like to return to my contention that the bill should have been presented to us in divisions rather than in its present form. When the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) moved second reading of the bill on Thursday, January 23, he asked this very question:
Why should this bill be split?
Whether he recognized it or not, he then proceeded to answer his own question because he said, as reported on page 4717 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, in introducing this massive bill I am very sensitive of the solemn duty that I have to the law of this country and of the effect that this bill, if adopted by the house, will have on the individual lives and individual human rights of everyone in Canada.
Criminal Code
On the same page he said:
The omnibus measure contains matters of deep social significance which, in the course of time, will affect the lives of most of us, perhaps each one of us, in varying degrees.
These words are very true. Therein, I submit, lies the reason why this bill should have been divided. As the minister said, it can affect and possibly will affect the conscience of every member of this house and will at some time or another touch the conscience of all the people of Canada. There are some principles in the bill with which I cannot agree. For that reason I shall be required, I submit, to vote against the whole bill. There are parts of the bill which are extremely good. So far as I am concerned, 95 per cent of the bill is good. I would like to vote for those parts which are good but I cannot-I will answer the argument of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in a moment-vote for the whole bill because it contains clauses with which I cannot agree.
The minister put forth practically the same argument as was put forward today by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. He said we will have the chance to vote separately on these issues when the bill reaches the report stage, and at that time it can be considered clause by clause. I agree that in all probability this privilege will be extended to us but I ask, how does that help the situation? When the bill is being studied clause by clause, if there is a clause with which I do not agree I will naturally vote against it. In all probability the clause will carry because the government will have a majority on the Committee and in the house when the bill is being considered at the report stage. Therefore in all probability the clause with which I disagree and against which I shall vote will carry.
The bill will come back to us in omnibus form. What am I expected to do then? What is the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre going to do then? Is he going to swallow himself? Is he going to reverse himself then simply because the clause with which he disagrees is still in the bill? The hon. member mentioned the clause dealing with lotteries, and I will take that as an example. He said he cannot go along with it. But even if he votes against it at the report stage it will be included in the bill for which we shall be asked to vote on third reading.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't be too sure.

February 11, 1969
Criminal Code


Melvin James McQuaid: If the hon. member wants to vote against that clause, he will have to vote against the whole bill. I am assuming that the amendment he says he will submit will be defeated in committee. I submit this is a reasonable assumption. The bill will then come back to us in its complete form with the lotteries clause of which the hon. member disapproves, and he will be required, as will I and every other hon. member, either to reverse himself and vote for the whole bill or vote against it.
I suggest that this places hon. members on the horns of a dilemma, and this should not be. Every member of this house should have the privilege of making a choice. I suggest, too, that deep down in his heart the Minister of Justice and many other members on the other side realize that what I have said is correct. But, as the minister says, the bill is not his bill. It is identified, he said, with the indelible print of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). The Prime Minister is the one who says the bill must not be divided.
Apparently there is not a man on the government benches who dares stand up and say no. Apparently there is not a man on the government benches who has the courage to say that he will follow the dictates of his own conscience irrespective of the representations made to him by the Prime Minister. It appears to me there is not a man on the government benches today who dares go into a cabinet meeting without first hanging his free will with his hat and coat in the cloakroom. There is not a man who dares to go in there and dispute anything the Prime Minister suggests to them as being good. The government and this parliament are being ruled, and as a result are suffering, by the iron hand of the Prime Minister.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre argued the other day that you could not divide a bill such as this into 120 parts. I agree. Certainly you cannot take this bill and divide it into 120 parts, and nobody suggests that you should. But this is a bill-and for all I know it may have been designed this way- which can very conveniently be broken down into parts, as was so ably pointed out a few days ago by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). The bill very conveniently lends itself to the divisions that he outlined:	Clauses referring to abortion,
clauses referring to homosexuality, clauses referring to lotteries and gambling, and all

the remaining clauses. This is a very convenient and more or less natural breakdown of the bill, and there is absolutely no reason why the government should not allow this division to be made. It is a division which would allow every member of the house to vote against what his moral convictions tell him is bad and at the same time to support what he knows is good. It is a division, I suggest, to which every member of this house is entitled, and to refuse it may very correctly be categorized as one of the greatest injustices ever perpetrated by any government against the elected representatives of the people.
The minister said the other day when he introduced the bill that these amendments have been tested by public opinion and have received a popular mandate. At page 4719 of Hansard he is reported as having said:
We believe It has been tested favourably with the people of Canada and has met the approval of the people in a general election.
The only thing that was tested in the June 25 election was the personality of the Prime Minister, and the Minister of Justice, the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith) and everybody else on the other side of the house know that that is true. There was no national examination of the principles of this bill. From my own experience at least, I never heard homosexuality, lotteries or abortion mentioned during the whole election campaign. We were privileged to have the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in our province during the election campaign, and I am sure that he never raised these issues with the people of our province.
I am quite prepared to suggest that the greater percentage of the electorate of Canada did not even know that these issues could possibly arise, but even if they did I still suggest that that does not give a clear mandate to the other side of the house because I would remind them that more people voted against them on June 25 than voted for them. If it was an election issue, then I suggest that more people said "no, we do not want it" than said "we do want it" because the figures will show that at that election 54.5 per cent of the voters of Canada voted against the government while only 45.5 per cent voted for them. It is true that they were able to secure a sufficient number of seats to form a government, but it is not fair for them to rely on what they term the tremendous vote they received.
February 11, 1969

I do not propose to deal at this time in any detail with the controversial clauses of the bill. The time to do that is in committee, and I will have more to say there. In my opinion, however, to assume that simply because a person happens to be an adherent of one or another religious belief he is automatically for or against certain of the controversial clauses of this bill is not correct. One must not think of this problem in the terms of Roman Catholics against all others. For example, opposition to abortion is by no means the exclusive preserve of Roman Catholics. The fact is that a growing number of Protestants and Jews are today opposing the widening of the grounds for abortion. For example, just last week the congregation of Metropolitan United in Edmonton passed a resolution urging the government to split the bill. They asked that the government do the very same thing we are asking them to do today-split the bill.
I also suggest that no religious group in this country is trying to force its ideas down the throats of the Canadian people. Those who oppose abortion oppose it because they are convinced that foetal life is human life and that to destroy human life at any stage is deliberate, premeditated, cold-blooded murder. That is the reason we who are opposed to abortion stand opposed. The fact that foetal life is human life and that life begins at conception is not exclusively a theological opinion, although there are some theologians who hold that view. It is also a hard, cold scientific fact which has not yet been successfully disproved. It is acknowledged and concurred in by a publication issued by the government of Canada entitled "The Canadian Mother and Child". I read in that government publication not long ago that when a sperm unites with an ovum a new cell is formed and a new life has begun. This statement is also confirmed by the chairman of the department of biology at the University of San Francisco, Dr. Edward L. Kessel, who has said:
The scientific evidence shows conclusively that life begins at conception.
The Minister of Justice himself admits that some of the provisions pertain to life itself.
Having satisfied myself about that basic fact, my conscience will not allow me to support any amendment to the law which will make it easier than it now is to take the life of a potential human being. If the life of a mother is in danger, yes, but beyond that I suggest we must not go.
Criminal Code
Let me remind hon. members that just as sure as we are sitting here this afternoon the proposed widening of the abortion law if it is allowed, will only be the first step toward the next move of abortion by consent. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre indicated this afternoon that he would like to see all provisions with reference to abortion removed from the code. This is just another way of saying that there should be abortion by consent. I think that is wrong, and I refuse to prostitute my moral convictions to the cause of any political party. That is the reason 1 say we should have a free vote on this bill, and the government should have allowed it. I also believe the bill should have been divided.
In any case, my main point is that those of us who feel this way in conscience should not be forced to vote against those amendments which we know to be good and believe should be made the law of the country. For example, I go along entirely with the provisions of the bill which deal with the tightening of the law in so far as drunken driving is concerned. We have to stop the slaughter on our highways. If the amendment proposed by the Minister of Justice will have that effect, I want to go along with it. I am in complete agreement with the proposal that there should be tightening of the law regarding guns; I go along with that completely. I am in complete agreement with the suggested amendment whereby witnesses cannot be held indefinitely in jail pending the trial at which they are going to give evidence. These are things that I would like to vote for, but I am not allowed to vote for them because my conscience will not allow me to vote for one or two clauses which I feel to be bad.
I submit that for these reasons the bill should be split. Hon. members who sit on the treasury benches say that the bill will not be split. Yet there is still a hope-at least I hope there is-that the private members who sit on the other side of the house will be able to convince their party, the Minister of Justice, the Prime Minister and his cabinet that this bill should be presented to us in a divided form rather than in its present omnibus form so that I and many more like me who want to vote for many of the provisions which we know to be good can vote for them and at the same time vote against those which we are convinced are bad.
Criminal Code

February II, 1969
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Mr. Adrien Lamberi (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in this discussion on bill C-150, commonly called the omnibus bill, I would like to make a few very objective remarks, in order to put before the government and the house my opinion on the various amendments to the criminal code contained in the bill.
Several members set forth their views on the bill. The minister voiced his own at length as well as that of the government. Some lawyers put forward their ideas most eloquently. Indeed, I took great interest in reading the speech of a doctor, the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle), and I congratulate him for the great deal of information he gave the house, though on some points other doctors may disagree.
My wife has been calling upon doctors' services for 30 years. During her twelve pregnancies, I always appreciated the doctor's honesty and the great care he took to protect the life inside the mother's womb, while taking all the necessary steps to keep her in good health. I am convinced that our doctors are generally well qualified and conscientious.
One lady has expressed eloquently her ideas, namely the hon. member for Vancouv-er-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis). I wish to congratulate her for her really dignified remarks, which are a credit to the fair sex.
I was greatly impressed by the seriousness shown by hon. members in the discussion of this bill. We know that there is concern on all sides, but there is also sincerity and good will.
As for myself, I am neither a doctor nor a lawyer, but my responsibility as a father makes me aware of the seriousness of this problem.
If, as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) suggested, the government was given a mandate at the last election to get the amendments he introduced passed, it is also clear that the member for Bellechasse, was by the same token given a specific mandate, since at each meeting he held, he drew that question to the attention of the electorate without passion or demagoguery. Like many others, I wish the amendments in the omnibus bill had been introduced separately, which would have left each hon. member free to take a stand according to his conscience and to accept what he deemed acceptable and reject what he deemed unacceptable. The government
[Mr. McQuaid.l
will certainly answer that we can do it, either at the committee stage or when considering the report of the committee. However, at the stage of the third reading, the bill will stay undivided and, consequently, will be adopted or rejected as a whole, which means that in order to reject what does not seem acceptable we shall have at the same time to reject what would seem to us necessary and useful to society.
I have discussed that problem with the Minister of Justice; I must recognize that he has been very courteous towards me, for which I thank him.
However, in presenting to the house, in one bill, all the amendments he intends to bring to the Criminal Code, the Minister of Justice seems to have been willing to follow tradition. I am told that actually, in 1954, I think, the government followed the same course. It seems to me that when it is a matter of improving something, it would be advisable not to follow tradition. This government likes to be considered as being in the van, because it wants to amend the standing orders of the house, and I agree with that; but the people also want those amendments.
The amendment which the government wishes to effect in section 195(2) of the Criminal Code is of the utmost importance since it is likely to change the meaning of the term "homicide". I have before me a letter dated February 5, 1969, which was sent, with a document, to the hon. member for Bellechasse and, probably, to all other hon. members, by an association of parents. It shows that 13 organizations request exactly what several others requested before me and what I myself and now requesting, that the bill be divided so that we can accept what is acceptable and reject what does not seem acceptable to us. Among those associations are the Societe Saint-Jean-Baptiste, a Parents Association, a chapter of the Knights of Columbus, the Catholic Nurses of the Province of Quebec, the Policemen Brotherhood of Montreal and the Federation of Policemen Brotherhoods of the province of Quebec.
One of God's commands is as good in 1969 as it was originally: "Thou shalt not kill." If I understand it correctly, Mr. Speaker, it means that we cannot take the life of our fellow-men. But what is life? It must be something extremely valuable since God, our Maker, made it one of his commands not to deprive our fellow-men of life.
It seems we are assuming that for a human being life only begins the moment a child is
February 11, 1969

born. I cannot possibly accept such an interpretation of the concept of life. I sincerely believe that God alone creates life, but in His infinite wisdom he associates himself to man to carry out his work. Consequently, a man and a woman become procreators in uniting in the conjugal act to fulfil their mission, and providing there is fecundity, in my opinion, the life of a new human being starts there immediately. I believe that things could not be otherwise since, according to God's will, life begets life. First of all, one must be alive and have life to be able to transmit life according to the law of creation. I have here also a document that was prepared by the Association of hospital medical boards in the province of Quebec, in which one can read the following:
The medical board is the body which in each hospital includes all the practising physicians. Lately, as a result of the presentation of the government bill on abortion, the association got in touch with all its members in writing or at meetings to discuss that bill. The directors have considered all the views expressed and they are pleased to give you their conclusions on abortion and that bill.
The physicians of the Quebec hospitals believe that any abortion is a homicide, because the foetus is a human being. In the present state of medicine, the foetus is a living human being and has the right to live as all other human beings. Even from a legal point of view, the foetus is already considered to be a complete human being, since he is entitled to estate rights and the State still considers non-therapeutic abortion as a crime liable to life imprisonment.
Mr. Speaker, Man is able to conceive plans of all kinds, in various areas, but he will never succeed, once dead, to bring himself back to life. In spite of science, of various discoveries, of the power of human intelligence, there has never been a man who could create something, a simple plant, a humble blade of grass. Man can improve it, help it grow faster and better, but never, in spite of all his intelligence, will he be able to create it, to give it life.
Our presence here as human beings, alive and conscious, is not due to our own will, but to the respect and the protective feeling which our parents had for life, in spite of difficulties that confronted them, and of troubles of all kind they had to endure.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
The human capital, the inhabitants themselves are the greatest wealth of our country, and this is so true that we may well ask ourselves-and rightly so-what all the other physical riches of our country would be worth if there were nobody to use them.
Criminal Code
All things created were made to be used by man, by human beings endowed with life. Our forefathers fought for their lives and their survival and, by doing so, they managed to build up the Canada of today.
Our ancestors laid the groundwork of our country more than 350 years ago. All levels of government have successively passed pieces of legislation aimed at safeguarding the lives and health of the individuals, by every means, because they have realized that the human capital is the true wealth of our country.
Those who lived before us did not always have an easy life. In the light of present day living, our parents accepted their fate at the cost of tremendous sacrifices and under most difficult circumstances.
In fact, it is only necessary to go back twenty years to make comparisons. Some of us have known what living conditions were at that time. As a matter of fact, roads were not cleared in winter time as they are nowadays for automobile traffic.
Besides, a great many parishes did not even have telephone service. It is easy to imagine what were the sufferings endured by women throughout their pregnancy. Yet, there was no question of seeking abortion as it is the case today. As medical knowledge was less advanced, mothers could not as easily ask for medical assistance and they had to endure the discomforts of pregnancy for several long months. Medical science is now capable of giving pregnant women efficient treatments which enable them to fulfil their motherly role with fewer difficulties and worries.
Furthermore, childbirth would then take place at home. Very few women were fortunate enough to have children in hospitals. Nowadays this is a common event as most babies are born in hospitals. Obviously, mothers-to-be have better chances of having the care they need than in the past.
Society spends tremendous amounts of money for the purpose of saving and protecting human life. In universities scientists conduct research to discover ways of healing diseases which might lead man to his death. Society builds hospitals where doctors, nurses and the whole staff dedicate themselves to the care of the sick. And heaven knows to what extent medical science has advanced over the past few years, because Providence endowed man with the necessary intelligence to discover all the means made available to him in order to ensure his conservation.

February 11, 1969
Criminal Code
Men themselves through their governments have always been enacting legislation for the protection of life. It is the function of the police officer, for instance, to watch over the property of man and to ensure the protection of his life.
It is also the duty of those who govern to enforce the laws so as to provide our old people with the financial assistance necessary for their maintenance. The same duty falls upon the civil servants responsible for the administration of welfare pensions, veterans' pensions, disabled persons' pensions and family allowances.
We spend millions for national defence, for the construction of shelters in case of nuclear warfare, therefore with the intention of protecting our lives. We have an instinct of selfpreservation but I cannot see why this life which we love, which we cherish and which is beyond our control, should not also be ensured for other human beings.
By the will of God, women perform a task of an incomparable greatness in our human society and therefore humanity owes them a great deal. We all had a mother and although mine is no more, I thank her for maintaining my life in her womb in spite of the sacrifices and inconveniences she likely experienced.
I witnessed the birth of every one of my 12 children and I quickly understood the meaning of the great sigh of relief of the mother as she asked the doctor: "Is my baby alive?" and got a yes in reply.
It is at a doctor's request I am saying all these things, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that life is something of an exceptional value, that cannot be measured and that we must endeavour by all means to preserve it even in the case of those we cannot see with our own eyes but of whose existence we are aware. It is our responsibility to provide them with that opportunity, to enable them to replace us and live their own life on earth.
At a doctor's request, I even witnessed an extremely difficult childbirth and I heard that cry on the part of the desperate mother: "Doctor, save my child first!" That, I believe, unquestionably proves that life is a priceless gift, the value of which only a mother can really understand.
I know there is still nowadays a great number of married women who accept their responsibility as mothers and try by all possible means to preserve the life of their unborn child. Our society should do more in order to help pregnant mothers; thus induced abortions would be less numerous.

We are told that people still have abortions, though illegally. Maybe so. However, in a letter I received from "l'Alliance pour la vie", signed by the president and vice-president of that association, hence by two women, I found the following passage:
Some hon. members feel, it seems, that the new law on abortion will legalize the act only for serious reasons such as saving the life of the mother. Although this is seldom necessary, it is generally recognized that abortions for such motives are already legal. The changes proposed by the omnibus bill open the door far wider than that.
What does the Medical Association have to say in this regard? This, and I quote:
It is universally recognized, by all serious obstetricians, that the cases where a therapeutic abortion would really save the life of the mother have become extremely rare and are growing increasingly fewer with scientific progress. On the other hand, an abortion performed to improve the health or the well-being of the mother, or to prevent the birth of a possibly malformed infant, becomes an act of social euthanasia. If a malformed being can be killed in the womb of his mother, why can he not be killed outside of it?
Doctors are speaking here, Mr. Speaker.
I continue:
However, an abortion performed when the life of the mother is endangered by the pregnancy can be looked upon, in that case, no longer as a measure of euthanasia but as a case of legitimate defence. Legitimate defence does not necessarily mean unjust aggression. However, for an act to be considered as legitimate defence there must be on tile one hand some relation between the defensive measure and the aggression and, on the other hand, the offensive act must be the only possible means of defence.
Mr. Speaker, Bill No. C-150 has already been studied by other organizations. A while ago, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) told us that unfortunately there are not very many women in the house; if there were more of them, perhaps the men might think differently.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I was sent a petition signed by 5,000 people. Of course, I did not read all the names one after the other, but I did notice that the vast majority of those who had signed were women. They are petitioning against abortion and homosexuality. I shall deal with it at greater length later.
Bill No. C-150 proposes to legalize abortion for reasons related to protecting the health of the mother. It is left to the discretion of a small abortions committee to pass judgment on the matter. Indeed, the act will allow two doctors, who constitute the majority of a
February 11, 1969

committee of three members, to authorize abortions for such reasons as they choose.
Now, to go back to the letter sent by the Alliance for Life:
In Colorado, California and elsewhere, measures similar to this one have multiplied the number of abortions.
Out of one hundred abortions performed in hospitals, 90 are performed on the ground of "mental health", a rather lax phrase that covers anything and everything. We have been searching the minutes of the parliamentary committee of health and welfare to find out the different meanings of the words "mental health".
If there are more abortions performed in hospitals, this does not mean that there are less criminal abortions. In Great Britain, however liberal the law, the death rate due to criminal abortions is higher than that in Canada.
-as compared to the population ratio.
What is then the reason behind those changes? Clarifying the present law? Actually, adding words impossible to define will not help, in this respect. Will the law answer a pressing medical need? Doctors are the first to admit that there is no such need, as proven by the decreasing rate of postpartum deaths.
Today, that rate is only three deaths for 10,000 live births, that is less than a tenth of the 1940 rate.
The requests for abortion made to physicians are almost invariably for social reasons. Could it be that the changes proposed in the act are a concession to the pressures exerted by a small group of doctors who want to free themselves from any legal limitation?
We are told that a committee of physicians will decide whether, for a particular woman, there really is a sufficient hazard to warrant abortion. But as reported on page 543 of the proceedings of the standing committee on health and welfare in 1968, Dr. Walters said, and I quote:
If one considers the differences in the incidence of suicide throughout the world, one finds that the hospitals with the largest number of abortions are those with the most lenient committees. In a hospital with a yearly turnout of 20,000 deliveries, only a few abortions will take place to save the life of the mother. In another hospital with 10,000 deliveries, the number of abortions will be 40 times greater annually and the difference does not lie in the incidence of those abortions, but in the fact that if a woman is sent to that hospital, it is notorious that she will be able to get an abortion.
If the bill is passed, I anticipate two possible effects. On the one hand, if hospital committees give a narrow interpretation to the words "of the life or health of the mother", very few abortions will be allowed and the problem of illegal abortions will thus remain unchanged. On the other hand, with a somewhat wider definition of health, it will always
Criminal Code
be possible to allege a reason for finding it dangerous to continue the pregnancy. A law which lends itself to various interpretations and fails to ensure greater justice is incomplete.
In order to alleviate that problem of illegal abortion, it is our responsability to get to the bottom of things. Besides, it is the only way to expose the real causes of this alarming situation which should not exist in a vast and rich country like Canada.
And one of those grounds is connected with housing, especially in our large urban centers. Thanks to our great planning experts in this field, less and less of housing units are being built nowadays that are large enough to accommodate a normal family. They include, as a rule, a small kitchen, two bedrooms, one bath room and a living room. How can it ever be possible for an ordinary couple to house 5 or 6 people under such conditions?
Farmers care more for birds than society for the family. As a matter of fact, birds, especially swallows, build usually their nests in our farm buildings. They are allowed to build them in sufficient numbers and we do not worry about how many offsprings there are in the nests.
As far as children are concerned, they are being more and more ignored by modern society. It is an unfortunate fact and our society has nothing to boast about. But facts must be faced squarely if one is the realize that the situation has reached alarming proportions and often places couples in untenable positions which may be, if we really get to the bottom of things, a cause of abortion.
Another is sometimes the lack of understanding of the immediate family of the pregnant woman and this applies to every level of society, as well as to unwed mothers.
Furthermore, an insufficient income often gives rise to insuperable financial problems, and that situation gets worse from year to year because of the tribute people must pay, through governments, to the dictatorship of money and credit and to the golden calf.
In our ultramodern society, unfortunately, women are exposed to risks of all kinds, and that is another reason why we will have to find some solution, to apply in the first years of schooling on account of the great concentration of pupils at the same place, to what has become a serious problem for young girls. They are not sufficiently protected, unfortunately; school authorities do not watch them closely enough and too often, a number of

February 11, 1969
Criminal Code
parents fail in their responsibility to give sexual education to their children.
Magazines, movies, advertisements of all kinds glorify sex. The inevitable results are accidental or unwanted pregnancies, and abortion is then contemplated.
Today, too many people complain about the way young people behave and protest. But do they wonder why? Do they seriously look for the cause? Are young people the ones who produce the vulgar movies that can be seen in theaters or on television, particularly on the national network, and that are such that they corrupt the very young children instead of helping the parents to educate them?
Are the pleasures of the flesh the only real values, since they get such publicity through all possible and impossible means? They are not. Adults are responsible for all the disorder, although attempts are made to blame the young people. Let us first assume our responsibilities as adults, in a mature way, and then we might complain about the way the young behave, if need be.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Faced with so much publicity and calls to all kinds of pleasures, our youth need an extraordinary and truly heroic upbringing to resist. If we were in their situation, we would perhaps be worse.
Having analyzed the few cases I brought forth, it is only natural to try and bring some remedial measures. This is what I would like to do in the few minutes still at my disposal.
Some time ago, the family planning centre made its position known on the legalization of abortion. The solutions suggested by the centre as a result of a study which lasted several months were meant to settle that complex problem as soon as possible. Here is how the members of the team from that centre explained their position, and I quote:
1.	We would like to succeed in building up a responsible approach to fertility, so that all pregnancies could have a positive outcome.
2.	We shall never consider abortion as a matter of choice, but as an unavoidable solution in some specific cases.
3.	The suggestions made are meant above all to decrease the incidence and consequences of abortions that are now being practised.
The centre feels that the problem can only be solved through legislation; indeed, some parallel measures must be provided, such as the establishment of organizations to assist the mother and look after pregnant women. Whether or not she would like to have an

abortion, any woman who cannot find elsewhere the necessary care facilities, should be in a position to ask for medical advice during her pregnancy. In addition, the necessary means should be available to alter the conditions which made pregnancy undesirable.
Modern society offers more and more means to release woman from past bondage and poverty. Such means should be made available to every mother during her pregnancy and after her delivery not only to enable her to send to school the child to whom she gave birth but also to provide her with the money needed to satisfy her needs and those of her children. That is where the basic guaranteed income should come in to ensure a decent living to all. It is urgent to take steps along that line before it is too late.
There is no reason for Canada to have a continuing decline in its birthrate. Let us wake up before it is too late. I wonder why the proliferation of human life has become something to be afraid of in a country as widespread as ours.
In His infinite wisdom, God has indeed provided our earth with sufficient resources of all kinds to satisfy the needs of each and everyone of us. We should further direct our efforts towards an equitable distribution of wealth in order to meet the requirements of our families and to secure their normal fulfillment.
Can anyone add inches to this height, even with any kind of treatment imaginable? No one. Why? Because this is beyond our capacities. Let our youth learn more about the greatness and the dignity of motherhood together with the respect and care pregnant women deserve. In so doing, we would realize that life is a precious gift to everybody, even to the unborn baby.
Mr. Speaker, those were the few comments and suggestions I wanted to make before the house concerning this particular subject of life and abortion.
I will deal very briefly with that part of the bill concerning homosexuality in order to offer my comments on the redress of such a deplorable situation.
This aspect of the bill upsets me deeply. It deals with the amendment intended to legalize homosexuality between consenting persons of 21 years of age or over. It is beyond my understanding that it has become necessary to amend the criminal code to permit homosexuality on the grounds that it is practised nevertheless.
February 11, 1969

To follow up such an argument, we should add that it could become necessary to legalize theft when it is committed by consenting persons over 21 on the grounds that it would be done anyway.
That is nonsense, I might be told. I agree and that is why I cannot accept a similar argument with regard to homosexuality. It is generally recognized that homosexuality is a disease, and sometimes a vice. I believe this is true to a very large degree. That is why I do not think that the appropriate cure is the legalization of such a practice or such a vice.
In order to explain myself, Mr. Speaker, I shall say that a few years ago a terrible disease, tuberculosis, was prevalent in our country, and perhaps more particularly so in the province of Quebec.
Each year, thousands of people died from the disease. What was the reaction? Did the government pass legislation to legalize the disease, on the grounds that it was prevalent? Of course not, but it launched an education campaign, asking the people to co-operate to control it. Indeed, thanks to all kinds of preventive and remedial measures, the ravages of tuberculosis have been reduced to the minimum, so that the number of people suffering from that disease is now very small.
That is the reason why I sincerely believe, Mr. Speaker, that the cure for homosexuality is not legalization but rather recourse to preventive measures such as a skilful and objective information campaign among the public, and to curative methods applying to the victims of that evil.
Effective steps should be taken in jails and penitentiaries so that young people will not be contaminated by professionals in depravity. Parents should also have an opportunity to secure information on that problem, and so to caution their children in time, even in their first years in school.
I have been given a petition signed, as I said earlier, by about 5,000 people, who, as it happens, are against Bill No. C-150. Instead of reading it, I shall ask the house to allow me to table those documents which might be printed as an appendix to today's Hansard.
Finally there is also the amendment aiming to make lotteries legal. In that respect, I believe that as long as our monetary system has not been reformed or adapted to meet the needs of the times, governments will experience more and more serious difficulties. This
Criminal Code
is why, I believe, the government is now thinking of legalizing lotteries. However, if we had a healthy monetary system, adapted to the needs of our times and making use of the Bank of Canada, such as the one Social Credit is proposing, and which I am told was referred to at the federal-provincial conference, the State would not have to resort to such a system of disguised taxation consisting of lotteries.
As to the amendment regarding driving while intoxicated, I am of the opinion that it is an improvement. Indeed, too many drivers are a real hazard on our roads. Every day, we can read in the paper about injuries and losses of life inflicted all too often by drivers who have been drinking. It is time to cure that plague. Our children are killed, families are broken, owing to the death of the father, of the mother, or of both of them. However refusal to submit to a breathalizer test should not, in my view, be considered as a criminal offence.
In short, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I would have liked a free vote on this bill.
I only have two more sentences, Mr. Speaker-
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his time has expired, unless it is the wish of the house that he be allowed to continue. I understand he has only one sentence. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for allowing me to continue my remarks.
The government says it was elected to administer and I do not disagree with that. But hon. members were elected to legislate and that is why I would decide in favour of a free vote, without thinking that the government might run the risk of being overthrown. We do not ask for a confidence vote but a free vote, whose only effect would be the passing or the rejection of a bill so important for the future of our country which will continue to develop if we have the wisdom and the courage to assume all our responsibilities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

February 11, 1969
Criminal Code


Bernard Dumont: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) just asked the unanimous consent of the house to table documents and I would like to know whether he was given leave to do so.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In respect of the point of order I might mention that it is not the practice or custom of the house to proceed in this way. If there is unanimous consent there is no way, of course, that the Chair can resist, but I would point out that it is not a custom of the house to follow this procedure.


Mr. Robert P. Kaplan (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, a great deal has been said about the implications of Bill C-150 from the point of view of conscience and morality. This concern is quite justified. Questions of conscience do arise and for some hon. members and many people in the country there has been a need to consider the relationship between criminal law and morality as well as the role of law in our society. We are a pluralistic society containing divergent groups, religious and secular, representing a wide variety of moral views and standards. There are some important moral values shared by all of us or by a very broad majority. We cannot in this house use our legislative authority to express the morality of one group and suppress the freedom of others to give expression to the things they believe are right.
On the other hand, we have the responsibility to prevent the development of our society to a state where one group's or individual's expression will threaten or undermine the values of the rest to the extent that we cannot co-exist in harmony. Our Criminal Code should be such that in addition to maintaining order it permits the safe co-existence and expression of a variety of moral standards. By this test our Criminal Code has served us badly or at least is ready for the revision which is now before the house. In this connection I refer particularly to the abortion legislation.
There are many people in this house and in the country whose moral views are accurately reflected by the law which prevents abortion in any circumstances. These individuals are being asked to support amendments which would permit limited voluntary abortion. In so doing this group iis being asked not to surrender its own morality but to surrender its grip on our laws in order to accommodate
[Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse) .1
the beliefs and practices of those of different views.
I respect the views of those who sanctify the new life which is created at conception and who would not under any circumstances condone the termination of such a life. This is a pure faith which has been re-examined and tested by them and has survived. But there are many Canadians whose beliefs and values are different and more complex. All hon. members have received a vast number of submissions on all sides of the question. Because the bill is being supported by many on the ground that the law should not reflect a particular morality, the supporters of the bill often are accused of lack of any morality. Some of the criticism is vicious and small-minded. We have been accused of being Nazi butchers for sanctioning the murder of innocents and of seeking through murder to avoid a serious confrontation with our social evils.
In answer to these charges I should like to elaborate on the morality of the many Canadians whose support for abortion is based on moral grounds. To me the existence or non-existence of human life from the moment of conception is a question of definition and semantics. Surely no moral weight inheres in the label. Whatever it is called its existence demands moral consideration. But personally I am unable to rest the moral question entirely on this fact, important as it is. New life is a moral fact, but there are a number of other factors which to many Canadians also have moral weight. There is old life, that is, the lives, health and welfare of the mother and the existing members of the family.
Second, there is the value representing the quality of life. What will the child's physical condition be? What will his mental condition be? How will he be received by his family? Is there a family to receive him? Many people in Canada go so far as to believe a child born in this country should have the right to be born, loved and wanted by his family. It is no answer to say that the fault for an inhospitable environment for a child lies with the society and not with the child. That fact is small consolation to its victims.
The abortion section does not go as far as would be required to accommodate the moral considerations I have described. Abortions are to be permitted only when there is danger to the health of the mother, but it permits to a greater extent the expression of the moral
February 11. 1969



values to which I have referred. For this reason I support it. May I add that I would not favour absolutely unlimited abortion as was proposed, I believe, by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). I believe this might encourage the act of abortion as a simple birth control technique. This would ignore entirely the value represented by the life which exists from conception.
Under the bill complex and expensive machinery is set up for the determination of cases in which abortion is to be permitted. There are no estimates of what it would cost an applicant to obtain permission for an abortion, but in California, for example, where there is a simple similar procedure, apart from the cost of the operation itself it costs between $600 and $800 to take advantage of the procedure to obtain permission. In order not to discriminate between the rich and poor I would hope that the terms of medicare might be enlarged to cover the cost of this examination. It will, of course, cover the cost of any abortion which may be authorized.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
The other provision of the bill which touches upon morality and about which I should like to speak for a moment is the amendment dealing with gross indecency. There are few Canadians who would believe that laws exist governing voluntary private sexual conduct between a husband and wife or between unmarried couples of the opposite sex. Fewer still would believe that there have been convictions under this section as recently as 1966. Surely conduct, given this context, is a matter of taste and not of morality, and any element of gross indecency is entirely in the eye of the beholder.
I should like to turn briefly to the question of homosexuality. This is a form of sexual perversion which arouses a sense of horror in most normal people. But many Canadians feel an equal sense of horror about the present treatment of homosexuals in this country. For example, our government has been holding in prison under an indeterminate or life sentence, confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada, one Everett George Klippert, who was a resident of the Northwest territories. Mr. Klippert's only crime or criminal conduct was the commission of homosexual acts in private by consent and without violence with male adults. For this he may spend the rest of his life in prison. Some Canadians believe that Mr. Klippert will spend eternity in hell.
Criminal Code
That may well be, but that is not the concern of this house.
We are here to define crimes and in connection with homosexual acts we should bear several important factors in mind: that sexual preference is not a matter of free choice but rather the result of complex factors relating to a person's background and upbringing, none of them a matter of choice to the individual; that in many cases redirection of a person's sexual preference is possible, and that in any event the problem does not threaten our social order and should be taken away from judges and jailers and given to doctors and psychologists. Jail is not an acceptable solution to the serious problem of homosexuality. For these reasons I support the proposed amendment or the introduction of section 149A.
I should like to observe in conclusion that Bill C-150, which is a very substantial document making hundreds of changes in the law, does not of itself complete the job of making our criminal law truly just. Congratulations are in order to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for the advance which this bill represents, but I hope that we may shortly have another bill, equally considered and perhaps equally weighty, providing many other things for humane treatment of drug addicts, a realistic law condemning the use of marijuana, further reductions in the use of penitentiary sentences as punishment, the abolishment of jailer's rights to torture persons by whipping and clear laws preventing cruelty to laboratory animals under any circumstances.


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that not often in the House of Commons does an opposition member rise to speak entirely in support of a government proposal. However, I can hardly avoid doing so today for reasons I hope to explain very quickly. I intend to refer to three of the government's proposals to amend the Criminal Code. I have in mind those relating to harassing telephone calls, cruelty to animals, and particularly the government's proposals regarding drinking and driving and the breathalyzer test. Inasmuch as each of these proposals has been advanced for several years by myself, hon. members will see that it is very difficult for me to do otherwise today than support the government which is now bringing them forward, and to urge all hon. members to do likewise.

February 11, 1969
Criminal Code
Let me refer first to the proposal to create a new offence under the Criminal Code to cover harassing telephone calls. As was stated in the minister's explanatory notes of December 9 on this point, what is intended is that the ingredient of the offence shall be the making of, or causing to be made, repeated telephone calls to a person with the intent of harassment. Many persons have at one time or another been subject to this type of harassment, and it is hoped that the amendment will reduce, if not eradicate, this type of behaviour. On that same point, in my Bill C-95, to amend the Criminal Code-harassing telephone communications-I said in part in my explanatory notes:
The purpose oi this bill is to amend section 315 of the Criminal Code so as to provide for the punishment of everyone who, with intent to harass or torment another person, repeatedly contacts such person by means of telephone communications.
I am certainly right behind the government's proposal to change the provisions of the Criminal Code in this regard.
The second issue to which I wish to refer briefly is the government's proposed amendment in respect of cruelty to animals. The minister's departmental explanatory notes of a few weeks ago contained the following:
The most significant change in the law relating to cruelty to animals is a provision that will enable the court that convicts a person of cruelty to animals to make an order prohibiting that person from keeping a domestic animal or bird during any period not exceeding two years from the date of the conviction.
The court will be entitled to make such an order if the person convicted has been previously convicted of cruelty to animals and it will be an offence for a person against whom such an order is made to keep an animal in contravention of the order. The order of prohibition will, of course, be in addition to any fine or imprisonment or both that may be awarded by the court for the offence of cruelty. An amendment of this nature has been recommended by the humane societies.
The humane society of Canada, the S.P.C.A., and the animal welfare group, along with others interested in this matter, have for years urged the government to take this step. If this amendment passes, as I hope it will, it will result in a great improvement in the condition of many animals which have been subjected to cruelty by their owners. I also support this amendment wholeheartedly because of my Bill C-69, of some years standing, to amend the Criminal Code, which has similar provisions regarding cruelty to animals.

The third point I wish to deal with in supporting the government's proposal to amend the Criminal Code at this time has reference to the subject of drinking and driving. The minister stated in his explanatory notes:
As the very thorough Grand Rapids study of the role of the drinking driver in traffic accidents showed, the probability of accident involvement increases rapidly at blood alcohol levels over 0.08 per cent-an accident involved driver in this class is almost twice as frequently involved in a fatal or serious accident as the non-drinking driver. It has therefore become apparent that the legislation must set a blood alcohol level which the hard facts of death and destruction demand. The present bill therefore reduces from .10 to 0.08 the level above which it will be an offence to drive. This level was recommended by the Canadian Bar Association and by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs-
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
This is the level established in the British Road Safety Act of 1967, following the recommendation of the British Medical Association. I think we are probably all familiar with the very substantial reduction in death and destruction which has followed the enactment of the British legislation and the enforcement of the breathalyzer test in that country. It is estimated that the legislation saved 1,000 lives in its first year of operation.
In this area the government has gone a very long way along the line I advocated in my private member's bill in 1967. I refer to Bill C-21, an act to amend the Criminal Code, which also spelled out .08 per cent alcohol in the bloodstream as being the level of impairment above which a person should not drive. Bill C-21 was sent to the justice and legal affairs committee for consideration, and many sessions of that committee were held at which we heard expert witnesses testify. We had 13 meetings extending from April to November of 1966, I believe. The result was a unanimous report by that committee recommending the very steps which the government is now proposing.
I hope to conclude my remarks prior to private members' hour so I will not quote at length from the report of the justice and legal affairs committee setting out their reasons for supporting the type of legislation the administration is now bringing forward. In brief, the report states:
It is the opinion of your committee, having heard these witnesses and examined documents in detail dealing with breath tests in various countries for impaired driving, that such tests are an accurate method of determining blood alcohol levels.
February 11, 1969

The committee's report was unanimous. It continues:
In respect to the civil rights questions involved, your committee was much in the position of the Canadian Bar Association who, in evidence presented to the committee on November 1, 1966, stated:
"What concerned us greatly was reconciling the civil liberties, and traditional rights of an accused with this legislation and we thought that by saying that this would be made compulsory .. . speaking from the Criminal Code point of view ... we would not deprive the citizen of a fundamental right. Whether a man is asked to breathe into a policeman's face when he is arrested or into a machine, which will be more accurate than the policeman's impression, to determine whether he has alcohol in his system or not, we feel does not really create such a tremendous attempt to waive the rights of a citizen that it should not be adopted."
This was on the basis of including in the legislation many safeguards to protect civil liberties and the rights of the accused person.
We heard in the committee on justice and legal affairs argument that the degree of impairment varies to such an extent between individuals that no standard level of blood alcohol could fairly be set for all. We also heard argument that, just as there exists in law a set speed limit beyond which a driver may not drive, regardless of individual driving skills, so should there be a set alcohol level. The recommendations of the justice and legal affairs committee dovetail exactly with those now put forward by the government.
Before resuming my seat, Mr. Speaker, I would urge all hon. members to support that part of the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code so that in Canada, as in other countries, lives can be saved. We could save possibly 20 lives a week in Canada and millions of dollars in the destruction of property. What we need is freedom not for drinking drivers but from drinking drivers.


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


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



PUBLIC BILLS


Barry Mather: that Bill C-19, to amend the Criminal Code (fine print clauses), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is designed to protect the Canadian consumer in an area where he or she is pretty vulnerable. My hope is that the bill will not be talked out, although no doubt it will be, and that it will be referred for further study to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Let me say at the outset that I do not pretend that the bill is a perfect or complete answer to a problem which confronts many consumers, but I know there is a real problem in this area. I think the bill may provide raw material for further consideration in detail by the new Department of Consumer Affairs. I quote from the explanatory notes of the bill:
The object of this bill is to eliminate the practice whereby insurance companies, commercial corporations and individuals embody in insurance policies, contracts or deeds, fine print clauses excluding their liability under certain circumstances.
It is desirable that payment exclusions or exclusion of responsibility be listed plain and clear in the body of insurance policies, contracts and deeds.
Very briefly, the mechanics of the bill are to amend section 328 of the Criminal Code by inserting immediately after that section the following section:
328A. (1) Everyone who, with intent to mislead, prints or causes to print in small typographical

February II, 1969
Criminal Code
Character in the body of an insurance policy, contract, deed or other document issued by him or under his authority, clauses concerning payment exclusions or exclusion of responsibility is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding three months or to both fine and imprisonment.
(2) In this section, the expression "small typographical character" means a typographical character that is substantially smaller than the one used in the body of the printed matter of the document.
When this bill was considered earlier-I think it was last year-some hon. members made suggestions for its improvement. I believe that several of the suggestions have very practical merit. As I say, I do not think the bill as it stands is all that good, but I think it is good enough to have suggestions made about it and to be referred for detailed study to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. One suggestion was made by the present Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford), who said in part:
I am in sympathy with the spirit of the bill which is in line with the various pieces of consumer legislation and the truth in lending type of legislation which we are considering.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Would the hon. member not think that a better approach would be that adopted by the Liberal party in B.C. and put into the form of legislation many years ago-namely that exclusion clauses be printed in large red type as opposed to black type, thereby making them stand out.
I must say that I agree with that suggestion.
Another good point, I thought, was made by the then hon. member for Restigouehe-Madawaska who said:
In order to cover the evil and protect the public it should not be necessary that the offender print (as the bill states) or cause to print the document in question. It would appear to be easier to prove that the company has issued a document than to show that it has printed it.
On reflection I think that this suggestion, also from the government side of the house, has a great deal of merit. In any event I would be very happy to see the subject matter of this bill, which is in line with the general consumer and corporate affairs legislation with which the government is increasingly more concerned, referred to the committee which is set up specifically to deal with these affairs. What I have brought forward and presented is by no means perfect. Perhaps it does not meet exactly what I seek to have met, but the problem is there and I
[Mr. Mather.J
would consider it to be logical for the house to send it on to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia):: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is customary and certainly appropriate in this instance to compliment the hon. member for Surrey (Mr. Mather) on introducing a bill of this nature. I know too that the hon. member introduced a bill, namely Bill C-ll, on May 11, 1967, which was debated on second reading on October 27, 1967-and here the hon. member was not quite correct in his dates. I find that this bill is worded exactly as was the bill introduced by him previously. The hon. member said at that time:
If legislation of this type were adopted-not necessarily this particular bill-it would ease the troubles and exasperations of a great many Canadian consumers, people who should read but perhaps find difficulty in reading the fine print which has been plaguing so many ordinary buyers of goods and services.
Not having been successful the first time round, I would have thought the hon. member would change the wording of his present bill or the type of bill to give better effect to the kind of remedy which he is seeking on behalf of the Canadian public.
A further reading of the hon. member's comments at that time indicates that he used an exaggerated situation in order to illustrate the detrimental effect of the fine print which is not very often read by the general public. This being the second time the hon. member has introduced the bill, I think he would have been better advised to point out the kinds of things in the fine print which he is seeking to protect the people against and to come forward with specific examples where fraud, as he calls it, has been perpetrated. An exaggeration of a situation may be quite humorous but it is hardly effective in proving a point. >
Today, however, the hon. member has not provided us with even an isolated instance of the kind of situation against which he is endeavouring to protect the public. A series of court cases where the insured have suffered grievous loss should have been mentioned so that hon. members would be in a position to determine if in fact abuses have been caused by the misuse of fine print.
Certainly I am convinced that the government has a place in protecting the public in regard to most purchases of goods and services which people make, if not in fact all purchases of goods and services. The Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is but one good example of the manner in which the federal government has sought to cope
February 11, 1969

with the responsiblity of protecting the purchasing public.
The hon. member has seen fit to ignore all the cogent arguments presented against his bill on the last occasion when it was clearly-outlined that this was an area of provincial responsibility. Provincial governments from coast to coast have passed legislation to protect the purchaser of insurance policies from any fraud being perpetrated as a result of the small print sections of the policy. Careful licensing of agents, regulations outlining the manner in which an insurance policy must be drawn and definitive sections which give the correct meaning to words in policies are only a few of the ways in which provincial governments have given effect to legislation with sanctions.
As in most professions, there is an organization bent on stricter controls for its own representatives. I refer specifically to the Canadian Federation of Insurance Agents and Brokers Association. Although I am somewhat critical of the hon. member's approach to this situation, I think it should be clearly understood that it is only through the highlighting of this kind of legislation that the general public and the insurance companies and agents can be made aware of the fact that the government is on its toes and is watching for any misuse of power or opportunity by agents or companies. I think it is safe to say that insurance companies are now seeking daily to elevate the calibre of men selling their particular policies because in this way they build the kind of reputation which sells insurance. Speaking for myself, it has always been my approach when purchasing insurance, to find, first of all, an agent whom I can trust and then to deal almost exclusively with him in his particular field of insurance.
It is extremely easy to get behind the facade of newspaper, radio and television advertising and find the kind of policy and the kind of protection that one wishes. It has clearly come to the attention of the insurance companies that it is in their best interests and in the interests of successful enterprise that they find the kind of individual to sell their policies whom the general public trusts and respects for the information he is able to give them. I think it is safe to say that an examination of the agents in the million dollar sales club and those who have been honoured by their companies helps to give the general public a larger measure of confidence in the agents with whom they must deal. However,
Criminal Code
I agree with the hon. member that unfortunately some agents, as in any profession, are quite prepared to take advantage of the sometimes all too gullible public, and it is in this area that legislation can be most effective.
As indicated earlier, the hon. member's bill serves to bring to the attention of the agent who might attempt to perpetrate a fraud that the government is looking into this field. Legislation of the kind we have before us is also a general reminder to the public that they too should be careful when purchasing insurance, but they should also be aware of the fact that insurance companies and agents are carefully controlled in and by the provinces.
If the hon. member's bill became law I wonder whether it would provide a practical benefit to the policyholder. If a policyholder suffers under the present scheme of things as a result of a fraud perpetrated against him, he has a complete remedy in the civil courts. Speaking as a lawyer, I think it is safe to say that it is much easier to establish a civil fraud than one which results in a criminal conviction. Under the present legislation the policyholder is protected by provincial insurance acts, and in addition has a remedy in the civil courts. This is not to suggest that the provincial legislation, to use the hon. member's words, is the be all and end all on the subject, but surely this is where the responsibility lies and where the changes must be made.
Although I compliment the hon. member for the objectives he hopes to achieve through the introduction of this bill, I think it is incumbent upon me to say that I am opposed to this approach for the reasons I have outlined. As I have said, it is a matter solely within the competence of the provincial legislatures, and there are civil remedies available to the policyholder which provide the policyholder with a much more practical and beneficial solution to his problem. Possibly of lesser importance but certainly warranting consideration, the hon. member has failed to list specific examples of the frauds he indicates are being perpetrated against individual policyholders by insurance companies and their agents. I suggest there is adequate legislation and there are adequate remedies available to policyholders and that the proposed legislation in no way enhances the policyholder's position.
Criminal Code

February 11, 1969
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Mr. Jean-Charles Canlin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the remarks of the previous speaker, especially to the reasons for which the mover of the bill would like it to be referred to the committee on justice and legal affairs.
What surprises me more about my friends of the New Democratic party is that countless bills mostly inspired by the common law are put to the house. Indeed, the bill before us is another example of the difficulties my friends of the New Democratic party often have in distinguishing between what comes strictly under common law and what falls within the jurisdiction of the federal government. Of course, I realize that in Quebec we are used to making that distinction.
The spirit in which the bill is brought forward may be praiseworthy; however, I think that unfortunately the federal government is not competent to legislate in that field. I understand that the hon. member presented a similar bill in 1967; after being discussed for one hour, in October of the same year, it was killed for the reasons I have just mentioned.
I am afraid that the same thing will happen to the hon. member's new bill, and I wonder why he wants to come back with a bill such as this when primarily for jurisdictional reasons the department is not prepared to consider it.
Moreover, the hon. member should recognize that for several years, and more so this year, the Minister of Justice has been ready to refer for study to the justice and legal affairs committee all matters pertaining to a thorough modernization of each section of the Criminal Code. However, this is a matter which, in my opinion, does not come under the Criminal Code, or federal jurisdiction.
Of course, we would have liked to hear the hon. member give us some more specific examples to back up his contentions. In his bill, he refers more specifically to insurance contracts. Well, this matter comes under both commercial and civil law. This is good. As you know, every province has some insurance legislation and I can assure you that such contracts come under provincial legislation and not under any federal legislation.
In view of all this, Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the hon. member persists in introducing this kind of bill. Of course he has a right to, but I think that basically these bills

simply give hon. members who wish to do so an opportunity to discuss all kinds of subjects, including the one just mentioned by the hon. member, during private members' hour.
Therefore, I am sorry that the subject matter of this bill cannot be refered to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs which has now a tremendous backlog of work.
The hon. member is aware that soon the omnibus bill will be sent to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, as well as the bill on the Expropriation Act and the subject matter of some other bills introduced by members of the N.D.P. and the Liberal party. I mean the bill on wire-tapping. However, this committee is already overworked and I cannot see how it will be able to study the hon. member's bill.
I feel sorry not to be able to please the hon. member more and I am going to give someone else a chance as I must.


Mr.   Paul-M. Gervais@Sherbrooke: Mr. Speaker, I am glad my turn has come to comment upon this bill, but unfortunately I cannot agree with it altogether.
As has been pointed out, there is some good in the legislation. However, what I realize, first, is that the hon. member who sponsors this bill would like to increase the volume of information. Instead of having clauses in small print as he says, we should have a bigger print, which would result in a more voluminous document and the alleged victim, who would have been deceived by reading that document too quickly, would be in the same position as if he had been deceived owing to the fact that, for instance, the insurance policy was in small print.
Besides, in the province of Quebec, any adult, that is to say anyone over 21, cannot claim injury. Voidance of a burdensome contract is allowed only in the case of persons under 21, provided the persons involved can prove that they have suffered injury.
In the present case, if a person over 21 accepts the conditions of a contract, I fail to see how, in all justice, the proposer of the contract can be accused of false representations or the equivalent of a criminal act.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Bill C-19 says and I quote:
*-with intent to mislead-
Under those circumstances, I feel that the act already covers those cases. If a person is
February II. 1969

the victime of fraud as a result of pretence, or of a proposal or representations for obtaining credit or money under false pretences, because the wording is doubtful or misleading, one can always have recourse to the criminal code.
We are dealing here with a matter of common law and I consider that the text, as worded, will not protect adequately the person who would later on claim to be the victim of fraud as a result of high pressure salesmanship.
Indeed, this happens every day. Because people read a document or a proposal too rapidly, because they read a document after listening to a salesman, is no reason why they should later claim to have been swindled.
We are dealing here with specific situations where an adult could establish that he had no clue as to what he was doing and that he was conned into signing such a document or proposal.
In the present case, the text is written, the person is an adult and supposed to be able to read in this day and age. Under those circumstances, I do not feel that legislation intended to incriminate a salesman would be adequate to achieve the results intended by the hon. member.
Under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I regret that I cannot be in favour of referring this bill to the Committee on justice and legal affairs however fair, on the whole, its purpose may be.


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Bourassa: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to comment on bill C-19 which is now under consideration.
I wish first to congratulate the hon. member for Surrey (Mr. Mather) for wanting to amend the criminal code with regard to the fine print used in the body of insurance policies and the like.
If the bill were passed, it would render "guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a fine or to a term of imprisonment or to both fine and imprisonment everyone who, with intent to mislead, prints or causes to print in small typographical characters in the body of an insurance policy, contract, deed or other document... clauses concerning payment exclusions or exclusion of responsibility."
May I, first of all, suggest to the hon. member that we do not have, in this country, any evidence of people in the insurance field using fine print to escape the responsibilities involved in their various contracts.
Criminal Code
There is another point I wish to bring to the attention of the hon. member. What he wishes to have included in the criminal code is already largely provided for under the Insurance Act of 1964.
At a time when discussions are going on at the federal-provincial conference, I think we should remember that the bill under consideration comes for the main part under provincial jurisdiction. Actually, the province is empowered, under the civil code, to grant adequate protection to anyone who might be misled as a result of clauses laid in fine print.
I am not quite sure, therefore, that it would be wise at this moment to include in the criminal code an amendment aimed at restricting or infringing upon provincial responsibilities. I would rather suggest requiring that all clauses be printed in the same type.
Moreover we could require certain important stipulations to be underlined in colour.
Those two solutions, Mr. Speaker, would certainly not minimize the importance of reading or having the person read, before signing the document, all paragraphs included in such contracts.
The fact remains, however, that many persons in good faith do not read all the clauses included in a contract, whether they are in fine or large print, in red or black ink. In fact, people sign without making sure that the clauses are really contentious.
Those suggestions could surely be included in a recommendation to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ron Bas-ford). It could contain not only the contracts mentioned in the clause of the bill under consideration, but all contracts with fine print clauses, other than insurance companies' contracts and even the contracts from insurance companies.
I should like to refer especially here to the companies that send canvassing agents in private homes and which in many cases might be liable to a breach of trust on account of their financial unsoundness or even guilty in some cases of a failure to incorporate, by not giving their customers the permanent right to take legal action, precisely because certain clauses relieve those companies from their responsibilities.
Therefore I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that there is in the civil code a provision covering damages in case of fraud. That is why I believe it would be preferable to let provincial authorities keep on protecting the subscribers of those various documents, under existing legislation.

February 11, 1969
Criminal Code


Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois):: Mr. Speaker, when reading the bill moved by the hon. member for Surrey (Mr. Mather), I fully realize the motives which might have led him to present such a measure, but I wonder whether that would really solve the problem.
I do not wish to deal with the legal aspect of Bill C-19. Some of my colleagues have said earlier that it would come under civil law. I do not dispute their opinion. However, I wonder whether, in an attempt to protect an insurance policy-holder or the signer of the contract, with an amendment to the Criminal Code dealing in particular with the fine print clauses, we would really achieve the purpose intended by the sponsor of this bill.
I am a general insurance broker and I do not think that any member could convince me that insurance policy-holders take even the trouble to read the big print in the policies. In fact, when a claim is to be filed, they get in touch with their insurance agent and tell him: "Am I covered?" At that time they trust the person who assumed a certain responsibility by suggesting a contract appropriate to their needs at the time of the purchase of the policy.
More and more, nowadays, we want to protect the citizen. I fully agree with that. We talk about protecting the consumer; a certain warranty is required with regard to products and prices. We also want to protect the potential borrower by making it a requirement for finance companies to indicate the rate of interest in the contract.
This bill deals with the fine print clauses.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, on looking over general insurance policies, it is noted that some clauses are in fine print. However, the fine print clauses included in a general insurance policy always deal with statutory conditions similar in all contracts and this I approve of.
I agree with the principle of the bill, but I do not accept the amendment contained in clause 328a) of the Criminal Code. In fact, if an amendment is adopted in order to prevent abuse, it implies that such an abuse exists, that it is customary for insurance companies, notaries and lawyers to insert fine print clauses in the wording of contracts with the intent of misleading. They would include such riders in insurance policies by way of explaining that whatever has been said in three pages does not apply in one situation or another. It is inferred that in so doing companies have fraudulous intents.

Mr. Speaker, Canadian insurance companies are operating under federal or provincial charters. They must comply with standards established by governments on the financial level and with regard to responsibility. Besides, such companies are members of associations. In the case of general insurance, they are members of the Canadian Underwriters Association or of the Conference des compagnies independantes de la province de Quebec. Some companies are not members of these associations, but they are subjected to a most important factor which is competition. At the present time, general insurance policies and especially life insurance policies are governed by this factor which leads to identical clauses that are verbatim in statutory conditions and correspond to one another.
I do agree that the government should pass legislation and that we should take time to protect the citizen. In my opinion, measures like this one are out-of-date, and all the more so since we have other priorities. I do not see what we could get, especially the citizens we want to protect, by referring that small piece of legislation to a committee which has to deal with much more important matters.
I would have been more disposed to support the hon. member for Surrey if he had proposed, in a notice of motion, that the federal government ask the Superintendent of Insurance to inquire into the fixing of insurance rates which are identical and become more and more comparative. That would be good if it came from a competition which would tend to lower the rates of general insurance. I cannot speak of life-insurance, as I am not a specialist. Those rates go on increasing and they are not competitive, as they are always increased by common consent.
I would agree with the hon. member if, at a given time, competition were to force an insurance company to reduce its rates, and that the next year, another would like to get the same clients even if rates were similar.
But that is not exactly what takes place today. Personally, I wonder especially when I look at the increases in automobile insurance rates and the decisions taken by the companies, without consulting their agents, and even worse, without consulting national and provincial associations of underwriters which secure the services of experts and would like insurance companies to consult them more.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to stray any farther from the subject of the bill, but I wanted nevertheless to raise the matter of insurance rates, because maybe one day, even
February 11, 1969

as a representative of an insurance company,
I shall dare question the method used by insurance companies to set their rates.
Coming back to Bill C-19, I mentioned a moment ago that policy holders do not bother to read the clauses in their policy. As far as I am concerned, I do not believe that the bill before us gives any protection to policy holders precisely because, since they do not read their policies, do not examine them at one time or another, they do not try to find out the content of the clauses in fine or large print. The only thing in which they are interested is to know the amount of protection they are getting.
Being a specialist in general insurance, I do not meet any difficulties whatsoever with fire, public liability or automobile insurance policies. However, the same as anybody else, I am at a loss to find out what kind of a life-insurance policy is covering my family, because we have to consult the tables and it is almost impossible to figure out exactly what would be left to our beneficiaries.
I would suggest to insurance companies- and this is a mere suggestion with no direct relation to the bill-to append a one-page summary of the policy, in order to set forth in plain terms for their clients what is meant exactly by the wording of the contract.
Mr. Speaker, I think I have covered all the aspects I wanted to talk about regarding the proposed legislation, and I try in vain to find a good reason to support the request for reference to the committee. As I find none, I cannot help but oppose it and I hope the house will vote against the hon. member's motion.


Barry Mather: I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question? Having in mind the fact that all hon. members who have spoken so far have been from the government side and all have expressed in some degree sympathy with the general aim of the bill, I would suggest the subject matter be referred to an appropriate committee. Would he not agree this is a logical step to take? There is still another 20 minutes during which members could speak, but the government benches are getting a little slim in regard to speakers.


Gérald Laniel: Was that question addressed to me? I can speak another five minutes if you wish. I have sympathy with your intention but I disagree with the request to adopt this bill because I do not think it will solve any
Criminal Code
problem. If a clause were inserted in the bill which would force policyholders in Canada to read their policies, possibly this would make sense. But they do not read their policies.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I know this. Every time there is a fire or a car accident, or even take the case of a man who pushes his wife off the porch, people will phone the insurance agent and ask, "Am I protected or not"? When the reply is, "You are not protected," it is simple to understand the reaction. Usually it is, "You told me I was because you told me I was protected for everything." Then, the insurance agent has to explain that an insurance policy does not give unlimited protection. Does the hon. member want me to explain this with respect to a contract covering a fire insurance policy?


Barry Mather: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member to answer my question. Since he agrees with the principle of the bill but quarrels with the details, does he not think it appropriate that we refer it to a standing committee? I am sure I am helping out the government side by interjecting these questions.


Gérald Laniel: I will give you an example. You have a fire insurance policy that gives you some supplementary protection in the-


Barry Mather: You are not answering my question.


Gérald Laniel: No, but I have to give the grounds for my argument. I think I shall give my explanation in French, which might be easier.

When one buys a fire insurance policy, in addition to coverage against fire, a certain protection is provided against tornadoes, hail, lightning, explosions, water leaks. The contract shows in an additional clause that this protection against water leaks is restricted. In fact, it only applies to water leaks caused by a defect in the plumbing or heating systems or when they occur at ground level, when the building is occupied. In addition, a policy provides protection, not in the fine print but in the main clause. It deals afterwards with restrictions. As for the automobile insurance policies which include a clause granting an overall protection, when giving explanations to the holder, the company has to state: You are covered in all kinds of circumstances, except these.

February 11, 1969
Criminal Code
Then, it is said that an all-in policy excludes some things that are covered by other clauses of the contract. Besides, in the contract, statutory conditions prevail. Indeed, it is written that impaired driving causes the contract to be cancelled. All kinds of similar clauses are to be found in every contract.
In reply to the question directed to me earlier, I must simply say that fine print clauses are found in every contract, and as insurance policy holders do not even bother to read the first clauses of such contracts they will never read the small ones and they will never try to understand them.
All contracts-whether it be life insurance contracts, fire insurance contracts, responsibility insurance contracts or legal contracts- are drafted by lawyers and this confuses everybody because no ordinary citizen can understand them.
Then why should these clauses be in large print if nobody understands them. They are drafted by lawyers in such complicated terms that the ordinary citizen finds it difficult to know exactly what they mean.
For my part, I consider that the bill before the house achieves no practical end. The standing orders have been changed in order to make our parliamentary institution more effective. Referring such a bill to the committee, having the committee waste time on it- because personally I do not believe the bill is useful to anyone-will not improve the debates in the house nor, above all, make hon. members more efficient.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, on several occasions in the past I have found myself in the position in which some members on the government now find themselves, that is, 'talking a bill to death. I should say now that I do not rise for that purpose and I shall take up only a few minutes time.
As long as I can recall, two of the warnings that people have been given at the time of their initiation into business have been, "Don't take any wooden nickels," and "Be sure you read the fine print." I do not think that any legislation we would pass would change this situation. In other words, people have always known that insurance policies have clauses written into them in very fine print and that if they do not choose to read them they do so at their own risk.

Without quibbling, I do not think that the wording of the hon. member's bill goes far enough. I think that the words "substantially smaller" are not strong enough. Everybody understands that the main clauses of a contract are written in large print, particularly the clauses that look good, and the other clauses are written in substantially smaller print. For that reason, I do not think the wording in the bill goes far enough.
However, Mr. Speaker, the bill might be worth considering in a committee, particularly if one could substitute words prohibiting print so small that it could not be read. There are some contracts written that way and I think the public should be protected from them. To that extent, I agree with the purpose of the bill.
From a practical viewpoint, I do not 'think that the bill would make one iota of change with respect to protection for the public. But for the purpose of drawing the attention of the public to the fact that they must read the fine print in contracts, and for the purpose of drawing the attention of the public to instances where people have been misled because they did not read the fine print, or could not read it, I suggest that the bill should be referred to a committee. It might be a lesson in public education. Witnesses might be brought forward who could forcefully draw attention to the fact that people must read the fine print in contracts. On balance, I support the hon. member's suggestion that the bill be sent to a committee for study, but only to the limited extent that I think it might have some educational value for the public generally.


Mr. Colin D. Gibson (Hamilion-Weni-worih):: Mr. Speaker, it is quite apparent that the objective of this bill is meritorious. There is no doubt that honesty, fair disclosure and complete independence of communication from one person to another are some of the goals of a just and fair society. However, section 328A (1) states:
Everyone who, with intent to mislead, prints or causes to print-
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I question the fact that the words "with intent to mislead" are not qualified in any way. It does not say, for instance, that if there is a difference in the size of the print or that if there is a different sized print that this
February 11, 1969

is prima facie evidence of an intent to mislead. What I am trying to get at is no standard is set up to establish the intent to mislead. Therefore, the Crown would have a virtually impossible task, I submit, in proving the mens rea, because the statute itself sets up a supposed mens rea or guilty mind. The Crown has the burden of proving not only that the print is in a different size but also has the burden of proving that the person who caused the printing to be done or who did the printing had a guilty mind.
I suggest that under this bill an accused would only have to say he had no intention to mislead and was clearly unaware of any possibility of that result. If he did that, every single case could be dismissed unless the Crown were able to show the accused had an evil intent. I submit it is impossible for anyone to read inside the person's mind if he says he did not intend the act.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Read the fine print.


Colin David Gibson: That is my point. If the section said that having fine print is prima facie evidence of intent to deceive, then there would be an onus on the accused to explain. If this onus were included, the situation would be different.
Under these circumstances, however, I submit the statute leaves hanging in the air the mental element in the crime. Dealing with the topic on a broader basis, I submit this is basically insurance law. It is broad in scope. If the wording is "contract, deed or other document issued by him" it could include anything. It could be a parking ticket, a receipt from a theatre, or anything.


An hon. Member:: Hansard.


Colin David Gibson: Or even Hansard. It is far too all embracing to be embodied in the criminal law of this country. I submit that in the civil aspect fraud and misrepresentation are adequately dealt with as a provincial right under the laws of the provinces. Fraud or intentional misrepresentation is fertile ground for provincial legislation as a basis for civil actions. I believe this bill might well lead to a lot of witch hunting and a good deal of costly and useless litigation could be brought before magistrates who have more important things to do than hear cases of the type referred to in this particular section.
Certainly, the subject matter has merit. I submit the member should recommend it to
Criminal Code
his provincial legislature so that it might get on with the job. The Ontario legislature has brought in a number of laws in this field. So, in bringing forward the bill I believe the hon. member has meritorious motives and should be commended for thinking along these lines.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Colin David Gibson: However, there are many ways in which this bill could be circumvented. For instance, if the entire contract were printed in tiny print throughout it might achieve the goal set by one who intends to mislead. In respect of a land deed, we would be dealing with the province. In the province there is a registry office, a land office and legislation dealing with deeds. Therefore, I believe this would be more effectively dealt with by the provinces. In my province of Ontario, the laws in respect of land, deeds and instruments are specialized and are examined frequently. The hon. Mr. McRuer in dealing with the matter of civil liberties I believe reviewed this topic with some distinction. I am not intending to pat my own province of Ontario on the back. I am sure the province of Nova Scotia and all the other provinces have adequately dealt with this matter.
If we should make a universal provision such as this dealing with contracts per se we would run into a good many difficulties from one region to another which we did not anticipate. Problems would arise which had not been foreseen and parliament would regret having made such a move. Therefore, I believe the true intent and spirit in this matter lies within the purview and responsibility of the provincial legislatures.
In dealing with the penalty clause, I submit the penalty is not appropriate. The offence is stated to be an indictable offence. However, the punishment suggested is less than it is in the case of a summary conviction offence as found in section 694 of the Criminal Code.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's contribution is most interesting. Does the house wish to hear the hon. member beyond six o'clock?


Gérald Laniel: En frangais.


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the fact that there is not unanimous consent, it being six o'clock I now leave the Chair.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

February 11, 1969
Criminal Code AFTER RECESS
The house resumed at 8 p.m.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) for the second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs of Bill C-150, to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff Act and the National Defence Act.
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to have again the opportunity of addressing the hon. members who represent the people of our country in order to deal with Bill C-150, one of the more important than the others, name-view of the fact that it involves judicial reforms of major importance.
Since I feel that the hon. members who spoke before me have dealt adequately with the reforms proposed in this bill, I shall therefore deal at some length in my remarks with four parts of the bill which seem to me more important than the others, namely: the new form which this government wants to give the legislation on lotteries, the reform with regard to the use of firing arms, the breathalizer test and finally abortion. I shall deal mainly with this last subject which I consider most important since it involves a major human right, the right to live.
To begin with, I do not object to the setting up of lotteries, either at the federal, provincial or individual level and I approve the changes and limitations with regard to the ceiling or the limit, as well as the consequential changes with regard to the value of prizes. In fact, I believe that it could become an economical means for gathering funds for the benefit of various organizations, while this means would recognize the freedom of anyone to contribute, which is not the case with compulsory taxes.
However, I should like to recommend to this government a closer control on the issuance of licences in order to avoid any abuse

on the part of the holders. I think that the issuance of licences could lead to too much freedom. In fact, if these licences issued by the Attorneys general of the provinces were not subject to close scrutiny these lotteries could become a sort of public robbery organized under false pretences, because the winners could be designated in advance.
Therefore, I think this is makeshift legislation until the government has the courage to shoulder its responsibilities as a legislator and compels the Bank of Canada to grant the necessary credit to the people in order to provide for the requirements of the Canadians.
On the matter of reforms governing the use of firearms and the granting of permits, I think this measure has been awaited for a long time. It is a happy solution that the superior court of criminal jurisdiction has, at the request of the Attorney General, been empowered to issue warrants whereby it is authorized to confiscate any firearm, offensive weapon, explosive or ammunition. Furthermore, the maximum penalty of two years imprisonment for neglectful use of hunting weapons or others, seems important and necessary to me for minimum public security. Finally, I fully approve adding other items to the list of prohibited weapons as well as the restricted authorization of certain weapons in the proposed amendment.
I am in full agreement with the proposed measures and amendments concerning the breathalizer tests. In fact, I believe that all automobile drivers should be compelled to undergo this test on request, or be charged with a legal offence. It has been a long expressed hope that such an offence be considered when the tolerable quantity of alcohol in the blood has been exceeded, considering the number of accidents that have been caused by the excessive use of alcohol.
On the subject of Bill C-150, Mr. Speaker, I think it is necessary for us to ponder our views on the matter of abortion as each one of us must be free to think about it and vote according to his conscience.
May I be allowed to remind the hon. members of the summary of section 237 and the amendment proposed to it-amendment introduced on December 19, 1968-so as to state more clearly the essential parts of the problem for the benefit of the Canadian people for I believe that the Canadian people we represent here should be kept well informed.
February 11, 1969

According to this bill, a qualified medical practitioner who would procure the miscarriage of a female person and a female person who would permit a qualified medical practitioner, in an accredited hospital, to procure her own miscarriage, would not in the circumstances be affected by the amendment. They would therefore not be guilty of the indictable offences as decreed in section 237 of the Criminal Code. If before the use of those means, the therapeutic abortion committee for that accredited hospital where the abortion has taken place, has by certificate in writing stated that in its opinion the continuation of the pregnancy would or would be likely to endanger the mother's life or health, the medical practitioners will be protected. Such an amendment thus limits the scope of certain offences: Everyone who, with intent to procure the miscarriage of a female person, is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for life and every female person who, being pregnant, uses any means with intent to procure her own miscarriage is also guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for two years.
Mr. Speaker, I am dead set against any present or future widening of those ideas, because of the high regard our nation should have for such an opinion.
Medical officers in the province of Quebec are standing pat. We should trust serious and conscientious doctors, specialists in that field; their opinion should carry weight, since they have to perform abortions and the problem concerns them more than anybody else. On January 22 last, the Association of medical officers of the hospitals in the province of Quebec sent me the following message:
Recently, following the introduction of the government bill on abortion, this Association consulted all its members either by letter or during meetings held to discuss the bill.
The Quebec hospital doctors believe that any abortion is a homicide, since the foetus is a human being. According to modern medical science, the foetus is a living human being that has the right to live as well as all other human beings.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
Even before the courts, the foetus is already considered as a full-fledged human being since he is entitled to inherit and since the State still feels justified in considering the non-therapeutical abortion as a criminal offence liable to life imprisonment.
Any responsible obstetrician will readily admit that the cases where therapeutical abortion would really save the life of the mother have become extremely rare and tend to decrease with the progress of science.
Criminal Code
On the other hand, abortion practised for the sake of improving the health or well-being of the mother or preventing the possible birth of a deformed being tends to become a measure of social euthanasia. If a deformed being can be killed while still in his mother's womb why could not this be done when he is out of the womb?
However, abortion practised when the life of the mother is endangered by pregnancy may be considered as a case of self-defence rather than as an act of euthanasia. Legitimate defence does not necessarily mean unfair aggression. To consider the matter in terms of legitimate defence, however, would require, on the one hand, some balance between of act of defence and the act of aggression and, on the other hand, the aggressive act should be the only means of defence. As a matter of fact, according to any doctor, specific medical indications requiring the foetus to be killed in order to save the mother's life are very seldom found. Since the case is so infrequent, one may well wonder if there is anything to justify a law allowing such a thing.
Of all cases of murder, abortion seems to be the one where the state should act with the utmost vigor. Indeed, its duty is to see that the rights of every citizen are respected. Of course, the more the frustrated citizen appears unable to protect his own life and rights, the more the state should be concerned. If the law is really intended to protect the weak, who more than the child in his mother's womb can claim the right to be protected by the state? This protection should be in proportion to his weakness. The similitude with the recent abolition of the death penalty is something that we should have in mind when we think of this bill.
Wherever it is accepted, therapeutic abortion is practised, according to official statistics, much more for very contentious psychiatric reasons-and with equally contentious results-than to save the mother's life.
In fact, the proposed legislation on abortion forces us to ask ourselves whether we are willing to accept certain forms of murder in our society.
Because of the abuses this measure may lead to, the Quebec Hospital Medical Board Association opposes the legalizing of therapeutic abortion in those cases which are solely motivated by the health or the well-being of the mother. In addition, the Association opposes formally the present government bill C-195 on abortion, as proposed, for the following reasons:
Although we feel that the doctors who authorized the few therapeutic abortions which have taken place are certainly not criminals, and the doctors agreed unanimously on this, we believe that the proposed measure will multiply illicit abortions. By legalizing therapeutic abortions in those cases where pregnancy may endanger the life or the health of the mother, the government gives the impression that any personal motivation can procure abortion. Requests for abortions will therefore increase. However, according to medical standards, the therapeutic abortion committees will have to refuse the majority of requests as unjustified, which will lead the patients to find other means to achieve their end. According to the current Canadian concensus, there is real danger in associating what is legal with what is morally acceptable.
Psychiatric indications motivating abortions are refused by the majority of doctors and psychiatrists, although a few psychiatrists find limited

February 11, 1969
Criminal Code
indications in them. An abortion often has bad effects on a woman and induces in her feelings of guilt and hostility. One must wonder whether by alleviating one problem we are not creating another.
After an inquiry, we can claim that the number of therapeutic abortions, in the hospitals of the province, is at this time very low and nil in most cases. Owing to the very restricted number of medical instructions, the enactment of this bill would but increase to a very small extent the number of therapeutic abortions, but only applications for abortion with their dilemma will be more numerous.
The medical abortion committees mentioned in the bill should exist only in hospitals where there is a sufficient number of doctors and consultants in each specialty so that the decision might result from a fair assessment free of any subjectivity.
During our inquiry, we could see that most of the medical boards and boards of directors of the hospitals of the province of Quebec officially and formally objected to the establishment of these medical abortion committees, in their own hospitals. Because of the professional ethics and the constant orientation of their profession, hospital doctors are very reluctant to be on such committees and moreover they will not make any medical abortion of their own.
It is to be noted that this bill does not take into account the religious and moral beliefs of a multitude of hospital doctors who are afraid to be subjected to legal proceedings for not performing what they consider as a murder not in keeping with their professional ethics. Do not doctors unceasingly work to protect their patients against death?
In view of these considerations, the Quebec Hospital Medical Board Association is still of the opinion that the federal government tried to deal with this problem by means of a quick bill which seems to solve everything but which in fact makes more serious the problem of illegal abortion.
The Association is of the opinion that this problem should be considered from a medical point of view and finds it necessary to take up the question of abortion only after scientific studies in depth of the whole question of abortion, sterilization and contraception, before any other proposal is introduced by the government.
In my opinion, only a Royal Commission could study this question adequately.
That is the concern and the anguish expressed by the Quebec medical profession about this bill for legalization of therapeutic abortion.
Mr. Speaker, I also speak on behalf of the Canadian bishops about this amendment brought forward by this government. According to the views expressed by the Canadian bishops, the liberalization of legal abortion, far from decreasing illegal abortions, would only increase their numbers. The Bishops base their contentions on the experience of

several countries which have already enacted legislation such as the proposed bill. I quote:
With legislation which depreciates, by the very exemptions it allows, the right to life of the foetus, one would promote the development of loose morals which fail to consider abortion as a real crime.
Moreover, they remind us that the legislator should not underestimate the educational value of the law, because it is an obvious fact that men are prone to consider as morally right that which is permitted by law.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
The Catholic bishops appeal to the conscience of all, and especially of doctors, lawyers, politicians and all those who are in public life and mold public opinion, to study that question carefully.
Taking my stand on the serious considerations of the Quebec doctors and the Canadien bishops, I request that be withdrawn from the omnibus bill that part of the bill aiming at amending section 237 of the Criminal Code on therapeutic abortion. The problem of abortion is too big with consequences, in my opinion, to appear with homosexuality, lotteries, driving while intoxicated and a few other minor offences within an omnibus bill which might rouse little opposition in parliament. The bill on abortion should get from parliament the same treatment given major problems like finance, education, etc., and he referred solemnly to a royal commission.
Mr. Speaker, I join with the Canadian bishops to propose a programme to which the state must devote its energies, in order to promote respect for human life at every stage of its development, through education and legislation which itself must reflect that respect, and not by presenting a bill like the one we are discussing, a too simple solution to a very serious and very complex problem.
That programme would include a serious study of the frequency of clandestine abortions and on the means to prevent them. Moreover, it would include also active research and the implementation of a programme of assistance to married or unmarried mothers exposed to difficulties because of our present economic and social system.
I appeal again to your understanding and your sense of values, the most important of which is certainly the protection of human life. During the debates on the abolition of capital punishment, you will remember that Canada had persisted in respecting liberty, having regard to life and death, in order to protect those fundamental human rights.
February 11, 1969

The two reasons for exemption from the application of the law punishing abortion, namely the risk of death for the mother and the threat to her health, could have in legislation, disastrous consequences, I think, for the whole Canadian nation, if they are given basically the same value or the same importance.
In my opinion, the first motive, the danger of death for the mother, is certainly the most serious and the most justifiable. Therefore, the Canadian episcopate does not make it a moral duty for the catholic citizen and legislator to fight against any extension of the legislation in that sense for the reason that scientific progress in the medical world reduces this practice to extremely rare cases.
But with regard to abortion for reasons of physical and mental health, the Canadian episcopate maintains its strictness and condemns any attempt for its legalization. An abortion committee would have the exclusive right to judge the matter; such a legislation would result in the worse abuses and would greatly jeopardize the common good. In fact, the law would allow two doctors, the number which constitutes the majority within a committee of three members, to authorize abortions for the reasons of their choice.
We would be very credulous to believe that we can pass an act which would enable abortion to come out in the open, without increasing the number of foetal deaths. During a CTV program on December 27 last, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) confirmed our apprehension that abortion committees would make the law themselves.
He asserted that the word "health" would not be interpreted by courts of justice, but by the various therapeutic abortion committees. In other words, the decision of those committees would, in his opinion, override the law.
On February 7, 1968, Doctor Henry Fitzgib-bon, of Penticton, in British Columbia, wrote to the health and welfare committee as follows:
As has been said many times at the hearing of the above-mentioned case, there is no valid medical reason for terminating pregnancy.
The requests for abortion made to doctors are invariably based on social grounds.
One can also find scientific facts in a book entitled: "The Canadian Mother and Her Child", published by the government of Canada. On page 24, it is said:
When one of the spermatozoa and the ovule meet and unite, a new life begins.
Criminal Code
This assertion is supported by Dr. Edward L. Lessel, Director of the Department of Biology at the University of San Francisco. I am quoting:
Scientific findings prove unequivocally that life begins at the time of conception.
He adds:
The rapid rate of development. .. shows us human life in its most intense stage of activity.
Therefore, it is clear that it is not only a potential life, as some would like to believe, but a real life which is recognized by the criminal code in section 209 dealing with the death of an unborn child.
To legalize therapeutic abortion on grounds of physical or mental health would alter the moral standards of an entire nation. The lack of public morality in this connection can lead a country to its downfall and its death.
Should Canada become as Poland, where 30,000 Swedish women go each year to get an abortion? A member of a parliamantary committee humourously said once to the delegates of the Canadian Medical Association, and I quote:
Canada had never seen such a large group of well-meaning criminal abortionists.
Could he truly repeat that tomorrow? I hope not.
The Universal Declaration on Human Eights passed by the General Assembly of the United Nations states that:
Each human being has an inherent right to life.
And the Declaration on the rights of the child asserts that children are entitled to some protection before and after birth. The legalization of abortion obtained for those various reasons would be as if Canada was repudiating the principles which it approved at the General Assembly.
Personally, I have proven, even if I am young, that I have confidence in life and in Canada, because I have ten children.
We do not believe, my wife and I, that having ten children occasions tremendous work or that it is a heavy task. We have confidence in the present gouvernment; we have confidence in the future and we find it is better to say that we have done something for the nation than that we should have done something.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is necessary to be positive and to do what we preach.
In concluding my remarks, I ask again that that part of the proposed legislation on abortion be taken out of the omnibus bill and

February 11, 1969
Criminal Code
referred to a Royal Commission of investigation. We would then act as responsible citizens faced with a problem big with consequences for the future generations. I base this request on the serious considerations of doctors of the province of Quebec and those of the Canadian bishops. I leave for the consideration of hon. members everything that has been set forth.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I know what I want to say on this bill. Whether I can say it to the understanding of hon. members or not is another question.
I understand, sir, that according to the new rules we do not debate the principle of the bill on second reading; the question before the house is, rather, whether or not the bill should be referred to the appropriate committee for further study. I have a few remarks to make on Bill C-150 and I hope I can keep them in this context. First, I want it to be remembered that we on this side of the house did try to introduce an amendment to the effect that the committee be instructed to bring in separate reports on several clauses of this bill. I do not recall whether this amendment was defeated or ruled out of order; in any case, it does not matter much.
I would have refrained from making any speech on second reading had that amendment gone through. As matters presently stand, one member, at least, has referred to second reading as "taking the bill on a little trip". Mr. Speaker, this bill will not go on a little trip with the help of my vote. I shall vote against it on second reading, third reading and any subsequent readings. I take this position because I see no reason why portions of this bill should not be considered separately, and members on the other side have produced no arguments to induce me to change that view.
I would remind hon. members that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), when introducing this legislation, virtually disclaimed any responsibility for the measure. Indeed, he was almost apologetic when he presented the bill to the house. He told us specifically that it was the Prime Minister's bill, and I do not doubt he repeated that three or four times- he repeated everything else he said three or four times. So, this bill is not going to take any little trip with the support of my vote, and I take this stand because along with thousands of other Canadians I want to see the measure split up.

I would remind hon. members that I do not take up their time by speaking merely for the sake of speaking. I am very careful about that. I speak only on matters I feel strongly about. Included in Bill C-150 are provisions in respect of several matters which touch our consciences. I may not be as able to express what I mean as are some of our legal friends; what I am trying to say is that these questions affect something deep down inside of us. I do not speak as a Catholic, or as a Protestant, or as a Liberal, or as a Tory, or as a lawyer, or as a doctor or anything else. Nothing like that. I speak as an ordinary human being who happens to be a Member of Parliament. We on this side have a free vote on this measure-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: It has been decided that we on
this side can vote absolutely freely according to our consciences. But there are 264 representatives of Canada in this house and when a majority of them are not permitted to vote freely on certain matters which affect their consciences, matters which affect convictions held deep in their own being, whether they are Catholics or Protestants, when there is a rule of government which forces them to vote as a block without regard to conscience or anything else, I think that is an insult to the Canadian people and to this parliament which represents them.
We should bear in mind that in a vast country like Canada there are all kinds of people-Catholics, Protestants, Jews and adherents of many other beliefs. For the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to seek to impose his particular belief upon members of this house when matters of conscience are concerned is, in my view, as I say, an insult to parliament, an insult to Canada, and something we cannot tolerate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) made a very pragmatic speech this afternoon. He did not say anything about abortion. He told us he wanted the provision relating to lotteries removed. How unfeeling can one be, Mr. Speaker? I am not speaking now, either against the motion or in favour of the motion. I am simply saying that if the Prime Minister cannot come to this house recognizing that on these matters each member has the right to vote according to his conscience, there is something gravely amiss.
February 11, 1969

Refusal to divide this bill is like saying: you can have ice cream only if you eat your spinach. I suggest that 75 per cent of this bill is ice cream and the other 25 per cent is spinach. But we are grown up people, or at least I hope we are. We have been elected to come here and represent the people of Canada and I trust we are sufficiently grown up to be allowed to vote on these matters without compulsion, perhaps according to the way in which we have been brought up in the world. I am not saying my view is not affected by the fact that I am a Catholic. I do not intend to say that. But I do say the house should be allowed to vote on this matter free from the ties of party discipline or anything else.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that last year an amendment to abolish capital punishment came up for consideration. At that time the leader of the Liberal party in his wisdom allowed a free vote.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, but they all voted for it.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: I don't care. The fact remains it was a free vote. And in this particular instance we are also dealing with human life, and I suggest the issue should similarly be determined on the basis of a free vote. I said at the outset that I did not intend to become emotional, and I do not. However, I feel that this bill is sufficient reason for any member of the house to become emotional. After all, are we considered to be idiots? The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) does not represent the conscience of the country; it is the 264 members who are elected to this place to represent the country who represent the conscience of this country. It is their vote that should decide. The Prime Minister should not try to impose his personal opinion on the people of Canada, because we in the opposition represent quite a number of the people of Canada.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
I would call the attention of the house to the remarks made by the Prime Minister only yesterday at the opening of the constitutional conference. He said that the job of the new Fathers of Confederation was to change and to improve Canada; that over the years they have worked with patience, tolerance and foresight. Canada, said the Prime Minister, is the product of understanding, not conflict.
I should like to ask whether the type of legislation that is now before this parliament is consistent with the views of a man who does not want conflict. Is it consistent with
Criminal Code
his view that there is a problem of national unity? In my opinion, from what I have seen since coming to this house, although some members of the house preach national unity they are more concerned with spreading the seeds of discord and disunity. Legislation of this sort, introduced at this particular stage of our history, is evidence of this fact. This legislation is not concerned with fostering unity but more with spreading discord and disunity.
I have already identified myself as a Catholic, and I will go further and say this: Speaking personally, and as a Catholic, I say that for the Prime Minister to go to Rome, then return to Canada and suggest we establish diplomatic relations with the Vatican is both mischievous and irresponsible. It is but one other example of this spreading of discord in Canada. I have seen so many examples of this kind since I have been in parliament that, in the words of the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), I wonder just what kind of government this is that insists upon assaulting the sensibilities of the Canadian people.
It seems to me that this government is involving itself in some weird kind of experiment with the Canadian people, and they are pushing as far as they can to see what happens. I am not seeking headlines. If I were, I would be standing up every day in this house and trying to get them. What I am concerned with is what is happening in this nation and in this parliament. Our Prime Minister and his government preach national unity and a just society. Although I have been here but a short time, I have seen no indication of any real concern for national unity. As I say, what I have seen is more an indication of concern for breaking up national unity. Every sign points in that direction.
I am not one of the Prime Minister's intellectuals, and God help me, I am glad I am not. I do not profess to be an intellectual. My basic conception is one of bread and butter-* or if you want, meat and potatoes. I think that solves most of the problems of Canada.
I have listened to hon. members speak on this bill this evening, and one hon. member talked about drinking and driving. While I agree with what he said, in view of all the other matters dealt with in this bill I am surprised he confined his remarks to drinking and driving. Everybody knows that there will be almost 100 per cent agreement in this; house on the question of drinking and driv-

February 11, 1969
Criminal Code
ing. That is not a matter of contention. Matters that we feel should be separated in this bill are those of abortion, homosexuality and lotteries.
Let me try and point out how ludicrous this bill is. Apparently it is an offence to commit any act outside Canada which would be an indictable offence if committed in Canada. The bill deals with forged passports, firearms, buggery, bestiality, gross indecency, gambling, horse racing, lotteries, abortion, homosexuality, drunken driving, breathalyzer tests, unlawfully possessing instruments for breaking into a coin operated device, unlawful possession of an automatic master key, theft from a post office, false advertising, harassment by telephone.
Then to round it off, the bill deals with cruelty to animals and provides that any person who is found guilty of cruelty to animals will not be permitted to own another pet for a period of years. That provision is in a bill that deals with the snuffing out of human life at the early stages of conception. This is the essence of irony. The bill also goes on to deal with counterfeit money, attempted rape, attempted murder-


An hon. Member:: Athlete's foot.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: Everything else except athlete's foot.
As I said, I am not a lawyer, I am not a doctor or a professional man, and perhaps I cannot see the meat of all the clauses. But one thing I can see clearly and which I cannot understand is that this government is obsessed and preoccupied with including in this potpourri, this bag of tricks, matters that affect so deeply the consciences and inner beings of the Canadian people. If the government is hell bent on assaulting our sensibilities, then why does it not say so? That is what worries me, and I do not have the answer yet.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) spoke this afternoon and I was disappointed to hear him say that we should not speak too often about dividing this bill. He is not here tonight and I hope he will not be offended that I have spoken if he reads my remarks in Hansard tomorrow. But having made this comment, the hon. member proceeded to launch himself into a 20 or 30 minute speech about how he felt about this bill. If he felt that time should not be wasted on the aspect I am dealing with, then why in the name of heaven did he go on to waste another 20 minutes of parliament's time-his

own words-to make his views known when they could just as well be presented at a later stage? It is ridiculous. I cannot accept that statement, least of all from a man who has been in parliament for 30, 40, 50 or 60 years.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: I referred, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) as being sharp. I say this because normally when he is speaking I am asleep, but today I happened to listen.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Apparently the hon. member didn't listen today, either.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: The hon. member has suggested that abortion be removed from the Criminal Code and recognized as a social problem.


An hon. Member:: The public voted for it.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: The public did not vote for it. This is a contention of the government, Mr. Speaker, that they have a mandate for the changes in this bill. The government knows that Newfoundland has been a bulwark of Liberalism for the past 20 years but only one Liberal was elected in that province in the last election. These Criminal Code amendments were a major factor in the failure of the Liberals to elect more members.


An hon. Member:: Go and ask Sullivan.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: I admire the courage of the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Sullivan). Hon. members opposite are not all Protestants; they are not all Liberals and they are not all one sex.


An hon. Member:: Oh, yes we are!


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: There are four distinct categories of members in this house. They are cabinet ministers; parliamentary secretaries; those who want to be parliamentary secretaries and those who want to be cabinet ministers. Thank God our party does not have that problem at the moment. Those are commendable political ambitions, Mr. Speaker, but if they are jeopardized by a Prime Minister or government forcing members to vote en bloc on a matter that affects their individual conscience, then I feel that is wrong. This is exactly what will happen on this vote.
When the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre suggests that abortion be removed from the Criminal Code, does he also suggest
February XI, 1969

that murder be removed from the Criminal Code? There are many women who would be justified in murdering their husbands and to be fair about it, many husbands would be justified in murdering their wives. Does the hon. member suggest that it is all right for a person to take a shotgun and get rid of a marriage partner?


An hon. Member:: Some would like to.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre supports the relatively unimportant portions of this bill. I do not believe in gambling, but I am broadminded enough to agree that gambling should be the subject of a free vote in this house which is more than the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, I am proposing a free and separate vote on-


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: I do not know what the hon. member is saying. I cannot hear him. If he is seeking information, he need not ask me because I have been here only six months and he has been here 50 years.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not
yet, but I hope to be.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: The hon. member suggests his righteous party will not approve of gambling. He mentioned participatory democracy. I suggest participatory democracy means that 264 members can have a free vote in this house on an issue which affects their conscience, upbringing and way of life. The hon. member stated that the approval of lotteries would be a retrograde step. He did not say the approval of abortions would be a retrograde step, he claimed that would be a step in tune with modern society. The intellectuals feel this is all right, and therefore it is all right with his party. I condemn it, Mr. Speaker, without a full investigation and I will do so on second and third reading.
Some hon. member mentioned this evening that the government had a mandate. I say the fact is the previous bill died on the order paper. There was little or no mention of it during the last election campaign. It was not an issue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I know that many hon. members wish to take part in the debate, as I gather from whispers and interventions. I can assure the hon.
Criminal Code
members that they will have the opportunity to make their contribution later on.
I ask the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Peddle) to go on with his statement.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for suppressing that attempted intervention. While you have prevented hon. members from pursuing their line of torment you have not deprived me of the right to reply. The people of Newfoundland have always been noted for their perspective and the vote they registered in the last election was an indication they felt something was radically wrong.
I wish to remind hon. members that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) does not represent the conscience of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: I am speaking as an individual Member of Parliament, Mr. Speaker, and not as a Catholic, Protestant, Tory or Liberal. I am prepared to state my views for the record and let my constituents make their choice in the next election as to whether or not they agree with these views. This is just exactly the way I feel and I say this because I know that in a house such as this, with members from all different parts of Canada and of all different religious groups, they cannot all possibly be of one mind.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Before I conclude I wish to repeat what I said earlier, that regardless of party affiliation or anything else I will vote against this bill in its present form. I will do so not because I agree or disagree with anything in it but simply because I feel the majority of the Canadian public think the bill should be separated into its various parts. For that reason I feel compelled to vote against it, even though I know 95 per cent of this legislation is good.
I welcome this legislation but I feel badly that I am being placed in a position by the government where I cannot vote for it. I honestly feel badly about this. I appeal to hon. members, as the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid) did this afternoon; I appeal to their sense of decency, something which overcomes eveything else, and to their sense of being human beings. I know that a majority of the members feel the bill should be separated into parts. I believe those who feel this way should stand up and say so, regardless of party discipline or anything else.

Februar7 11, 1969
Criminal Code
The people of Canada feel this way. Members here represent the decent people of Canada. I can think of no better way of closing my remarks than to use the concluding remarks of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) when he said:
Of course we must differentiate between the spiritual and the temporal. Therefore, this bill should be separated and divided so that all changes can be fairly decided upon according to the consciences of members of parliament and the people of this nation.


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, it is with considerable reluctance that I rise to speak on this question. I am compelled to do so only because of the government's refusal to separate the controversial and conscience binding parts of the bill. There is no doubt that the refusal was deliberate and part of the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) plan to force members to vote for those aspects of this Bill which are a direct attack on the conscience of members.
In all fairness, sir, I must agree with my colleague and friend, the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Peddle) and other hon. members, that this is a disgrace to the Canadian public. It is an insult to the Canadian nation that a bill of this consequence, a bill that affects so much the consciences, the religious and maybe the non-religious beliefs of the Canadian people, should be presented as a package deal.
There are some of us in this house, and I would suggest many thousands of Canadians across this great country of ours, who are against homosexuality on principle, and who regard human life as sacred, even that of a child before it is born. I noted with regret that those who defended that point of view were described by some of the pundits and interpreters of events in this chamber as belonging to another age, as belonging to the era before the floods. There was a time when to argue in favour of these things was to be called a non-conformist. In this age of liberal enlightenment to argue against them is at the risk of being called a non-conformist.
While all of us have our religious or nonreligious beliefs, I wish to deal with these particular parts of the bill not exclusively from the point of view of morals but from the aspect of their social consequences. I do this not through moral cowardice or lack of conviction, because I do not think that those who favour these devices will be impressed with the moral argument, but I hope they will at least consider the social consequences.

I start from the position that those things which are harmful to society must be regarded with suspicion and must be placed under certain restrictions. A government which relaxes the regulations and curbs on drugs, that makes divorce easier, that permits abortion and homosexuality, is in the process of remaking our society. The question which we must ask is, in whose image and likeness?
The government by this legislation permits homosexual acts in private between two consenting adults-no more than two. Apparently, for some reason, if there are more than two it becomes illegal. One wonders at the government's strange delicacy. In effect it is confirming by legislation the old saying, with which most of us agreed at some time or another, that three's a crowd. It is nice to know that the members of the government subscribe to that age old theory and that they know where to draw the line.
I think it must be agreed, Mr. Speaker, that homosexuality is basically a psychological aberration. Some persons feel that because a lot of people do something that makes it natural and acceptable. I might remind the house that a lot of people take drugs nowadays-I think the modern term is that they are taking pot-and so it is automatically all right according to that theory. Homosexuality is gaining adherents, and so it cannot be unnatural. That philosophy is of course the traditional symptom of decay. When numbers make something right then we are on the way to something, but it is not Christian democracy.
Let us examine the consequences of this thinking. If homosexuality were practised on a widespread scale society would break down. If it were universally practised, the human race in a matter of time would become extinct. Obviously, therefore, it cannot be said to be conducive to social progress. If one does not believe in social order and progress, then of course one would welcome the destruction or even the suicide of society. But, Mr. Speaker, my constituents in St. John's West did not send me to Ottawa to participate in the undermining of our social order.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what of the homosexual? He commands our sympathy in the same way that any human with some aberration commands our sympathy. But one of the salient features about homosexuality and the real reason for its being anti-social is the compulsion to convert, to induce others into its practice. In those nations where homosexuality has raged unchecked conversion has been a
February 11, 1969

major characteristic, to the point where generations of those unable to make a free choice have been compelled into unnatural practices.
This, of course, is not what we are legislating. What we are legislating is a kind of well mannered, sedate, controlled Canadian type of vice. Therefore, I am forced to vote against this bill because of the unavoidable conversion feature of this practice and because, while the bill does nothing to promote this aspect of the practice, it does nothing to control it. The bill gives legal recognition to a practice that basically is anti-social. If I voted for the bill, it would mean that I am condoning that which I feel if carried out on an unrestricted basis would destroy the way of life we have painfully built up over the centuries.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Now, I should like to deal briefly with the section dealing with abortion. I say that those who adhere to the sacredness of human life will not require a great deal of convincing on this point. I am sure in recent weeks we have all received a vast amount of material from various church leaders and other groups dealing with the abortion section of this bill.
I was particularly interested in figures I received that were taken from the World Almanac of 1968. These were supplied by the World Health Organization. These figures give the number of suicides per year per 100,000 women. In the age group 25 to 44 in countries where abortion is allowed the figures in respect of suicide are as follows: In Japan 19.7 per cent, in Hungary 13.4 per cent, and in Sweden 13.1 per cent. In the non-abortion countries the suicide figures are these: Belgium, 5.9 per cent, Canada 5.2 per cent and Italy 2.9 per cent. I ask in God's name how any member of this house in all conscience can support this bill and ignore these facts. How can we ignore the fact that countries with permissive abortion laws invariably have a higher rate of suicide for women of child bearing years than non-abortion countries?
About a week or ten days ago a member on the opposite side of the house used the argument that when a girl is raped she should be entitled to have an abortion. In my opinion this is a matter of conscience because the social consequences of applying that philosophy are a matter of public concern. A person who has been raped has suffered a violation of personal rights. But I ask you, sir, and members of this house what are the
Criminal Code
rights of the unborn child? Are we to assume that the unborn child possesses no rights because it has been conceived in violation. Once life is present, how can it be argued that because of social convenience or possible embarrassment it is right to destroy it. We must ask ourselves, are only duly conceived and wanted children to have a right to live. If someone wants a child, it can live; if it is not wanted, it must be denied the right to live, it must die. What kind of society would we build on principles of that kind?
I think we must act to remove the stigma from unwanted children conceived out of wedlock. But are we to do it by destroying them? If we accept the position that it is all right to destroy a child before birth, why not after birth? Are we to create a panel of doctors that will take on the appearance of executioners? On what grounds can they refuse an abortion; on what grounds can they grant to an unwanted unborn child the right to be born? I would suggest that once you have stipulated a number of conditions whereby a child can be destroyed before birth you can be sure those conditions will be met when it is a question of avoiding embarrassment or convenience.
I know I will be accused in terms of all the cliches of the new enlightenment because those people seem to think some great new learning entered the world with the flood. However, human experiences through the ages have shown us that when barriers are removed upon certain areas of human conduct and anti-social acts, the result is simply the speedy undermining and destruction of the entire social structure. We are watching this happen today before our very eyes and the government by this very legislation is aiding and abetting it.
I am completely at a loss to understand why this government that has preached a just society and equal rights would refuse to allow this bill to come before the house other than as a package deal. I say, not as a member of any religious denomination but as a father of a reasonably large family, that I am completely at a loss to understand why the government would impose this vote upon the members of their party without giving those members an opportunity to vote as their consciences dictate. My God, we are not mounting a machine; this is not a machine in respect of which you can just press a button and wait for results. This is a government that has been elected by the Canadian people.
I have been elected by a substantial majority

February 11, 1969
Criminal Code
of the people in my riding to come here to express my thoughts and feelings as I see fit.
I am alarmed and disgusted at the action of the Prime Minister and members of his cabinet in not allowing their colleagues on the government side, on the Liberal benches, to exercise that right.
As much as I would like to see our leader become prime minister, as much as I would like to see our party form the government and as much as they deserve to form the government, I am glad I am not part of a government in which I would be forced to vote against my conscience and vote against everything which I have been taught is wrong, unjust and unchristian. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that if hon. members opposite start wearing beards it is because they do not have the guts to shave in the morning. I thank God that my colleagues and I will be able to shave in the mornings because we have had the right to exercise our prerogatives and vote as our consciences dictate. I make no bones about the fact that I am proud that I will be voting against this bill on second and third reading. I hope members opposite will come to life, realize that they are individuals; that they are Christians; that they are people and realize that to their constituents they have grave responsibility.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
I hope that members will vote, not as the so-called leaders of the just society dictate, but as their own consciences dictate. If they do, I am sure they will vote against this bill. As I said before, if they vote on this basis they will be able to sleep at night and shave in the morning with the realization that they have done what they are supposed to do; that is act as men and not as robots.
In closing, I would urge my fellow members opposite to give very serious thought to this matter and not be persuaded or enticed to vote against their consciences because the party whip is on. Rather, they should stand up like men and vote as their consciences dictate. If they do that, I have no doubt or fear that they will vote against this bill.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, during the last few minutes I have been interested in listening to several members from the newest province of Canada, and I should like now to welcome them to this generation and the twentieth century. I really thought that Joey Smallwood was about as backward a man as one could meet and I

confirmed this opinion when I was with the woodworkers' association. I found that he was not interested in the people of the other provinces and had not heard of them. He wanted to decide what wages were to be paid and under what working conditions. If he is to the left of some of the representatives we now have from that province, God pity them in that province because of the development which will take place in the next 20 or 30 years.


An hon. Member:: Smallwood didn't think much of you either.


William Arnold Peters: I am sure he didn't, and I am very fortunate that I was elected to parliament because I would probably have ended up in jail in Newfoundland as a result of being diametrically opposed to everything I heard him say about that particular part of the country. I suggest that even those who have spoken for the dinosaur class would be willing to admit that if another part of the country had a different climate and different development, that climate and development would not necessarily fit in their category. Surely, they can be broad minded enough to allow the rest of the country to develop in a reasonable manner.
The Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau), during the drafting of the changes to the Criminal Code introduced by Bill C-185, was able to present to the country the thing he considered would lead to a just society. The expression was first used in a political sense by another millionaire, Governor Rockefeller. It was not used during an election campaign but following the 1966 election when he advised the civil servants and the members of the establishment to develop this expression "the just society". It may be that as a result of wealth, benevolence will flow in various directions. If that was the cause, then I support the reasoning and the effects.
Changes to the Criminal Code are long overdue. Before the Prime Minister, the former Minister of Justice, takes credit for this change he would be well advised to have a look at a number of private members' bills which have been on the order paper since I was elected. I remember when abortion was first mentioned in a private members' bill. The sponsor of that particular bill took it upon himself to accept the abuse that flowed following the introduction of this particularly unpopular subject. I can take some small credit for the introduction of a bill of a similar nature. This involved divorce legislation, and was far ahead of its time.
February 11, 1969

It was also my good fortune to participate in the deliberations of this house over a number of years when we finally brought divorce legislation into a social atmosphere. This allowed the government to pass a bill which was more progressive than the one I proposed.


Colin David Gibson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I submit that the hon. member has strayed from the subject matter of this bill. Surely, he is not discussing anything of relevance to this bill.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry for new members who have not yet had the opportunity of learning the rules. Given enough time they will sooner or later learn these rules, providing they keep trying. In any event, appreciate the interest of the hon. member.
The point is that individual members of parliament should be given a great deal of credit for introducing legislation which has not been popular and sometimes dangerous. When I presented the bill to which I referred I showed it to members of the press in order to get some comment. This bill proposed amendments to sections 147 and 149 of the Criminal Code having to do with buggery, bestiality and gross indecency. I suggest this was the forerunner of the amendments which later related to the homosexual sections we are now considering.
The provisions of my proposed amendments would have had the effect of not applying sections 147 and 149 to acts committed in a place other than a public place by one person with another person, each being 21 years or more of age or married and who consented to the commission of the act. There was considerable comment about this amendment.
At about the same time I became associated with a number of religious leaders, and because of my experience at that time I am shocked by some of the comments of hon. members who think they know something about religion. This organization in Ottawa was representative of the Catholic church, the United Church, the Anglican church, a number of homosexuals, several doctors and psychiatrists. At that time the organization was known as the Canadian Council of Religion and the Homosexual.
These religious leaders were interested in these people because they were aware of the fact that in Ottawa homosexuals make up more than 10 per cent of the population. They realized they were losing members of their 29180-343
Criminal Code
congregation every week, and as religious leaders they were unable to assist these people who were obviously in need of some kind of help. I was only one of many individuals who joined this organization. I did so because I believed that homosexuality was abnormal and that these people required help.
I think I can safely say that I came from an environment in which men were men, and women were glad of it. I might say I spent most of my life reminding them of it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Arnold Peters: And we were glad that they were glad of it. We believed that homosexuality was abnormal and that it was something these individuals had no control over, but something in respect of which they could use help. I was joined in this feeling by many people of the religious community who were aware that many people in the community faced this problem.
Many members of parliament have said they could not accept this amendment because their faith would not allow them to do so. I suggest many of them have not considered their faith since they were 13 years of age. I have heard some arguments about divorce, and I asked the late Mr. Favreau how many letters he received after we passed the divorce legislation. Do you know how many adverse letters he received? He received absolutely none. Why? Because the people concerned with theology are up to date in theology. It is not the theology we learned as little boys; it is the theology of today, and as the times change even theology and churches change. If members of parliament go to church once in a while they will find there has been change in this respect and there is no longer a dog-in-the-manger attitude all the time.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
This matter of homosexuality affects all members of parliament. We remember an unfortunate case not too long ago that affected one of our members. What happened? I do not know what he did, and I do not even care. He put himself in a position where he was subject to blackmail, the abuse of the courts and the abuse of politicians, and he is no longer with us. I do not know what the background of this case was.
I expected when I joined this organization that we would be able to sit down with psychiatrists, doctors and others familiar with this situation and find there was an easy cure perhaps we could give somebody a shot of hormones and change that person from one

February 11, 1969
Criminal Code
sex to another. I thought this would be a simple proposition. I have found it is not a simple proposition.
I have read that the deciding factor is quite often one which occurs while the child is in the womb; the mother's mental attitude is affected. This may or may not be the case; I am not in a position to argue. In most cases I think these people do not like what they are. It is time society did something to prevent their being blackmailed and being subjected to the other fears they now have. It is time society provided them with the right to live their own life, provided they do not hurt someone else.
While in this organization I also learned that all the homosexuals and lesbians with whom I came in contact were agreed that they were opposed to those who corrupted the young. They are not interested in the business of prostitution and disliked it as much as you and I when it concerned the young. They are not interested in spreading their affliction, if you can call it that. They are interested in making it possible for them to live as near a normal life as possible. I think society has an obligation to allow them to do that.
We have heard that in Ottawa there are some departments in which this practice has had an effect on those who did not belong to a particular cult. The story is that you did not get a promotion in that case. I have also heard these people say that they have all the smart people in the world, all the rich people in the world, and one day they will be in control. I do not expect this will happen, but I do not think we should build a society that hounds a person for something that he cannot control. Surely any member who is broad minded at all will agree that the most society should demand from an individual is that he should conform to the rules of society or should not hurt society by his non-conformity. If what he does hurts anybody else, that is, if the other person does not consent, then there should be a provision covering that in the law.
In the bill that I presented I included the provision that one should be 21 years of age or more before he or she would fall under the provisions of the Criminal Code in this respect. Most people when talking about this matter consider that you really have to go back to the Bible to understand the problem. You read in Revelations the things you are not supposed to do, the women you are not supposed to marry and the relationships you are not supposed to have. You look in our

Criminal Code and see that almost all the ecclesiastical prohibitions are included in our law. I have not read them for some time. Some of them may have had reason behind them, and some not. But it seems to me that this provision with regard to homosexuals should also include married persons under the age of 21.
Hon. members may not have studied the subject and be aware that many of the things commonly done heterosexually between married people are not within the ambit of the Criminal Code at the present time. If these things are done in the back seat of a car, they can constitute an offence whether or not the person is married or whether he or she is under the age of 21.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The back seat of a car is a public place.


William Arnold Peters: It may be considered to be a private place, but I suggest an amendment should be included to cover married couples if one is under 21 years of age. Many sections of the Criminal Code are very worth while. I have had a great many complaints from my constituents, and I am more interested in those complaints than in the form letters received from constituents of other members.
I now refer to the gun legislation. It is interesting, when considering the gun legislation, to remind ourselves that some of its implications are the result of our exposure to United States propaganda. United States leaders have been assassinated in recent years and on these occasions there has always been a hue and cry in that country to take away guns from the American public. On the other hand, the Americans have always said they have the right to bear arms. We, in Canada, believe we have the right to bear arms. The Americans believe they have this right. Their thinking in this respect stems in part from their frontier days, and some from the movies about frontier days rather than present day circumstances. It is interesting to compare two questionnaires put out, one in my riding and another in a southern Ontario riding represented by one of my colleagues. The questionnaire in my area referred to the restriction on rifles, shotguns, the use of revolvers and revolver clubs. My constituents were opposed to almost any restriction; yet in the constituency of my colleague from southern Ontario the people said all these things should be restricted.
February 11, 1969

This points up the very important idea as to whether there should be different legislation in different areas. In my area of northern Ontario, if you want to go hunting on Sunday you can do so. The law in northern Ontario does not say you can go hunting on Sunday, but in practice a fine is not levied for hunting on this day. This has always been the case. In northern Ontario you can apply to the provincial authority for a permit to carry a side-arm. You have to carry it publicly. You were given a letter, not a permit, saying you could carry it. This letter was given by the Department of Lands and Forests. In other areas, this right is not granted, and to this extent there is a difference between various areas of the country.
If you carry a gun in Toronto, it is thought that you have the gun because you perhaps want to shoot your neighbour. The only reason you can carry a gun in Toronto is for the purposes of defence. But in northern Ontario you can carry a gun to go hunting; and there are rifle practices, turkey shoots and all the other things connected with the sporting use of guns. The motivation of people is important in this respect.
I am pleased to note that in an editorial even the revolver clubs are pointing out that the government has paid some attention to this difference and has modified the legislation to the point that they think it is not bad legislation. They have pointed out to me, and I think they are right, that the registered revolvers in the country are not the guns used for criminal purposes.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
A gun in my area which is worth $85 when registered, in Montreal is worth $200 if it is unregistered. They do not want registered guns. They may steal a registered gun and if it is used once it has to be discarded because it can be traced. I am told that the underworld seldom uses a gun that is registered, even those that are stolen in hold-ups. So, the laws we now have do not appear to have failed. For this reason, I think we should not pass legislation that is more restrictive than is necessary. I would also like to point that it is necessary to provide regulations concerning new guns and new types of weapons, but I would strongly urge that discretion be used and some restraint be applied in doing this. We do not subscribe to the belief held in some other places that guns should be used for the defence of citizens rather than for the purpose for which they are often used now, that is for sport.
29180-343J
Criminal Code
The other matter which I should like to deal with is the matter of abortion. I am surprised at these people who say they are religious, who have some church background and who speak about the taking of life in the act of abortion. I wonder how many of them have been to a church service for a foetus. So far as I know, no church will bury a foetus that is under seven months of development. Such a foetus is not considered to be living, it is burnt in an incinerator. It does not have to be buried, and a death certificate does not have to be issued for it, unless it is in the province of Newfoundland. I am sure there are certain things that members do not know concerning this business. One of them is that according to the legal profession half a million abortions a year are performed in Canada which has a population of 20 million. Half of these 20 million people must be under child bearing age, which brings it down to 10 million. I presume that only women have children, so this brings it down to five million. This is a pretty significant proportion.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Who is going to take care of the babies? Can you answer that?


William Arnold Peters: I do not know who is going to take care of them but someone mentioned shotguns being used to blow the husbands' heads off. Some of these women who are having abortions may find that some members of parliament are so violently opposed to it that there may be a few husbands' heads blown off. This raises an interesting situation. So far as I am concerned, there are three stages in this proposition. To my knowledge, doctors consider that an abortion is performed only up to the third month of pregnancy. After the end of the third month of pregnancy they are called miscarriages and following the seventh month it is a birth, either a still birth or a live birth. This involves a simple D and C operation. It can be done in any doctor's office without anaesthetic in a matter of four or five minutes.
Several years ago on a radio program for the C.B.C. I interviewed a doctor who performed abortions. He told me he did a large number of abortions in Montreal, and indicated that in the 100 that he did a week he had only one or two problems over a period of several years. He also told me something else that was very interesting. When I asked him why he had not been caught, he said that at that time he charged around $500 for an abortion but it depended on how much money the person seemed to have. He also told me that

February 11, 1969
Criminal Code
25 per cent of his cases were sent to him by the welfare agencies in Montreal without charge. This was the price for protection in Montreal. This man, who had been trained in another country, believed that there was nothing wrong with performing abortions. In most cases he fitted the person with a pessary and told her not to come back. He was not interested in seeing her again. He believed he was doing a job for the young people. If we are not going to provide birth control pills in our high schools and in some of our public schools to all female students then we had better consider-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. We will suspend the sitting until the lights come back.


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if it would meet the wishes of the house to call it ten o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. Since it is approximately ten o'clock and due to the circumstances, the house is adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, February 12, 1969