1969-05-13

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Quebec East) moved: that the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Seventh and Eighth Reports of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, in French and in English-Mr. H.-Pit Lessard (LaSalle).
[Editor's Note: Text of foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move, seconded by Mr. MacEachen:
That the Standing Committee on Regional Development be granted leave to adjourn from place to place within Canada for the purpose of examining regional development programs, and that the clerk of the committee and the necessary supporting staff be authorized to accompany the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasl-ings):: I have a question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. As the Secretary of State of the United States, Mr. Rogers, made it very clear in his interview with Senator Fanning that the new United States government is prepared to extradite Harold Banks as soon as the Canadian government makes an application for such extradition, and as the government of Ontario has made it clear it is anxious to have Mr. Banks extradited so that he can face perjury charges and also serve his five-year sentence, is it the intention of the government to make an application to the new government of the United States to extradite Mr. Banks?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I think the Minister of Justice would have to answer this question. I have not been in consultation with him on the matter.


George Harris Hees: As the new government has been in office in the United States for some four months, during which time the Minister of Justice has refused to make such an application, is this refusal due to the fear that Mr. Banks might talk about important financial contributions which he made to the Liberal party before he skipped the country to the United States?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will recognize that his question is argumentative.



HOUSING


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: In the absence of the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing, may I direct my question to the Prime Minister and ask him whether the guidelines for urban renewal and public housing will be made available to hon. members prior to the discussion of the amendments to the National Housing Act?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not prior to the discussion, Mr. Speaker, although it is conceivable that in his presentation the minister may wish to talk about such guidelines.



POSSIBILITY OF REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Almost two weeks ago, Mr. Speaker,
May 13, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry I asked the Prime Minister whether there would be any increase in the financial allotment for housing in this current fiscal year and the right hon. gentleman undertook to take the question as notice. I wonder whether he can now tell the house if there is to be any increase in the financial allotment for housing in this fiscal year.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I took the question as notice at that time because we were in an interim position with regard to the existence of a minister. Now that we have one, I will ask him to bring the information to the house.



AVAILABILITY OF HOMES TO PERSONS OF MODERATE INCOME

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the representations which have been made to the government since the first reading of the amendments to the National Housing Act, may I ask whether the government contemplates bringing in any additional legislation to provide houses for people in the lower income brackets?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The problem of people in low income groups will, of course, be dealt with during the debate but there is no intention to add in a significant way to the legislation now before the house.



INQUIRY AS TO IDENTIFICATION OF ACTING MINISTER

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: In view of the fact that the list of ministers, giving the names of acting ministers and second acting ministers, with which we have been supplied, does not include the name of the Minister without Portfolio who is in charge of housing, can the Prime Minister say who is the acting minister in charge of housing when the superior minister is away?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: For today, the acting minister is the Minister without Portfolio from Manitoba.


Mr. Woolliams:: Who is he?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will ensure that this-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Since the Minister without Portfolio from Manitoba is now a full minister, to whom is the Prime Minister referring?



FAMILY ALLOWANCES

[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO POSSIBLE CUTS IN BENEFITS Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue): Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question to the Prime Minister.
Since he stated last week that cuts in government expenditures would severely affect some sectors of the Canadian economy, could the Prime Minister tell the house whether his government intends to amend the Family Allowances Act?
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, when I brought that matter up, I did not give any clear-cut example; however, when the time comes to announce such cuts and to request the support of the opposition parties to fight inflation, we shall make the appropriate statement.


Mr. Caouette:: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Is the Prime Minister ready to accept our full and complete co-operation in this fight against inflation in Canada? We are ready to tell him how to do it.
[Englishf



IMMIGRATION


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that immigration officers within Canada are not required to exercise the same discretionary powers relating to military deserters seeking to remain in Canada as those immigration officers serving at ports of entry, and in view of the minister's assurance that this delicate and controversial subject would be reviewed in the near future, would the minister inform the house when he expects to announce an alternative government policy?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am not absolutely certain, but I hope within a very short time.



FINANCE


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime
May 13. 1969	COMMONS
Minister. Notwithstanding Standing Order 5 and the deliberate instruction of the Prime Minister to keep members away from this house, and since half the cabinet is away today, my question which should have been for the Minister of Finance is directed to the Prime Minister.
Would the Prime Minister advise the house whether any instructions are being given Canada's delegation to the International Monetary Fund meetings with regard to any further reforms, or controls on the movement of international financial capital, to prevent these recurring crises that we see almost every second month?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is arriving in Ottawa from overseas at six o'clock today. The Acting Minister of Finance is the minister of northern affairs.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister is bowing to the superior knowledge of the acting minister, may I ask the second acting minister whether he can inform the house if the Governor of the Bank of Canada or any of Canada's representatives at the International Monetary Fund meetings were able to make a positive contribution to the control of, shall we say, hot money and these recurring financial crises?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister ot Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, everybody in Canada agrees that we have an excellent Governor of the Bank of Canada who has the confidence of the government.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Notwithstanding the acting minister's confidence in the Governor of the Bank of Canada, which I think we would share more than he, I am asking about government policy in this regard. It has been suggested at committee hearings, which I presume the cabinet occasionally are aware of, that there is something wrong with our international monetary situation; that Canada, as one of the inner circle of 13, has some positive contribution to make.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance will be back shortly; I am sure he
DEBATES	8619
Inquiries of the Ministry will make an announcement in the house regarding the international monetary situation and I am confident the hon. member will be satisfied with it.


Mr. Ed Schreyer (Selkirk):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the acting minister advise whether the present policy of the government of Canada is to support the continuation of a two tier pricing system for gold or is the policy going to change?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance will make an announcement in this regard, if necessary.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the latest passenger train mishap on the Canadian National Railways line near St. Bruno, Quebec, in which 20 passengers were injured, and in view of the fact that there has been an increase in the number of mishaps involving death or injury on both major railways in Canada, would the minister indicate whether the analysis being made of the causes of such accidents has been completed?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the accident to which my hon. friend refers, an investigation is now under way. As to the second part of the question, I hope to give an answer within a few days. Frankly, I do not know if the analysis has yet been completed.


John Leroy Skoberg: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister say whether he considers the situation serious enough to establish a public inquiry into the safety of train operations?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, this certainly is a serious matter, but whether a public inquiry is the most appropriate way of dealing with this I do not know. However I will look into the entire matter and find out what is the best way of dealing with it because, I repeat, it certainly is serious.
May 13, 1969



HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS


[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport.
Would he be ready to carry on the inquiry in order to determine whether it was not an act of sabotage, as my colleague from Kamou-raska (Mr. Dionne) was aboard the train when the accident happened?



THE ROYAL FAMILY


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the government of Canada has decided to provide for representation at the dedication of the Prince of Wales at Caernarvon next month? Is any determination to be made in this regard?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker; but perhaps the Secretary of State for External Affairs will have a more complete answer.



REMOVAL OF PORTRAIT OF QUEEN FROM EMBASSIES

John George Diefenbaker: May I also ask the Prime Minister whether he, as Prime Minister, or the cabinet, has given directions for the Queen's picture to be removed from all Canadian embassies, particularly those in the Middle East?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have not heard of such direction being given, particularly with regard to embassies in the Middle East.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I know reference to the Queen's picture always causes frivolity amongst Liberal members. In that regard they do not represent the people of this country. I ask the Prime Minister, will he look into this question, because the Toronto Telegram reports-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, we must obtain our information from the newspapers. We cannot get it from the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Selkirk.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Prime Minister is supplementary to the one of the right hon. member for Prince Albert to do with the dedication ceremony. Will the Prime Minister say whether the federal government is to be represented at the dedication ceremonies when the memorial to Louis Riel is unveiled in Manitoba?
Righf Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure under which minister's jurisdiction this question ought to come.


An hon. Member:: Try the Solicitor General.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In any event I shall have to inquire to see if such plans exist, Mr. Speaker.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Has he taken the opportunity so far to meet the committee of six designated by the national Indian conference, and has he discussed with them the question of adequate financial support for research by Indian people into treaty rights and related matters?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not yet had the chance to meet officially the members of the committee. I told them I would be happy to meet them at the end of this month, or at the beginning of next month. As soon as we can manage to hold a meeting somewhere, when communications are slightly better in Canada, I will be happy to meet them.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister undertake to announce a firm decision on the question of adequate support for this independent research before his promised statement in June concerning the Indian Act.
May 13, 1969	COMMONS


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, when I met with the Indians last week, I told them, as I did last December, that the Canadian government was ready to help them to form into an association and take advantage of the most modern means of operation. The statements I made last December and last week are still valid today.



BRITISH COLUMBIA-REMOVAL OF REGIONAL DIRECTOR

['Order, please. I am sure the hon. member recognizes the question in this form is argumentative.\nMr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East\nRichmond): A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the Prime Minister since he has taken it upon himself to answer. Will the government provide seating accommodation for 50 to 55 people now sitting on the floor waiting on their passports in that office?']
Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have one further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister received a request from representatives of the Indians of British Columbia asking that Mr. J. V. Boys be removed immediately from his office as regional director of Indian Affairs for British Columbia? If such a request has been received will the minister tell us what reply he contemplates giving on behalf of the government?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of such a request. I will take it into consideration when it reaches me and I will report to the people who submitted it.



Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs? In so doing may I first of all pay my compliments to the fantastic work and co-operation of those in the passport office; they are doing a remarkable job. However, may I ask the acting Secretary of State for External Affairs if there could not possibly be some relief from the increasing pressure on members of the House of Commons and then-secretaries in handling emergency problems. If possible, I ask that there be an additional two telephone lines installed, with a specific staff to deal directly with the problems brought to the attention of members of the House of Commons. In this way members and their secretaries would not have to spend time trying to resolve the problems at the passport office.
DEBATES	8621
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure if the question is in order, but the speech was such an excellent one-


Harold Edward Winch: Also urgent.


Mr. Speaker:: I respect the fact that it is urgent. Perhaps the responsible minister might wish to reply.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the subject is being dealt with several times a week by the minister responsible. He will be in the house tomorrow. Perhaps the question can be asked again at that time.


Harold Edward Winch: On a supplementary, may I say that yesterday the minister said he would be here today and give a full statement.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the minister had to leave for Toronto to represent the government at a funeral.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: would like to ask the Prime Minister why the government made the decision to amend the passport regulations when it was announced by the Queen's Printer the necessary replacement forms would not be available across the country until the month of July, yet-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member recognizes the question in this form is argumentative.
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East
Richmond): A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the Prime Minister since he has taken it upon himself to answer. Will the government provide seating accommodation for 50 to 55 people now sitting on the floor waiting on their passports in that office?



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. I refer to a question by my colleague last Friday concerning the cancellation in the immediate future by the New Zealand government of Canadian Pacific Airlines landing rights in New Zealand. Has the Minister of Transport had an opportunity of discussing this matter with the New Zealand High Commissioner or has he discussed the matter with his colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, with a view to negotiating further landing rights for Canadian Pacific
May 13. 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry Airlines in New Zealand? If not, is consideration being given to possible retaliatory-steps?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, we did even better to find the answer to the questions posed by my hon. friend. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce was in New Zealand, made personal representations, and I bow to his superior knowledge in this matter.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: To summarize in a few words a long conversation on the subject, indeed the airline service between Vancouver and Auckland does not exist any more, but the Minister of Transport in New Zealand has undertaken to review the decision of his government. I think we might say that the debate, which was essentially at the level of the airlines, has now become an intergovernmental discussion.


Mr. Lewis:: God help us.


Jean-Luc Pepin: We are now looking at the suggestions that were made by the government of New Zealand, and we hope that this air line route will be restored soon.



TRANSPORT


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I wish to direct this question to the Prime Minister. Has the government made representations to the United States government about the tax or legal status of the Quebec North Shore and Labrador railway, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Iron Ore Company of Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that this question should be placed on the order paper.



FISHERIES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the fact that there is no conflict between inland waters and fishing zones on the east coast of Nova Scotia, will the minister indicate when we can anticipate some action on his statement of April 5, that base lines will be drawn from headland to headland immediately, and will he say 
whether the Bay of Fundy and the Gulf of St. Lawrence will be enclosed by these base lines?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, the co-ordinates identifying the latitudes and longitudes for these base lines will be published in the Canada Gazette very shortly. The question of closing off the several large bodies of water which the hon. member has mentioned would require an amendment to the present legislation dealing both with territorial waters and fishing closing lines, and we wish to separate the closing lines from territorial waters by changing the law.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Fisheries with respect to the west coast and the new fishing limits, on a headland to headland basis, how soon they will become effective? Will it be immediately upon proclamation in the Gazette or will it be some time after their announcement?


John (Jack) Davis: My understanding, Mr. Speaker, is that they will become effective immediately. However, I do not want to mislead the hon. member because there will be at least one important gap in the lines and this must be dealt with by legislation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I assume the legislation the minister is referring to has to do with the Queen Charlotte Sound. Is it his intention to introduce such legislation at this session of parliament?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, it will be introduced shortly, but I cannot promise that it will be introduced this session, that is to say before the end of June, 1969.



RESTRICTIONS IN SAINT JOHN HARBOUR AND BAY OF FUNDY

Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Sainl John-Lancasler):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary or related question, of which I have given the minister notice, on the matter of fishing restrictions. Will there be restrictions this season on the fishing in Saint John harbour and the Bay of Fundy? If so, when will they be imposed, and what will be the nature of them?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, there will be restrictions to two days for both sports fishing and commercial fishing for salmon in the areas the hon. member has mentioned. This is to permit greater
May 13. 1969

escapement of salmon from the Saint John River which, I might add, is in a desperate condition so far as salmon spawning is concerned.



DAMAGE TO EQUIPMENT CAUSED BY DRAGGERS

Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-Sl. George's-Sl. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Can the minister advise what action he is taking regarding charges by fishermen in northwestern Newfoundland that draggers are operating in inshore waters and are again causing serious damage to fishing equipment in the area?
Inquiries of the Ministry fishermen in the general vicinity of Long Harbour is under active consideration. A team of assessors is down in that area at the present time. As soon as I receive a report from them, which I hope will be forthcoming next week, I will be making representations to the government.


Mr. McGrath:: As a further supplementary question to the Minister of Transport, who was acting for the Minister of Fisheries in this regard during his visit to the affected area in Newfoundland, is he willing to tell the house what action he is prepared to recommend to the government to reimburse the fishermen, and compensate the fishermen who will be displaced by the closing of the bay?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, we have already dispatched a departmental patrol vessel to that area and we will be getting a report shortly.
GUARDIANS ON SALMON RIVERS Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):
Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Is it the intention of his department to reduce significantly the number of guardians on Canadian salmon rivers this coming season and, if so, what is the reason for this particular move?


John (Jack) Davis: Well, Mr. Speaker, guardians have been reduced in number, and their hourly rates of pay have been increased appreciably. The problem is partly a budgetary one, but the short answer is that there has been a reduction in the number of fishery guardians on both coasts.



WATER RESOURCES


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Now that his colleague, the Minister of Transport, has had a chance to meet with representatives of the fishermen in Newfoundland can he tell the house what action the government will take to reimburse the fishermen who have been displaced as a consequence of the closing of Placentia Bay following pollution of the waters by the phosphorus plant there?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the matter of compensation to


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if the hon. member is asking this question of the minister in his official capacity in the administration. I would think the question should be directed to the Minister of Fisheries.



NANAIMO, B.C.-POLLUTION OF WEST COAST FISHERY

Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. It has to do with pollution of water that is allegedly killing fish on the west coast. Has his department checked on incidents reported near Nanaimo and near Gold River on the west coast of Vancouver Island, where fish are alleged to have been killed as a result of toxic waste and, if so, what have been the results of this inquiry?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, detailed checks have been made on one incident, the incident at Nanaimo, and as a result the plant in question has made substantial changes in its operations.



FRASER RIVER POLLUTION

Randolph Harding: As
a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, has the Department of Fisheries taken any action to clear up the grave pollution problem in the Fraser River, which has been described as a running sewer by the fishermen's union, and if so will he indicate the measures to be taken by his department?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The second question in the supplementary would seem to require a statement of a general nature by the minister, which normally would be made on motions.
May 13, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT



PRINCE RUPERT, B.C.-TAPE MONITORING OF TELEPHONE CALLS

Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Postmaster General. Did he or any of his officials authorize the monitoring by automatic tape recorder of telephone calls made in the Post Office at Prince Rupert?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question, if it is in order, normally should be placed on the order paper.



INDUSTRY


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Can he advise the house why Canadian made cars continue to be sold in the United States at lower prices than the same Canadian made cars are sold in Canada, keeping in mind the sales tax and the exchange rate?


Mr. Speaker:: I would think that the question as asked is not in order. The non. member is asking for an expression of opinion, and when he asks a question in this particular form it seems to me it is not in order.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Then may I ask the minister if it is a fact that Canadian made cars are being sold at a lower price in the United States than in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to tell the hon. member that it is not in order to ask the minister to confirm or deny a statement. Perhaps he might reflect on the situation and find an alternative way to ask the question.


Alfred Dryden Hales: May I try again, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister advise the house what steps he is taking so that Canadian made cars will be sold at the same price in Canada as in the United States?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I prefer to answer the second try, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The third, or nothing at all. The hon. member for Selkirk.



FARM MACHINERY


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of


Agriculture. Is he in a position to clarify briefly his earlier statement in the house as to whether there will be an interim report from the Barber Royal Commission on farm machinery prices?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, within the time limits imposed I welcome the opportunity to try to clarify the replies I have made to a number of questions respecting this matter, going back to November. Mr. Speaker, an interim report on farm machinery prices in Canada compared with those in England and other countries, prepared by the royal commission, was presented to the Canadian Agricultural Conference in March. It was expected-and this is what I would like to clear up-that a further study of pricing practices would be presented to me in April. However, because of further information which has come to hand the commissioner advises it would be some time yet before he would be able to complete this study.



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the government house leader whether he can say when legislation will be presented on industrial incentives by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion? The question is urgent because it is reported there will be a lag in development funds because of the phasing out of existing programs. Is the government house leader in a position to assure the house that we will deal with this before the summer recess?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give that or any other assurance in this regard. I would invite the Leader of the Opposition to address his question to the appropriate minister, when he is here.



WHEAT-AUSTRALIAN AND RUSSIAN SALES TO U.K.

Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister confirm whether the sale of 9 million bushels of wheat by Australia and Russia for delivery to the United Kingdom this summer will effectively displace shipments out of Churchill.
May 13, 1969	COMMONS


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm nor deny that. I will find out.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kenl-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Agriculture. Since farmers from coast to coast are now approaching the planting season, can the minister indicate whether any action has been taken or progress made by the government in an effort to make pesticides and other agricultural chemicals available to Canadian farmers at a price at least comparable to the price paid by farmers for the same chemicals in the United States.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am sure the hon. member is well aware that we do not have any legislation which authorizes us to control the prices of these products. I think the hon. member is also aware that in so far as tariffs and that sort of thing are concerned, there is no great problem in that area.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Some weeks ago I asked the minister whether he would consider tabling a copy of the new regulations governing the conditions at the student's residence at Akaitcho Hall in Yellowknife. I understand he now has a copy and I should like to inquire whether he would be in a position to table it.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have here the English and French versions of those regulations and the statement on the standards used and on the activity program for the students, which I want to table immediately in both languages, for the information of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
DEBATES	8625
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I want to answer another question put to me a few days ago.
The hon. member for Skeena asked me a question about the findings of the Auditor-General in regard to the Northwest Territories and the answer is that the Commissioner for the Northwest Territories had meetings with the Auditor General on this matter. I am informed that they both agreed that the accounts referred to by the Auditor-General have been settled by the government of the Northwest Territories.



ASSISTANCE IN FARM STORAGE COSTS

Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that the quantity of grain shipped at all points in western Canada during the current crop year will not likely exceed the six bushel quota, would the minister assist in financing the cost of new on-the-farm storage by granting an additional cash advance of 50 cents per bushel over and above the six bushel quota?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We will take the hon. member's question as a representation.



HOUSING


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister in charge of housing. In his absence, however, perhaps the acting minister could either answer it or take it as notice. On April 29 I inquired into the availability of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation mortgage funds for the construction of high rise apartments at Thompson, Manitoba. At that time I was advised that the application was under consideration. I wonder whether I might now have an answer as to whether or not the application is approved, or when it will be approved.


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: There is nothing further to report at this time.
May 13, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry INDUSTRY



AUTOMOBILES-FORD CANADIAN PRICES

Mr. J. Edward Broadbenl (Oshawa-Whilby):: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and is supplementary to one asked earlier. A short time ago, before a committee of the house, the minister indicated he would be having discussions with the officials of Ford Motor Company concerning the prices of automobiles in this country. Could the minister tell us whether he has had these conversations and what the results were?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I had my conversations and received a very long explanation, which I will give personally to the hon. member.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmoni):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. It arises out of two representations made to the minister in recent days, one by the National Farmers Union and the other by the legislature of Prince Edward Island, with regard to a support price for maritime potatoes which are still in storage as of the middle of May, and may still be in storage as of the middle of June. I wonder what the response of the minister has been in this regard.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We have heard these representations. Indeed not only on one but on several occasions the Minister of Agriculture from Prince Edward Island has made representations in this regard. I am very happy to report there has been a very pleasant and indeed significant increase in the price of potatoes in the last few days.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I have a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the price increase referred to by the minister has been only a minor one in connection with the price of potatoes, is the minister able to give assurance to the house that, should the price fail to meet the two cents a bushel minimum referred to in both representations, he and his department will take action.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is hypothetical.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolielle):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Would he be in a position to tell us whether the negotiations between the governments of Quebec and Ottawa concerning the national park in the Gaspe peninsula are completed?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No, Mr. Speaker.



WHEAT-PRICE STABILIZATION UNDER I.G.A.

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of representations which were made under the International Grains Arrangement regarding prices in respect of sales of wheat to China, can the minister inform the house whether any progress was made toward stabilizing the prices under the International Grains Arrangement or is there any bargaining in process.


Jean-Luc Pepin: These conversations between exporters and importers have been going on for months now and they are continuing. I really do not know what to say that would be useful at this time. I said on Friday last that everybody seemed to be full of good intentions, but these good intentions are not materializing very fast in actual decisions.



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

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that apparently wheat was sold by France below the floor price established under the I.G.A. have representations been made directly to the government of France in an endeavour to get that country as well as other exporting countries to comply with the agreement?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, to speak frankly I do not think it would help very much, but we are going to continue to make these protests. We have made them before and will make them again. The truth of the
May 13, 1969

matter is that even if they sell at 20 cents or more below what we consider to be the I.G.A. minimum prices, the French authorities seem to do so with a clear conscience.



WHEAT-SALES BY CANADA BELOW I.G.A. PRICE

John George Diefenbaker: Having regard to Canada's strong objection to sales of wheat being made below the I.G.A. price, would the minister say whether Canada itself at the present time is doing just that namely, selling below the price agreed internationally?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I have already said so on a number of occasions. I announced it publicly, and the purpose is to be competitive. But the number of cents below the I.G.A. price is certainly far from being as wide as in the case of French sales.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like the minister to differentiate between an offence being committed because the difference involved is larger or smaller than the amount agreed to.



CANADA-U.S. EXCHANGE OF MARINE PRODUCTS

Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I should like to ask the minister whether he has held a discussion with his United States counterpart in order to have marine products and equipment moved more freely across the Canada-U.S. border. Perhaps if the minister is not in a position to answer, some other more appropriate minister might be able to respond.


Mr. Speaker:: The question might be placed on the order paper.



TRANSPORT


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Now that the minister has greater responsibility for Newfoundland, will he be appointing to his staff the only former Liberal member for Newfoundland defeated in the last election who is not now working for the federal government, and who is in the gallery today looking hopefully upon our procedure?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Business of the House



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture, as acting house leader, whether he would be prepared to outline the government's intention with regard to the business of the house for the remainder of the week.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I would be glad to try to do that, Mr. Speaker. For the balance of this week we would continue with third reading of Bill C-150 until it is completed. I shall not try to predict whether it will be completed later today, or tomorrow; but whenever it is we would then call item 43, Bill C-157, respecting pest control products; followed by item 36, Bill S-15, the Food and Drugs Act; followed by item 17, Bill C-153, the Historic Sites and Monuments Act; followed by item 65, Bill S-23, the Canada Shipping Act; followed by Bill C-120, the Official Languages Act. Then on Thursday-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: What about Wednesday?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We have had discussions
through the usual channels, and Thursday would be a day allotted to the opposition, when they will be given an opportunity to express confidence in the government.
On Friday we would continue the order of business that I have mentioned.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I believe there has been general agreement that the confidence motion on Thursday be limited to ten-minute speeches, with the exception of the lead-off speaker for each party. Has the government given consideration to this matter?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There have been some discussions, Mr. Speaker, and if it is agreeable to the house leaders we will agree to that arrangement.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, before we are able to agree we would want to know exactly what the subject is. Perhaps we could leave this question until tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: The matter will be held in abeyance.

May 13, 1969
Criminal Code



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, May 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner that Bill C-150, to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, be read the third time and do pass.
Mr. Rene  Malle@Champlain: Mr. Speaker, after all the tenseness we have been experiencing during the past week and even for several weeks, I am ever so pleased to come back, on third reading, to the main points on which we have been and are still insisting so strongly.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday we had the opportunity to hear-


Mr. Speaker:: Could we have order, please. There are so many conversations in the house that it is difficult for the Chair to hear the speech being made by the hon. member for Champlain.

I ask the hon. members to co-operate with the Chair so that we may hear what the hon. member for Champlain has to say.


Mr. Matte:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) and his Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mr. Cantin), summed up their views on the omnibus bill yesterday.
They mentioned in particular the fight we put up against the committee report. Mr. Speaker, in reading over what they said, I noticed the tremendous shortcomings in the arguments brought forward by the spokesmen for the Department of Justice.
In my remarks, I would like to point out those shortcomings and prove that even if all the amendments we introduced were defeated, it remains nevertheless that, in my opinion, we are still right. We are still fighting for a good cause and we would like our arguments to be listened to again seriously.
We would like precisely to refer to the very comments of the Minister of Justice who said

yesterday that he had been through a full and searching debate.
Mr. Speaker, we wish to thank the minister from the bottom of our hearts for his complimentary remarks to us.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
He acknowledges that this long debate on the amendments proposed when the report of the committee on justice and legal affairs was considered, was not as frolicsome as was suggested by several government members and their spokesmen outside the house, such as, for instance, an insignificant fellow like Mr. Marcel Gingras, editor of the newspaper he Droit.
Mr. Speaker, that newspaperman was merely echoing in he Droit the viewpoints of a few members of this house who thought we were simply twaddling on, that we were only stretching time. I therefore wonder who is right. The Minister of Justice or those gossip-mongers who even took the liberty of cutting in, like the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane) and the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain)?
Mr. Speaker, the minister himself said there had been a full debate; we put some life into it because life was what we wanted to save. We set our minds, our hearts and our souls to this task, and it has been a full debate. You cannot blame anybody for looking after his own interest.
The minister said also that it was a searching debate. Is it the minister who was right, or those members who saw red and forgot to reason and make really acceptable judgments, not only for us because we are members of the Ralliement Creditiste, but for the whole population? I quote the exact words of the minister:
In answering that remark may I say what ministers often say, namely, that we have had a full and searching debate-and I think I can say that with some justification.
We therefore thank the minister for his comments about us. He also recognized that we had made a fine contribution to this debate for which he is grateful. We thank him sincerely for thinking so and I am again quoting the minister who stated yesterday: There have been serious and deep differences of opinion on certain aspects of this proposed legislation. I listened to those opinions with great feeling because I know how sincere and profound are the convictions of members in some quarters of the house, particularly those opinions that are related to measures that affect private morals and the concept of life and death.
May 13, 1969

I would advise the hon. member for Matane and the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres to refer to the minister if they want to have a high opinion on the Ralliement creditiste.
Mr. Speaker, once again I congratulate the minister on viewing our contribution to the debate in that light.
However, when he states that it is the great majority of the people who support the abortion amendments to the Criminal Code, he is mistaken. Nevertheless, on hearing his statement yesterday, I felt he was showing much feeling, much sincerity. So much in fact that I read between the lines because of the numerous restrictions he made, that he was personally opposed to it and that he was abiding by a commitment already taken and which he felt compelled to fulfil. That is what you can notice when you read between the lines of what the minister told us yesterday.
With the support of a strong majority, we cast doubts, right from the beginning, on the validity of the amendment. If we were just expressing the opinion of a small minority with regard to the idology concerned here, Mr. Speaker, we would not have insisted so much to express our views on the omnibus bill.
We did it because we were convinced that we represented the majority, whereas the minister contends that the government does. He has perhaps forgotten to consider the people who took the trouble to write, send petitions, attend committee meetings-even those of the committee on justice and legal affairs- to express their point of view. When he says that the majority wants such a thing, the minister, I believe, labours under a complete delusion, and I would like to mention other evidence I received yesterday on the approach taken by people belonging to constituencies other than those of hon. members of the Ralliement creditiste.
I received a letter from the constituency of the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain), which shows that the majority of the Canadian people, even outside the constituencies represented by the Ralliement creditiste, think as we do. And this is why we proclaim so insistently that our position is justified.
The letter addressed to me yesterday reads as follows:
Dear Sir:
Several citizens in Champlain riding told me that you had consulted a number of people with regard to the omnibus bill and more particularly
Criminal Code
with regard to the amendments affecting abortion and homosexuality.
You will find rather strange that a voter not of your own riding should write to you to congratulate you and encourage you to hold your position in respect of this anti-natural and out-ofdate bill. I live in the Trois-Rivieres riding and I must tell you that the position taken by our representative at Ottawa does not reflect the opinion of the majority of his voters. I belong to various social clubs, such as the Knight of Columbus, the Kiwanis and others... and I am in a position to tell you that our member (Mr. Mongrain) did not consult us with regard to these amendments to the Criminal Code.
Yet, he conducted a thorough survey when his political future was at stake. He thinks perhaps that it was more important than the right to live.
If I am writing this letter to you it is to make you understand that in the constituency of Trois-Rivieres people are not different from elsewhere and that we recognize that every human being has a right to live. We also believe that moral values must be carefully safeguarded. It is difficult for us to understand the position of our member in this regard. Since he is a fluent speaker, it seems to me he will never have a better opportunity to speak up.
It is precisely for his oratory talent that he was elected and he knows it, but he should keep in mind that the tongue should never be more active than the brain.
The situation is lamentable, Mr. Matte; not only is the government unable to provide Canadians with a decent living but it actually violates the most sacred rights.
Four years under such irresponsible careerists will seem long and diflicult to us.
But as long as there are conscientious people like you and members of your party, we hope that a day will come when we will be less ashamed to live in Canada.
Carry on your good work!
Canadianly yours.
This letter is signed by a constituent in the riding of Trois-Rivieres. If someone has some doubts about its authenticity I will gladly show it to them and even to the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres.
Mr. Speaker, this is one of the many examples of what is happening in other areas of the country, other than those specifically represented here by the members of the Ralliement creditiste. This letter reflects an attitude we are familiar with. That is why I chose it; it truly expresses the beliefs of the population as a whole.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
When we are told that the majority of the people agree with that, allow us to question the value of the minister's judgment on that point.

warning, proud of having helped to rouse public opinion. I know very well that the minister's office, the cabinet must be showered every day with letters strongly objecting to this legislation. If it has not happened yet, it will before long.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer also to the words of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.
On many occasions, I have asked the same question since the beginning of hhis debate. My question which appeared on the order paper read as follows: What are the organizations or individuals who intended to promote the carrying of the omnibus bill, especially the amendments to the Criminal Code, concerning abortion and homosexuality?
The hon. minister replied there was none.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
But yesterday, the parliamentary secretary decided to answer, and I admire his frankness since he gave us the same answer I had given at that time and which can be found in the previous debates.
The parliamentary secretary had this to say yesterday:
We have been asked where the bill comes from. Not so long ago-
And he answered as follows:
Not so long ago, a man who today is the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) was appointed Minister of Justice and undertook the recasting of the Criminal Code which reflects the laws of present day society.
At last, Mr. Speaker, we got an answer.
Where does the omnibus bill come from? Where do the amendments to the Criminal Code concerning abortion and homosexuality come from? They come from one man, from the present Right Honourable Prime Minister. I had foreseen it as I have already mentioned. I said that any law that comes from the clouds, is bound to reflect the lucubrations of a 50 year-old young man.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary to the hon. Minister of Justice for having answered so candidly and with so much naivete the questions which 1 have asked myself since the moment the omnibus bill was mentioned.
The hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mr. Cantin) was also speaking about freedom. He told us-and I am going to quote him exactly, to be sure that I am not speaking in vain, and to assure the house that the fight which we
Criminal Code
led was not useless, that it was not filibustering, but a fight for freedom-and I quote:
The philosophy of this bill is simply this; in a society which, because of the social order which controls more and more the individual, interferes with his liberty, our legislation must be redrafted in order to respect to a greater extent individual freedom.
Mr. Speaker, since the French wording of this paragraph is of a rather doubtful quality, we might advise our good friend, Mr. Amedee Gaudreault, to write an article out of it.
Anyhow, I finally understood what the parliamentary secretary meant: that the law promotes individual freedom.
If the problem under study were not as serious, I would feel inclined either to laugh or to cry over it-I do not know exactly what. That is precisely what we have been trying to prove for weeks: individual freedom must be safeguarded. In order to do so, however, it is extremely important to start by protecting the individual from the very moment he is conceived. Individual freedom? Granted! Let us have laws to protect individual freedom, but let us first ask who is the individual. That is the important thing.
Mr. Speaker, all human lives have an equal value. It is not because one is Minister of Justice, parliamentary secretary or Prime Minister, that one has more personal value than the blacksmith, the farmer or the hon. member for Champlain.
If we agree that all human lives have an equal value, I cannot see why we should then ignore the individual in his mother's womb. It is up to us, it seems to me to protect individual freedom. Those who try to prove that through those amendments to the Criminal Code, individual freedom will be better protected, will not get away with such platitudes. Once again, leave them to "Amedee".
Mr. Speaker, at this point we would like to draw the attention of the house to the new amendment we intend to move in order that there might be more time to study the question.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin):
That the word "now" be left out, and the words "this day six months" be added at the end of the question.
Mr. Speaker, all human lives are of equal value, even if skills and talents vary from one person to another. All human lives have an intrinsic value. That is the basis of our concept of justice, because all human beings

May 13, 1969
Criminal Code
have equal rights. Everyone is equal before the law, everyone has the same right to life. Such right does not depend on physical or intellectual perfection. That we must strive to understand. Even the ugliest person in the world has a right to justice, whatever this person's physical development or mental state.
The life of a widow or of a disabled person has the same value as that of a normal one, and the life of the retarded child or of the infant too young to understand is no less precious than that of a genius.
We must therefore recognize the full value of the child in his mother's womb, as well as his full right to life as a human being. Such is the freedom of the individual, which spreads over every instant of the life span, from the very beginning of the existence of a human being. Any human being has a right to be protected, even during his embryonary stage. He has the same right to be protected as the child already born; his right to live must be protected and respected as far as possible.
Could we justify abortion when a baby might be born with a malformation? Only if we can justify the killing of malformed babies after birth.
Can we justify abortion in the case of a child conceived out of wedlock? Only if we can justify the killing of illegitimate babies in their crib.
Can we justify abortion because the child will be a heavy burden for the mother and her family? That is the argument of the New Democratic party. We can justify such an abortion only if we can justify infanticide for the same reason.
We are indulging in misleading comparisons. The value of that life still in the mother's womb is sometimes wrongly compared with the value of a living person. The only difference between both lives is that the unborn baby cannot be seen and is thus more easily ignored.
We are so anxious to defend the freedom of the individual that we are wilting to fight to the bitter end in favor of the freedom of an individual to whom one does not want to pay any attention because he cannot yet be seen. It is an awful thought that this may be the case in a Christian country. I wish to underscore the word "Christian".
The other day, I recalled to Your Honor that, in the house, at two o'clock in the afternoon, we waste two or three minutes-I am sorry, I do not mean that we waste them- but we take two or three minutes to say the 
Lord's Prayer at the intention of Queen Elisabeth and Prince Charles.
If everybody recites the paternoster, does that mean that we live in a Christian country, yes or no?
Are not 98 per cent of the population Christian? Is it a disgrace to put forward Christian principles? It is not. It is not scandalous to refer to them nor to say that the human being which is inside his moter's womb cannot protect himself, because he. is not yet visible, and to decide about his right to live. Mr. Speaker, is that anti-Christian?
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice said yesterday that there should be a clarification of the law on abortion because, at the present time, anyone can procure an abortion, and he even said that we, the Creditistes, could procure them.
Mr. Speaker, there will be abortions and we shall procure one on the government in due time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, it is precisely for that reason that we said that there was no need to legislate. But we regret the fact that this government should take advantage of some small gaps existing now in the law in order to extend it an to make all kinds of abuses possible.
We would have agreed upon amendments intended to prevent that a charge be laid against a doctor who would have procured a therapeutic abortion when the mother's life was at stake. But that they should take advantage of that small gap to open wide the door to abuses, that is for us a cause of regret and our reason for denouncing so vehemently this amendment.
The word "health" does not seem to add anythig anything but when we add "when the health" we are falling into abuses. And I have not understood yet why the minister has not taken into consideration all the examples we have given him and in particular those of countries which started with small pieces of legislation as this one. Health, then mental health, and that has always led to abortion on demand for $4.80 in Japan and for $60 a day by a single doctor in England.
Mr. Speaker, people could have said that we had made up those abuses, that they were figments of our imagination. But no, they are the result of accurate statistics, of actual
May 13, 1969

experience, especially in countries where certain forms of socialism have been implemented and this legislation has been passed since the coming to power of the N.D.P.-Labour government in England.
So as to have a good conscience, the hon. member for Louis-Hebert said that during the election campaign, he had met 200 members of religious orders, at the same time. I do not know why he was so intent on doing that. As for us, we did not bother about it. We let people think freely and we take no special steps to get in touch in a special way with members of religious orders. If he did that, it is because he had doubts. As for us, we did not feel we had to go and see them.
He says they must have voted for him since he won. Out of thousands of votes, how could he know the ones from the 200 members of religious orders who had come to his meeting? I do not know through what insight the hon. member could find out for whom his constituents had voted. As you can see, those are silly arguments to which Amedee could resort.
Mr. Speaker, when I consider all these objections, I feel we should all be more serious and I shall conclude by asking the hon. member for Louis-Hebert, parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice, to explain his last paragraph. I have read it over and over again and I still cannot understand it. I quote:
We sit here as legislators to protect the rights of society and the rights of the individual.
I do agree with that but just listen to the second sentence of this paragraph, and 1 quote:
And the individual will feel increase in need for a private shelter, so as to be better prepared to meet with the self-denials that social order calls for nowadays.
Mr. Speaker, I simply cannot understand all this.
He was speaking about abortion. I first thought that the private shelter he referred to was the mother's womb-I do not know exactly, but, in any case, I do not understand anything about it.
"Self-denials", I do not know at all what he was alluding to, and I would like to get some explanations from the hon. member on this very ambiguous paragraph which puzzles me, and which would mean, as the minister actually mentioned before him, that this legislation is admittedly not a good one. But those who live in parts of the country where the
Criminal Code
bill is unwelcome would be asked, to be careful, and to practise self-denial. Tell your constituents that even if this law exists, they must not use it.
It would have been so simple, instead of taking so many precautions, not to legislate on abortion and homosexuality, and even if one did, to do so in a really adequate way, in a way that would promote the development of the country, instead of bringing about its decline.


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

The question is on the amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the amendment proposed by my colleague from Champlain (Mr. Matte) is to postpone third reading of the bill for six months, and thus give more people in Canada the advantage and the opportunity to set forth their views and enlighten the government, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner).
Yesterday, I read to the house testimonies received from various parts of Canada. This morning again, I received testimonies coming, not only from the ridings we represent, but also from various regions across Canada.
For instance, from Ottawa, dated May 11- that is, the day before yesterday-I received a letter signed by Mrs. Dale A. Russell, 361 Wilbrod Street, Apartment 6, Ottawa.

Dear Sir:
Although we are neither French nor members of the Creditiste Party, my husband and I would like to congratulate you and the members of your party for the valiant stand that you are taking on the vital issues of abortion and homosexuality posed by the omnibus bill.
It must be disconcerting to have to bear the brunt of the fight and then to have to be annoyed with accusations made by Mr. De BanS who would do well to reread his history. Perhaps, if there had been a comparable group to the Creditistes in Germany, six million Jews would still be alive.
Respectfully yours,
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)

Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that the member for Matane (Mr. De Bane) tried to draw a parallel between our small group of Creditistes and Hitler and Mussolini.

May 13. 1969
Criminal Code
At that time, an honourable minister and This includes the Minister of Justice (Mr. two other Liberal members came and said to Turner). me: Do not pay any attention to him, he is
not too intelligent. That is exactly what we Mr- Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):
could see.	Copies of the cheque?


An hon. Member:: They are right.


David Réal Caouette: They are absolutely right.
So Mr. Speaker, I do not have to argue with the hon. member for Matane, who is fully aware that, in his own constituency the people are in favour of the stand we are now taking in the House. If he is not convinced of that, he will be the next time he visits his constituency.
Mr. Speaker, all this to say that we want the right to live not only for ourselves but for the whole population. We want the hon. member for Matane to live also, as well as the Minister of Justice, and as Mrs. Russell said: "If there had been more Creditistes in Germany, the Jews would probably still be alive."
We have nothing against anybody. We never attacked people who were alive or about to be born, and that is exactly our stand in respect of bill C-150 and above all in respect of the clause proposing to legalize abortion in Canada.
This mornng also, I received a letter not from Quebec or Ontario but from Nova Scotia, the province of which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) was Premier for eleven or twelve years, I believe.
Mr. Speaker, I have a letter from Mr. Andrew T. Moore, who works for the Andrew T. Moore & Sons, Sales Tax Consultants- people who know something about taxation- of 197 Victoria St. East, Amherst,-Nova Scotia.
Mr. Moore writes, and I quote:

Dear Sir:
With reference to my letter of May 6, accompanied by newspaper clippings dealing with abortion, addressed to you, I hope they have been of some help in your fight to block the passing of the bill now under discussion in parliament. So I am enclosing, herewith, another clipping I came across today.
I just learned from the C.B.C. TV news report that it is anticipated that the Criminal Code bill is to proceed to the third and final reading on Monday, May 11.
It seems that nothing much can be done now to block passing of the bill. But we can express our opinions, so I am enclosing herewith a copy of letter I am mailing to the Premier tonight, along with a cheque for $25 and would appreciate it if you could arrange, some way, to have copies made or mailed to all M.P.'s-
[Mr. Caouette.1


David Réal Caouette: You can have copies of the cheque if you want them but only one is good, the one I have received. You can have all the copies you want.
-or to some citizens who may be interested. If this could not be arranged maybe you could arrange to use the cheque by having the letter published in an Ottawa daily newspaper or pass it along to someone like Richard Jackson, journalist. I am leaving the matter in your hands. I might also mention that I am not looking for publicity but you are free to use my name if required.

Mr. Speaker, that is another piece of evidence from someone who is not a Creditiste, who may not be a Catholic, but who takes the same position as we have done and are doing today.
When we consider the feedback from the press in general, either English or French, we realize that many journalists support our position.
For instance, in the Monday, May 12 issue of L'Action of Quebec City, we can read, and I quote:
Between you and me. A filibuster which is called for.
That is the opposite of what the hon. member for Matane said against us.
Here is what VAction says:
I understand at present, there is filibustering, in Ottawa. And who, I ask you. is conducting those paralyzing manoeuvres? Those scurvy wretches, those M.P.s, those members-
-We could add: those Hitlers, those Mus-solinis, to please the member for Matane.
-members of the Ralliement Creditiste who are waging an unremitting war against the part of the omnibus bill regarding abortion.
How guilty, how criminal are those representatives elected in Quebec who dare attack Bill C-150. Especially, since they are delaying the business of the house and postponing the summer recess. According to a despatch published Thursday, a Liberal member would have gone so far as to speak of disgusting methods.
The member for Matane. It is his immortal sayings which are published in the official report of the House of Commons' debates. "Disgusting methods", because we are opposed to Bill C-150. And the hon. member for Matane fancies himself to be intelligent when he speaks like this in the house.
May 13, 1969

Mr. Speaker, it matters little what terms the hon. member for Matane used, we are here standing and we shall remain standing and fight for the authentic just society in Canada. Considered from every angle, the remarks made by the hon. member fail to move us one little bit.
And I continue to quote the articles:
This really takes the cake. All those who sit in the House of Commons have the right to express their views, have they not?


Mr. Boulanger:: You have already delivered 200 speeches!


David Réal Caouette: I hear the hon. member for Mercier say that we have delivered 200 speeches. He so seldom makes himself heard that he finds 200 speeches amazing.
Mr. Speaker, there is only one reason that moves the hon. member for Mercier to speechify: To give his voters a load of applesauce in order to be elected. Once reelected, he is stuck to his seat as if with Lepage glue.


Prosper Boulanger: I feel that 200 speeches should be enough to bring the matter home.


David Réal Caouette: The hon. member for Mercier says that 200 speeches should have brought the matter home. He himself has not yet understood after 200 speeches. Besides, the government knows that it cannot bring anything home to the hon. member for Mercier. That is why he was seated at the far end of the house.


Prosper Boulanger: You are not very far from the end of the house yourself.


David Réal Caouette: I continue my quotation:
To be considered as serious and responsible, should they be always, automatically, of the same opinion as the government?
Then, we would be applauded.
When we accepted the second reading on the night of the third or last amendment, the liberals were acclaiming us. It suited them. But things are different when we are fighting: we are using "disgusting" methods.
I go on with the quotation:
The members of the Ralliement are fighting on a most important matter: abortion. And whether this pleases or not, they are rightfully bringing forth their views, their arguments. In any case, no one has the right to say that they are deliberately and knowingly wasting the time of the house.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
-We are not wasting the time of the house when we resort to all the recognized and accepted parliamentary tactics in order to prevent the passage of the clauses and paragraphs of a bill so rightly criticized as Bill C-150.
Criminal Code
We have those privileges. We will use them and I wonder who has the right to accuse us of slowing down the proceedings of the house.
Mr. Speaker, we are not wasting the time of the house when we resort to recognized parliamentary tactics.
Many other members of the Ralliement credi-tiste, as we know, have stated some reservations and made disapproving comments on the said bill. To stick to a quite recent opinion, let us resume the statement of Dr. Noel Walsh, chief psychiatrist at St. Mary's Hospital in Montreal.
Dr. Walsh fears that the passing of the said bill will be a step towards the progressive deterioration of human rights. He pretends that when the bill has become law, it will have harmful effects on women, families and the quality of the Canadian life in general. He says he does not see any valid psychiatric indication to justify abortion.
Nonetheless, those who presently fight in the Commons against Bill C-150, on the matter of abortion, cannot be accused of indulging in a useless and unreasonable filibuster. Their views are worthy of respect.
Even the respect of the hon. member for Matane.
As irritating as their methods may be for some people, they are not disgusting. In fact, do we or do we not live in a democracy? In the affirmative, let us have consideration for those who dare raise their voices, expose the clauses they find dangerous for human rights and for society as a whole.
That has been written in L'Action, of Quebec City, Mr. Speaker. They are not Creditistes the newspapermen of VAction in Quebec City.
I could have quoted, this afternoon, articles published in English-language newspapers from Western Canada, which back up our position on this bill. We do not introduce an amendment for the sake of doing so, but in order to put off consideration of the bill as far back in the future as possible and to enable the Canadian people to make representations to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Justice and cause them to respect the opinion of most Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, our attitude is based on logic. The government is snowed under by thousands of letters from people protesting against Bill C-150.
Yesterday, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) told me she also received a great number of letters in favour of abortion. I told her: Bring them to the house and read at least 10 of them.
In all the mail I received, I had two letters blaming us, of the Creditiste party, for our stand in this house, and I had hundreds of

May 13, 1969
Criminal Code
other letters of congratulation from all parts of Canada.
The same is true for the hon. members opposite. If they received letters in favour of the legislation on abortion, why do they not stand up and quote them? Simply because they have none.
The minister received thousands of petitions against abortion, homosexuality and Bill C-150. Some 70,000 signatures from Montrealers have been forwarded to the Prime Minister, and he stated in the house: I have received perhaps 6,000 signatures. It is not 6,000, but 70,000. The arithmetic of the government is poor, when the time has come to count. Numbers are forgotten, and memory is lost. The Minister of Justice himself has lost his memory.
He is a gentleman, a minister for whom I have much respect, but, at one time, he was asking that the bill be divided up according to the various subject-matters. Today, he accepts the bill as written, saying: "We are committed." Committed to whom? When the Minister of Justice says that he is committed, that he has promised to accept the bill as it reads, he demonstrates his personal inability. He admits that he is tied hand and foot, that he is not free to act on his own, that he is not free to assume responsibilities, precisely because he is committed to the Prime Minister, to the government, to the Cabinet and to the Liberal party.
That is a position that we cannot accept. If Canada is a true democracy, and if we say that democracy means government of the people, by the people, and for the people, if it is readily agreed that a member is the representative of people, why not allow Liberal members to vote as they see fit and in accordance with the wishes of their electors? Why not recommend a free vote? That would be democracy.
Then, parliament would decide the matter. When the government sticks to its guns, saying: we are the Liberal party, we are bound, we are committed, then parliament does not rule any longer but rather the governmental majority.
If the government were not in a majority, if it were in a minority, the minister would have to withdraw his bill C-150, because we would never allow it to be adopted by the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: The hon. member for Mercier agrees with me. Look at him nodding his
[Mr. Caouette.l
assent. It is true, because the hon. member for Mercier thinks the way we do about the bill.
Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: You can say that because you will never be anywhere but where you are know.


David Réal Caouette: That is true. The hon. member for Mercier is our "best man", because he listens to us most of the time.
We might yet succeed in convincing him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Réal Caouette: It might be a hard, long and thorny job. It is taking a long time, but it is coming.


An hon. Member:: It is coming!


David Réal Caouette: A least he is a good listener, that is a fact.
Mr. Speaker, I have here a letter from Mrs. Gwen Jones, of Bothwell, Ontario. I have no idea of the riding she lives in; it may be a Conservative, a N.D.P. or a Liberal riding, I do not know. Here is what she says, and I quote:

Dear Sir:
Thank you for your fight against legalizing abortion for more reasons (if I may use that word). It is good to know that there are politicians with consciences who will stand up for what they know is right.
I am a Catholic, a convert to the faith, but concerning abortion I feel exactly the same as I did as a Protestant. It is murder against the most innocent human beings. I could sympathize with some murderers of adults but not with anyone who kills an unborn child.

Mr. Speaker, a doctor, Dr. E. Patrick, of the J. David Rodger, John T. M. Fraser and Edgar R. Harris medical office, in Ottawa, writes, and I quote:

E. Patrick J. David Roger John T. M. Fraser E. Harris
Medical Arts Building Ottawa 4
Dear Sir:
I enclose a photostat copy of a part of the London Letter in the Canadian Medical Journal of April 19th. It struck me as highly topical, interesting from a practical point of view and slightly amusing.
Since the caption contains a good deal of factual information concerning the consequences of the
May 13, 1969

abortion act in Britain I felt that it should be brought to your attention.
The problem as such does not really concern me in my practice but will be of great concern to my gynaecological colleagues.
Yours sincerely,
E. Patrick.

Mr. Speaker, I have other testimonies, but I won't read more.
I for one did my best to fight against abortion as presented in Bill C-150. My colleagues-as I said yesterday-performed a gigantic work.
We will not make a political question out of it, but we will make a clear and simple question out of it, for the people we represent here.
If I had received letters blaming me, I would read them. In fact, I read yesterday a telegram which does not blame us, but which would like to see deleted from the legislation all clauses on homosexuality and particularly on abortion.
Mr. Speaker, we have received practically no testimonies in favour of-
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question?


David Réal Caouette: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Since the hon. member is drawing attention to various letters he has received, I wonder whether he would like to read to the house a letter from Madame Mireille Bernier of Orsainville, Quebec, a copy of which was sent to him? It happens to be a letter that ends with the sentence:
In the meantime, thank heavens for Bill C-150.


David Réal Caouette: Maybe she was thinking of bingoes.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member will permit me as part of my question to point out that the letter deals solely with the question of abortion. It was a letter to me with carbon copies sent to John Turner, Real Caouette and Ovide Laflamme. Perhaps the hon. member would like to read it since it comes from the province of Quebec.


David Réal Caouette: If I have the copy certainly I will read it, but I do not know when the hon.
Criminal Code
member received this letter because I have not received it yet.


Stanley Howard Knowles: About ten days ago.


David Réal Caouette: Well, I don't have it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: have given you a copy, so you have it now.


David Réal Caouette: I have it now. Oh, this is what you just read-"thank heavens for Bill C-150". I have some letters which are opposed but, as I said, I do not have three letters in favour from all over Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You
have another one now. Read the first two paragraphs.


David Réal Caouette: I can read it, but as the hon. member received the original of that letter maybe he should read it himself. It is addressed to Mr. Stanley Knowles and reads: Dear Sir:
How very much I appreciated your speech in the house, about abortion. I fully concur that there should be no law for or against such a personal matter.
So she is only saying the same as the Jewish organization which asked us in a telegram to do away with everything regarding abortion and homosexuality. She is for the bill. The letter continues:
The only conclusion we can reach after hearing some of the speeches of the members, is that women are really not responsible enough to decide if a pregnancy is desirable or not.
I would challenge this lady on that.
Some members seem to expect a real exodus of pregnant women towards hospitals, as soon as the bill is passed! If men value the life of an unborn baby, even more do the women who can feel it so very intimately.

Mr. Speaker, this does not alter our stand. Mrs. Mireille Bernier of Orsainville, Quebec, is perfectly free to think that way.
When we look at the results in Japan, in England, in those countries where similar legislation was passed, we note that, today, in Japan, for instance, where the birth rate used to be 24 to 25 per 1,000 inhabitants, the birth rate has now decreased to 9 per 1000 persons.
In England, 58 per cent of those who resort to abortion are young girls, divorcees, widows and women who are separated from their husband.

May 13, 1969
Criminal Code
There are reasons for all that. That is why, we ask the Minister of Justice, to get legislation passed which, instead of legalizing abortion, would allow human beings to live decently, and guarantee mothers that they will not have any problems in bringing up their children. That would be far more constructive than the abortion legislation in Canada as advocated by the present government.
Abortion is required, in many cases, for economic reasons. Even the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway said the other day: The hon. member does not know the poor mothers who have to work and who, at one time or another, become pregnant. It is a source of trouble for them.
There is one thing I know and that the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway knows also, it is the fact that in the majority of cases, the mother has to work. Why? Because the family income is not sufficient. We have seen employment methods for everyone in all the Communist countries of the world. I have seen some in Sweden, and in socialist countries.
In Russia, for example, they say: Who wants to live has to work. This principle applies to women as well as men. In Russia, I have seen mothers 40 and 45 years old come out of coal mines as black as Negroes, wearing heavy steel or fiber glass helmets. And one has to work because the basic principle states that one has to work if one wants to live. That is the Communist principle.
If the purpose of man's life is work, then let us follow the same course.
If the aim in life of a human being is to find his soul and to become great, then let us change our present attitudes. Let us think differently, let us consider training the human being, let us consider respecting him.
When, for instance, families of eight or ten children are piled up in three or four-room apartments in Montreal in high-rise buildings instead of single family dwellings, the introduction of a bill intended to make abortion possible in Canada, is not surprising.
It is not surprising that mothers have to resort to abortion. Why? Simply because they do not have the security they are entitled to because the head of the family does not himself enjoy that security.
Therefore, what does that mean? It means that Bill C-150 is the result of alarming economic conditions in Canada, economic conditions that force human beings to live in unthinkable conditions.
[Mr. Caouette.l
In Montreal, whole families-and the hon. member knows it-live in kennels in certain parts of the city. Perhaps even dogs would not be kept in such shanties and there we see human beings, four, five, six children and their mother who has to manage with only her husband's small income of $50 or $60 a week, when he gets it, with unemployment insurance benefits, of $52 or $53 per week or with welfare, allowances of $125 per month.
Mr. Speaker, considering those circumstances, neither the Creditistes nor any intelligent person would blame the mother of a family who would resort to abortion. But we could blame the government responsible for the present economic situation in Canada, which prevents families from growing normally.
Mr. Speaker, there are causes and effects. If causes are not removed, we shall keep on putting up with the effects and like causes usually produce like effects. There may be exceptions but they are scarce. Whenever one sows potatoes, one seldom harvests carrots. Like causes usually produce like effects.
If we keep on showering praise on the economic administration which announces more restrictions for 1970, an economic administration that cannot find ways of building houses for our families, hospitals will have to expand to take care of the mothers who will have to resort to abortion.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
If the minister is not convinced of this, I am, and my colleagues of the Ralliement Creditiste too. Our fight will perhaps come to an end today or within two days. However, we shall do our duty as Canadian citizens, as Christians. We are not mere numbers, we are not animals, we are not wild beasts. We are human beings endowed with intelligence and will. As we are intelligent, we can state facts as they are and as we have will power we can fight what must be fought with all our strength: abortion and homosexuality, contained in that infamous bill, known as Bill C-150.


Mr. Andre Ouellel (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, on this proposed amendment, I should like to say a few words and draw the attention of the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise), who has quoted an editorial published last week end in a Quebec newspaper, namely L'Action, to another editorial published in Le Soleil, and I quote:
Filibustering at Ottawa
Are the Creditistes-
May 13, 1969


An hon. Member:: By Amedee?


André Ouellet: No, not by Mr. Amedee Gau-dreault. I shall indicate my sources.
A moment ago, the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) spoke without mentioning his sources, but I shall indicate mine. The newspaperman is Gilles Boyer, who states in his editorial, and I quote:
Are the members of the Ralliement creditiste, on the question of the omnibus bill, re-enacting the scenario that was followed by the hon. members of the Progressive Conservative party, under Mr. Diefenbaker, on the adoption of a national flag? We recall that the members of the Progressive Conservative party, during the Pearson administration, indulged in a filibuster to prevent the adoption of a distinctive flag. The members of the Ralliement creditiste are now about to engage on the same path while opposing the clause of the abortion bill which deals with danger to the mother's health. As speeches follow speeches among the members of the Ralliement creditiste in the House of Commons, it becomes evident that the point is not so much to inform the public as to filibuster. Meanwhile, discussion of important bills is delayed and the members of the Ralliement creditiste will thereafter be the first ones to denounce Parliament's inefficiency.
Mr. Speaker, I must point out to you that when someone on this side of the house starts to speak there are always chatter-boxes on the other side, on the side of the Creditistes who try to interrupt him. They seem to resent it when government members call them to order and tell them that they have been heard long enough. When we speak, they should listen.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. Order. I thank the hon. member for Papineau for having drawn my attention to that section of the standing orders. I should also like to take this opportunity to remind the hon. members of it.
It is subsection (3) of section 12 of the standing orders which reads as follows:
When a member is speaking, no member shall... interrupt him, except to raise a point of order.
I should therefore ask every hon. member to abide strictly by the order.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker to continue with my quotation of Gilles Boyer:
Thus, there remains scarcely more than fifteen days to consider those three priority bills: on the official languages, on housing and on income tax.
And the reporter went on blaming this filibuster of the Creditistes.
I think that the amendment brought in this afternoon is an indirect way of filibustering the bill now under consideration.
29180-547J
Criminal Code
We have been considering this bill for several days.
We spent almost a month studying every clause of this bill in committee and I will point out that the presence of the Creditistes in committee, when this bill was studied, was minimal since they appeared only for certain clauses of the bill concerning abortion. But for all the other clauses they were conspicuous by their absence.
And yet, this bill touches innumerable fields and the amendments to the Criminal Code are all as important as the clauses on abortion.
I think that a six month's hoist would be a strictly diversionary measure intended to prolong this debate which,-as was repeatedly pointed out-has been put to the test of public opinion at the time of a general election, last June.
The Creditistes representatives, throughout the province, have dinned into people's ears their objections to the bill. The only subject that they discussed in their political speeches was their opposition to this bill. And yet I do not feel when I see their little group down there, that they have won their case before the majority of the Canadian electorate.
In view of all these considerations, I think that this amendment should be opposed and that this bill should be passed without more ado.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinihe):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take much of the time of the house but on the other hand I cannot miss this opportunity of stating my position regarding Bill C-150 which is now under consideration.
I am not ready to condemn it completely for it has some very good points. However, I cannot see why the government has denied us the opportunity of voting on some of its items which are very similar and did not split the bill to enable us to do so.
There are some items I would like to vote for. For instance, I am in favour of the breathalizer and of lotteries. I would also like to be able to vote for the measure concerning the carrying of weapons, the improvement of penitentiaries, etc. By doing so, however, I would put myself in the position of having to vote in favour of things to which I have always objected.
I do not think that, in its present form, the bill is commendable. I would even say that it is presented to us in a devious way. It is a

May 13, 1369
Criminal Code
piece of camouflage intended to deceive us and to deceive also the people.
Once again, I regret that the government did not see fit to grant a free vote to each and every member. This question now before us, with all its various subjects, should have been dealt with differently and the members of this house should have been allowed more freedom to assess each case by itself.
Mr. Speaker, before coming to the conclusion I finally reached which is to vote against the bill, I first asked myself a number of questions. I then considered the representations made to me by some associations of my riding and I also took into consideration the opinion of members of the Quebec Association of Physicians and Surgeons, of the Quebec Hospital Medical Boards Association, and also the opinion of the religious authorities in my riding.
Some of the previous speakers have suggested that in dealing with this measure we should let religion influence our decision.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
To me, that is difficult. It is not easy for me to judge the measure before us otherwise than as a Catholic, and I rely on the recommendations and advice coming from religious authorities.
First, let us see what the members of the Quebec Association of Hospitals Medical Boards think of the proposed legislation.
On January 22, 1969, as many other members, I think, I received a letter from Mr. Robert Lavigne, physician, president of the Association above mentioned.
Here is what the letter said:
You will find enclosed the views of the Quebec Association of Hospitals Medical Boards on the matter of abortion presently under consideration in the House of Commons.
The report expressed the opinion of all physicians practising in the hospitals of the province.
We hope this will be enlightening and will help you take a position that will be fair and equitable for each citizen of our country.
What are the findings and recommendations of the Association?
I quote from the report that I have here:
We believe:
-that only scientific medical research will bring a real solution to the debate and we favour the creation of any task force.
-that abortion remains, in the present state of medical science, the killing of a living human being.
-that any doctor or hospital must be free to refuse his participation to such a medical technique.
IMr. Ricard.]
-that this technique involving the life of a human being (the foetus), the decision in this connection should not be left to the patient alone.
And the brief goes on to say:
We object to:
-a legislation that will give false hopes to the people.
-We also demand that the hospitals empowered to perform therapeutic abortions be designated by the College of Physicians of each province so as to make sure that the established standards will be met.
We conclude:
-It is for that reason that the Quebec Association of Hospital Medical Boards is against the proposed amendment C-195 as it stands now and would like it to be amended in order to limit the indications to cases of serious hazard to the life of the mother.
There is a philosophy put forward by some hon. members to the effect that we must live in our times and that the proposed amendments are designed to fill the needs of today.
I would say the physicians considered that question, in the light of 1968 and 1969, and I am of the opinion that if they arrived at the afore-mentioned conclusions, it is because they believe that it is in the interest of the population that it be so.
I received, just a few days ago, a pamphlet sent to me by the Most Reverend Albert San-schagrin, Bishop of Saint-Hyacinthe.
The pamphlet is entitled "liberalized abortion is worse than crime". In it, we find the teaching of the Church on abortion.
On page 5, one reads this:
Although it did not dwell at length on the question of abortion, Council Vatican II repeated generally but firmly the traditional teaching of the Church on the matter. "God, master of life", writes the Council, "entrusted to man the noble mystery of life, and man must discharge it in deserving fashion. Life must be safeguarded with extreme care from the time of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes."
Obviously, through those words, the Council condemns any direct attempt to kill the foetus, and not such care as may be required to save the life of a mother which at times, without it having been willed or sought, leads to the death of the foetus.
Is it any wonder that the Church should express itself so firmly on the matter? Speaking as it does, it only echoes faithfully the very solemn and serious commandment of God: "Thou shalt not kill", and bears testimony to the great law of Christian love.
Does it not here touch upon a question which lies at the very basis of true civilization and true progress: respect for life and the human being?
It is obvious that God's command is binding on the conscience, regardless of what legislation applies in the country.
May 13, 1969

Mr. Speaker, on the strength of this information, which I feel is of the best, I must oppose the measure before the house. When time comes to vote, I shall stand and vote against it. I shall then have the feeling that I have complied with the wishes of the vast majority of my electors.


Mr. Bernard Dumont (Fronienac):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to start by making a few comments on the remarks made last night by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), to us.
I think the minister missed a fine opportunity, through the amendment we moved, to prove that he was really against, as he has practically always stated in the house, introducing the bill as a package deal.
And when he argues that it would have been very costly, I can tell him that it would have cost nothing at all. We have a Minister of Communications (Mr. Kierans) who is very generous, and he does not cost Canada much. We have paper which is provided to us by parliament, and in my constituency, 15,000 letters can be sent within a week.
And with 264 members who might have conducted this referendum, this survey, we would have known exactly what the nation thinks, what the people mean, what they want to say aloud, and everyone, through specific questions agreed upon by the four parties, would have held a referendum which would not have cost anything.
I also noted the statements of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cantin), who said the vote was free. Well, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) rises, it is common knowledge in this house or elsewhere, that everybody must vote as he does.
But he further added that, this time, there was no question of reprisals. Therefore, we can assume that sometimes, there are reprisals, or it is intimated that there might be reprisals if one does not vote with the Prime Minister and with the government. The Parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice said so himself, and that time, and we believed him.
We also heard, last night, the socialist representative for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), who referred to-
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I would like to remind the hon. members, that even if they are given much scope at this stage, there is now a specific amendment
Criminal Code
before the house, aimed at amending the motion under study, by deleting the word "now" and by adding "this day six months". Now, since the motion as amended reads: That the bill be not read now, but this day six months, that narrows the debate considerably.


Bernard Dumont: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On the very matter of a referendum, I was referring to the expression "in six months that the bill be adopted", because after going through all the answers given during the referendum conducted by the members who are paid by Canadian electors and taxpayers, we would then have been in a position to look into the matter during five months, and announce the results in six months.
I shall stick to the amendment which is before us, and explain the remarks which have paved the way for the amendment moved today.
And among the arguments also set forth by others, preventing us from moving the amendments which are before us, we had the representation of the socialist member, who was saying: "People do not want to hear about the omnibus bill; all they want is employment and roads."
And when I saw the member for St-Boni-face (Mr. Guay) greeting these comments with loud applause, I thought that the member for St. Boniface was probably applauding, because the Pope had just announced that St. Boniface no longer exists; he was applauding and he could invoke the saints for the six month's hoist. I am quite convinced of it and that is why we, from the Ralliement Creditiste, decided to move this amendment, since the member for St. Boniface seems to agree upon some statements that were made in the house.
Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to point out a few things about the interpretation of my speeches in the house. When we do not give a written statement, it is unbelievable to read the mumbo-jumbo that is recorded in Hansard. I cannot understand why, to record the speeches and correct them for publication in Hansard, a tape-recorder is not used that would reproduce exactly-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order please. I recalled earlier that we had a specific amendment now before us, and I do not think this is the appropriate time for the hon. member to express grievances.


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, this is precisely the point. I do not want people to wait six

May 13, 1969
Criminal Code
months before they may understand what I say in the referendum we are asking for, and that is why I want what is quoted in Hansard to be clear for all and sundry.
And since I feel that my rights have been encroached upon, I think that at the beginning of my remarks it is very normal, very logical that I should explain that we cannot be really understood. For once, my speech is entirely written out, and I am convinced no one will have to wait six months, this time, to understand it.
I also hope that the newspapermen will be present to note carefully that thanks to our six months' amendment, they will be able to understand too, because as regards the interpretation we made of the omnibus bill, we had, for example, a sort of declaration from Amedee Gaudreault, that parrot at the service of capitalists like Colonel Gilbert, who commands that the Creditistes be held up to ridicule.
Even if we did propose amendments as important as the ones presented today, asking that the word "now" be left out and that the whole thing be examined this day six months, we will still see a representative of the newspaper Le Soleil, with a handsome salary, try to make fun of the Creditistes.
But all that does not in the slightest change what we have to say, and we will continue to demand justice for our people, because we are receiving too many requests from people all over Canada to allow the adoption of this bill, which would legalize abortion as well as homosexuality.
By the way, I have here a quotation to answer that other newspaperman called Marcel Gingras. The quotation is taken from Le Droit and is very recent, since it is the Monday, May 12 issue:
Your editorial of May 5, 1969, on the omnibus bill and the Creditistes

-including the amendment we propose, for the six month's hoist. He goes on to say:
-informs the people so badly that I cannot help reacting.
How misleading is it to consider abortion as a matter of theology and morality. It is much more a matter of science and of justice.
What is a foetus? It is a human being... in development. This human being develops gradually from its conception to its death; birth is not the beginning of life but a stage in life.
The latest medical books on embryology and on genetics confirm that fact. Last year, 25 doctors out of the 26 witnesses who appeared before the parliamentary committee on health and welfare explained those facts, and a few weeks ago, the Quebec Association of Hospital Medical Boards

appeared before the committee on justice and legal affairs to move, with slides to support its case, the existence of human life and speak of the development process-
We saw the slides and we heard Dr. Legare, presented by the Ralliement credi-tiste, and Dr. Jutras, of Victoriaville who spoke to us through the medium of the slides. This should answer the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) who said earlier that hon. members were never there to discuss those amendments.
On the contrary, when it was a question of fighting against homosexuality and abortion, the Creditiste members were always present. As we told it ever since the discussion on the omnibus bill began, if those two parts, legalizing abortion and homosexuality, had been deleted, the remainder of the bill would have been allowed to pass, though we did not agree on a few things. In order to allow the house to proceed with its business, we would have let the bill pass.
What the hon. member for Papineau said earlier, convinces us that it is precisely because we were always here when those two parts of the bill were brought forward, because we were making objections supported by evidence, that the population did not want the bill. His earlier argument that we were never here, is absolutely false and I am rejecting it.
I shall continue to read the remark of that person, who wrote in Le Droit, and I quote:
The bill has been studied in committee . .. but what kind of a study was that! If you look at the 24 booklets of the standing committee on health and welfare, you will notice that the fundamental question was studied very superficially. Individuals and groups came before the committee to give their opinion but, not a single expert was called in. In its last report-that it did not want to be final-the committee asked to be allowed a more thorough study. But it was not allowed to do so since even before the committee was called, Bill C-195-

which has since become Bill C-150

-was drafted and brought down in the house before the first report of the committee on health, in December 1967.
I had the opportunity to attend several sittings of the committee of justice and legal affairs and to read the proceedings of other sittings.
A serious study? No, a farce. The committee, with a Liberal majority, of course, decided to call six witnesses at the most to inform members and still the witnesses were not to discuss the subject matter. The Liberal members did everything possible to prevent the doctors from the Association of Hospital Medical Boards-
May 13, 1969

I am not saying it: this statement appeared in the newspaper Le Droit last Monday.
-to prevent the doctors from the Quebec Association of Hospital Medical Boards from presenting facts likely to dispel the far too obvious ignorance of the members.
And the word "Liberal" was left out. The hon. member for Mercier was treated with much consideration.
Following the committee study, 44 amendments to the Criminal Code were moved. Will a single one be accepted? I do not think so, according to the result of the votes recorded in the official report of the House of Commons' debates.
You propose new rules

-and there, reference is made to the remarks of the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane).
.-propose new rules and rigid ones to control proceedings in the house. I am dumbfounded. Is it not enough that some members are not free to vote according to their judgment on questions of such importance? Do you want also that several others be limited in their right to speak?
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
-We have such poor democracy and I am very disappointed to see that the media, which in my opinion should see to it that democracy operates at its best, are so anxious to praise a government where men are mere puppets.
Mrs. Marie-Paule Doyle, Lucerne.
And this is very close to Ottawa. There is another statement from someone in Ottawa.
As an answer, we had our ears plugged with three or four statements to the effect that on June 25 the vote gave the majority to a government allowing legalization of abortion and homosexuality.
So, I will quote from the text-because it seems that nobody understands and it has been quoted already-so that Liberal members will know-as it comes from a Liberal- that people precisely did not vote for abortion or homosexuality. They merely voted to follow "trudeaumania".
The chairman of the Liberal Association of the Ottawa-Carleton county, Mr. J. M. McGuinty, relinquished his post on Wednesday, by way of protest against the intentions of the government on abortion.
Mr. McGuinty, who teaches English at the University of Ottawa, considers unacceptable the procedure that was followed for the introduction of the amendments to the Criminal Code in the House of Commons. "Those who voted in favour of the Liberal party at the last election surely were not under the impression that they were supporting abortion", the outgoing chairman stated.
Criminal Code
The statement is not ours, but that of the chairman of the Ottawa-Carleton County Liberal Association.
When partisans of the Liberal party make such statements, I think that the hon. member for Mercier, the hon. member for Papi-neau and the hon. member for Matane should rise and quote them, for, like us, they have read about Mr. McGuinty's resignation in the newspapers-he is a Liberal county chairman. That is why I find it unthinkable that a majority government should wish to silence us when we suggest an amendment which requests a six month's hoist so that all Canadian people could study our bill and, through some kind of referendum, express their point of view after having discovered how things really stand.
"Besides", added Mr. McGuinty, "I strongly blame the government for having refused a free vote to the members of the house. That is simply a matter of conscience". In his opinion, a good number of people do not understand or misinterpret the bill under study. Few people realize that this bill will authorize the killing of an unborn child. According to Mr. McGuinty, the amendments to the Criminal Code should have been made the subject of more consultations among the population, through political agencies, before it was introduced in the House of Commons. "Under the circumstances", he says, "I feel it my duty to tender my resignation as chairman of the Ottawa-Carleton County Liberal Association.
Such cases undeniably prove to us that the majority government through its intransigen-cy is now making a mistake and that it would be most logical to accept the amendment we brought in this afternoon because when legislation comes before parliament I always ask myself the following question: What are its purposes?
And, furthermore, with the amendments we are bringing in, what role can such legislation play in this parliament or in Canada which we want as big as our ambitions?
1.	We ask that as a whole it should contribute first of all to the solution of the general problems that even honest citizens cannot solve alone.
2.	Protect the legitimate interests of the individuals.
3.	See beyond the individuals who, too often, are thinking of their immediate comfort instead of the general welfare.
4.	Any legislation must protect the weak against themselves and against the strong

May 13, 1969
Criminal Code
who could take advantage of them, and especially protect the young who are building the future.
5.	To support the parents in such a way, because they have the first rights within society, as well as educators, social workers, clergymen who are co-operating with the parents and this, even in the case of older children considered as emancipated.
6.	Any legislation must strengthen the respect of every individual for society, the legislature and the police.
7.	In short, any legislation must promote the development of the traditional civilization of the country; in ours, whether we like or not, it is the Christian civilization.
The authorities must avoid being partial to individualistic or extravagant views or practices considered by the citizens at large as being abnormal or immoral; they must also avoid relaxing precautions against evils of all kinds; or displaying a naive confidence in the adult mentality of a whole community, or compelling legislators to abnegate publicly their moral and religious convictions to support the party in those fields, or finally promoting the propaganda of perverts, because perhaps later, some will probably want to legalize that advertising method of perverts and nudists.
But can we not foresee that such a legislation, when passed, will miss its aim going beyond it and thus will complicate the role of justice?
We are really threatened by an epidemic, because it is not really a constructive, legal and traditional right, but a rather unsatiated passion.
There is actually a fresh outbreak of those venereal diseases, especially in countries advocating hedonism.
It is therefore essential that all those interested in the common good, especially the young and those who fear that public decency may become again an empty word or some hypocrisy, lodge some protests, either individually or as group, against the legislation in its present form. And if one claims that the present legislation cannot be applied adequately, it should be understood that the very transition from clandestine to almost officially approved status is a particularly dangerous matter, which must be handled with great discretion.
It is suggested in the proposed legislation. A contagious disease does not require only the sympathy of the public and of physicians,

but rather severe repression, very painful quarantine, from which everybody will benefit: the sick, the public and the physicians. If some people, by their greediness and their ignorance of elementary decency, remain perpetual children, they cannot be granted all the privileges of adulthood. Besides, barriers will make them less unhappy than would their uncontrolled corruption: in that case, severity is kindness, while weakness or broadness of mind is cruelty and grave imprudence.
Besides, I often ask myself when I think about this proposal to legalize homosexuality and abortion: Have we ever seen contagion cure tuberculosis? On the contrary, sanatori-ums were built so that patients could be isolated, as should be done with homosexuals, and thus allow for an earlier recovery and eventual eradication of the disease, as in the case of tuberculosis.
As for abortion, wanted by no one in Canada, as evidenced by the thousands of protests we have received, I hope that finally, through a free vote and the motion that has been proposed, the two amendments on the legalization of abortion and homosexuality will be put off for six months, so that Canadians will be able to study them. Personally, I think that since we are Christians we have been created not to offend God with acts contrary to His commandments, but rather to worship Him, to thank Him for the blessings of our life on earth, to give Him proof by acts of charity, to show Him our gratitude and to thank Him each day of the lives that are ours only temporarily. And the judgment He will pass at the end of our lives will decide of our eternal happiness or unhappiness.
Unfortunately, in this house, the opposite is happening. For instance, it is inconceivable to read in the newspaper La Presse, in January 1969, that our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has said that he has been baptized and that he goes to church, and yet he produced this famous omnibus bill in 1967 when he was Minister of Justice.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Having been elected leader of the Liberal party, then Prime Minister on June 25 1968, he passed it on to the present Minister of Justice to have it baptized with the members of the house as godfathers and the same people of our country as godmothers, although 92 per cent are Christian.
May 13. 1969

I tell you, it is a shame, it is downgrading, and I shall quote from page 5406 of Hansard of February 11, 1969:
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 ... 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-
-that bill put off for six months. I think this will throw some light on the matter, because we have in hand a statement issued by the Canadian Episcopate appealing to the conscience of everybody and especially to the conscience of doctors, lawyers, politicians and anyone connected with public life and public opinion, in order that this matter and its consequences be dealt with as carefully as possible.
To give all those people only six months to make a thorough study of the matter, I do not think this is asking too much, for any responsible Canadian, since, right now only one per cent of the Canadian population is interested in the matters of abortion and homosexuality.
Let us put the bill aside for six months. Much more pressing questions should be studied first, so that by withdrawing the bill or leaving it in abeyance for six months, we shall be able to adopt legislations that would enable each Canadian to enjoy a better life in a better Canada.
Further the freedom to vote according to one's conscience and to one's religious beliefs for each hon. member, for those at least who believe in God, not for men who believe neither in God nor in the devil like some kind of atheists. With this bill, the government is trying to abolish the fifth Commandment: "Thou shalt not kill."
So, hon. members, I ask you to ponder these things, before the Supreme Being and to remember that one day you will be called upon to account for your actions and for the way in which you have discharged your responsibilities. The people of Canada have not elected you to office to see you abolish the Commandments.
I would favour a six month's hoist and if, by that time, a majority of Canadians is for the bill, we shall bow to the will of the people. But we know that 98 per cent of the population would reject this bill if this postponement was agreed to and if the protests
Criminal Code
that, in a democracy, the people have a right to make, reached all 264 members.
If a human being has any rights at all, Mr. Speaker, the most important one, in my view, is the right to life. Without it, he has none. The right to life is the first one on which all other rights depend. That is implicit in any declaration of human rights, but the proposed amendments to legislation dealing with abortion do not recognize this fact.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes that everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person.
The Canadian Bill of Rights guarantees the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property.
Those two documents also state that all human beings are equal before the law.
The proposed changes to the Criminal Code deny this equality, by giving to medical committees an arbitrary power which they do not want, an arbitrary power of life or death over as yet unborn human beings. They also go against the United Nations' declaration of the rights of the child which says that children have a right to our protection "before birth as well as after birth."
In Canada, the promoters of the campaign for abortion started a few years ago by asking only for limited changes in the law. One of these, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and I am quoting an elector in my county, once said before a parliamentary committee, in 1967 "that we should set a limit somewhere". Today, however, he is asking us to erase any mention of abortion in the Criminal Code.
Whatever the Minister of Justice may say and whatever his purpose may be, this government bill points to the way of no return.
Do you want to be responsible for putting our country on the way to abortion on request?
Abortion is a crime because it destroys human life. If you want to tolerate the destruction of human life for the benefit of another human being's health, why not do it for other reasons as well?
If you will admit abortion for health reasons, on the strength of what logic can you refuse legalized abortion on request?
Even in a pluralist society, the first duty of the state is to protect human life. When a bill goes against that principle, a member has the obligation of opposing it.
In the eyes of some members, the present government plans may seem erroneously

May 13, 1969
Criminal Code
moderate. In fact, however, it has been proved that similar changes are only a first step. In Colorado, for instance, a similar act has led to a considerable increase in hospital abortions without reducing the number of illegal abortions. Moreover, this is but the start.
A few countries have passed even more permissive legislation, going as far as legalizing abortion on request. Almost all however started by legalizing abortion for so-called health reasons.
This is what was done in Sweden, in 1921. Later, in 1938, abortion for social reasons, "eugenics" and other reasons became possible. In 1946, the act became even more tolerant.
In Poland too, abortion was first legalized for vague medical reasons. In 1956, these reasons went so far as to include social reasons; today, in Poland, reasons for abortion are amongst the most permissive in the world.
Last year, the British permissive act came into effect as a result of a series of legal rulings which, in fact, legalized abortion for health reasons. The first of these rulings was given in 1938 and since, pressures have grown ceaselessly to legalize abortion on request.
Every argument in favour of broadening the laws on abortion is based on one or the other of the following assumptions: a) that the child that is not yet born is not a human being; b) that certain human beings have less value than others and, hence, that they can be sacrificed.
The proposed changes to our laws on abortion were defended as a compromise or accommodation solution. But when it is a question of fundamental values, there is no place for compromise, especially when nobody is forced to compromise. One of these fundamental values is the respect that we own human life itself.
What enlightened person would accept a compromise legislation authorizing execution without trial? This was, in certain places, a popular practice sanctioned by the conscience of the community. In this case, would a democratic government accept to legalize this kind of murder, if that is the wish of the local community?
What the government proposed is a law on abortion left to local interpretation, when it allows the killing of a human being for reasons of health which it feels need not be defined.

By the amendment we have introduced, we could, within six months, have it examined by every intermediary body, every association in order to enlighten the people.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
In fact, no later than at the beginning of this week, on my way to Ottawa, I listened to a radio program and the announcer, the son of a judge, was asking this question to the people: "Are you in favour of the stand taken by the Ralliement Creditiste?" I will say in passing that he is a good Liberal. He added: "When the life of the mother is in danger, are you in favour of abortion?"
As asked, the question will necessarily be answered this way: "We want to save the life of the mother". In our teaching as Christians, this is something sacred, a mother who has understood how great is her role, namely giving her life for another life. This is something very noble, very great which, as Christians', we accept and the mothers even accept to give their life, and in the possibility of the mother and the child dying lies the final proof.
During this program I heard the statement of a man who had known very well the lamented Father Lelievre. He stated that Father Lelievre had come from France where the doctors had stated: The mother must have an abortion because she is going to die and the son to be born will die too. The mother was saved, the son was born and we have known, in the province of Quebec, Father Lelievre who preached to us the Catholic faith we are not ashamed to state openly, provided us with closed retreats and did so much for society.
In the face of past experience I say to all hon. members of this house that they should require as soon as possible from an uncompromising Prime Minister the right to a free vote, as the Leader of the Opposition who does not make much noise finally agreed, behind the curtains, to allow his colleagues to vote freely on this omnibus bill. Let them find people who will call upon our prime minister to have the same thing on the part of Liberal members, so that we may at last know exactly the truth.
I also read in Hansard the statement made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), the only female member here. I can say to that lady, if she thinks we believe the mothers are only fit for having children, on the contrary, I say that with a loving heart, we want our wives, for they will continue to produce geniuses throughout
May 13, 1969

world, to be put on a pedestal, we want to upgrade the mother's role, we want to show to the whole world and especially Canada tor Christiandom still exists as an authority-that with a loving heart, we sympathize with her, but we sympathize also with our wives and also because the wives, the mothers, in short the person who has understood that the most significant thing is to give birth to someone, to another life, that we understand each other and will go far while setting an example to the whole world.
In concluding, if all the members from outside of Quebec are under the impression that we are causing too much trouble to the federal Minister of Justice, let us turn over these amendments to the Criminal Code to the Minister of Justice of the province of Quebec.
The Exchequer Court of the province of Quebec could adopt, apart from the Christian and catholic principles we are defending, legislation against abortion and homosexuality in accordance with our beliefs and the federal parliament would not have to bother with the problems of the predominantly Catholic people that we are in Quebec. Besides,
I cannot see why the government, and especially the Quebec Minister of Justice, so touchy as regards the Ste. Scholastique airport, for instance, did not protest, on behalf of the government, against this shameful law intended to downgrade Canada and which points to a degeneration of our people.
Mr. Speaker, before concluding, I support the amendment and I say to all members that a decision will be made after the vote is taken on a logical amendment that does not altogether do away with the bill. We simply ask that everything be postponed for six months. Considering the thousands of protests we have received from everywhere, we urge all Canadians to join forces in order to be tomorrow the inspiration of the whole world by rejecting this shameful bill and by asking that it be postponed for six months. At that time, indeed, everybody will agree to take into account thousands of protestats which will keep coming in for the next six months and to remove this act from our Canadian statutes forever.


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. Does the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger) wish to direct a question to the hon. member for Frontenac?
Criminal Code


Prosper Boulanger: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Would the hon. member for Frontenac allow a question?


Bernard Dumont: Surely.


Prosper Boulanger: Since I was going to speak in a few minutes and I have a notion that I will lose my turn, I shall wait a little. I wanted to ask him a question then, but I will do it now.
When you were talking of the supreme sacrifice of a mother who must give her life for another life, would you be ready to do the same?


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, this is a very good question. We do not have the opportunity to hear very often the hon. member for Mercier; he would rather whisper, but for once, he asked a logical question. I even tell him that I would be prepared to die because it is my role to defend the cause of Social Credit, which will ensure freedom and security to one and all.


Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to speak at any great length on this amendment. As a matter of fact, I am prompted to speak for only two reasons. My first reason is to make it clear on the record why I am voting against this bill. My second reason, also an important one, is to try to correct some possible misconceptions which may have arisen following the minister's statement yesterday. I refer to one portion of his statement as it appears at page 8575 of Hansard where the minister said:
I have drawn these matters to the attention of hon. members to emphasize the fact that, despite what has been said, where the amendments proposed before the standing committee that gave this bill detailed scrutiny were constructive and were improvements they were accepted by the government.
I am a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. It was my privilege to sit through practically all of the sessions during which this bill was discussed.
I have reviewed the minutes of the proceedings as they are reported and I find there were a total of 44 amendments submitted to the committee. The minister said yesterday there were 42, but I think if he rechecks he will find there were 44. Of the 44 amendments which were submitted, 30 were passed. It is interesting to note that of the 44 proposed amendments submitted to the committee, 28 were submitted by supporters of the government and 16 were submitted by members of

May 13, 1969
Criminal Code
this party. Of the 28 submitted by supporters of the government, 25 were allowed to pass. Of the 16 submitted by members of our party, only 5 were allowed to pass. I have examined the 28 amendments that were submitted by government supporters and I find, they were very minor. I think everyone is prepared to admit that the gut issues under discussion before the committee with respect to this bill involved the sections dealing with abortion and homosexuality.


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Would the hon. member permit a question? Is he prepared to recognize that the statistics he has cited indicate that members of the government party did their homework in preparation for the study of this bill?


Melvin James McQuaid: I am not so naive to believe that was the reason these amendments were passed. I have not been in this house very long, but I have been in politics long enough to realize just what goes on within the government caucus. The real issues in this bill were the clauses which dealt with abortion and homosexuality. Twelve of the 16 amendments submitted by our party dealt with these gut issues. I suggest that is the reason they were not adopted and were defeated by the government majority on that committee. I am not finding fault with the committee system. As a matter of fact, I want to extend my congratulations to the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Tolmie) who chaired the committee. He did an exceptionally fine job and was very fair in his rulings. I find no fault with the committee system and I am not complaining about it. I am merely pointing out that the 28 amendments submitted by government supporters were minor amendments. Not one of them dealt with what I call the real gut issues of this bill.
I agree that one of our amendments, introduced by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave), was adopted by the committee. Of the 16 submitted by our party, only 5 were allowed. I have worked it out on a percentage basis. Of the amendments submitted by government members, 89 per cent were passed by the government majority on the committee and only 31 per cent of those submitted by our party were passed. As I say, of the 16 amendments submitted by our party 12 dealt with what I consider to be the gut issues of the bill, but only one of them was allowed to pass.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


John Napier Turner: Would the hon. member permit another question? Will
IMr. McQuaid.]
he admit with respect to the amendments which were proposed by government members, which I will not admit were merely minor, that they gained the support not only of government members on the committee but pretty uniformly of members from all parties on the committee?


Melvin James McQuaid: I think that is a fair statement, Mr. Speaker, although I must say that some of the amendments submitted by government members were passed on division. However, to my way of thinking the most significant thing is that all of the amendments dealing with the gut issues of the bill, with the exception of one, were defeated by the government majority on the committee.
On the very first day the committee met, March 4, the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacEwan) moved a motion that the committee agree to prepare and make four separate reports in relation to (a) abortion, (b) homosexuality and gross indecency, (c) lotteries and gambling and (d) all the remaining clauses. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, in all fairness why was that motion not allowed? If it had been a lot of the discussion we have been subjected to during the last 12 or 15 days could have been avoided. I suggest that his request was not unreasonable because if ever there was a bill introduced into this house that could be conveniently broken down into sections and reported in that way this was that bill. The suggestion of the hon. member for Central Nova provided a very convenient breakdown of the bill. If it had been accepted and if a free vote had been allowed, much of the discussion we are having today could have been avoided, and the house could be carrying on with other pending business which urgently needs to be dealt with. In all fairness to the committee system, I suggest that so far as the consideration of this bill was concerned the substantial amendments submitted by us had about as much chance of surviving as the proverbial snowball in hell.
Let me return briefly to the second reason which prompted me to enter the debate at this time. That reason is my desire to make it abundantly clear on the record why I cannot support the bill. I agree with many of the provisions of this bill. I would like to see many of them enacted as law because I think they are of substantial value to the people of Canada. I speak of such things as the tightening of the regulations with respect to firearms, the breathalyzer test, harassing telephone calls, bail, parole, our system of trial
May 13, 1969

by jury, and probation. These are all very-worth-while amendments and they are changes I would like to see incorporated in the law.
But the unfortunate part is that in order to approve these very commendable and worthwhile amendments I also have to vote approval of a law which, when enacted, will make a direct attack on human life, and this is why I cannot find myself able to do so. This is rather unfair. This is one of the reasons the bill should have been divided, so that I could have voted against those things with which I do not agree and voted for those parts of the bill which I would like to see enacted as law.
This bill has been called a high point in penal reform. Some portions of it do constitute a high point in penal reform, but I say that those portions which will make it easier to secure abortions are indeed a tragedy and represent the government's abdication of its responsibility for the protection of Canada's unborn citizens. Modern medicine and biology leave no reasonable doubt at all but that abortion does destroy human life. If somebody can satisfy me that abortion does not destroy human life, that to abort a woman even in the early weeks of pregnancy is not murder, then I would be inclined to think the other way. But everything I have read to date indicates without question of doubt that life does begin at conception. This has been attested to by every standard textbook on the subject that has been printed.
Many times during this debate the argument has been advanced that less stringent laws are needed in order to halt the traffic in illegal abortions or backroom butchery, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) called it the other day. Very lurid stories have been recounted of quack abortionists preying on innocent women at a staggering cost in maternal life. But I suggest that the facts are quite different. There is not a scrap of evidence to support the very inflated guesses, apparently used for their shock value, as to the number of illegal abortions and the deaths that result therefrom.
There are no statistics in which we can have confidence as to the number of criminal abortions performed in Canada, but we have statistics as to the number of deaths which occur as a result of criminal abortion. These statistics are prepared by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and I suggest they are reasonably accurate because on every certificate of death a doctor is required to state the
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion cause of death. From an examination of these statistics, Mr. Speaker, one can see that for the years 1964, 1965 and 1966 the number of deaths in all Canada by reason of illegal abortions was only 27.
I share the concern of some hon. members over the fact that there are some illegal abortions. I do not think we can deny this. But I submit that the provisions of this bill are not necessarily going to stop them, and this is conclusively proven by the figures obtained from those countries where abortion has already been legalized. As a matter of fact, on the contrary there is evidence that permissive laws increase the number of illegal abortions rather than cut them down. If you want an example all you have to do is to look at what is taking place in Hungary.
The argument is also advanced that by widening the laws on abortion we will improve the status of women. This argument was advanced by the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway. I seriously suggest to hon. members that you do not improve the status of women by destroying the rights of other human beings, and when we widen the laws on abortion this is actually what we are doing. We are endangering the lives of other human beings because, as I say, it has been conclusively proven by medical evidence that a foetus is a living human being, and I suggest that to destroy it is nothing more or less than cold-blooded murder. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I say that it will be a dark day for Canada when this proposed amendment passes, as I presume it will pass by reason of the large government majority.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It is my
duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave)-Air Canada-strike of mechanics-availability of alternative modes of travel; the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir)-Shipping-change in registration of Cape Breton Miner; the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose)- Post Office Department-Prince Rupert- monitoring telephone calls.
Criminal Code

May 13, 1969
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner that Bill C-150, to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, be read the third time and do pass, and the amendment of Mr. Matte.
Mr. Gilles Marceau (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, after long discussion, and interesting exchange of views, we are nearing the time when we shall have to make a decision regarding the bill under consideration.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, we should try to do away with emotionalism and appeal, to reason, if possible.
I do not for a moment suppose that my decision is the only one that might have been made on that legislation. I do not delude myself into the belief either that I have the monopoly of truth, and I am ready to accept the arguments of those who take a different view of this legislation.
Even if we do not share the same political allegiance, we should have enough respect for each other to realize that we are here for the same purpose, that is, to help the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, in the next minutes, I should like to give you the reasons which, in my opinion, may explain the choice 1 shall have to make. So as to avoid any misunderstanding I must say that I am a Catholic, a practising Catholic not as perfect perhaps as I should be, and not always setting the example as I should, but as a church-goer, I recognize in the house that the Catholic doctrine as set forth by Vatican II is quite clear. In fact, it boils down to this: Life must be safeguarded with extreme care from the very moment of conception. Any direct destruction of life in the mother's womb is immoral. No civil law can change the moral law which we must obey.
Mr. Speaker, it should be recognized, I believe, that the bill under study raises several moral problems. And at this time we have to ask ourselves whether we are in this house
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard).]
to protect some religion, to endorse some beliefs, or to pass legislation.
This question, Mr. Speaker, can be readily answered. We are here to vote pieces of legislation. In some respects, they may come in conflict with the religious beliefs of some people. Yet, it is then we have the opportunity, faced with different opinions and beliefs, to stand united and cast aside our partisanship and our intolerance towards other Canadians who do not share our views.
Mr. Speaker, I believe it is time we made some sincere effort and showed that we want Canada to extend from sea to sea, a country where people will have the right to live according to the beliefs they think are the best.
I have followed the debate with great interest and I feel that my friends from the Ralliement creditiste cannot accuse me of having turned a deaf ear to them.
I admit, Mr. Speaker, as a representative of a Quebec constituency, that I was proud at times to see people from my own province who were able to rise and deal eloquently and convincingly with such an important subject and thereby show that there still exist people willing to defend themselves and above all, to fight for moral principles.
However, I must admit, Mr. Speaker, that my admiration may have stopped there. I would have hoped that the members of the Ralliement creditiste would have made this essential distinction, between religion and the law, between sin and crime.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the intervention made a moment ago by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Ricard) who, in a few sincere words has given us the answer to all the objections raiced by the opposition. He said in a flight of oratory that he could not distinguish between religion and the law and that therefore he had to leave the matter to the religious authorities.
Mr. Speaker, when one mixes religion and the law, one shirks one's responsibilities as a legislator.
Mr. Speaker, I have wondered whether as a Christian legislator, I should vote for or against what the Church approves or disapproves.
Consequently, I attempted to make some research in order to find documents that might enlighten me and help me to take a honest decision, a decision consistent with an opinion of my own, arrived at with the help of serious works of reference.
May 13, 1969

Thus, I chanced upon a statement made in 1966 by English bishops and concerning abortion. After giving a brief summary of the Catholic doctrine of which I spoke a moment ago, here is an excerpt from this text, and I quote:
A number of citizen do not accept the Catholic position. We do not doubt their sincerity and we understand perfectly their wish to bring to the present legislation amendments that would protect women against those who are called "back-alley abortionists".
Catholics do not want their convictions to become the law of the land. They only ask that doctors, nurses and those who could be affected by the bill, should not be requested to act against their conscience.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that when my friends of the Ralliement Creditiste are trying-quite sincerely I know-to force their views upon us, they are going much farther than the bishops themselves..
I have already stated that I was against abortion and against any measure which could encourage homosexuality in any way. I was basing my opinion on moral and religious grounds. I am still of the same opinion.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I have carried my research further and I found two texts from which I would like to quote a few excerpts. I believe they have helped me reach a decision. The first is taken from a document prepared by a committee of theologians of Laval and was published in the June 13, 1968 issue of L'Eglise du Quebec. This is a summary of what it say:
Civil law must serve the commonweal of the body politic. It must undoubtedly draw its inspiration from the fundamental imperatives of unwritten law, but it cannot adjust itself to them to the extent of prescribing all that is relevant to it and of forbidding all that is contrary to it. In other words, political commonweal does not require that every moral fault be considered as a violation of the law.
It must also be pointed out that a so-called permissive law may be preferable to a limitative law if it promotes the commonweal while respecting the various religious faiths, opinions, mental habits or customs.
Finally, another part of this text seems to apply more particularly to the present case. It is said and I quote:
All citizens do not share the same opinions on morality standards. The legislator does not legislate for a given group, but for the whole political community. It follows that we can, as a matter of conscience, as Catholics, disapprove amoral acts while admitting that a legislation which condones them may be justified.
Criminal Code
The second text I would like to quote, and which also seems to give us general guidelines on the decision we have to make is the evidence given by the Canadian Catholic Conference before the standing committee on health, welfare and social affairs. I will not quote the whole evidence, but only extracts which helped me to answer the question I posed myself as a Christian legislator: Whai should be my position about that bill?
I quote:
To place the role of the legislator in its true perspective, and avoid any misunderstanding, we will call upon the teachings of the recent Vatican II Council-
-This Constitution is predicated upon a simple and evident truth, that the same persons are at the same time members of the religious community, the Church, and of the political community. The political community and the Church are both "at the service of the personal and social calling of the same men."
The ideal then is that they should seek for the good of all a sound co-operation, taking into consideration the circumstances of time and place.
I continue with the quotation.
The Church is aware that its role and responsibilities are totally different from those of the political community. It is thus important that members of the congregation always clearly distinguish "between the actions they take in their own name, as citizens, alone or as a group, and the actions they take in the name of the Church in agreement with their pastors."
However, in the political community-according to the teachings of the Council-Christians must act in their own name, as citizens."
In view of the economy of salvation itself, members of the congregation will learn to distinguish clearly between the rights and duties which fall on them as members of the Church and those which lie with them as members of the human society.
Here is a quotation which seems to me, Mr. Speaker,-with all due respect-very much to the point.
I go on with the quotation:
Besides-is it even necessary to stress the point- the teachings of the Church do not pervade the technical aspects of social and political matters. It still remains the responsibility of the legislators to devise concrete means to adopt their convictions to the often complex situations of daily life. They must not wait passively for the Church to come to their rescue in this regard; but on the contrary, they must-in co-operation with their colleagues- seek effective means to promote the commonweal, more particularly through the drafting and the enactment of wise and fair laws.
In the light of the texts of Vatican II that I have just quoted, the answer to the question I asked at the beginning of my remarks
86S2

May 13, 1969
Criminal Code
seems to me obvious enough. As a matter of fact, I find it further in the quotation:
A Christian legislator must make his own decisions. The criterion of his actions as a legislator is not first and foremost the interest of a religious group, but rather the commonweal.. . Members of Parliament have a temporal responsibility. They may vote, and in practice they often do, according to what the Church prohibits or approves, because the things prohibited or approved by the Church are often closely related to the common good.
But they have no obligation to do so.
Mr. Speaker, I think that faced by the rules of conduct laid down by the Bishops, I feel quite at liberty to state before this house that even if I am not in favour of the moral and religious aspects of the two most controversial parts of this bill I can, as a Canadian member of a pluralistic society and out of respect for those who do not share my religious beliefs, allow them to use a legislation which they find to their advantage.
I do not think that this leglislation, as the minister said, will be forced upon anybody in our constituencies. It will remain optional and left to the decision of the individual.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think that my religion forces me, to say to a pregnant woman who does not share my religious beliefs but who thinks she has a right to get an abortion: "You are not a Roman Catholic, I will not allow that law to help you".
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I think that in dealing with homosexuality, it was not mentioned that in spite of the amendments, gross indecency is still a criminal act which may be punished by five years in jail.
And the amendment which will enable consenting adults to do certain acts in private, only confirms the inviolability of private life. When the attention of the members of this house is drawn to the cases in which such a principle has led to inevitable abuses, too much stress is put on isolated facts, which may unfortunately be too numerous, this may cause us to forget the principle upon which all the people in this house agree upon, namely that the private life of people is sacred.
Everything that happens in private is not necessarily moral, but the law, and especially the Criminal Code, must not be brought into play. People must certainly keep on following the dictates of their conscience, so that this act will not become overly permissive.
It is obvious that this act will have to be used in moderation and construed in the most restrictive manner.

Before concluding, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote the conclusion of an editorial by Mr. Claude Ryan in Le Devoir of April 23, 1969:
In a few words, Mr. Ryan gives us some guidelines in connection with the bill which seem to me very appropriate, and I quote:
Human law may allow many things, and, all things considered, it is better that it should allow more than less.
But the real criterium of the human life is still the conscience of the citizens rather than the law. We may always, if we are not satisfied with that legislation, continue to act according to our conscience. It is at that level that we finally find the quality of a civilization.
I therefore believe, Mr. Speaker, that I have stated some grounds serious enough to indicate to the members of this house that I am firmly convinced that with that basic distinction between morals and the law, the Canadians can apply a legislation which they consider right.
The future will tell us the results of that action. I think that we belong to a government which was elected, because the people were confident that we would take forwardlooking action and decisions, in short, that we would assume our responsibilities instead of dilly-dallying three or six months.
When we were elected, the population knew that we would adopt this legislation. I think it is my duty to endorse this policy but I repeat what I said earlier: from a moral point of view I accept the religious teachings. I find it said that we must choose among the various moral convictions of Canadians, but we have to consider the beliefs of the majority of Canadians and the previous votes of the house.
I confess, Mr. Speaker, that I waited to see what would be the results of the previous votes on abortion and homosexuality. They clearly indicate that a great majority of members of the house voted for abortion and for what is called homosexuality, but what, in fact is a measure to protect the private life of people.
From what I learnt, I have to convince myself that I live, not in a province, but in a country, that I have to accept its customs and beliefs and that I may, while having strong moral reservations, give the government a support which I hope will be of some use.
I shall not be among those who will hide behind the curtains when the vote comes. I do not think my constituents would be proud
May 13, 1969

of me if I decided to be away and to take a long trip at the time of voting.
I shall be there and shall vote as I feel best. It may be a mistake but at least I shall have the courage to take a stand after having duly pondered over it and considered some aspects of the question.
I now take advantage of the circumstances to congratulate the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) for his way of dealing with the government members while the bill was under consideration. I am one of those who, at a certain time, have voted against an amendment the hon. Minister of Justice had approved. That amendment was rejected and the minister accepted this decision. This proves that freedom does indeed exist, inside the Liberal party. We are subject to attacks which, I think, are unfair. The Minister of Justice has done a very good job indeed and if the law is passed, I think it will help to improve the condition of every Canadian.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, I have some short comments to make on two or three of the more controversial aspects of the bill. First of all I should like to speak for a few minutes on abortion. I will not put forward any ideas or enter into a discussion of the philosophy underlying abortion or whether or not it should be legalized. In my experience, which has been considerable in this field, there are two groups of people: Those who are in favour of legalizing abortion and those who are against it. There is no middle ground. We can only say that both sides tolerate each other. I may say that I belong to the group of people who believe that abortions should be permitted under certain circumstances.
I should like to congratulate the minister on making changes to the bill as it came from the committee and, specifically, on changing the definition of a hospital where abortions may be performed by the addition of the words, "approved hospitals". This is a good change because without it a good many Canadians would not have been able to have this service at a hospital of their choice, since not every hospital is necessarily accredited. It might well be that the term "accredited hospital" should have been entirely removed.
I should like also to comment on the establishment of an abortion committee consisting of three members. I feel this is unnecessarily cumbersome and is not in the best interests of Canadians. Having decided that abortions
Criminal Code
should be legalized, and they have always been legal under certain circumstances, we are now setting up a cumbersome mechanism to control them. Previously, most hospitals required an attending physician plus a consultant in good standing to rule on whether or not abortions should be performed. At present in all hospitals there are standards committees, which are becoming more highly organized, to guard against deviations from normal practice. Any physician who tends to perform what is considered to be too many abortions is. told that his standards are too lenient. Under the proposed law there will be a three man abortion committee, apart from the attending physician who looks after the patient. This is a very cumbersome method because it involves so many people. As a general rule in medicine consultations are taken between two doctors, and this works quite well. The addition of two more doctors will result in complications and a duplication of functions. I suppose the idea behind this provision is that it would be best for three people not associated with the patient or the physician to decide whether or not an abortion should be performed. However, I should point out that there is nothing to indicate that three people will do any better than the two normally required, namely the physician who knows the patient and his consulting colleague. The medical efficacy of such a method is open to question. I would also like to point out that the fact the attending physician is not to be a member of the committee means that the person who knows best whether or not an abortion should be carried out will have no say in the matter.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
So, I feel that this is a retrograde step which will not be in the best interests of the patient. Under modern medical practice the lives of very few patients are endangered by abortions, although the opposite has been argued. There are, however, a great many places which fall within this terminology "endangering a patient's health". Here, many factors need to be taken into consideration; it is a matter of relativity. I feel the transfer of responsibility from the patient's own physician to an abortion committee is not a good step from a purely medical point of view. The committee procedure now suggested is necessarily cumbersome and makes it harder to arrive at a decision. This, to some extent, endangers the life of a patient and it certainly increases the complications which may arise. Abortions should be carried out before the

May 13, 1969
Criminal Code
eighth week of pregnancy has been completed. From a practical point of view very little time is provided for a patient to present herself, have a bed found for her in a hospital and collect three people to decide whether or not it would be in her interest to carry out an abortion. Physicians are busy people; they move around a great deal in hospitals and outside them, and many of them are away at any given time.
Delay in carrying out this procedure would no doubt lead to some increase in mortality and to a considerably greater increase in morbidity, or associated complications. In my opinion, abortion committees will not function well in practice. It is well known that bad laws are always circumvented and then to become sealed off to prevent them from causing too much difficulty. I feel the abortion committees will take either a hard line or a soft line approach. I am inclined to think that for practical purposes the procedure will often consist of the patient signing a consultation form on her way past the hospital desk and that much of the value which the Department of Justice no doubt believes this amendment to contain will be lost. As I say, the committees will probably not function very well in practice and it might have been better to have retained the original idea of acting on the advice of a physician and one consulting colleague. In countries such as Sweden, where liberal abortion laws exist, complications are considerably higher in areas in which cumbersome abortion committees have to be consulted.
Then again, cumbersome abortion laws tend to discourage patients from seeking care along ethical medical lines; they tend to gravitate to the so-called criminal abortionists -abortionists who are often very good from a purely medical point of view. As a society I am sure we would like to have these patients cared for in our hospitals where those who are entitled to receive this service will be able to do so under the control of reasonable laws. My own feeling is that this abortion committee arrangement is too cumbersome. There is no evidence that it will lead to a reduction in numbers of abortions. In the case of country hospitals it will be difficult to find four physicians to fulfil this function, particularly since many of them do not feel they are able to serve on such committees.
In essence, the legislation before us brings about no significant change in the abortion laws apart from the provision for setting up these committees. Nothing has been said about population control, a subject which I 
believe we shall eventually have to consider. Nor does the bill permit abortion at the request of the women concerned-something which various groups in our society consider to be reasonable.
Again, this new abortion law does not in any way increase the chances of abortions being performed. There is no reason to suppose the number of abortions will be greater in future than those already being carried out in accordance with certain ethical standards. Perhaps the necessity of abortion laws draws attention to the failure of our society to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Perhaps the legislation which has recently been introduced in this field will do much more to look after the problem than either this bill or the discussion which has taken place during the last week or so. The piece of legislation we are considering does not in any way alter the indications for abortion, while making it much more cumbersome to have abortions carried out. Indeed, the amendment concerning abortion might well have been left in abeyance for all the value it really represents.
I should like to speak for a few moments, now, on the breathalizer test proposal which has been hailed as a great advance by many people. In England, presumably, such a provision was very effective in cutting down the number of accidents, and the introduction of the system into this country has received widespread support.
I am in agreement with this proposal but at the same time I do not believe we can expect it to have any marked effect in cutting down the number of accidents. I would refer hon. members to a news item which appeared in the Winnipeg Tribune of April 5, 1969, under a London dateline. This article reads:
^ The ministry of transport has reported a heavy increase in road accidents and the worst monthly toll of deaths and injuries since breath tests for suspected drunken drivers were introduced 16 months ago.
Provisional figures hurriedly published in advance of the Easter weekend disclosed that 600 people died on the roads in January, 102 more than in the same month last year. The total casualties were 27,700, a rise of 3,815.
"People are less frightened than they were of the breath tests," said a spokesman for the automobile association. "At first they thought policemen would be waiting round every corner. Now they know they aren't-and driving standards have fallen."
I would therefore caution those who feel the introduction of breathalyzer tests will improve our driving standards. I think their main value will be found at the scene of
May 13, 1969

accidents in deciding on allocation of blame. With these concluding remarks, Mr. Speaker, I shall resume my seat.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Hyl Chappell (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, the third last speaker, the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid), pointed out that in the committee several amendments were introduced by members of the government and passed, but that few of those introduced by members of the opposition passed. As a member of that committee I wish to say that I felt all reasonable proposals passed.
Some of them did not pass for two reasons. The majority of the amendments that dealt with abortion were, I suggest, not really amendments at all but sought effectively to destroy the purpose of the abortion provisions. If those particular motions dealing with the abortion provisions had been accepted, I suggest our law would have been placed 120 years behind the times. The social legislation of this country would have been made to appear rather backward. A period when we are rethinking the basis for legislative interference with individual freedom is no time for a particular group to try to impose their personal beliefs on the rest of the nation.
I wish to speak on some of the principles that are involved in this bill. First, I should like to deal with the breathalyzer provisions contained in clause 16. Although I have spoken in the house and in committee in favour of many of the amendments, and intend to support the bill on third reading, I am gravely concerned about the lack of protection for the individual in certain parts of the bill. I ask myself: Is it sufficient for us to believe that very few will be incorrectly convicted under these provisions?
Under the new section 222, which is commonly referred to as the ability impaired section, one may be charged with the indictable offence of driving a motor vehicle while one's ability to do so is impaired by alcohol. Upon conviction for this offence one may be fined
Criminal Code
up to $500 or imprisoned for up to three months, or both.
Under the new section 223, which is the section that makes the breathalyzer test mandatory, a police officer may, if he believes that the driver of a vehicle is committing or has committed an offence under the ability impaired section, demand that the driver take a breathalyzer test.
The proposed section 224 deals with the weight given to the reading resulting from the breathalyzer test and provides that, if such test reading indicates that the alcohol in the blood exceeds 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millitres of blood, the accused is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine of up to $1,000, to imprisonment up to six months, or both.
Now, what can happen? I have worked out some examples to demonstrate my proposition. If one is charged with having one's ability impaired, the evidence of the prosecution could be that of the arresting officer, who would probably say that from his observation made at the scene of the accident the driver appeared to be impaired. This would be supported by the breathalyzer test, which gave a reading, say, of .09 grams.
By way of defence, the accused could call the evidence, say, of three witnesses to confirm that he consumed only one ounce of alcohol up to the time of the accident, and that he behaved in a completely normal manner.
If the judge believed that evidence, he would accept as a fact that the accused had consumed only one ounce of alcohol, and thus, by implication, he would disbelieve the evidence produced by the machine. In other words, if the accused and his witnesses were believed, the accused could be acquitted, the inference being that the operator of the machine had erred in his testing technique or that the machine was defective.
An arresting officer could, and in many cases would, lay charges under both sections^-that is to say, the ability impaired section and the breathalyzer section-for the obvious purpose of obtaining a conviction under the latter should the accused be acquitted under the former. Both charges would be tried together in the usual way, and the same evidence would apply.
Consequently, the judge could very well find himself in this impossible situation: that while he acquitted the accused on the first charge of ability impaired because he found as a fact that the man had consumed only one

May 13, 1969
Criminal Code
ounce of alcohol, and that therefore his ability was not impaired, he would have no choice but to convict on the second charge because the evidence as to the amount of alcohol consumed and the driver's condition would not be relevant. In other words, the court would be powerless to relieve under the section; the machine would be all powerful. This situation could not help but bring justice into disrepute because an acquittal on the first charge necessarily discredited the breathalyzer test which was relied upon on the second charge for a conviction.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
Let us suppose the same person or his friend who knows the story is picked up one month later under the same circumstances as just described; that is to say, the driver had consumed one ounce of alcohol and had become involved in an accident. The arresting constable advises him that he is to be charged with ability impaired under Section 222 and demands a breathalyzer test under Section 223. This time the accused, remembering the earlier conviction based upon the findings of the breathalyzer, simply refuses to take the test. For this refusal he is charged under Section 223. That is, for failing to take the test he could be found guilty of an offence and fined up to $1,000, or imprisoned for up to six months, or both. Let us say he refuses to take the test because he believed the operator to be incompetent, the machine to be defective, or both. He is now worse off. Section 224a provides that if he refuses without reasonable excuse to take the test the court may draw an inference from that refusal which is adverse to the accused. This evidence by way of inference could very well cause the magistrate to disbelieve the evidence of the accused or his witnesses that he had only one drink. He could then accept the evidence of the constable and convict the accused under Section 222 and, again, under Section 223(2) for failing to take the test. The result would be, Mr. Speaker, that the breathalyzer test, supported as it is by Section 224, would have been all powerful and indirectly would have brought about two convictions because of the attempt to avoid it. Is this not putting too much power in the hands of the arresting authority? At best it puts a premium on the evidence of the arresting constable and, perhaps, too much emphasis on the importance of a single scientific test.
Although I accept, and believe that the public is ready to accept, the philosophy of creating a statutory offence for operating a vehicle with a stated amount of alcohol in the
tMr. Chappell.]
body, just as it has accepted as an offence an infraction of an arbitrary speed limit, I believe that the evidentiary aspect is faulty. In our endeavour to improve safety on the highways we must be careful not to net the innocent. Can we be reasonably certain that there is sufficient protection for the unusual case and for the innocent? The consequences of an erroneous conviction could be most serious to an accused from an insurance, employment or social standpoint. Other innocent people could be affected. Suppose a man is convicted of ability impaired, mainly because the breathalyzer machine gave a reading of 0.09, and his insurance company denies liability under his insurance policy. It may be that claimants against him for injuries arising out of a collision are unable to recover the full amounts of their just claims. It could also be that the breathalyzer was in error, but because the accused was detained for some hours he was powerless to be examined by other witnesses or to arrange for some other type of chemical test to refute the breathalyzer test.
I believe the breathalyzer is subject to error and, in some cases, serious error because of lack of skill or care by the operator or defect in the machine, as evidenced by the fact that it is customary to take two or three tests several minutes apart. I believe the accused should in all cases be given the opportunity to be provided with a sample of his urine or blood for a comparative or backup test.
Dr. R. N. Rabinovitch, a medical doctor and renowned authority on the subject, who gave evidence before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs in November, 1966 holds that it is wrong for the blood alcohol level to be determined by analysis of breath only. The late Dr. Ward Smith, who was then an expert with the Department of the Attorney General for the province of Ontario, in his letter to Dr. Rabinovitch on May 10, 1965 when referring to the consideration that the blood level should be determined by analysis of breath only stated:
I am sure that you would deplore the situation;
I do, possibly for different reasons.
Under British legislation the breathalyzer test is used as a screening test; that is to say, the reading indicates whether the arresting authorities should demand a blood or urine test. In England, after considerable original research, the Highway Safety Act made it a statutory offence to drive a vehicle with a certain amount of alcohol in the body. There
May 13, 1969

has been a reduction of accidents but more care was taken to protect innocent people.
The Canadian Bar Association, after lengthy study, some of it in conjunction with the Canadian Medical Association, recommended the use of the breathalyzer for purposes of prima facie evidence. However, they recommended the individual be given protection by making it mandatory that he be supplied with a sample of his breath and, in addition, that he be entitled upon request to a sealed sample of his own blood or urine. The Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, which received many briefs and heard many witnesses, in its fifth report to the House of Commons on February 9, 1967, recommended among other things that there should be legislation making it unlawful for anyone with a blood level of 0.08 per cent to drive a motor vehicle; that the blood level should be determined by an analysis of breath, with the provision that at the request of the accused there be blood and urine tests as confirmation. In addition the Committee recommended that the accused be offered a sample of the material; and, further, that all witnesses who had anything to do with the testing and handling of the sample should be available for cross-examination at the trial of the accused.
I believe it to be universally acknowledged by all experts that the breathalyzer operator should not rely upon one sample of breath only. The custom may be developed to take two or three samples, but the legislation does not so provide. Further, under Section 224, although the accused has the right to be supplied with a specimen of his own breath, there is no provision for the sealing or handling of that sample. Because the accused or another could tamper with this unsealed sample the court, of necessity, would be most suspicious of an analysis carried out by the accused. For example, there is nothing to stop the accused or his friends from breathing into the bag after the accused has taken the test. As I say, the court of necessity would be most suspicious of an analysis carried out by the accused.
I believe it would have been better for us to provide that in the event the accused is detained for more than one hour-thus preventing him from arranging for his own test-the arresting authorities offer facilities for a sample of his urine or blood to be taken and preserved for him. Surely, the provision for such a further test would induce the operator of the breathalyzer machine to use utmost care.
Criminal Code
This safeguard need not be unduly cumbersome or expensive. The arresting authorities would simply be required to offer the accused facilities for the taking of either a urine or blood sample and to hold the same for up to 48 hours in order to give the accused time to retain a solicitor and carry out whatever test might be deemed advisable. The arresting authorities should have the choice as to whether it would be urine or blood because, in many cases, a doctor would not be available to take the blood. Granted blood would be better, but in many cases it would be difficult to obtain. It would be up to the solicitor for the accused to create the chain of evidence in respect of the handling and testing of the sample. It is said by acknowledged experts that the blood test is subject to only a 5 per cent error and the urine test only a 10 per cent error, if properly carried out. Generally, both tests are more reliable than a single breath test.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I appreciate the fact that under the proposed legislation the accused might be offered a sample of his own breath, but is one sample sufficient? It is most difficult to provide for sealing. In any event, if the sample were defective, either through the fault of the operator or a defective machine, it would be of no help to the accused. Although the accused is not entitled to demand the test, he may request it. If he is released within a reasonable time, he may arrange for his own test. If this is done, over the next few months we will collect some statistics to assist us in determining	whether the
breathalyzer is always reliable.
In conclusion, may I say in all other respects I enthusiastically support the bill. I regret the delay of its passage through this house.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this amendment which suggests a six month's hoist. I think that this is a good way to try to stir the people's interest so that they may also make their opinion known to the members.
I think that after hearing all these speeches and, all these debates, I think there are still some members who are not aware of what is going on in their riding.
We are members of parliament in a democracy. We try at least to respect the will of the majority of the people who live in our ridings. We must act first at the level of our

May 13. 1969
Criminal Code
ridings, since the legislation should reflect the image of the population for which it is intended. I think it is our duty, our first duty to meet these people and to discuss with them. We are not sure of their intentions.
With regard to the omnibus bill, it is precisely what we have done and it is for that reason that we fight so that our ideas might prevail. I think that no one could blame us for the job we are doing. All hon. members, those of the New Democratic party and the others, put up a good fight when they want an idea to prevail. They have the right to fight. When some say for instance that we want to impose our will upon the house it is completely untrue. We can argue steadily and without flinching, but with no desire to force our ideas upon others. I know full well that I would be unable to impose my views upon the members of the New Democratic party because they are too democratic and do not reach the socialist level of the members of the New Democratic party. I know that, even if I tried as hard as possible, the fight would be lost in advance.
But still, I am not going to tell you that the New Democratic party wants to force me to accept their will. No. Their members are fighting for their ideas and rightly so. But do not blame us for the fact that we want to fight for our principles, to defend our social and religious principles.
Even if some wanted to argue that the law has nothing to do with morals, I say quite simply that in our position, as Christians and Catholics, if we remove morals from the law entirely, we had better return to our constituencies and not come back here, because we would never be able to reflect the image of our constituencies, of our province, and even the image of our country.
Of course, the different ways of thinking across Canada lead to a lot of controversy. The more so since the government has certainly made a mistake-it is mainly responsible since it did not divide the bill-because it gave us a grab bag of laws, mixing guns with homosexuals and all sorts of things. The bullets are so different that it is not possible to understand anything. That is why it is rather difficult for us to consider this bill and to vote.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
I was listening this afternoon to one of my good friend, the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Marceau), who had a hard time summing

up this famous bill and the proposed amendments. The hon. member for Lapointe made no bones about it. He said very simply, in his own personal way, as he felt it deep down inside, that he was against abortion. How I would like to read his speech. According to his religious principles, he is against abortion. But I cannot understand him when he says he is against the bill but that he will vote for the bill because the majority of the government members are for the bill, on account of the pluralism that prevails in Canada.
I wonder whether on account of pluralism we must assume such an attitude. We must acknowledge pluralism. One should fraternize with Negroes, but do we have to paint ourselves black? Will I have to paint myself black because I sympathize with Negroes, in our pluralist society? No, one must keep his own personality, his convictions, and I believe that is what makes up the population as a whole. One must defend his own convictions, be himself, and not vote for the others because they vote in such a way and because they are in majority.
Ask the same thing to the members of the New Democratic party and they will never accept. Never will the members of the New Democratic party, when they fight for something, take such an attitude. They will feel left out; they are right because they are convinced of their ideas. Even if the whole parliament were against them, they would still argue and what is more, they would vote until the last for their ideas.
That surprised me somewhat on the part of the member for Lapointe, for the end of his speech-which I followed with great interest, wondering how he would manage because I knew he personally was opposed to it-was rather nebulous. But when it comes to his conclusions, I am at a loss because he claims to be against it. He can vote against it. I admit, however, that the act will pass just the same because of the government majority. But I will not be kept from using my own personal right to vote, according to my belief and the principles I fight for. I feel that is quite normal. I would even say that it is logical for a man to vote according to his conscience and according to what he thinks of an act, and not to vote against what he believes, because the majority is in favour of it.
It could then be said that we are lead like sheep, and I do not want people to think that I followed like a sheep the way of the majority.
May 13, 1969

I have spoken several times on some of the amendments. I have spoken as best I could, using all the arguments at our disposal. This evening, I shall certainly not read again all the arguments in favour of our amendments, and again, in favour of this one. But I do feel that we have given varied enough arguments not to be accused, for instance, of favouring religion too much, or again, too little. First of all, I will not separate man from his religion although some claim that the law should be separated from religion. To my mind, man is a complete entity, a thinking and religious being, and the whole man must absolutely function as one.
We have pleaded religious as well as scientific arguments. We set forth as proof the testimonials of renowned doctors. I did not have the opportunity to sit on the committee but I believe that out of the 44 amendments moved, 30 were passed. Moreover, 89 percent of those 30 amendments had been submitted by Liberals. I do not know exactly what happened, but when we hear, for instance, another member confess that those amendments were all adopted by the committee by a majority-he did say by a majority, and he was right to say so-we realize that a strong majority on the committee was in favour of the bill.
As a matter of fact, if we consider the committee, the representatives of the N.P.D. and the Liberals made up a strong majority, and when the smaller group, on the other side wanted to object, they still were a 100 per cent majority.
All this should make it clear that a majority in the committee does not mean a majority of the people. I submit that the committee did not necessarily represent the majority of the people. And that is why we are opposed to the bill.
To start with, unfortunately the bill was not divided and we shall have to vote against the whole package. Had it been split, the debate would have been much more straightforward and sincere.
But as we were denied everything, from the beginning, we have tried to defend our position by all possible means, through medical evidence, in particular that of the Quebec Association of Hospital Medical Boards. They were against, when they dealt with abortion. Quebec physicians feel that any abortion is a homicide and we have led this debate because we too are convinced that abortion is homicide, and as we uphold the principle of life to
Criminal Code
which we believe that every human being has a right.
It is on these grounds that we maintained our firm position in an effort to show to the house that not only the Ralliement des credi-tistes and its members, not only the letters we received from all sides were against abortion, but that even science, organizations, Church authorities at the highest level were against also, and we kept bringing up all kinds of evidence in an effort to convince the government.
Did we succeed? I think that positions were so firmly held at first, that it was very difficult to change an order once it had been
given.
This afternoon it was suggested that it was already accepted, that their election campaign was based on the omnibus bill.
I am at a loss to understand what they mean, because in my election campaign I did not say a word about this omnibus bill, and I had only two meetings in my constituency.
And when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) came to my constituency, he did not speak about this bill either. He came to Saint-Felieien by helicopter and stayed ten minutes, and girls were brought in by bus from Dolbeau and all over, from Saint-Felieien, and there was a ten-minute kissing-fest and then he flew away. He did not speak on the omnibus bill at all, unless he told them in secret: "Get ready, I am going to abort you".
But he took off right away, and we saw him disappear.
Let no one try to tell me that information on this matter was given to the people during the election campaign, Mr. Speaker. That is merely a joke and that joke, I believe, was part of what was called Trudeaumania.
I did not take any notice of it because, in my district, we lead quiet lives with our families and when strangers come, we say hello to them, we are polite, but let them go their own way.
What I mean is that the Prime Minister did not breathe a word about the bill on homosexuality in my district. He did not have much time in the area to speak about it. One cannot rely on that. I prefer to rely on the testimony that I have received from my district and on the testimony given by doctors about abortion.
The doctors of the Quebec hospitals believe that any abortion is an act of homicide, because the foetus is a human being.

May 13, 1969
Criminal Code
Those are not my words, they are the words of a whole medical association. We cannot be accused of trying to moralize, this is a medical opinion. The doctors tell us that it is homicide-


Prosper Boulanger: Manslaughter!


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Manslaughter, well, that is really the limit! I hear the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger) say that it is manslaughter. Can you imagine that, to take so many precautions to have an abortion, and then call it manslaughter.


Gilles Marceau: That is a grim joke, to please you, because we know you are a funeral director.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: A grim joke! Do not take that as a joke.


Prosper Boulanger: It was said in jest.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Frankly, it is not funny at ah.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
And I continue with the physicians' statement:
In the present state ol medical science, the foetus is a living human being with the right to live like all other human beings.
They make themselves clear, do they not?
Even before the courts, the foetus is already considered a full-fledged human being-


Gérard Duquet: That is not true.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: I hear the hon. member for Quebec East say that this is not true. He repudiates the evidence of all important medical associations-
-since it is entitled to succession rights and the State allows itself to consider the non-therapeutic abortion a criminal act subject to life imprisonment.
It is universally recognized, by all serious obstetricians, that cases where a therapeutic abortion would really save the life of the mother are extremely rare, and that they grow less and less frequent with scientific advances.
On the other hand, an abortion aimed at improving the health or welfare of the mother or at preventing the birth of a possibly malformed baby becomes an act of social euthanasia. If a malformed being is allowed to be killed in his mother's womb, why should it not be possible to do so after birth?
Because we do not see, because the person is concealed, it is no longer a murder. Indeed! If one knows there is a man behind a glazed door and shoots just the same, that is not murder. Because there was a door inbetween.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the physicians are very clear and specific in this respect. I will not have the time to read all of this evidence, but I want to point out that when they comment on the government legislation, the physicians have this to say:
Even if we believe that doctors who have allowed the few therapeutic abortions that have been carried out, are certainly not criminals, according to the unanimous opinion of doctors, nevertheless, we feel that the proposed legislation will increase the number of illegal abortions.
And then, some suggest that this measure will reduce the number of illegal abortions.
You had the opportunity these past few days to hear such evidence. You have other testimonies here, namely that of the Alliance for Life. I think every member has received copies of all those reports. I think the Alliance for Life wrote to us every second or third day; they tried to keep us posted and to pass on information to us, and what was said about the health of the mother?
The Alliance for Life and the committee on justice and legal affairs have now reviewed the proposed changes to our abortion laws. However, because of the censorial measures applied to procedure, such review was brief and superficial.
In addition, few members seemed familiar with the 24-volume evidence tabled earlier before the committee on health, welfare and social affairs. It is quite significant, however, that the medical practitioners called upon as witnesses reaffirmed what was said before the committee on national health, welfare and social affairs, that abortion destroys a human life. That was the undisputed opinion of every doctor who appeared before the committee on justice and legal affairs,
Mr. Speaker, in another part, under the same date of February 18, 1969, the Alliance sent in another report on the nature of the human being destroyed. There is no need to read this because the members know enough about it by now and have heard enough quotations during the past few days. But I should like to draw your attention to a paragraph dealing with human conscience, because we have been told that this was a matter of conscience, a matter of religion. No, Mr. Speaker, there is more to it. It is said to be a matter of conscience since we are men with a conscience, but we are human and we are able to bring forward scientific evidence in support of our arguments. And what is said in respect of the conscience? Here again,
[Mr. Gauthier.l
May 13. 1969



it is the Alliance for Life that writes this, and I quote:
To determine what is destroyed by abortion is not a matter of opinion or conscience-
"Is not a matter of opinion or conscience."
-but it is a provable fact. Nor is it a matter that lawyers can solve, setting forth a legal concept based on false and outmoded ideas-
I do not say that for my good friend from Lapointe, but it is written here and I am not the one who wrote it. It is not for the lawyers to solve this matter.
We prove nothing by quoting ancient philosophers who lacked our present scientific knowledge. Instead, let us face the facts substantiated by modern observation.
Today, medical and biological sciences leave no reasonable doubt as to the fact that abortion is the destruction of a human life.
And further, it says:
Scientific evidence shows with certainty that any human life begins when the ovum is fertilized-
I read that because somebody said tonight that it was after eight or nine weeks. He said that after nine weeks, it was too late, that there was a risk of destroying a human life. According to him, Mr. Speaker, at eight or nine weeks, there is no human life. On that particular point, scientists tell us, and I quote:
[DOT]-when the ovum is fertilized by the sperma-tozoid ... Consequently, to destroy a child at any stage of his formation, from conception to birth, amounts to the destruction of a human being.
I think the member who said that at five, six, seven, or eight weeks, the foetus was not a human being, will necessarily change his mind if he goes by those scientific data.
The fact that life begins at conception is recognized by any academic text-book of biology and by any good encyclopedia. The new being-the offspring of human parents who is developing in a human womb-can only be a human being. It is logic itself. As for us, we are pleading in favour of that potential human being, if you want, in order that it will not be destroyed, because it actually exists as soon as it is conceived. I do not say so myself, because I know nothing about medicine. I have some knowledge of biology and other things but I know more about anatomy than medicine.
All this evidence was brought in not to make the hon. members lose their time, but to convince them that our ideas, our arguments were based on something, and if we succeed in convincing a few people, we will be pleased, but if we fail, we will certainly
Criminal Code
not assume the responsibility for the passing of this bill.
After the testimony of physicians, we brought in other evidence: requests of parents.
It has already been mentioned in the house that 70,000 Catholic parents of Montreal wrote to the Prime Minister and to other ministers to try to make them change their mind. In my opinion, all those testimonies, according to the behaviour of this ministry, fall off them like water off a duck's back and, when the question will be put, nothing much will be changed. Nevertheless, we must state the views of the people. We are the voice of our constituencies, the voice of the people, and we make it our duty to communicate such ideas to the house.
Catholic parents in Quebec have also taken a stand against homosexuality and abortion in the Quebec newspapers. There are others here; we have brought this additional evidence. According to the Journal of Montreal, and I quote:
In the opinion of the president of the press gallery, the omnibus bill would put the law into the hands of the underworld.
This means that the newspapermen have also read the omnibus bill and saw its dangers.
And we go on with the evidence. We have even some from the Comite d'action Hull-Gatineau on abortion, who are against it, as well as against homosexuality. I think that all hon. members, especially those from that region, must have received it.


Prosper Boulanger: And against bingo.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: I am not aware of their opinion about bingos, but I know that they are against abortion and homosexuality.
Now, all of us, all the Catholics, have the statements from the Catholic bishops of Canada. I need not quote everything, for I believe that all the Catholic members here have read their teachings and know what to think of abortion. We have also had communications from the Anglican Church, the English Churches, in which they asserted their opposition to the bill. The Catholic Church had this to say, and I quote:
Reminder from our bishops. The Catholic Church considers as unforgivable abortion and infanticide.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
And further on, in another article, dated January 30, 1969, there is a letter of protest addressed to the Minister of Justice (Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
May 13, 1969
Criminal Code
Turner); I believe he received this one. It says:
Catholic hospitals consider their position difficult as far as the legislation on abortion is concerned.
I think that all those letters of protest, let alone the protest from individuals, Mr. Speaker-and God knows we have many of them-should not be overlooked.
I have conducted an inquiry in my own constituency and I have received about 1,500 answers. Everyday we are getting more. Today I just received one from a lady from the city of Jonquiere, in the county of Lapointe, a Mrs. Helene Belanger, "C.D'A. ASS," 461, rue Sainte-Marie, Jonquiere, in case you would like to go and see her. The other day, when I asked the hon. member for Lapointe whether he had some news, he told me he had not. I did not receive any protest, he said. I quote:
Dear Mr. Gauthier,
While noting your statements on the omnibus bill, I thought that you could ask the hon. member for Lapointe about the fate of the 1068 signatures of protest from the city of Jor.nuicre alone which I handed to him recently.
If you want figures concerning possible misuse of the therapeutic abortion legislation, I can produce them.


Gilles Marceau: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I believe that my hon. friend mutilates the facts and does not say the whole truth. At the beginning of last month, I received a petition prepared in 1968, before the election and before the Prime Minister's statements on the purpose and the aims of that bill. I have inquired in my constituency. I met some people who recognized that they had been misled by the information they had been given and that some explanations provided since led them to change their minds, I challenge the hon. member to prove the contrary.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I would remind the house that according to our Standing Orders, and particularly to citations from May and Beauchesne, debate on third reading should concern itself with the provisions of the bill. I do not want to interfere with the right of the hon. member-would the hon. member resume his seat, please-but I wish to remind the hon. member for Rober-val (Mr. Gauthier) and other hon. members that debate on third reading should be restricted to the contents of the bill. I have

some misgivings about whether the exchange between the hon. member for Roberval and the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Marceau) is in order. I would invite the hon. member for Roberval to return to the contents of the bill.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, this is what I have been doing right from the beginning; produce evidence from doctors, from bishops and from individuals who are against this bill. It was the natural thing to do, because this is a letter I received on May 8. I did not have to ask the hon. member for Lapointe for an answer to know his opinion. But, the letter says this, and it is duly signed.


Gilles Marceau: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
I think my hon. friend is unfair. I am ready to answer everyone who signed that letter and explain my position to them.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Rondeau:: There is no point of order.


Gilles Marceau: Besides, it is a Conservative organization.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Valade:: Throw him out.


An hon. Member:: Where is the Sergeant-at-Arms?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I point out to the hon. member for Lapointe that if he is rising on a point of order he should cite the relevant Standing Order and the procedure to which he objects. I again caution him and other hon. members that to use points of order in this way serves only to diminish the importance of this procedure, and they are an important part of our procedure. The hon. member for Roberval.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This does something to me. I read such evidence as I read all the others. Strangely enough, he did not protest against the bishop's letter. However, when I just read a letter from someone asking me what has been done with the 1068 signatures she sent to the hon. member, he objects.
May 13. 1969

I shall answer. Here is the newspaper article. I shall answer and this is additional proof to let us know how many people there are in our ridings, in our areas, who are officially and directly against the omnibus bill.
I do not have time to read everything, but some are from Ontario, from the hon. minister's riding, but I do not have time to read them all. There are some from nearly all the provinces.
I have another one here from a Mr. Chabot, of Roberval:
Allow me to congratulate you for your fine speech as well as that of Mr. Caouette on Bill C-150 (Autobus).
He made a mistake, he wrote the autobus bill instead of the omnibus bill.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: I would have been harder still on Mr. Lewis and other Liberal members in favour of that famous bill which has taken several weeks of your time.
One must refer to Hansard to see all the tricks they use with those amendments and numbers to deceive voters. All the way I would have said no, do not kill the children. Reference has been made to 400-bed hospitals or at least 200 ones, what a joke. That guy Trudeau-
Mr. Trudeau-	.
-and many members will deplore the fact that population is decreasing in Canada due to the pill, etc. It Is not by killing foetuses that the population will Increase. There is only one simple way to increase the population: by granting allowances for each child.
Besides, they talk about mothers and unmarried mothers. Abortion can be procured when the mother's life is endangered. Where have there been such cases? There are very few. Caesarean sections are performed in good hospitals. Abortion is much more dangerous for a mother than a normal delivery.
I shall not read it all. Besides, I had not checked all the words, that is why I had to skip a few bad ones.
Mr. Speaker-	.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate because for many years the maintenance of safety on the highways has been part of my duties as a police officer. I hasten to add that I have no doubt whatsoever that the misuse of alcohol
Criminal Code
is one of the main causes of the high rate of death on our highways. It is not the only cause. Perhaps the prime cause is the general disregard for human life which is only too prevalent in our society. The wonderful opportunities we have to enjoy the full life, only too often are frustrated by carelessness. Alcohol is one of those things which dims a finer perception of our opportunities. There is no question at all in the minds of many of us who saw the wonderful film which was shown to the members of the committee and others concerning the disastrous effects of the misuse of alcohol on a person's ability to control an automobile.
It has been one of the prime facets of British and Canadian justice that we give the benefit of the doubt to the accused. I would like, therefore, to see the permitted level of alcohol set at one one-thousandth or .1 per cent. This would eliminate many arguments that we have heard that we should give the driver the benefit of the doubt. Some people think that they are in control of themselves after they have had a number of beers or a number of double whiskies. Be that as it may, there is no doubt at all, according to the film, that when you have .08 per cent of alcohol in your blood you are impaired. I would like to go that much further and say that we should set it at the nice round figure of .1 per cent, then all doubt whatsoever would be eliminated. This would be fair play taken to a very fair point. You would not have to worry whether your cough medicine had an alcoholic content, whether you had eaten more Christmas dinner than usual, or whether you had lost track of one drink.
I do not speak from hearsay. As I said, for some 15 years it was my job to be intimately connected with the results of the misuse of alcohol. I went out after the complaint came in; after the empty bottles were thrown out into the ditches and after most of the evidence was gone except for the wreckage. All that remained was the dead bodies and the sight of those people who might never walk again or who might never again have the proper use of their limbs. It is certain that the wreckage of automobiles and of public and personal property is immense. I hate to have to remind hon. members that the loss of human life in this great democracy of ours amounts to some 5,500 lives a year, more people by far than have lost their lives in all the wars since Canada entered Confederation. This is a disgrace to us.
So I am glad to see that this amendment to the Criminal Code is attempting to fill this

May 13, 1969
Criminal Code
terrible gap in our law and. to put some real teeth into our law. However, let me say again that I would like to remove all doubt about the permitted amount of alcohol in the blood when driving by setting it at a figure of .1 per cent. Then, there would be no argument about it whatsoever. If the police were able to establish that you did have this percentage of alcohol in your blood, there would hardly be any need for more evidence before the courts.
Some people argue that breathalyzers or blood tests are an invasion of our privacy. I am inclined to agree with that. But I must say that if one were to weigh the right to privacy against the terrible toll of human life, then I am sure that those of us who think we should drive with reasonable care and regard for other people believe that this small invasion of our privacy is well worth giving up if we are to remove this blight of modern civilization from our highways which results in the loss of the lives of hundreds and thousands of people.
So, I add my one small voice to those in favour of the better features of this bill. These people have put a great deal of time and effort into the preparation of these amendments in the standing Committee. I think we should certainly give them a fair chance. If we find that this law is too severe, it should be toned down. I believe that at present there is something seriously wrong in the law. I think we must take a bold step forward and make sure that people who murder on the highways are no longer permitted to do so by sloppy laws, by weak courts and by a poor administration of the law.
Here, I would like to add one or two words of warning. It is not good enough to have stringent laws; it is not good enough to have a well thought out and a well meaning Criminal Code setting down the permitted percentage of alcohol in the blood unless there is a police force which is well trained and respected to enforce those provisions.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
One of the most important things any police force can do, in my opinion, is to spend about 90 per cent of its time on prevention rather than trying to deal with the ill after it has occurred. Preventive police work is what we need. Although the public may be careless and hard to train, and slow to recognize its rights-I speak in this part of my talk to the policemen-those who are entrusted with the work of law enforcement have no excuse for ever forgetting that they are the 
servants of the public, not their bosses. They are expected to keep their tempers in all situations. After all, it is not they who are drunk; it is not they who are breaking the traffic laws; their job is to see that everybody gets home in the best of humour.
On several occasions during my training and during my service I saw policies laid down which had a dramatic effect on the safety of the community in which I lived. During 1938-39, in the city and environs of Winnipeg, a world traffic safety record was established of 228 days without a single fatal accident. This was in greater Winnipeg, a city with a population of some 400,000 people. How was such a record established? The reason was this: the police took the lead in courtesy; they treated the public as if the public were their friends and as though they were there for one purpose only, to make the highways safe for the people. They stopped drivers with kindness and courtesy whenever they saw an infringement of the traffic rules and asked the public for its co-operation. This approach to the enforcement of the law, a new one at that time, I believe, had such a dramatic effect that it spread to everybody in the area and for two-thirds of a year not a life was lost. These things must start with the police; the public will respond when they find that the policeman is their friend.
The civil authorities which hire and discipline the police and set the general tone of the force have been somewhat guilty over the years. There are some municipal police forces which demand, particularly of young members, that they work on some kind of quota system. Rookie constables are sent on the beat with a traffic book and unless that book is filled with tickets before the end of the patrol they are not considered to be efficient policemen. This has one of the worst effects on the enforcement of law that I know.
There is hardly a man who has not been stopped at some time or another for driving at 61 miles an hour in a 60 mile zone, perhaps been treated roughly by the police and given a ticket instead of a warning. I am not saying this is general but at times it is certainly the case. There are certain roads in Canada which are known as revenue lanes. Wherever this practice occurs it should be put down with rigour by the people who know about it. If reasonableness is shown, the public will respond. The public generally wish to be law-abiding. Occasionally they break the traffic laws, as each of us has done on more than one occasion by hurrying home, forgetting
May 13, 1969

our duty as good citizens. The best treatment people can get is close scrutiny by the police, a sympathetic hearing, and a firm and fair warning. Then, when citizens flout the law, they should receive proper and severe treatment at the hands of a magistrate who has heard the case carefully and reached a decision on the facts, fortified by an act which has some teeth in it.
In a case where a man insists1 on driving when drunk, under the new section in the amended Criminal Code a magistrate will have some authority to see that he does not drive in such a condition again. If there should be future offences, the magistrate can make sure that it becomes increasingly difficult for him to operate a motor vehicle in Canada. I commend this provision. A great deal depends, I repeat, on the attitude of law enforcement authorities and of the policeman on the beat. It depends on the co-operation of the civil authorities generally, of mayors, police departments and of the officials directly concerned at both federal and provincial levels. Any commotion at the expense of the public will backfire. Where the police are fair, the public know it; where the police are held in little esteem by the public it will probably be found that the blame does not lie on one side alone. I know that in the area in which I served the co-operation of the public was always good. The police took a fair attitude and people responded to that kind of treatment. One can expect respect for law and order when it starts with the law enforcement officers and the law enforcement bodies themselves.
I suggest we renew our efforts. To review the Criminal Code is not enough. We still need a program of education. Programs such as the Youth and Police programs which were set up in Saskatchewan back in the middle 'forties cost the people of Canada very few dollars in terms of what they got back. I would remind hon. members of such things as this: a certain town in New Brunswick had at one time the highest juvenile delinquency rate in Canada. A young policeman started a boxing club there. The club produced some fine young amateur sportsmen but, and this is more important, juvenile delinquency in that district sank to an all-time low. In fact, instead of a special session of the juvenile court meeting in that town every week, the court found little work to do and was eventually closed. Thanks to a little leadership by some law enforcement officers, this club became a centre in which growing young men took an
Criminal Code
interest in manly sports; the policemen became the best friends these boys ever had. Programs of this type are money in the bank in terms of citizenship in Canada and wherever they have been dropped they should be reinstated.
To turn to another subject, I say we should have held a conference with all the provinces long ago in an attempt to secure uniformity in our traffic laws. I was a traffic policeman for some 15 years, yet it confuses me when I drive across Canada and am expected to conform to at least 15 different traffic codes- each of the provinces has its own, as do most of the larger cities. In Ontario the motorist can turn right at a red light; indeed, he can be fined if he occupies the righthand lane and fails to turn right on a red light. In Quebec, if you turn right at a red light, you are committing an offence. This is confusing enough to a Canadian, but what must it be like to a motorist from another country who finds that the rules in Moncton are different from the rules in Toronto and different again from the rules which apply in Winnipeg or Regina? This is a disgrace to our country. A country with a small population like our own could well agree to standardize traffic laws. I suggest to the minister, when he has pushed this omnibus bill through, that he would make himself very popular if he gathered together the attorneys general of the provinces of Canada and settled the question of uniformity of traffic laws once and for all. I think that is a good place to leave it, Mr. Speaker.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, we have now before us an amendment tending to defer consideration of this bill for six months.
I feel pretty sure that, after having perused all the information which all hon. members have received, after having read also the briefs submitted to the standing committee on justice and legal affairs and after hon. members have heard this arguments brought forward in the house, this amendment would be welcome so as to give the hon. members an opportunity to meditate, since before such an important vote, it is normal that all members could listen to the people who have not been made aware of the importance of this bill.
We have read briefs, but it would be good for all members to have an opportunity to hear the people's views and to ponder. That is

May 13, 1969
Criminal Code
the reason why we have moved this amendment in order to postpone for six months the study of this bill.
One has to listen, to think, in order to act more advisedly, because the action we will be taking in this house by passing this bill will be most serious and will have serious consequences for our whole population for centuries to come.
Here, in the house, we have not heard any serious, logical and worthwhile arguments that might have induced us to pass hastily such a serious bill.
But we have noted that the party in power introduced this bill and that only two of its members were ready to support it, more or less brilliantly, the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) and the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane).
That leads us to worry even more, considering the arguments put forward by those honourable members.
We believe the house should set this bill aside, in order to give the people greater opportunity to make their views known to their respective members, after which we could vote on it.
I think, Mr. Speaker, we have proceeded the wrong way. Before trying to pass such a bill, we should have taken every possible means to eradicate the causes why pregnant women do claim abortion today.
The government should have, for instance, come up with proper pieces of legislation which would have resulted over a short period of time in less women seeking abortion. For example-and I should like here again to support my arguments on the evidence and experience of experts in this field-the government could have set up an education program in this connection.
I would like to back up my statement that Canadian youth and Canadian people in general have been given a bad sexual education. I refer to Dr. Mongeau's book dealing with abortion. I find on page 120 the testimony of a young girl, a Montreal bachelor and mother of a child, who had this to say with respect to sexual education for the young people:
"It is highly urgent that sexology and psychology be taught in primary schools. Those are everyday facts. Otherwise, young people will keep on hiding to read books and novels which are leading them astray and we all know that. How ignorant are Quebecers! I must say that, having myself been left without such an education by my mother or at my school, I became fond of sought-after books with more or less provocative titles."

Then, Mr. Speaker, the government could have introduced legislation with a view to completing the education of young Canadians on this topic.
Secondly, the government could have, and still can, train specialists in this field. Those specialists could, through the knowledge they would transmit to the public and to those who would claim their services, avoid that more pregnant women resort to abortion, and I refer again to the same book, on page 115, where it is stated, and I quote:
-that undesired pregnancies were for the most part pregnancies which, later on, after proper counselling by psychologists, are wanted and fully accepted.
Mr. Speaker, by means of training centres, educational centres, we could prevent a very great number of abortions and educate the young people who, because of a lack of education in that matter, will resort to the easiest means, namely abortion, once this bill is passed.
A little further, in the same book, Dr. Mon-geau said that the government should, through some program, educate people as to family planning.
On page 116, he says:
Therefore, family planning reveals itself one of the most effective instruments to fight abortions-
In my opinion, before wanting to resort to abortion in the case of a great number of pregnant women in Canada, we could use planning, the most effective instrument against abortion.
And a little further, in the same book, it is said, and I quote:
As a matter of fact, we have come to a situation very well described by "Le Conseil Superieur de la Famille" in their brief on birth control:
"Let us point out finally that a serious social discrimination is created as to contraceptive knowledge: the most gifted married couples, through fortune and education, have access to such knowledge, even though it is sometimes difficult to get necessary advice from doctors. The poor and less educated people are almost deprived of the information and advice they would need".
Now, Mr. Speaker, we could still, by such means, avoid a great number of abortions and the government, instead of introducing such a legislation, should adopt a prevention policy, providing for the education, the training of specialists in our society, in order to prevent more abortions. But the government is not doing so.
May 13, 1963

Criminal Code
As regards the information the public would be entitled to get from those various agencies, we can read the following:
Another organization has taken a non-equivocal stand on this problem: the "Conseil des Oeuvres de Montreal", in the so-called "Operation Renovation sociale". As for birth control, we think it is high time that information clinics would be made available to the public.
And further on:
We think that only a team made of specialists of various professions would really answer the needs of the couples who come in quest of such advice.
The team should comprise, on a regular basis, a doctor, a nurse, a social worker or a psychologist. It could require, for consultation, the assistance of a psychiatrist, a gynaecologist and a moralist.
I go on quoting:
Such clinics-
-of information or education should be-
-geographically well distributed in the country and free-
-and available to pregnant women in Canada. And, page 118, while still tackling the subject of information for pregnant women, we read:
A study conducted in the Netherlands has demonstrated how important were these clinics in reducing abortion.
It is a crying shame, that the government has no family policy. The only bill it has submitted to the house aims at killing the foetus without giving those defenceless beings the opportunity of being born and of living on their own.
Many other arguments have helped us in our fearless fight. They were of a scientific nature.
A doctor in England, speaking of how ridiculous abortion is, says this, and I quote:
If we were to kill the foetus for all kinds of reasons and social considerations, why should we not kill old people as well for equally silly social reasons?
He also said this:
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)

A doctor in England suggested that an age be set beyond which doctors no longer would strive to keep patients alive-why?-

Doctors could stop taking care of them so that those persons could die as soon as possible. Why could not the same arguments be used as for abortion? Why?-

-because they are overloading the health and welfare system;-

Why? Because, today, old people are the ones who overload the social welfare budgets. They are the ones who get the most money, in old age pensions.

-they are taking up beds so that young people cannot be admitted for needed medical treatment;-

Mr. Speaker, if we had to accept abortion for any reason pertaining to social order, for any imaginary discomfort or illness that women can have, why should we not forbid the doctors to cure the sick who are over 55 because those people are the ones who occupy the greatest number of hospital beds?

-they are traffic hazards; they degenerate into persons of neglect and squalor and they are a fire risk to neighbours.

They have become dangerous people in regard to traffic.
These are also social considerations which are as intelligent as the imbecile and stupid considerations that the Liberal government is now presenting to the house.
A little further, we read that we could kill the old because they have also become a fire hazard for their neighbours. We know that old people, through carelessness or because they are all shaky are dangerous and represent a fire hazard for their neighbours. These are, Mr. Speaker, stupid, childish and non humanitarian considerations. They are in the same line as those which are called upon to try and make us accept abortion.
I continue the quotation:

-'we can set an example of our respect for the sanctity of human life to a world that is sorely in need of a higher regard for human life and a higher standard of human conduct'. Now, when it concerns the preservation of the life of unborn children, parliament seems to take an about face. There does not seem to be the same high regard for human life on the part of some.

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to accept the arguments of the government. We care a lot about the old as human beings. However, the government feels more deeply about animals than about orphans, or unborn children.
Sometime ago in this house the Minister of Fisheries displayed great humanitarian feelings for baby seals which cannot see. But how come the Minister of Justice does not have

May 13, 1969
Criminal Code
the same feelings for human babies who cannot see either and cannot protect themselves because they are innocent, defenseless beings?

If we kill unborn children, then why not older people and call it mercy killing. In this way we can easily set aside our duties to care for older people-our generation does not want to be burdened with those who are sick or unable to work. We are doing them and ourselves a favour.

If children cannot defend themselves nor make a living, why feel differently about aged persons who at their time of life cannot make a living either.
The Creditistes deeply respect aged people; we have a tremendous admiration for all those who have developed Canada. However, we have as much admiration for those who after us will have to develop Canada, build it, lead it up on high. Other people will envy it. We do not like to live in a country in which we are told that if the legislation on abortion is approved, in ten years, 22 million foetuses at least-this is an assumption for at present there are 22 million Canadians- will have been destroyed through abortion.
But the arguments brought up in this house, Mr. Speaker, were weak and unfounded.
I have here such arguments called upon in England, for example, to obtain an abortion. This evidence was given on the C.B.C. on Monday November 25, on the program "Dossier", under the title "Morality and Sex".
A Young English woman explained for us the procedure to be followed in Great Britain in order to obtain therapeutic abortion:
"You go and see a medical practitioner who declares that you are pregnant. Of course, there is nothing he can do except acknowledge the fact, and then ask:
"Do you want to see a psychiatrist?
You must answer "Yes". The doctor sends you then to a psychiatrist who asks:
"Is having a baby liable to make you a prostitute?
Answer: "Yes!"
In that case, abortion prescribed!
It may be somewhat hypocrite and very much in the British tradition to modestly disguise abortion as a crypto-psychiatric problem.
However, Mr. Speaker, in his book on abortion, Dr. Serge Mongeau gives us indications in order to prevent abortion by education, training, especially of the young generation, and he writes the following:
Abortion is mainly the result of economic conditions.

And here is what he writes on page 120, and I quote:

the factors which bring about the rejection of pregnancy originate more from the social structure than from a decision not to have children based upon personal reasons. We have seen it earlier, our society is far from being hospitable to children.
Mr. Speaker, this proves that not only they do not want to improve the standard of living of the family, but that they want to reduce the number of children in order to bring it in line with the income of the father who is on welfare, on unemployment insurance, and who is taxed, robbed and exploited by this government and by other governments.
Further on it is said:
"Between the age of 20 and 40, the average income of a married man generally doubles, but his charges increase fourfold".
Children should be more welcome in our society. We could have a policy oriented more towards the family.
Every child born in a family requires a share of the family income for food, clothing and education. The needs grow with each child that is born, but the incomes do not grow proportionally, as is pointed out by two authors (Charbonneau and Mongeau).
Here is what he says when he speaks of the-
-downgrading of the family standard of living with the increase in the number of children, if the income is fixed; a childless labour household, with the husband only working, has been taken as basis: it was estimated that the standard of living would decrease as follows:
22 per cent with 1 child 36 per cent with 2 children 46 per cent with 3 children 53 per cent with 4 children 59 per cent with 5 children 63 per cent with 6 children
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
This is what Dr. Mongeau suggests in connection with abortion, on page 123. He says precisely what we, members from the Rallie-ment creditiste, have always stated, although he is not a member of our party. And I quote:
We should see to it that each citizen gets a minimum income, that a family allowance scheme is really of assistance to the parents-*
To provide, first of all, an average income for each citizen, secondly, a family allowance scheme commensurate with the cost of living, thirdly-
-that at the very least, the medical care necessitated by pregnancy, delivery, and the first months of the child's life, is free charge, and, that education at all levels, become accessible to everyone.
May 13, 1969

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have repeated this often in the house, if we want to fight abortion effectively, if we want to raise the status of our families, as well as the condition of the father of family, we must, first of all, amend our laws, provide better housing, ensure an education for our young people and, finally, secure for them a good future.
When we look at the thousands of young Canadians who, in a month's time, will leave the schools and universities, we are wondering what the future holds in store for them. They have no future. Look at the number of talented young men, students, engineers who have graduated in Canada and who are going to the United States to organize their future. Why? Because we have no future to offer them in Canada. Moreover, we cannot house them.
Mr. Speaker, we are investing an average of $55,000 to transplant a heart in a man who, even if he survives, will never be useful to our society. Why not invest $200 when a baby is born as a reward, and in order to help the mother meet her needs at the time of birth.
The Minister of Manpower and Immigration is also spending hundreds of dollars at present to bring in immigrants, and to get them adjusted in Canada. Why not spend that amount to enable a native-born citizen to live and earn a living?
Parliament is here, Mr. Speaker. We are in this house to protect the weak. We are here to protect honest people against bandits and hooligans. We are here to protect workers against trouble-makers. We are here to protect foetuses against the egoism of adults.
Well, Mr. Speaker, in Canada there is no problem of over-crowding and when we sang throughout Canada in 1967 the Expo theme song which told about our country with its wide-open spaces, were we sincere, since Canada is empty? If our country is empty, why pass a bill on abortion to empty it even more, because the population will be thinned out, as it is in Japan at the present time. In Japan, an abortion costs $2.75. In 50 years from now, as reported in an article published on April 20 in Dimanche Matin, the Japanese people will be exterminated. Why copy some legislation which has proved unsuccessful elsewhere in the world?
We have fought against that hateful bill which is not defended by moralists, sociologists or scientists. It is regrettable to note that the government, in its stubborness, is unfortunately ready in the future to do away with more than 50 per cent of the population. Such
Criminal Code
is the meaning of the legislation on abortion. I do not think that Canada is ready to indulge not in a luxury but in a hateful slaughter of part of our future generation. We need our population and our scientists as well as the brains of our future generations.
If, regretfully, we had to accept abortion because pregnancy is a cause of nervousness or neurosis, it would be a catastrophe.
There are reasons other than pregnancy why some people are neurotic in Canada. For instance, there are the taxes of the Liberal and other governments. To avoid cases of neurosis in Canada, before legalizing abortion we should abolish taxes, because this way we would be striking at the root of the evil.
The Prime Minister is a bachelor. As for me, I have seven children. We would be very unhappy if the Reaper took one of them from us.
We should also think about the childless couples who have the charitable intention of taking children in adoption. If, regretfully, we must allow abortion on request, even the couples who have no children of their own could not adopt any a few years from now.
There is only one reason for abortion laws, Mr. Speaker, a financial one. If, instead of being a financial burden for the parents, a newborn child brought joy to the family, and the country, we would not be debating in the house a bill as immoral and illogical as this one.
If the federal government offered $200 at the birth of every new Canadian, and the government of the province where the child is born gave $100, we would not have to talk about abortion anymore in the house.
Always for the sake of money we are getting ready to legalize the most dastardly form of crime there is. I am speaking about abortion, the worst crime Canada has ever known.
I have voted against this bill until now and I shall continue to do so.
I have a few more words to say. I shall also vote against homosexuality. In my view, homosexuality is a sickness that must be treated like any other. As for those whose homosexuality is a vice-there are two kinds of homosexuals, and, apparently, the Liberals have not consulted any medical works on the matter-whips are still being sold.
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that we should want to give Canada such an immoral law, one that goes so much against the feelings of the majority of Canadians. We are

May 13, 1969
Criminal Code
convinced, with all due deference to the press, that the majority of Canadians share our feelings, because we receive letters of congratulations every day. It is impossible to read them all in the house. We would like the bill to be set aside for six months, in order to give hon. members time to think before voting.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) moved an amendment this afternoon which would delay the coming into force or the enactment of this legislation or omnibus bill, Bill No. C-150. In other words, its passage would be delayed for six months from the date the house will have passed the amendment moved by the hon. member for Champlain.
If we move an amendment, I for one am in favour of it without any reservation, and I feel it is my duty to do so. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Champlain, which would delay the coming into force of this legislation, is based on serious reasons on our part for such a delay.
Mr. Speaker, we do not believe that the Canadian people have been consulted in any way, directly or indirectly, in this regard. Many hon. members on the government side, especially the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane) and a few others, have tried to have the house believe that the population had been consulted during the last election campaign, and that the result of that campaign had proven beyond any doubt that by supporting the party in power, the electors supported the omnibus bill.
Mr. Speaker, those members who hurl such wanton statements on the floor of the house, do not reflect public opinion.
To elect a government is one thing, but to pass a law legalizing abortion and allowing abortion on demand, is something entirely different. And it is rather irresponsible to assert that both things are necessarily linked and that the people who voted for the Liberal party also voted for the omnibus bill. I do not think it is honest to throw about such untrue statements.
According to some government members, such as the hon. members for Matane, Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) and many others, the house is wasting its time. They said it as eloquently as they could, that is they flung abuses at others. They wanted to make us say and they wanted to say to the Canadian people that the house was wasting its time.

If this were true, Mr. Speaker, and at the beginning of these remarks I really intended to call attention to these unfounded statements, this parliament would not mean anything and we would all be wasting our time here since who would vote legislation? We would only need to make a decision, elect four or five men, appoint them if need be, let them decide, and close parliament down. A lot of money could then be saved to the Canadian people.
Now the house of commons is exactly the place where we must legislate, study legislations section by section, line by line, scrutinize them earnestly and in depth in order to detect their various implications. Parliament is the best place to analyze bills and state our views.
In that respect, I believe that the Rallie-ment creditiste up to now has not unduly taken up the time of the house, but on the contrary, it has saved time for the Canadian population, while trying to ward off the misfortunes that this omnibus bill might bring about. And it is precisely in order to save more time that we want to postpone for six months the enactment of that legislation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being ten o'clock, it is my duty to put the questions to be debated at this time.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago I asked the acting Minister of Transport, the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Richardson), if he wouM cause to have re-examined the government policy which now prevents our second national air line from being truly national. In other words, I was asking for a change in policy so that Canadian Pacific Air Lines would be allowed to operate in Canada east of Montreal. Then a few days later, after the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) was ensconced in that position, I asked the
May 13, 1969

same question of him. It is because of the answer to that question that I make this appearance this evening.
Incidentally, sir, it is interesting to note that when I raised this question previously in the house, in October, 1967, it was just after another minister of transport, the present outgoing minister, had been appointed to that portfolio. So the present minister is forewarned that if I ask the question in another year's time that will be the handwriting on the wall for him.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
There is no area of Canada more hard hit by the present strike of Air Canada than the area from which I come. We do have a regional carrier, Eastern Provincial Airways, and Nordair, trying to make up some of the vacuum that has been created by the Air Canada strike, but this is virtually impossible. There are thousands of people living in Atlantic Canada who are absolutely frustrated by the strike that has now gone on an unconscionably long period of time. So, I am suggesting it is time the government should re-examine its policy to enable another large company-and it will of course have to be a large company that can satisfy the requirements of Atlantic Canada-to operate there. The former minister of transport twice removed, the Hon. J. W. Pickersgill, advised me in the Transport Committee a few weeks ago that there would have to be a change in government policy before the air transport committee of the Canadian Transport Commission could entertain an application from Canadian Pacific Air Lines. He was very specific on this point and made it several times. Unfortunately, because of the delay in printing the proceedings of that committee, I cannot quote his statements this evening. However, when the report does come forward the transcript will clearly show that Mr. Pickersgill said the government must make a direct change in its policy in this field before Canadian Pacific Air Lines can operate in Atlantic Canada.
What about air travel as such? The figures that appear at page 3216 of Hansard for October 17, 1967 indicate that each year the number of people using Canadian air lines increases by approximately 1,000 per day. So, there is an ample number of customers to justify increasing the number of air companies serving Canada. There should be business for Canadian Pacific Air Lines in Atlantic Canada. On the date to which I referred, I suggested they should have not only some of
29180-549J
DEBATES	8671
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion the major runs to Atlantic Canada but also some of the runs which would not necessarily be profitable although in the public interest. In other words, Canadian Pacific should not just have the cream but should operate some of the milk runs as well. Believe me, there are lots of milk runs in my part of the country.
I have no quarrel with Air Canada but I do not like having most of our eggs in one basket. I have no quarrel with Eastern Provincial Airways or Nordair in what they are attempting to do. I have some suspicion that the Newfoundland government, in respect of one of those air lines, may be one reason we are not getting Canadian Pacific into Atlantic Canada. The minister can bury those suspicions simply by announcing that the policy is to be re-examined to enable Canadian Pacific to become a truly second national air line in this country.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member for having missed his first few words. I believe I got the gist of them however. If he wants better transportation, particularly air transportation, for Atlantic Canada he will not find any argument from me on that score. I suspect he knows I am rapidly discovering it is not simply a matter of providing additional service on the trunk or main routes. The whole of the Atlantic region and perhaps some other parts of Canada as well are involved. The problem is to rationalize the air transport in the less lucrative areas with the necessity at the same time to have rapid transport on the main lines.
I would be less than honest if I did not say I have a little different outlook on this matter than I did when I participated in the late shows and berated Air Canada. I want to assure my hon. friend, however, that I am very aware of this problem. I think it involves a good deal more than bringing Canadian Pacific into Halifax. We must look at the matter as it relates, for example, to Prince Edward Island. The north and south route is becoming important. Then, there is the matter of extension of service into the northern parts of the Atlantic region and Labrador. All these matters, I am advised, have been under study for some time. I can assure the hon. member that his representations are well in the front of my mind. I am not unsympathetic to them and will do everything I can to try to devise a policy, and present it in this house if this is the appropriate forum, so that we can get the better transport that both of us agree is necessary.
May 13, 1969

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion



SHIPPING-CHANGE IN REGISTRATION OF &quot;CAPE BRETON MINER&quot;

Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breion-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I posed the following question in the house:
Is the minister aware that Upper Lakes Shipping Limited is presently making application to change to foreign registry the registry of the vessel Cape Breton Miner, construction of which was subsidized by the Canadian taxpayer? Further, is the minister in a position to advise whether this change can be prevented in order to save the jobs of 39 Canadians who will be replaced by cheap labour-
I was referring to jobs lost to members of the Canadian merchant navy. At that time I said the question could be directed either to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) or the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey), as I felt they were both involved. The Minister of Transport was absent on other business, so I thought the Minister of Labour would answer the question. Mr. Speaker agreed with me that there was a sense of urgency in the question and felt it should be dealt with in our proceedings at this time.
In 1967, according to volume II of the Public Accounts, Upper Lakes Shipping entered into an agreement for a government subsidy of more than $2,200,000 in shipbuilding contracts through the federal government. The whole question of transfer of registry from Canadian to foreign ownership should, I believe, be opened up; it is a matter upon which the government should make an inquiry and take a decision.
It is a scandal when ships paid for by Canadian taxpayers- and constructed through government subsidies are allowed to fly a foreign flag in order to avoid hiring Canadian seamen. This is simply a device to avoid paying decent wages in line with Canadian standards. It is surprising that the union, the S.I.U., has not seen fit to protest.
The transfer of Canadian shipping to Panamanian and Liberian or other foreign registries has in recent years become a public disgrace. It is apparently being done with government connivance and approval. Not only does the government wink at what is going on, but apparently it gives full approval to the progressive destruction of the Canadian shipping industry. This is seen in the fact that in spite of such foreign registry, the companies and ships involved continue to receive from this government treatment reserved for domestic shipping.
They cannot have it both ways. If they are registered as Liberian or Panamanian vessels

with foreign crews, they should be treated as such by the laws of this country and should be compelled to meet all requirements and conditions pertaining to foreign shipping. In fact, they are not so required and continue to enjoy all the privileges of Canadian shipping; for example, free and unrestricted access to Canadian ports, and apparently free access to subsidies. Canadians are becoming fed up with the abuse of registry implied in these activities.
I ask the minister or whoever is going to reply for him-I believe the house is entitled to an answer-how many such transfers have taken place in the last 18 months? I think we should have this information, and I hope it will be forthcoming in order to throw light on a situation which is causing great concern among seamen generally. The transfer of registry as a device to avoid paying Canadian wages, while at the same time accepting Canadian subsidies and being granted all the privileges of Canadian registry, should not be tolerated one moment longer. I hope that the minister or his parliamentary secretary will be able to deal with these points, because I can assure the minister that I do not intend to let the matter drop here.
I should like to read into the record a wire I have received from the mayor and members of the North Sydney Town Council. It reads as follows:
We advise the vessel "Cape Breton Miner" owned by Upper Lakes Shipping Co. will shortly be changed from Canadian registry to foreign registry (Liberia). Understand Canadian crew will be displaced following this change.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
Strongly deplore situation which allows this to happen to vessels built with contribution from Canadian taxpayers. Urge legislation be amended to require such vessels remain under Canadian registry for all time.
I should like to mention also that the North Sydney Longshoremen's Union, Local 1259 I.L.A. sent a letter to the Prime Minister which reads as follows:
Dear Prime Minister Trudeau:
We, the executive, and members of Local 1259 I.L.A. wish to protest the change in registry of the ship "Cape Breton Miner" from Canadian registry to Liberian and also change of crew from Canadian to Chinese. We understand it was the Canadian taxpayers' dollars that helped finance the building of this ship, and also the taxpayers' money that paid the subsidy to transport coal from Cape Breton to Ontario markets.
May 13, 1989

We protest the action of Great Lakes shipping on all these counts and feel action should be taken by the Canadian parliament to prevent such things happening in the future.
Yours very truly,
George H. MacDonald,
President.
I hope that whoever replies to this letter of grievance will be in a position to elaborate a little on what the government may have in mind with regard to the situations I have mentioned.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I was given notice of this1 question today. I was not in the house when my hon. friend raised it initially. I made some inquiries in the interim, and while the basic facts appear to be as they were represented by my friend, as yet in any event, the registry of shipping has not been advised of this intention. There has been no formal representation or application for this transfer or no indication that it is coming. I have had, as has my hon. friend, representations from the area, and I assume there is no reason to suspect that this is not the action that is contemplated now.
So far as the general statements that were made by the hon. member are concerned, I think I have to say that the situation is not precisely as' he has stated. In the first instance, the vessel's owners have met with the requirements laid down in the current legislation with regard to retention of ownership for a period of years in return for the subsidy. I believe it is five years after the subsidy is given that the vessel must remain under Canadian registry. It is also extremely difficult to determine whether, as one of the representations stated, these vessels should remain under Canadian registry forever. I suspect there would be some argument from the Canadian shipbuilding industry on this score, as well as from shipping interests. I mention this simply to highlight one of the difficulties that exists in the whole shipbuilding industry in Canada, that is that there is a wide diversity and conflict of views among the different groups that make up this important industry.
All of this aside, I am in complete sympathy with the plight of a crew that is replaced in this fashion. I would like to be able to give a commitment and to say that we could change the situation or that there was some way in which we could prevent this kind of thing from happening. I would be less than
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion honest, though, if I did not recognize and point out to the house the interlocking difficulties that arise here. I will be more than pleased, and in fact I have already initiated some inquiries, to see whether or not we can, if it is in the best interests of the country or of the seamen concerned, make some more stringent regulations in this regard. But again I can only emphasize that it has been my experience that we have to anticipate the reactions to this kind of action, and I hope these will not be detrimental. In other words, I hope that by closing one door we would not be opening up a situation which would be of even greater seriousness or which would be detrimental to Canadian industry or Canadian workers.
I have taken note of the hon. member's representations and I make an undertaking now to look into this matter as quickly as possible, first of all in the light of the particular incident to which he has drawn my attention, and secondly to determine whether any review is possible under the circumstances I have outlined.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT-PRINCE RUPERT -MONITORING TELEPHONE CALLS

Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank Your Honour for letting me bring this matter before the house tonight because, although it is perhaps not an issue of national character it is one of real local urgency. On the other hand, if this local dispute is a valid example of the general stupidity of Postmasters across Canada, then I think the boiling cauldron of postal unrest which is apparently beginning to show signs of some tranquillity will erupt once again to the discomfort of the minister and of all those employed by the department. Therefore, this is a very serious matter indeed.
I understand that labour-management relations in the Prince Rupert Post Office, to which I refer, have been delicate for some time. Unprovable allegations of racial discrimination have been whispered about arising from the fact that the president of the local happens to be of east Indian ancestry. This accounts for some of the difficulties in labour-management relations at this post office. What led to the current controversy were, the tactless and stupid statements made by the postmaster, Mr. Doug Layton, in the course of an address to the local chamber of commerce reported as a front page item in the Prince Rupert Daily News of May 6. I
May 13. 1969

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion should like to quote this report in part. The headline reads: "Poor Habits Delay Mail".
Mail delivery delays here have been caused by staffing problems, misleading date times and mis-sorting, Postmaster Doug Layton told the Chamber of Commerce Monday.
"The staff here is not the best," he charged, "but they have not slowed down since the strike as they have in big cities like Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto."
Any reasonable individual would wonder what might prompt Mr. Layton to publicly make a statement so provocative and so contemptuous of the people who are his subordinates. Was he trying to defend himself from the blistering criticism of the postal service so familiar to the Postmaster General (Mr. Kier-ans) himself? Was he attempting to ingratiate himself with the local wheels in the chamber of commerce? I do not know what his motives were. Maybe he doesn't know himself. All I know is that he engaged in singularly unenlightened management practices and cast a shadow on all the postal workers, offending them and insulting them in general, whether they were guilty or not, in and before the community in which they work.
Naturally, there were was an immediate reaction from the slandered workers concerned. A meeting with the postmaster was demanded and on May 6 and 7 the following exchange took place as reported to the C.U.P.W. by the local president, Mr. Sangha. I have tabled the whole letter, but in the interest of brevity I will read only the last two paragraphs:
The Postmaster did not deny that he was misquoted by the reporter. A suggestion to have a meeting with the Chief Editor and the Reporter and have us as observers was apparently rejected. Finally, we demanded a complete retraction or correction by 3.30 on May 7th, 1969 so that the whole matter can be referred to the District or National Office for the necessary action. Nothing came out of this demand, but consequently in today's Daily News the attached "Letter to the Editor" has appeared. If you examine the wording close enough you might find out why we are still completely dissatisfied and mad.
Since you are fully aware of our daily abnormal situation in this particular Post Office, and the inhuman attitude of the Postmaster towards all the employees, we hope the National Office will institute the necessary action in order to clear up and resolve our past, present and the future problems.
The following is the complete text of a letter which appeared in the Daily News of May 8:
A recent report on a talk I gave to the Chamber of Commerce has perhaps cast a rather poor reflection on the local Post Office staff.

It was not my intent to do this and I rather resent when local or federal Post Office employees are criticized collectively for incidents over which they have no control.
Unfortunately, locally due to such a high staff turnover for various reasons we have been forced to use partially and untrained staff on many occasions. This has caused some internal problems but I hope few external problems.
Should you the Public have complaints about the service or the service given by postal employees then I expect you to make them known to me so that these may be cleared up when it is possible to do so.
D. B. Layton Postmaster
I suggest in all seriousness, Mr. Speaker, that one of the reasons for the "high staff turnover" and the "untrained staff" referred to is the rigid, inflexible, even medieval attitude and management practices of the local postmaster himself. Something should be done about this immediately, because in this case control rests undeniably with the minister himself. Some time before May 12 the Postmaster had an automatic recording device installed on the receiver of the only phone in that post office in order to monitor all incoming and outgoing calls. Incidentally, this is the only phone in the office, and the office remained locked this afternoon. Did the Postmaster General authorize this delightful innovation? Did the British Columbia director authorize it? I think not. I think that this was the brainchild of a narrow minded local boss who, not being content to vilify his employees in public, now wants to spy on them in private.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
The standing committee on justice and legal affairs has recently had before it four bills concerned with wiretapping and devices for eavesdropping, spying and invading privacy, to the revulsion, I think, of most members of parliament. This is done-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I am rather surprised that the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) rose in the house today because I was under the impression, having discussed the matter with him last evening, that he was going to give me time to investigate some correspondence he had shown me last night. We are now faced with the situation where a man in Prince Rupert, who cannot defend himself here, has been accused-
May 13, 1969
yes, accused-of what amounts, in the member's own words, to "unprovable allegations of discrimination being whispered about".
It may be that the head of the union is an East Indian, but I do not think that that is any basis for alleging that the postmaster is thereby discriminating. There are on many occasions differences between union leaders and management, and certainly this is true in cases where the two people concerned are of the same race and language. I think the hon. member has taken a deplorable position, especially in view of the fact that he has said that the allegations are unprovable and are only "being whispered about".
First of all, let me make it clear that neither the Postmaster General nor any of my officials authorized any telephone calls to Prince Rupert, or to anywhere else in this country, to be monitored with an automatic tape recorder. Since my hon. friend has obtained most of his information, and legitimately so, from one source, I expect it was also explained to him that the tape recorder was never attached to the phone while the union leader was in the office. The postmaster himself was expecting a personal call which I presume the person making the call wanted recorded.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
With respect to the speech given to the business community in Prince Rupert, the postmaster did praise to some extent the performance of those who work for the post office. The postmaster there is apparently quite proud of being postmaster, as I am extremely proud of being Postmaster General. I am also proud of my 48,000 employees. However-and this is usually the case with most speeches-that part of the speech which praised the performance of the people who work for me was not recorded or published, because that sort of thing does not make news. However, many other things were recorded.
In his speech, for example, the postmaster pointed out the necessity for more co-operation with the business community, who could improve delivery of their mail by mailing in the mornings because there was a one o'clock flight from Prince Rupert. If they failed to do so, the next flight was at eight o'clock the following morning. As we all are, the Postmaster was quite frank in his criticism; he mentioned that he had the normal number of new people on his staff, and that he had difficulties in training them.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house adjourned at 10.26 p.m.
[Stage Direction]


Wednesday, May 14, 1969