1969-05-02

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the minister of Indian affairs. Now that the national Indian conference has been completed I wonder whether the minister would undertake to clarify the confusion surrounding the intentions of the government. Specifically, could the minister say whether legislation will be introduced in the month of June with respect to the Indian Act, or is he simply planning to issue a white paper or make some statement of policy instead?
At the same time would the minister say when the government intends to take action with regard to treaty rights? Will this be done before or after the introduction of legislation in regard to the Indian Act?


Hon. Jean Chreiien (Minisier of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, even though the national meeting of Indians has not ended yet, I have decided to come back to the house because I am working on a statement I am to deliver this afternoon to Indians.
To answer the question of the hon. leader of the opposition, the government intends to make in June an official statement of policy regarding the Indians problems. We do not intend to bring forward a new legislation on Indians in June but in that declaration of policy we shall express the underlying principles of our future Indian program and explain the intentions of the government regarding claims and the way to settle them.



EXTENSION OF JULY, 1968, CONSULTATIONS TO PERMIT DISCUSSION OF INDIAN ACT AND TREATIES

Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Now that the minister has moved further away from the Minister without Portfolio from Port Arthur, perhaps it would be appropriate to ask him whether the Minister without Portfolio from Port Arthur was speaking for the department on Wednesday when he said that government consultation with the Indian people followed the wrong priority, that more attention should have been given to the question of treaty rights?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have not read that statement, but I must say that when the consultations began in July last, we were supposed to limit the discussions to the Indian Act. However, following the first two consultations, we decided to open the debate and we allowed Canadian Indians to air their views, not only regarding the future legislation on Indians, but also on all problems of concern to them, including the question of the treaties.



ANNOUNCEMENT AS TO PRESS STATEMENT RESPECTING RECENT MEETING WITH INDIANS

Robert Lorne Stanfield: One further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the department intend to accept the apparently unanimous request of the representatives of the Indian people meeting in Ottawa for financial assistance to conduct their own inquiry into matters that the Indian people themselves consider most important? Does the minister intend to accept this request or not?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to make it clear that our discussions drew to Ottawa spokesmen for Indians all over Canada. I must say that the meeting proved extremely useful and I am quite pleased by the fact that the Indian people are most happy with that type of consultation.
As regards in particular the request for research grants, the matter is now under

May 2, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry study and I hope I can deliver a statement to the Indian people this afternoon and in the course of the next few weeks talk over the form that consultations may take in future with the Indian Affairs Branch.



REQUEST FOR SPECIAL CONSIDERATION OF B.C. NON-TREATY INDIANS

Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister whether, in the statement which he said will be forthcoming in the future outlining government policy, he will deal with a peculiar and very serious situation affecting Indians in British Columbia. In the main they are non-treaty Indians who claim that until some satisfactory arrangement is made, they own British Columbia?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That problem is quite complex, for British Columbia Indians have not signed any treaty. The same problem arises as regards Quebec Indians, and in our statement of policy in June we hope to announce the government's intention to seek a solution likely to allow them a full participation in Canada's economic and social life, and safeguard the national features peculiar to the country's first citizens.



QUEBEC-ATTEMPT TO FIND SOLUTION TO INDIAN-ESKIMO PROBLEMS

Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: I should like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Would the minister make a statement with regard to the meeting held last Friday, at Quebec city, between the representatives of the federal and provincial governments and the Indians and Eskimos of Northern Quebec?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have not made a report on that subject. It is an ordinary meeting between the Eskimos and the Indians of New Quebec with the representatives of the federal and provincial governments, in order to find some grounds of agreement to try to settle problems involving the two jurisdictions. Some aspects of their life come under the provincial authority and others under the federal jurisdiction. I am told the conference went off smoothly.



ANNOUNCEMENT AS TO JUNE, 1969, STATEMENT ON CLAIMS COMMISSION

Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Now that the people at this conference have indicated they are more interested in treaty rights than in revision of the Indian Act, will the minister say when he will be introducing legislation to establish the long promised Indian claims commission?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, in June, when I make my statement, I am sure that we shall know where we stand with regard to the Indian Claims Commission. We shall probably be able to state at that time that we are proceeding with the establishment of that organization.



ANNOUNCEMENT OF APPLICATION TO INDIANS OF FARM CREDIT POLICY

Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I note, according to a press release of yesterday, that the minister in collaboration with the Minister of Agriculture has obtained cabinet approval for an agreement in connection with farm credit. Can the minister advise us whether the terms of that agreement submitted to the Indian Conference held here were first considered and discussed with other representatives of the Indian people before the agreement was made and approved by the cabinet?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: At the
meeting of the National Federation of Indians in Ottawa in December, we informed the Indians of this new policy and they seemed to think that such a policy was likely to help the Indians engaged in agriculture. In fact, they were quite happy about that decision. As from today, they will be able to borrow from the Farm Credit Corporation in the same way as any other farmer in Canada. The Indians are very pleased about this new progressive policy of the government.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister if the terms of this agreement approved by cabinet were discussed with Indian representatives. I was not asking about general policy.
May 2, 1969


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The government has taken an administrative decision in the best interests of the Indians, and they are very happy about it.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Shefford wish to put a supplementary question?


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: It is not a
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.



FINANCE


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the very serious difficulties municipalities of Canada are facing in securing funds for capital expenditures and in view of similar difficulties some provinces, particularly the Atlantic provinces, face, will the minister make a statement at an early date on motions outlining any plans the federal government is working out in co-operation with provincial governments to help to resolve the financial difficulties of our municipalities?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I will consider making a statement. I believe that all governments and people borrowing money for long terms at fixed rates are having difficulties. This applies not only to Canada but to the rest of the world also. Certainly it applies to the United States and Canada. This will be overcome only when we learn that we have to battle inflation and not expect more of the economy individually than we are putting into it through increased productivity.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that public bodies have greater difficulty raising money in the public than in the private sector, is the minister considering either in his white paper or budget in June providing some inducement to make it more attractive to secure capital funds for public projects?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure the original assumption that my friend put forward is correct, that it is easier to borrow in the private sector than in the public sector. Of course I cannot indicate what is to be done
Inquiries of the Ministry in the tax reform until I produce the white paper.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the Minister of Finance had any consultations with the provinces to ascertain the extent of the difficulties that municipal governments are having in financing the central projects through the normal sale of debentures?


Edgar John Benson: Of course, Mr. Speaker, the municipalities are basically the responsibility of the provincial governments. As of this date no provincial government has come forward and asked for discussions in this regard.


Mr. Real Caouetie (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance.
If he did not consult the representatives of the provinces with regard to the release of credit, will he ask the Bank of Canada to help municipalities and provinces?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be of any great help to simply have the Bank of Canada printing more money.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the minister agrees that inflation is the main part of the problem, and since tax legislation proposed with regard to insurance companies is affecting their tendencies toward investing in fixed interest obligations, will the minister agree to do everything he can with regard to fighting this inflation? In particular will he do his best to persuade his colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to act-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is argument rather than a question.



THE MINISTRY


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Prime Minister.
Since Mr. Dalton McGuinty, President of the Liberal Association of Ottawa-Carleton, constituency of the Minister of Justice, has resigned because of the government's attitude
8262

May 2, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry
on abortion, can the Prime Minister assure he was submitting for the consideration of the this house that the Minister of Justice is house instead of asking a question which, I not now drafting his letter of resignation, as suggest to him, is possibly about the only the Minister of Transport did recently?	thing he can do at this time.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasl-ings):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Arising from the minister's statement in the house Wednesday that he would obtain a report on the interview given by General Lemnitzer, has the minister obtained such a report and is he now in a position to advise the house whether the Department of National Defence is in accord with the assessment of the military situation in Europe made by the NATO military command, under which Canadian forces are serving in Europe?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that my good friend is enlarging the report that I saw of the interview of General Lemnitzer. I think General Lemnitzer's comments were to the effect that there should be no over-all military reduction of the capability overseas. I think we generally agree in the government with that kind of proposition, but we said all along that individual members of the alliance should have the opportunity of making adjustments to their own contributions after consultation with their allies. However it was never inferred that the over-all capabilities would have to be reduced.


George Harris Hees: As a supplementary question, does the minister believe that it is possible to maintain the over-all strength of the NATO forces in Europe if individual countries are going to be permitted-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's supplementary question, in my view, is argumentative. The hon. member for Abitibi.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order I submit that the Canadian government's position is contrary to that of General Lemnitzer. He stated that forces could not be withdrawn from the NATO Alliance.


Mr. Speaker:: Of course I do not disagree with the hon. member; but in my view he is not submitting a point of order for the consideration of the Chair but rather is pursuing the argument which I thought a moment ago
(Mr. Rondeau.]



POSITION OF GENERAL ALLARD ON GOVERNMENT POLICY

Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Defence.
I wish to ask him if General Allard is in agreement with the government's policy with regard to NATO and if the General has not already made some statement against that policy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is a question for General Allard. Besides, at this time, the hon. member is only allowed to put questions to the minister.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should first welcome the solicitor general back from the United Kingdom.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: "My kingdom for a
horse" has been somewhat changed: Now it is a horse for a Queen. I would ask him, as the titular head of the R.C.M.P., whether there is any foundation for the suggestion made in western Canada that the R.C.M.P. farm, which produces the horses that have been used by the R.C.M.P., is to be closed down?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I did not get
the answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure to what extent the question is urgent, but the Solicitor General appears to be very anxious to answer it.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it is urgent.


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Soliciior General):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the best way of having a full answer to and full treatment of this important and interesting subject would be to have it dealt with on the estimates, when
May 2, 1969

they are before the committee on Tuesday. At that time I shall be glad to give the right hon. gentleman full information on the subject.


John George Diefenbaker: I understand the closure is to take place before that, Mr. Speaker, and I want to raise strong Objection to the last severance of the Mounted Police from horses.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to impose closure on the right hon, gentleman.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, with your permission I should like to go from horses to air lines, and ask the Acting Minister of Transport the following question: In view of the serious problem of air safety and the concern of the Air Pilots Association, can the minister assure parliament that his department has not given any permission for an extension of the hours which air pilots are required to spend at work as a result of the pressures on air lines consequent upon the strike at Air Canada?


Hon. James Richardson (Acting Minister of Housing):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The same conditions that apply at any time apply now to the granting of licences, and the same concern for safety and pilots:' hours will be observed.


David Lewis: Perhaps the minister does not have the information. In view of the fact that there are ways by which extension of hours may be made by his department, what I am asking him is to inform parliament, and if he cannot do so now would he undertake to do so on Monday, whether any extension of hours has been permitted either by the central department or by regional officers of his department.


James Armstrong Richardson: Yes, Mr. Speaker; the licences are not made by the Department of Transport. They are made by the Canadian Transport Commission. I know what I said earlier is correct, but I shall be pleased to discuss this matter again with the president of the commission.



EXTENDED WORK LOAD OF AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS

David Lewis: I have a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of complaints by the air traffic controllers that because of a shortage of controllers they

Inquiries of the Ministry are required to work far too many hours for safety, can the minister inform the house what studies are being made of this problem, if in his view it is a problem, and what action is proposed to deal with it.


James Armstrong Richardson: Yes; I think we recognize a problem. We also recognize the public concern in this area. I should like to suggest this matter is of sufficient importance that it should be brought forward under motions some time in the near future.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasler):: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister, when he does bring this matter up under motions, if he will deal with the subject of whether there is in fact a national emergency under the terms of the act about which he has been speaking. In other words is what the Prime Minister said true, that there is not a national emergency, or is there one under the act under which the minister could take action in these instances referred to by the hon. member for York South.



INDUSTRY


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Acting Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Is it the intention of the government to include in the United States-Canada car pact what is commonly referred to as the after market car parts?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to look into the present status of any discussions with regard to this. I am sure the minister would like to report more fully on this to the house when he returns.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I welcome him to that end of the chamber which generates most solutions to the problems with which he is confronted. In the light of a request from the Eskimo people at Baker Lake that Mr. Boris Kotelewetz, who was once an arts and crafts officer within the
May 2, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry department and no longer employed by the department, be returned, I wonder whether the minister would be prepared to act on that request, or whether in the absence of any effort to reinstate Mr. Kotelewetz he would be prepared to send whatever material he has in his possession to the Standing Committee in order that the committee might inquire into all aspects of this situation.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I must say first of all that I like the constructive suggestions of the opposition. In fact, their last one was that I should introduce a bill to abolish the Department of Indian Affairs and I have taken note of it.
As for that gentleman whose name I cannot repeat, because I find it rather difficult to pronounce, he worked in Baker Lake and I met him personally in my office a few weeks ago. I am now considering the problem and I hope to be able to report to the house within a few days.



WHEAT-TWO PRICE SYSTEM IN INTERNATIONAL MARKETING

Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. Has the government inquired of its legal advisors if the institution of a two-price wheat system would be in violation of international trade agreements and would expose Canada to the charge of dumping, and if so what their opinion is.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the position with regard to the two-price system and its relationship to the international market is one which we have always had before us and understood well. I believe the hon. member is referring to a reference to it not long ago as dumping. No doubt in the strict sense it is, but that is purely in the strict sense.
It is also true, on the other hand, that the practice of two-pricing in the world is common, and remedies are not sought by countries receiving grain. Hence, in the strict sense it is not very meaningful, although on the whole it would no doubt be better for Canada if it were.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development whom we welcome to	this part	of the house.	It ishoped	that	his coming this way	is a
promotion.
Could he tell us what progress has been made in the talks with the province of Quebec about the possible development of a national park at Pointe-Forillon?
Hon.	Jean	Chretien	(Minister of IndianAffairs	and	Northern	Development):	Mr. Speaker, I have received representations in this morning from the Minister of Tourism, Fish and Game, this very morning, and further talks are scheduled for next week. I am happy to see the minister has re-opened discussions. We shall probably get along quite well.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Is the minister in a position to tell us whether he expects an early settlement of this problem rather than drawn-out discussions and serious difficulties?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I hope that, in the best interests of Gaspe inhabitants, we will find a prompt solution.



HOUSING


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Housing. In view of the fact that the government in reviewing its policy with regard to urban renewal has imposed a freeze on future schemes, can the minister say whether this freeze applies to studies that were in the process of being completed? I am thinking particularly of the Mundy Pond urban renewal scheme in St. John's West.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that the hon. member is asking a question which was asked yesterday. I think however the hon. member was unsuccessful in his attempt yesterday; therefore in the circumstances I would allow the question today.
May 2, 1969


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. John's West is asking about an urban renewal project. I would like to advise him, as I advised the house yesterday or the day before, that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is currently preparing guidelines for all urban renewal projects. As soon as these have been approved by the government they will be made known to all municipalities. Of course that will include St. John's.



REQUEST FOR GUIDELINES STATEMENT BEFORE END OF JUNE

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Housing. In view of the fact that there is some uncertainty as to the direction in which this government is going, could the minister now assure the house that we will have these guidelines and the commitments for the various municipalities before the end of June?


James Armstrong Richardson: The guidelines are being studied and, as I have repeated many times, when they have approval by the government they will be made known.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is most amazing to me that after considerable questioning of not only the former minister of transport, whom I am very glad to see sitting in the house, as a result of which we had a sort of dialogue going

and I suppose I will now have to get a dialogue going with the Acting Minister of Housing-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that he should have a dialogue with the Chair and indicate what his point of order is.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I beg your indulgence, Mr. Speaker. I hope that after the numerous questions that have been asked in the house with respect to urban renewal programs and public housing schemes, the government will be able in the very near future, before the end of June, to give us some idea of what is going on.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Obviously this is not a point of order. The hon. member may be dissatisfied with the answer he receives, but that cannot be made the subject of a question of privilege or point of order.
Inquiries of the Ministry WATER RESOURCES



PLACENTIA BAY, NFLD.-POLLUTION AFFECTING FISHERY AT LONG HARBOUR

Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address this question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry or to his parliamentary secretary. In reply to my question No. 1331, as reported in Hansard of February 24, regarding the pollution of fish at Long Harbour, Newfoundland, by the Electric Reduction Company, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries stated that it was an accidental contamination by the company and that there would be no further recurrence of this pollution. I now ask the minister, in view of the apparent continuing recurrence of fish pollution in the area by this company, what immediate action is his department taking?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, since 1 am acting for the Minister of Fisheries this morning perhaps I can provide the answer for my hon. friend. As was indicated in the statement yesterday of the Minister of Fisheries, there is strong circumstantial evidence that this plant is contributing to the pollution problem. There is a very definite question as to whether this can in fact be established in law, when of course it would be necessary for us to take action by way of appropriate legislation. However, because of the seriousness of the situation representations have been made to the company in question and they have agreed to close the plant, to instal additional equipment, and not to reopen except after consultation with both the federal and provincial governments, in order that more tests can be carried out to ensure that the problem is resolved. I understand the plant will be closed this week end as a result of the representations made by the Minister of Fisheries.


Randolph Harding: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Who sets the pollution standards for industrial waste before it is allowed to be released into the bay, and who enforces those standards?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The supplementary question is not in order. It is very general in nature, and cannot be asked at this time.

May 2, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry



PLACENTIA BAY, NFLD.-COMPENSATION TO FISHEBMEN FOR LOSS THROUGH POLLUTION

Walter C. Carter: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Acting Minister of Fisheries. In view of the fact that a large part of the Placentia Bay area has been forbidden to fishermen because of the pollution caused by the plant at Long Harbour, can the minister say whether the government will take action to pay compensation to fishermen affected?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that it is forbidden by law at the moment. However, this may be a matter of semantics. We are examining what next steps will be necessary and whether it will be necessary to close portions of the area for a time. If that is the decision, consideration will also be given to compensating the fishermen.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I refer to the press release that the Minister of Fisheries released yesterday. Today, according to the Prime Minister's roster, the Minister of Fisheries and his parliamentary secretary should be in the house, and both are absent. It was for this reason that hon. members on this side of the house, including the hon. member for St. John's West and myself, did not direct questions to the minister, because obviously he was not here and we did not know that the Minister of Supply and Services was acting minister. My point of order is this: How can we on this side of the house direct questions of an urgent nature to ministers who are not even in their place when they are supposed to be here? Second, information about this matter, relating to the press release of yesterday, was given today to the Newfoundland legislature by the Newfoundland minister of fisheries, to the effect that certain bays were being closed by the federal Department of Fisheries until this matter was corrected. This information because of its urgency should have been given to the house this morning on motions, and because the situation could have a detrimental effect on our whole east coast fishing industry.



POLLUTION OF CANADA-U.S. BOUNDARY WATERS

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Last Monday I drew the attention of the Prime Minister to the confidential report 
which was submitted to the International Joint Commission regarding the pollution of Canada-United States boundary waters. I asked whether the government would undertake to have that report made available to members of parliament and the public. I wonder whether the Prime Minister is in a position to give us some information about this matter.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I did inquire, and I was told it was a draft report only which was shown to the International Joint Commission by its international board. This draft report will be brought to more advanced stages and then presented to the commission. At that time the commission will probably want to have public hearings and make recommendations to the government. It is only at that point that the government will be in a position to act or not act on the recommendations of the commission. But this, according to the commission's information, is several months away.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether, when the report is submitted to the International Joint Commission and they have had an opportunity to study it, it will then be released to the public?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If it is in the public interest, Mr. Speaker.



POLLUTION-DESIGNATION OF RESPONSIBILITY TO ONE MINISTER

Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister with regard to pollution, Mr. Speaker. In view of the many aspects of pollution in the whole of Canada, would the right hon. gentleman consider designating one minister to be in charge of pollution problems rather than spread authority among various departments?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We have considered this, Mr. Speaker.



FISHERIES


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: On
Wednesday, Mr. Speaker, I directed a question to the Minister of Fisheries. In his reply,
May 2, 1969	COMMONS
he indicated that the matter in which I was interested came under the authority of the Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. With your indulgence, I should like to repeat the question now. Can the minister inform the house whether any decision has been reached between the federal government and the government of British Columbia over the Shuswap River diversion plan?


Otto Emil Lang: The negotiations in connection with the basin involved here are under way. They are in one sense at a preliminary stage. On the other hand, we are fairly optimistic that a conclusion can be reached in the not-too-distant future.


Mark Willson Rose: May I ask the minister whether the international aspects are being considered, since the water diverted will eventually flow into the Columbia River basin and become United States water?


Otto Emil Lang: It is the objective of what is essentially a planning survey to consider all aspects of the water and its use,



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: My
question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Now that the first deliveries are being made of the government's $212 million order for 115 CF-5 fighter bombers, will the minister tell us whether a firm decision has been made as to what use the government intends to make of them?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: We are studying all the new aspects of the defence policy. I think the hon. gentleman should not be too impatient. There are many complex problems but I am sure we are going to use the CF-5 for a very worthwhile role.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Can the minister tell us
whether these planes are to be used in Canada, Europe or in Timbuktu?



NATO-DEFICIT IN STRENGTH THROUGH WITHDRAWAL OF CANADIAN FORCES

George Harris Hees: I have a question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, following the statement made by the Minister of National Defence a few minutes ago. If it is the view of the
DEBATES	8267
Inquiries of the Ministry government that the over-all strength of NATO forces should be maintained, is it the government's intention that our NATO allies should make up the deficit caused by the withdrawal of Canadian forces which the government has stated it intends to carry out?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not think I can add anything to what the minister said. We know that NATO is an alliance which arrives at collective decisions, but members within the alliance are of course permitted to redeploy their forces as they believe to be most compatible with the strength of the alliance and the peace of the world.


George Harris Hees: Can the Prime Minister explain how, if one member withdraws forces, the over-all strength can be maintained without the other countries making up the deficit?


Mr. Speaker:: That is the question which I thought a moment ago was argumentative.



WHEAT-POSSIBILITY OF DEFAULT IN U.S.S.R. AGREEMENT

John George Diefenbaker: My question is directed to the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce, Mr. Speaker. I would ask him whether there is any foundation for the widely dispersed suggestion now being made that the U.S.S.R. is showing no indication of taking up the balance of wheat which it undertook to take under the agreement between Canada and that country.


Otto Emil Lang: The negotiations with regard to the long term agreement to purchase are still under way.


John George Diefenbaker: When the minister was in the west last week did he not say there was grave doubt whether the U.S.S.R. would take up the balance of 70 or 80 million bushels, as the case may be, and that the effect might be to bring about a very serious worsening of the wheat export situation?
Mr., Lang: No, Mr. Speaker, I did not say that. As far as I know I did not refer to that question at all. I certainly did not say what the right hon. gentleman suggested.


John George Diefenbaker: Everybody understood it that way.

May 2, 1969
Criminal Code



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I direct a question to the Acting Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker? I trust my hope, as a fellow member from Winnipeg, that he will be made a full minister will not hurt his chances.


An hon. Member:: The kiss of death.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In
view of the assurance the minister gave me on September 24 and February 14 that consultations are taking place with the C.N.R. concerning increasing the pensions of retired employees, can he say what progress has been made in connection with this important matter?


James Armstrong Richardson: The consultations are continuing, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. During the time the minister is top man in the department will he step up these consultations, in the hope that something will be done?



WATER RESOURCES


James Aloysius McGrath: have a question for the Minister of Supply and Services. Has the government decided, because of pollution from a phosphorous plant, to close Placentia Bay to the fishing industry?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, Mr. Speaker. No definite decision in that regard has been taken. As I outlined a few moments ago, now that the plant is closed it is a matter of determining whether it is necessary to close the whole bay or any parts of it. This decision will hopefully be made over the weekend and an announcement could be made early next week.
[ Translation]



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, April 29, consideration of Bill C-150, to amend the Criminal 
Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, and motion No. 28, Mr. Laprise.
René Matte: Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday we were studying the amendment relating to hospitals that should be accredited or approved so that therapeutic abortions may be performed in them.
The minister, during the debate on that amendment, imputed to us intentions which, in my opinion, reflect an unacceptable demagoguery.
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)
We move an amendment providing that in order to be accredited, a hospital will have to be able to accommodate at least 400 patients. In doing so, and according to the minister, we would discredit every rural hospital or physician, including the very persons who voted for the members of the Ralliement Creditiste.
Mr. Speaker, to prove what I have just said, let me quote a statement by the minister, as reported on page 8185, of the official report of the House of Commons debates:
The only hospitals the hon. member trusts are those in which there are at least 400 beds and which form part of a university.
At that time, the minister gave the following answer to the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin), and I quote:
To my mind, he is pi-ejudiced against rural hospitals, against rural ridings and against the small cities of Canada or the province of Quebec.
I believe the Ralliement creditiste party does not trust rural hospitals!
That, Mr. Speaker, is a facile argument, which ascribes to us tendentious intentions. We are thus being discredited, and so are those who ask us to fight in this house measures which are obviously weakening the government itself more and more.
Mr. Speaker, we object to rural hospitals and doctors being authorized to perform therapeutic abortions, not because we have a grudge against them, but because-and this is much more serious-we are sure that if they are allowed to perform such operations, the situation will turn out to be as it is in England's hospitals.
I refer to an article published in the April 30, 1969 issue of La Presse, which reads in part as follows:
Britain's Minister of Health and Welfare stated that the "seven abortion clinics which performed 4,522 abortions out of the 4,958 such operations performed in the last year, will have to improve their services or close down.
May 2, 1969

Mr. Speaker, is it not clear enough? It is obvious that if we leave it to the clinics or to the small hospitals to procure abortions, we would necessarily encounter abuses. Even if proud Albion renowned for its puritanism, a certain greatness of soul and exemplary spirit in this field, fell victim to such abuses, must we, in turn, fall in the same errors? We are preparing to make the same mistakes, which is far from comprehensible.
All that is needed is for a few practitioners to lack professional integrity and we will move towards similar results. It is well known that doctors are faithful to their professional ethics. But we must simply recognize that in all professions and trades, there are always less scrupulous people. That is a truism.
This is what happened in that clinic in great Britain. Indeed, in the said clinic, there was a physician who performed abortions. Some of them took advantage of that situation to swindle. The newspaper article read as follows, and I quote:
Some physicians took that opportunity to swindle on a large scale. One of them charged $268 for each abortion and performed 62 in a single day.
If a physician performs 62 abortions on the same day, even if the hospital is accredited and is equipped with all surgical facilities required and even if every essential sanitary precaution is taken, at that rate, it is impossible to enforce the most basic principles of hygiene and medecine.
That is why abortions must be performed only in quite large hospitals so as to prevent such things from happening without anyone knowing about it.
Such is the purpose of the amendment, Mr. Speaker. We must not let things develop in a way likely to bring about disastrous results for the population. I revert once again to the demagogic remarks of the Minister of Justice. Last Wednesday, he imputed the same motives to us, and I quote:
One must then conclude that under this amendment, the Ralliement creditiste does not trust small hospitals, does not believe that "an atmosphere of perfect professional ethics" can be found in small and/or rural hospitals.
X humbly suggest to the Chair that this amendment reflects a bias against all rural, all small hospitals in the province of Quebec-
Women living in small Quebec towns-
This is the kind of demagogic talk indulged in by the Minister of Justice resorted to. It is unbelievable, Mr. Speaker, to hear a responsible minister say such things.
Criminal Code
Why do we say that abortions should not be performed in smaller hospitals? Because, according to doctors and scientists, perhaps only three therapeutic abortions might be necessary out of 10,000 cases. Three out of 10,000. Is there any need then to set up abortion clinics and hospitals throughout the country?
Mr. Speaker, this does not make sense. The minister strongly emphasized the term "ru-rals". People are in the habit of confusing "rurals" with "creditistes".
Mr. Speaker, the Ottawa region, particularly that of Ottawa-Carleton, is not a rural region, as far as I know. Yet in the minister's riding, the president of the Liberal Association who is a physician, recently, when announcing his resignation, said, and I quote:
I have met many people, but not a single soul told me that, by voting for the Liberal party, he intended to support the new legislation on abortion. I do not know many people who support-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must remind the hon. member, first of all, that he must limit his comments to the amendment before the house and, secondly, that his time has expired.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, my comments in connection with this amendment will be very brief. Coming as I do from an area which, prior to redistribution, comprised almost one-third of the province of Alberta, stretching from the Northwest Territories hundreds of miles to the south and with a great many small communities, I can only say that I have to vote against the motion proposed by the hon. member. I understand, of course, the feeling that has animated him in moving it, and I give it full effect as I do all other amendments that have been proposed and await discussion.
Because I intend to make a motion at the end of my brief remarks, Mr. Speaker, I will not depart from the motion but traverse a collateral course. We are in the position of debating this particular and very important amendment at this time because the government has placed us in an impossible position as a result of its refusal to do what should have been done and divide this bill.
We in this house are waiting for an opportunity to deal with urgent and pressing questions such as housing-a very important matter-with matters affecting Indians, with agricultural problems and a great many other topics. The motion that I intend to move will not be for the purpose of inhibiting the right
8270	COMMONS
Division
of members to proceed with amendments that have been moved on this bill and which should be the subject of discussion in the house. It is our view, and it always has been the view of members of this party, that there should not be any inhibitions of this sort, that those members who feel very strongly about this subject should have the right to move amendments and debate them.
[DOT] (12 noon)
In order that we may proceed with other extremely important business of the house I shall move a motion which I hope the government will see fit to accept. It might then consider setting apart one or two days a week for proceeding with this bill, with the rest of the time to be spent in considering measures which the government and we in the opposition consider very important. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell):
That the said debate be now adjourned.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen: Mr. Speaker: Call in the members.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Allow me to	
thank the Liberal	party for allowing us to
May 2, 1969

Criminal Code
continue this debate, because in the course of his speech, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) accused us of filibustering. This morning, we have the confirmation that the government wishes the debate to continue, and we did not want-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member cannot deal with the vote taken a while ago; he must restrict himself to the amendment now under study.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to congratulate the Liberal party on his attitude towards this amendment. And before proceeding with my remarks, I want to deal for four or five minutes with the amendment of the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise).
Mr. Speaker, I should like first to refer to some remarks made by the minister about this amendment. We told him we had received hundreds of protests against abortion and against the method of determining the conditions under which abortion will be authorized.
The minister said, in reply to the speech of the hon. member for Abitibi, as reported on page 8184 of Hansard, and I quote:
First, I must point out that when this bill was considered by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, several amendments were moved by members from all political parties and the government accepted about 25 of them.
We are now at the stage of the committee report. This report has been prepared by the members of the four political parties involved and we have to accept or reject the report. The amendments moved by the members of the Ralliement Creditiste are not affecting this bill, but the committee report.
Well, as I said, the committee accepted about twenty or thirty amendments-
We agree with the Minister of Justice on that point. However the committee did not accept all amendments since you allowed us to move the amendments before us.
In that connection, the Minister of Justice said and I quote:
The standing committee on justice and legal affairs met 14 times in 30 days. It really meant business. The committee made inquiries, called witnesses, almost all the officials from the Department of Justice.
And I emphasize those words:
-all the officials from the Department of Justice.
I will say a few words about that later on. The quotation goes on:
After six days of debate on second reading, 14 committee meetings, and 8 more days of discussion in the house at the stage of the committee report, I can say we are very much concerned with this important legislation.
Those words* are nothing but empty words because we heard, in committee several witnesses of whom officials of the Department of Justice. According to me, those officials need not have come before the committee.
We should have heard technicians, specialists. However, it seems everything was done to interfere with them and keep them from speaking up.
They were told: We are not asking you to come here to tell us whether you are for or against the bill, but to get a scientific data. I am wondering if all those witnesses did not come in order to tell us whether the bill made any sense or not. Indeed, the words pronounced by the minister, Mr. Speaker, are just words. The minister does not tell us what really happened at the committee meetings. What happened there was probably intended since no one wanted to present true reports, and call true technicians, true doctors and true surgeons. They were granted patient attention and once the evidence they had to give was collected, that was that. We remained convinced they had to follow the orders given to them, that is, encourage the bill on abortion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I have been listening very carefully and it seems to me he is discussing matters which took place before the committee. I remind him that the debate at the moment should be on the amendment of his* colleague the hon. member for Abitibi, which as I understand it deals with the definition of an accredited hospital. I would invite the hon. member to try to confine his* remarks as much as possible to the specific amendment.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I knew I was a little out of order. I was quoting a statement of the minister on the amendment but I must point out the decisions the Chair must take sometimes.
I am not blaming the Chair for allowing the minister to discuss what I am dealing with now. I was reading his speech and I was ruled out of order. You did not tell him that he was out of order when he made this statement. I quoted his words to prove to the house that when a minister has the floor, he is not treated the same way as an ordinary member.

May 2, 1969
Criminal Code
I knew I was out of order, but I was quoting the words of the minister on this amendment.
I recognize that you are right Mr. Speaker, but you should not have allowed the minister to speak.


Some hon. Members:: That is right.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: However, he was allowed to speak. He is the minister. He has every right. That is why I quoted his comments.
I come back to the matter at issue: the 400-bed limit. I want the people to know that something is going on in the house that we cannot tolerate. We have been elected to let them know.
As for the amendment of the hon. member for Abitibi on the 400-bed restriction, I think it is an approximation because we have failed in all our efforts to reduce the bad effects of the bill.
We could have put down 300 beds. This amendment is moved to prevent the establishment of abortion clubs. Even if abortion is legalized, we could at least prevent in small villages the creation of clubs made up of three physicians.
In connection with the legislation on homosexuality, the first social cub for homosexuals was widely advertised in Montreal under the banner of the Prime Minister. This is, Mr. Speaker, what we want to avoid.
We do not want, as suggested by the Minister of Justice, to bring discredit on our hospitals. I am wondering what he means by rural hospital? In my constituency, hospitals are all located in cities. He is not aware, I believe, that in the province of Quebec, there are hospitals in other cities besides Montreal. It looks as if the minister has not been around enough. There are no rural hospitals administered by farmers. Hospitals are in cities, not in rural areas. The minister should stop laughing at the people.
There are highly qualified doctors in city hospitals. Those doctors are objecting to such a disgrace since they find that 98 per cent of the population in our rural constituencies are against this bill.
Now, we want to prevent any misuse of the bill by limiting authorized abortion to 400 bed hospitals. As I said before, we want to prevent two or three doctors from forming a board and starting an abortion business, as it happened in England. The doctor who performs 62 abortions daily, for a fee of $300 each, makes a nice income! Just figure it out.

And to think that doctors are the very ones who pay no income tax!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Doctors are the very ones who pay no income tax! Many interesting things are brought to light. Indeed, it is precisely such abuse, that we want to prevent the establishment of human butchery clubs, by authorizing abortions only in 400 bed hospitals. Such a restriction would no doubt restrain the activity of quacks-I was going to say of freaks-who want to earn a living by commercializing abortion.
I am sure that if this amendment were passed, the population would feel more secure, for there is some fear, in my area and in others, that abortionists clubs will multiply as well as homosexual clubs.
It is>
being said that we are not legalizing abortion. Abortion like homosexuality is in fact, being legalized. Clubs will be established. England is presently facing such a problem. She is starting to impose restrictions to it.
Then, why are we told that it is not an important question, and that we are using filibustering tactics? In my opinion, if we are dealing with the future of the Canadian race, the matter is important.
I would like to see any minister give us proof of the contrary. When a law permits the extermination of a race, that is important. Abortionists are about to exterminate the Canadian race.
To populate Canada, we will have to send for Chinese and Japanese. Today, the birth rate has dropped by 60 per cent, and continues to fall. It is time that responsible men stand up and face those who never do..
Someone has just said that silence is golden. In my opinion, silence is outside, and we will soon be thrown out of our country, for want of population, because of the legislation we pass and which is designed to destroy the Canadian population.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I will vote in favour of this amendment. It is not perfect. It would have been better not to introduce the bill, which contains a lot of stinking clauses. It is not pleasant to talk about this. It is disgusting, but we have to do it.
We must repeat what the Canadian people are telling us. It is imperative that a small group of members make the views of decent people publicly known. Once more this is why I shall vote in favour of the amendment.
May 2, 1969

If today the government had voted in favour of the motion presented earlier, we could have started dealing with another subject, leaving to doctors the discussion of this matter.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I had not anticipated to take part in this debate, but considering the turn of events and the views expressed in the house, I think it is my duty to intervene in connection with the proposed amendment moved by my colleague the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) and so well defended by most of my colleagues.
It is to be noted that our opponents, mostly the Liberal members, are trying to hold up to ridicule our efforts to stop the passage of this bill's clauses by saying, for instance, that we are doctors, that we possess great knowledge in medicine.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, at this point I must call to the attention of the house and of the minister that this amendment to Bill C-150, proposed by the hon. member for Abitibi, says the following:
"For the purpose of this section an accredited hospital means a hospital containing not less than four hundred (400) beds and/or forming part of a university, in order that the therapeutic abortion committee may execute its functions in an atmosphere of perfect professional ethics."
The fact of presenting an amendment on a minimum of 400 beds does not mean that we accept the principle of the bill. All hon. members know that we are opposed to the parts of the bill related to abortion and homosexuality.
This amendment was proposed after conversations with Dr. Jutras, a pediatrician, of Victoriaville.
Dr. Jutras said to us and rightly so, and I quote:
"We want these therapeutic abortions to be performed only in large centres and not in small communities where everybody knows everybody else, so that people will not be able to point at well-known and highly respected doctor as being a professional abortionist. The purpose is also to preserve the identity of pregnant women who would wish to get an abortion.
That is the statement of Dr. Jutras who is himself opposed to this bill. However, to counteract the nefarious effects of this bill, we suggest a hospital with at least 400 beds because we believe that in big hospitals, the equipment, the training, the organization make it easier to deal with these things1. I
Criminal Code
refer to the evidence given by the representative of the Quebec Association of Hospital Medical Boards on this bill. It was then Bill C-195. However, the same remarks apply to Bill C-150. Here they are:
The therapeutic abortion committees mentioned in this bill should exist only in hospitals where there is a sufficient number of physicians and consultants in each department so that the decision arrived at may be the result of a just and impartial evaluation.
Those people are not members- of Parliament but nevertheless they watch closely government legislation and proposals.
Mr. Speaker, our amendment to allow abortion in special cases in hospitals containing not less than 400 beds, as Dr. Jutras pointed out, will eliminate in my opinion possibilities of gossips and bickering in small localities. That does not mean that rural hospitals are no good and my hon. colleague from Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) has well emphasized that point. Nevertheless, one must recognize that hospitals in cities, like Rouyn, Noranda, Chicoutimi or even other cities less important than Montreal, Quebec, Trois-Rivieres, Sherbrooke, are not as well equipped as the others.
Mr. Speaker, in order to show this amendment is approved by many people from outside Parliament, I received this morning a telegram from Montreal-not from the constituency of Ottawa-Carleton, but from Montreal, where the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) used to live-which reads as follows:
We Liberals support your stand on omnibus bill.
Mr. and Mrs. M. V. Murphy 9729, boul. Riviere-des-Prairies Montreal
I quote the name as the minister may know those people who are still Liberals. Those people support our objections against this bill.
Now, even where admission in a hospital is concerned, why not consult the people, by means of referendum?
We, from the Ralliement Creditiste, we have a basic principle under which we do not just limit ourselves to talking about the Bank of Canada. People charge us with having a bee in our bonnet which goes on bumbling about the Bank of Canada. Our basic principle is that the government is meant to serve the individual. The main duty of a democratic government, is to rule the country according to the will of the citizens.

May 2, 1968
Criminal Code
In the present circumstances, the people have not been consulted, but rather the government wants to impose its will on the people which is contrary to the principles of democracy.
I am utterly dumbfounded, when I see the members of the New Democratic Party loudly calling: democracy, democracy! What are they doing, in practice? They object to a referendum through which the opinion of the people on this bill might be known.
Mr. Speaker, why are they so afraid? Because we are not the only ones to object. No later than yesterday, the Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was saying that he had received no request, whatsoever. What about this request bearing 6,000 signatures, and that other one with more than 70,000 names protesting against this bill as well as against the article presently under discussion.
Mr. Speaker, I will be told that we are drifting away from the amendment now before the house, but our arguments do concern it, and they are all intended to prevent the spread across our land of this abomination the government proposes through Bill C-150.
Mr. Speaker, a while ago an hon. member mentioned-and you called him back to order-the resignation of the president of the Liberal Association in Ottawa-Carleton, the riding of the minister. Mr. McGuinty is a close friend of the minister's; the minister tells us that he is a philosopher, a doctor of philosophy. If he is a philosopher, that is because he has common sense for, indeed, philosophy is good common sense. That is why he quit the Liberal party.
Mr. Speaker, what Mr. McGuinty says-


Mr. Paul Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works):: You would be willing to accept him-


David Réal Caouette: Of course, we would accept him in our ranks as a philosopher, but we certainly would not accept the member for Chicoutimi in the same capacity.


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Langlois@: There is not much danger-


David Réal Caouette: I know there is not much danger of it. The hon. member for Chicoutimi is especially good at playing Santa Claus during the Christmas season.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it one o'clock?

At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, before the adjournment at one o'clock, I was saying that my friend from Abitibi, Mr. Laprise, had moved an amendment tending to authorize the practice of abortion only in 400 bed hospitals, and I quote
-in order that the therapeutic abortion committee may execute its functions in an atmosphere of perfect professional ethics.
Mr. Speaker, we have been accused of holding up the proceedings of the house, of objecting to this bill or to the introduction of amendments, merely to play politics.
But the other day, when the member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger) told me: Your attitude will not bring you any votes, I asked him since when he was interested in our winning votes in the province of Quebec or elsewhere in Canada.
The other day, the member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) also accused the Ral-liement Creditiste of filibustering with regard to the clause of Bill C-150 about the eligibility of hospitals, for example. As usual, the member for Trois-Rivieres, taking to task the Ral-liement Creditiste, acted like a fool and talked through his hat.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the proposed amendments is not to express our approval of the bill, even if it were amended, but rather -and I shall be quite frank with the house-to prevent, as long as possible, the passage of this bill. By so doing, we give the opportunity to associations, in Quebec as well as in the rest of Canada, to submit petitions and to bring pressure to bear on the government in order to prevent it from making too hasty a decision on a matter so big with consequences. That is the main purpose of our amendments.
Mr. Speaker, we readily admit that far more important and urgent subjects should be debated in parliament at this time, and we do not object to the government taking it upon itself to postpone the study of this1 Bill C-150 so as to enable the house to discuss other more important problems, such as unemployment and the plight of western as well as of eastern farmers. There are urgent problems that must be settled. And the Creditistes will be accused of delaying tactics because of their amendments to Bill C-150.
May 2, 1969

Mr. Speaker, we are going to discuss the amendments. We are dealing with the amendment relating to the number of hospital beds, after which we shall study another amendment dealing with something else. When we have gone through all the amendments, Mr. Speaker, we will reach the stage of the third reading of the bill. There are 14 of us and we shall deliver 14 speeches because the government would not give various Canadian organizations the opportunity to submit their intentions and their suggestions.
We demand that a hospital should have at least 400 beds in order to be accredited, according to the clause of the Bill.
We say again we repeat that we do not endorse the bill for all that. We want to minimize as much as possible the disastrous effects of the bill. If we are successful, we shall have rendered the people a service all the same. I only speak on behalf of my colleagues of the Ralliement Creditiste.
During the lunch hour, I had a phone call from Montreal, not from a Creditiste, but from Mr. Morois, a notary. I do not know him. I think he is the president of an association of Catholic parents in Montreal. He congratulates us on the stand we are taking in the house. We are not asking the notary if he is going to vote for us or not. We do not care about that.
We are greatly concerned, however, about the bill before us. Are we going to impose a legislation, even against the will of the people, across the country?
There is an old fable of La Fontaine about animals sick of the plague. I am wondering if we might not apply it to this government as regards Bill C-150.
In any case, Mr. Speaker, we have this amendment before us. We are opposed to the idea that, if this bill is passed, any hospital in Canada can be accredited.
We are sticking to our opinions concerning this amendment. We are surprised that members who consider themselves to be very democratic do not suggest that we go before the people in order to find out if they are in favour of the bill or not.
We are convinced that catholics, protestants, and people of other creeds are happy to see us adopt this attitude here. It is not as Creditistes that we have done so. It is not in the name of the Ralliement Creditiste that we have adopted that attitude, but in the name of Christian morals-for those of us who are Christians-and in the name of the Canadian
Criminal Code
people, which we must serve and not enslave, as is being done now.


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: I regret very much not to have been able, before today, to speak in this house in support of my colleagues of the Ralliement creditiste and object, as did all the others who took part in this debate, to the clauses concerning homosexuality and abortion in Bill C-150 to amend the Criminal Code.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I was unable to do so because of an absence of several days from the house; in fact, the committee on fisheries and forestry, of which I am a member, went to Vancouver, Victoria and several other cities in western Canada, to investigate problems in those fields.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the amendment moved by my colleague the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise), which reads as follows:
That Bill C-150, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act, be amended by deleting paragraph (a) of sub-section 6 of clause 18 on page 43 and substituting therefor:
"(a) For the purpose of this section, an accredited or approved hospital means a hospital containing not less than four hundred (400) beds and/or forming part of a university, in order that the therapeutic abortion committee may execute its functions in an atmosphere of perfect professional ethics."
I fully support that amendment which is of the utmost importance. I find it most important, because the matter at issue is to know whether the therapeutic abortion committees set up in hospitals will be able to consider and determine the opportunity of procuring the miscarriage of a female person, as the bill puts it.
This is why even large hospitals, with 400 beds or more, are concerned about the consequences of passing Bill C-150.
I recognize the importance of the amendment now before us; to illustrate my point, I would like to refer to a brief submitted by experts in hospital management. I am quoting:
The Canadian Association of Catholic Hospitals, representing the administrators of some 300 hospitals (making up about 35 per cent of all the hospital services offered to the Canadian public) recognizes the necessity of clarifying the present sections of the Criminal Code regarding abortion, but is opposed to proposals aiming to liberalize abortion.

May 2, 1969
Criminal Code
This is why the necessary amendments to this law should not be adopted before the question as a whole has been thoroughly studied and before the government finds better ways to carry on research.
Our brief dealt mainly with the important question of administration that is to say with the real problem hospitals will have to face should Parliament hastily legalize, without having carefully considered all its possible implications, a practice which is not only considered repulsive by the majority of Canadians, but contrary to the common weal.
At present, the administrators of catholic hospitals follow rules of conduct which prohibit therapeutic abortion and therefore they cannot provide premises, equipment and staff for such ends.
Even though the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code do not make abortion mandatory but merely abolish all possible penalties in given circumstances, the conditions stipulated put the catholic hospitals in a new and extremely vulnerable position, since the provincial authorities can, under said amendments, require them to set up their own abortion committees.
I believe that point most important, since we have to decide on such a serious matter, in other words, whether abortion should be performed on a female person, and since the implications of such act can be very serious.
I have read evidence from several prominent doctors on abortion, as well as reports from doctors well aware of what goes on in hospitals at the present time. I should like to quote figures provided by Dr. Gregg Tompkins, who had this to say:
We have actively tried to discover the cases of therapeutic abortion. Their number varies according to localities. Very few in some centres, but quite numerous in others. In 1965, 17 therapeutic abortions were performed in Nova Scotia. In a maternity hospital where half of the deliveries occur, or which services about half of the province, three therapeutic abortions were performed.
Mr. Speaker, this quotes shows the difference between cases where abortion may be allowed and those where it must be refused.
I go on with the quotation:
In another locality about 70 miles away, where there are 500 deliveries a year, that is approximately one hundredth of the population, eight or ten therapeutic abortions are performed, I think. Now it is quite probable, I am sure, that those men have made such decisions in good faith, but it cannot be inferred that they were dealing with a proportion of the population where risks are greater than for the rest of it-
Here are Dr. Vant's figures, and I quote:
Dr. It. W. Lohner of Utah noted in a recent study effected over a 10 year period, that the frequency of therapeutic abortions in Salt Lake City was one out of 2,482 deliveries. He compared that figure with a frequency of one out of 160 over a 5 year period in Mount Sinai hospital in New

York City and of one out of 6,416 over a ten year period, where there were 102,654 deliveries in the Los Angeles county hospital. He concluded that those figures reflect the mentality of the local people.
Dr. Patrick Beirne, of New York City, says this:
In New York City, two hospitals, a few streets away from one another, have abortion committees. In the first one, there is one therapeutic abortion per 16,000 deliveries. In the other, there is one abortion per 20 births.
It is most important to decide who, in the hospitals, should be appointed to such a committee. Therefore, committees are no guarantee that in our province serious consideration will be given as to whether or not abortion should be procured.
And I go on with the quotation:
One committee is not good enough. The matter should be cleared up, in my opinion.
On the other hand, Dr. Jack Walters says this:
If we consider the differences in the frequency of abortions in the world, we find that hospitals with the highest record of abortions are those that have the most lenient committees. In a hospital with 20,000 confinements a year, only a few abortions are procured to save the life of the mother. In another hospital with 10,000 confinements, there would be 40 times more abortions in a year and the difference is not in the frequency of these abortions, but in the fact that it is common knowledge that if sent to that hospital, a woman can procure her own miscarriage.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that for all those reasons I just mentioned, and especially on account of such evidence given by people who have several years' experience in New York hospitals and elsewhere, it is our duty to give this amendment the most careful consideration possible.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my view the nays have it. The motion is negatived on division.
May 2, 1969



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate informing this house that the Senate have passed Bill S-33, an act to incorporate Atlantic Mutual Life Insurance Company, to which the concurrence of this house is desired.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of Bill C-150, to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Gérard Laprise: motion No. 29:
That Bill C-150, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act, be amended by deleting paragraph (f) of subsection 6 of clause 18 on page 44 and substituting therefor:
"(f) "therapeutic abortion committee" for any hospital means a committee, comprised of not less than two qualified medical practitioners and one gynaecologist, appointed by the board of that hospital and approved by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of the province concerned, for the purpose of considering and determining questions relating to terminations of pregnancy within that hospital."
He said:

[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, the amendment I am moving just now tends to amend paragraph (f) of sub-section 6 of clause 18 which reads as follows:
"therapeutic abortion committee" for any hospital means a committee, comprised of not less than three members each of whom is a qualified medical practitioner, appointed by the board of that hospital for the purpose of considering and determining questions relating to termination of pregnancy within that hospital.
The amendment that I am moving states that the abortion committee for any hospital means a committee comprised of not less than
Criminal Code
two qualified medical practitioners and one gynaecologist. The amendment moved by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) mentions three medical practitioners. Well, I move through my amendment, that out of these three medical practitioners, one gynaecologist should be appointed by the board of that hospital and approved by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of the province concerned, for the purpose of considering and determining questions relating to terminations of pregnancy within that hospital.
Mr. Speaker, in moving this amendment, I wish to point out that I am doing so, subject to the reservation that I object to the principle of abortion as proposed in Bill C-150.
I am therefore moving a new amendment to clause 18 in case that clause would not be rejected, and I want my position to be well understood.
The object of this amendment is to specify the nature of an abortion committee and to provide that the College of Physicians and Surgeons will have to approve the establishment of such committee. It will not only be the authorities of the hospital but the College of Physicians and Surgeons in each province which will be called to approve the establishment of each committee. The amendment also states that the committee will have to include a gynaecologist, that is a specialist in gynaecology which Larousse defines as the science of morphology, physiology, pathology and psychology of women.
Mr. Speaker, this is why we are asking that a gynaecologist be included in the therapeutic abortion committee, if such a committee is appointed and provided, of course, that Bill C-150 is passed in its present form.
Mr. Speaker, if we want that a gynaecologist be included in the group of three physicians which will be called to decide whether an abortion will be performed, it is to make sure as much as possible that they will take a serious decision.
Mr. Speaker, the amendment which I have moved is not my own, since I have introduced it on the request of gynaecologists who want to assure the presence of a specialist in the abortion committee.
Since Bill C-150 provides for the legalization of abortion in order to protect the mother's life, a small abortion committee will have the authority to decide whether the abortion will be performed. Finally, if the law is adopted in its present form it will enable two physicians within a three-member committee to authorize abortions as they see fit.

May 2, 1969
Criminal Code
Mr. Speaker, considering how easy it will be for a small group of physicians to decide whether or not a being meant to live should be destructed, often in compliance with the fancy of some women, we do not hesitate to oppose the bill. We must face the fact: under the legislation presently before us, some women and young girls have the definite impression that abortion will be legally and readily authorized. That is why we insist that a gynaecologist be on the committee, because we know such a person has made extensive studies regarding the function of giving birth to children. All doctors do not know the matter as well, not even obstetricians.
According to some gynaecologists, this section of the medical science has greatly improved particularly in the last ten years. Studies have been made and others are underway, and the findings are surprising. It is becoming always easier to treat all diseases affecting pregnant women.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, they cannot be entrusted to doctors who are not fully qualified to treat women's diseases at the time of delivery or during pregnancy.
We have received many testimonies in this connection. To support my views I shall quote part of an article by Mrs. Claire Campbell in the February 1968 issue of Relations:
Dr. Kaseki. a famed gynaecologist at Nagoya, Japan (known as the abortion land), made a survey among 525 women who had resorted to a therapeutic abortion. He found out that 73 per cent had felt anguished after abortion. Another inquiry revealed that out of 253 married women on whom a therapeutic abortion had been performed, 92 per cent felt the pangs of remorse. In addition, a survey conducted by a Mainichi newspaper produced 1,026 replies:	68 per cent
said that abortion was intrinsically wrong and that they missed the child that had been destroyed.
We find that gynaecologists everywhere have made studies not only in an attempt to find a cure for diseases likely to affect expectant mothers, but also to learn more about the effects of abortions.
And we know, Mr. Speaker, that one cannot take a green fruit from a tree without injuring the branch itself. The very same thing applies to abortions. It has been proved by gynaecologists that childbirth is a natural process which, if terminated before maturity, affects the woman.
I feel it is important and necessary to look fully into those matters before accepting clause 18 as proposed by the Minister of Justice.
In support of my arguments, I shall quote part of Dr. Legare's evidence-Dr. Legare is
[Mr. Laprlse.l
another gynaecologist-when he appeared before the committee on justice and legal affairs on March 25, 1969.
I refer to page 622 of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the committee, and I quote:
I mentioned these matters a while ago, and of course, it is difficult to judge the value of our brief, but I was very careful to stick to the question in so far as the indications are concerned. As to these indications, I think that the comparison of the life of the foetus against the health of the mother is difficult to make in certain particularly questionable fields. I would accept therapeutic abortion in certain cases, where it is one life against another.
For instance, I mentioned certain inoperable mitral stenoses, certain cases of renal insufficiency, especially those following chronic nephrites, and not those which are caused by acute phenomena, which are called acute glomerulonephrites, which can be fairly well treated with modern medication.
But, as I stated, these cases should become more and more rare, because medicine is developing and progressing and we are finding more potent medication to treat these illnesses without having to have recourse to therapeutic abortion.
We have here another gynaecologist who testifies that cases where therapeutic abortion is necessary are very rare, because of the progress of medical science. That is why I deem it important that a gynaecologist be a member of the therapeutic committee. The hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) asked Dr. Legare if, in his opinion and I quote:
-according to your medical knowledge, are there cases of therapeutic abortion which are absolutely necessary?
Dr. Legare answered:
I must say that I have never come across any, but I do not have too much experience in this. I have been practising obstetrics for 13 years only.
To my mind, Dr. Legare is extremely modest in this regard, for 13 years' experience is quite a lot. I resume my quotation:
However, I think there could be doubtful cases, and to come back to that subject, I do not know if this suggestion to amend the Act is prudent or not, but it seems to me that it is not worthwhile upsetting the legislation, which might be risky, when the serious cases are covered at the present time.
Dr. Legare does say that the present act, even before being modified, does cover-as he says-the few cases that can occur, because in almost every case the necessary medication and care can be given to restore the health of the mother and enable her to see her pregnancy through.
May 2, 1969

Criminal Code
Mr. Rondeau followed with another question, and I quote:
In your experience has it ever happened that you had to perform therapeutic abortion as the ultimate means of saving the life of the mother?
The member for Shefford wanted specific information in this case. Here is Dr. Legare's reply:
No, not personally. I come back to the evidence of Mrs. Maclnnis-I am probably influenced, and even as a last resort, I do not have the right to resort to this. I multiply all the "other" means to solve these problems. But I think that, in fact, the problem can be discussed on the basis of statistics. Let us compare the statistics of places where therapeutic abortion is practised with those of places where it is not practised-
My colleague from Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin) gave statistics a while ago which show that there is a difference between those places where therapeutic abortions are practised and those where they are not.
-and check the results. This is where we shall be able to judge, according to whether the results are identical, higher or lower.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
This can be proved by figures and not through philosophical arguments, you are right. But these are very infrequent cases-
And Dr. Legare emphasized this aspect in almost every answer to questions that were asked him.
Mr. Rondeau got back to the matter again and I quote:
The therapeutic abortion committee that will have to decide in what cases there should be an abortion, could not this committee still be subject to medical error?
Dr. Legare answered:
Yes, of course. Any human being can make a medical error, and that is why at the end of my brief I mentioned that the death penalty has been abolished because of the possibility of a miscarriage of justice and out of humanitarianism. We ourselves must be at least as humble as the judges and accept that we can make mistakes, that even a committee can make mistakes. And a life is at stake. This may be a matter of opinion but as far as we are concerned a life is at stake at the very outset.
Not at the moment of delivery in due time, but at the very outset.
Mr. Rondeau then asked another question and I quote:
Does medical progress call for abortion or does it not rather make it unnecessary?
Dr. Legare answered:
There are a great number of indications, some that I have not even mentioned, that are now of lesser importance. Take for instance, uncontrollable
vomiting, vomiting at the beginning of pregnancy on which medication had no effect. A woman could die from this or suffer an acute atrophy of the liver but this no longer happens because of serums and all the various means we have to maintain a patient's balance. These indications are no longer of first importance.
So, Mr. Speaker, these indications demonstrate the necessity to have one gynaecologist on such therapeutic abortion committee. Dr. Legare went further to say:
Other indications which X mentioned are less important today because of progress. For instance, from the viewpoint of cardiology, there are fewer indications than previously. It is normal, I think, that as medicine progresses, it becomes increasingly medical instead of surgical.
So I think that this statement from Dr. Legare indicates that there is a possibility in nearly all cases to find a solution, and even a cure, through medical treatments rather than surgery.
So Mr. Speaker, those are indications in favour of my amendment. I am more and more convinced that this amendment is valid and that it should be accepted by the Minister of Justice, to insure that a gynaecologist will be on this therapeutic committee and that every guarantee is obtained as to the decision to practise an abortion or not. Such decision must be taken wisely and with as few mistakes as possible.
So I think we are playing with the life of foetus, who can expect to live, and we should not neglect anything so that they will be born. We have evidence indicating that with today's medical knowledge most of those difficult pregnancies can be continued. This is what happens.
So for these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Justice should accept this amendment, as there is no doubt that it is really needed.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, although in committee we were able to accept well over 20 amendments, the government, as you know, is supporting the committee report participated in by members of the house from all political parties. We have to support the committee on this particular measure and reject the amendment just spoken to by the hon. member for Abiti-bi (Mr. Laprise). His proposal would inject the requirement that members of a therapeutic abortion committee of a hospital be approved by the provincial College of Physicians and Surgeons; it would also specify that

May 2, 1969
Criminal Code
at least one member of the committee be a gynaecologist.
In this as in other areas of medical practice, the responsibility for appointments should be with the board charged with the control and management of the hospital. In our view, to require approval by the provincial College of Physicians and Surgeons would constitute an unwarranted reflection on the good faith and competence of the boards of hospitals which are either accredited or approved as defined in the bill. After all, we are dealing with hospitals that are accredited or approved. An accredited hospital, in the bill, means a hospital accredited by the Canadian Council on Hospital Accreditation, and an approved hospital means a hospital in a province approved by the minister of health of that province.
We believe that the qualification of the hospital by either the medical profession itself or by the provincial minister of health is sufficient to maintain the standard of professional conduct we believe is required for the purpose of the bill. For that reason we have to recommend to the house that the hon. member's amendment be rejected.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to speak on this amendment, because I realize that the hon. minister does not know what to say.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to have a correction made to the French Orders of the Day on page (i) concerning the amendment of the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise). I quote:
-be amended by deleting paragraph (f) of subsection 6-
There is no such thing in the bill as a paragraph (f) in section 18. The "therapeutic abortion committee" is defined in paragraph (e), not paragraph (f). I presume, Mr. Speaker, that it must be a misprint.
To prevent my hon. colleagues of the government party from making a mistake when they vote, I would like this correction to be made.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to make a few comparisons for the minister's benefit and I would ask him to listen carefully to our remarks; he may be in a position to change his mind after that, since what he said in the speech he just made relates neither to the bill, nor to the amendment nor to what the hon. member for Abitibi said.

Clause 18 (6) (e) of the bill defines "therapeutic abortion committee" as follows:
"therapeutic abortion committee" for any hospital means a committee, comprised of not less than three members each of whom is a qualified medical practitioner, appointed by the board of that hospital for the purpose of considering and determining questions relating to terminations of pregnancy within that hospital.
However, this amendment gives another definition of "therapeutic abortion committee". In fact, the hon. member for Abitibi makes only two new suggestions. The committee would still be comprised of three members, but whilst according to the minister's proposal, these members would be three qualified medical practitioners appointed by the board of the hospital, in the proposal of the hon. member for Abitibi, one of the three qualified medical practitioners would be a gynaecologist. The amendment proposed by the hon. member stipulates also, as this is not in the bill, and I am quoting:
-approved by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of the province concerned.
Why? Obviously because in our medical legislation the provisions differ from one province to another and that a certain latitude must therefore be provided.
Secondly, we should ensure that appointments of committee members are approved by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of the province concerned. This seems quite logical and normal to me. However, the minister does not accept a gynaecologist on the therapeutic abortion committee, in spite of the fact that he himself proposes three doctors on the committee, not necessarily gynaecologists.
Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand why the minister's argument is so narrow and why he cannot admit that a gynaecologist would have his place on a therapeutic abortion committee. It seems to me that if you wish to have the automatic transmission of a car repaired, you do not go to the dentist but rather to a mechanic specialized in the repair of automatic transmissions. When you suffer from a headache, you could take the medical advice of the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle), but if it is a serious illness, you would see a specialist in that field, which is normal, in my opinion.
If a cancer patient went to seek medical advice from the hon. member for Hull, he would say: "I know more competent people than myself to treat that illness." Now, prompted by his professional conscience, the hon. member for Hull would send his patient to a specialist in that field.
May 2, 1969

In fact, specialization is everywhere today. There are pediatricians, gynaecologists, general practitioners, psychiatrists, specialists in political illnesses who could treat those of the Liberal party for example. This is why certain philosophers and physicians are resigning.
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that each patient consults a specialist, according to the nature of his illness, because he will obtain a more adequate treatment. That is why we feel we must enlighten the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) in his consideration of abortion because he is not himself a specialist in this field. Experts in different areas must help each other. That is the reason why we take part in this debate.
The minister said earlier-I am sorry he is not here to take note of what we are telling him-that the amendment of the hon. member for Abitibi was contrary to the views of the medical board. I think the opposite is true, because the amendment stipulates and I quote:
-approved by the College of Physicians and Surgeons-*
There is the word "approved", which indicates that there is no intention to make doctors fight against the College of Physicians and Surgeons.
Yet, that is what the minister was suggesting earlier. He is wrong because the text says clearly, and I quote:
-appointed by the board of that hospital and approved by the College of Physicians and Surgeons-
I do not find anything extraordinary in that and I cannot see how the minister can read the opposite of what is written.
Mr. Speaker, the amendment of the hon. member for Abitibi states two particular points, since it is necessary to repeat it. In short, it is a matter of defining what is a therapeutic abortion committee.
To analyse further the amendment and to explain the reasons why I support it unreservedly, I would like to remind the minister and his colleagues that the therapeutic committees, which are proposed for hospitals where abortion will be performed, that is all hospitals without exception, are the keystone of the entire law on abortion.
In fact, the whole question of abortion is based on the establishment of those famous therapeutic abortion committees. One understands right away the importance of a definition of the words "therapeutic abortion committee". Here, the question is not to define
Criminal Code
minor words used in the bill, but the very essence of the bill itself. In short, we have to make clear who will be responsible for the administration of the act, consequently for safeguarding the mother's life, it possible, and for enforcing the code of professional ethics.
Mr. Speaker, I could hardly imagine a dentist-since no definition is given of the "medical practitioner" performing an abortion; however, that might well happen if no such definition is available in the bill.
That is why we would like the words "qualified medical practitioner" to be clarified as meaning an expert in that field, as recommended by Dr. Legare, from Quebec City, according to No. 13 of the minutes of the proceedings of the committee. He felt that the government should guarantee that the therapeutic abortion committee will include a gynaecologist.
Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a sound amendment and I cannot understand why it would be rejected.
I am coming back to this amendment to say that a therapeutic abortion committee means, and this is the definition suggested by the hon. member for Abitibi, and I quote:
-a committee comprised of not less than two qualified medical practitioners and one gynaecologist-
Well, the act states this:
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)

means a committee comprised of not less than three members-
And we, in this party, say:
-a committee comprised of not less than two qualified medical practitioners and one gynaecologist-
This is the first difference with which I dealt earlier. In other words, we accept the proposal that the committee shall comprise three medical practitioners, but we say that one of them shall be a gynaecologist.
I continue to quote the clause of the bill:
-each of whom is a qualified medical practitioner-
Therefore, it conforms with the definition. -appointed by the board of that hospital-
Well, in our amendment, we say:
-appointed by the board of that hospital-
So, there is no difference at all, which means that Liberals can be Creditists or that Creditists can be Liberals.
-for the purpose of considering and determining questions relating to terminations of pregnancy within that hospital.

May 2, 1969
Criminal Code As for us, we say:
-for the purpose of considering and determining questions relating to terminations of pregnancy within that hospital.
Now, before that we have simply added: -and approved by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of the province concerned-
In my opinion, it is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that this proposal is clear and merely clarifies subclause (f) of the bill which stipulates that a therapeutic abortion committee must be established with a view to determining who will be appointed to it.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask those who are more familiar than we are with such matters why a gynaecologist should not sit on such a committee to supervise the operation required to perform an abortion.
I should be most happy to have the opinion of the hon. member for Hull, who is a capable doctor, on this matter.
In Hull, this morning, I met a few of his close friends. We were precisely talking of the important job he was doing as chairman of the health, welfare and social affairs committee, for which I commend him. But these same people were wondering, however, what he was doing regarding abortion.
Mr. Speaker, I should like him to answer that question himself and say why a gynaecologist should not sit on such a committee.
The object of this amendment is to specify the nature of an abortion committee and to stipulate that its membership must be approved by the College of Physicians and Surgeons. According to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise), the committee must include a gynaecologist, that is a doctor who has specialized in gynaecology, which Larousse defines as the science of the morphology, the physiology, the pathology and the psychology of women, or as a branch of medicine having to do with the diseases of women.
That is why we are asking that a gynaecologist be included among the members of the therapeutic committee.
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to go further, but I would like to remind the house that consideration of this point is of the utmost importance.
Mr. Speaker, we are in agreement and we wish to make a positive contribution to the drafting of the legislation. One must admit that this is a very simple amendment, which is nevertheless important and essential in order that all persons seeking an abortion be 
ensured at least of adequate care and the help of specialists.
I dare not hope, however, that the amendment will be adopted; I would be very much surprised if it were, because they are so determined to have the omnibus bill passed at all costs that they are even ready to make it retroactive.
The logic of that clause is thus laid bare, and I blame the house for not saying anything. Indeed, this amendment calls for comments. I think the members of the New Democratic Party, who are true blue socialists and idealists, whose abode is in the clouds, should practice democracy and as they preach it and express their point of view. Whether we approve or blame the government is irrelevant; we want to know if people who apply to a doctor and whose case will be settled by the therapeutic abortion committee, will be treated by specialists or by unqualified persons. That is the gist of the matter, Mr. Speaker.
I am loath to believe that our older colleagues, whose white hair should command respect, do not have enough courage, nor firm enough convictions or ideas to stand up and be counted, to tell us whether or not they agree on a more adequate membership for the therapeutic committees. But no, they seem to be seated on six inches of Lepage's glue, and we do not hear a peep out of them-


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


André-Gilles Fortin: And the members of the Rallie-ment Creditiste have-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order.
The hon. member had made a good start, and I would ask him to round up his remarks in the same vein.


André-Gilles Fortin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for appreciating what is said and how it is said.
I shall close my remarks by saying that the atmosphere which prevails in this house is rather discouraging. If our constituents could see us, I feel that long ago we would have been left without a government, since the whole building would have been blown to smithereens.
From a medical standpoint, abortion means the expulsion, natural or caused, outside the uterus, of the product of conception.
There are two kinds of abortions. First, there is the abortion called a miscarriage, which is a natural phenomenon over which
May 2, 1969

the human will has no power. That is not the one we are concerned with.
But there is also the voluntary abortion, which causes the expulsion of a live foetus. There can be no doubt that it is a human being, a living being. The expulsion is produced for different motives or reasons.
I would go even further, Mr. Speaker, and suggest that there should be a psychiatrist on the therapeutic abortion committee to study the motives of the women asking for an abortion.
I think that the hon. member for Abitibi does not go far enough.
At least one psychiatrist should be on this committee to examine the reasons which prompt a woman to ask for an abortion and show that there may be other means than the removal of the foetus from the uterus to solve her problem.
Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, the establishment of therapeutic committees is the cornerstone of this legislation-


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


André-Gilles Fortin: -which asks-


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Isabelle:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. member.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
time allotted to the hon. member having expired, the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) will have to get the unanimous consent of the house to put a question to the hon. member.
Does the house allow that the hon. member to put a question to the hon. member for Lotbiniere?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Mr. Speaker, I am rising both on a question of privilege and on a point of order. The member for Hull was mentioned regarding consultations for headaches. It was also suggested that the hon. old white-haired members of the house seem reluctant to act wisely.
Criminal Code
In reply, I shall say that at our age, we still have our own hair and that if the hon. member continues to speak like this, he will not have any hair left in five years from now.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


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


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: I rise again on a question of privilege.
If it is necessary to appoint a gynaecologist on the abortion committee, I do not believe that it has to be specified. I hope the hospital trustees will ensure that this specialty will be represented within the committee. On the other hand, I would like to say that in listening to speeches like those we have listened to for a week, I think that these people should consult a proctologist.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member for Lotbiniere rises on a point of order.


André-Gilles Fortin: The house gave unanimous consent to the hon. member for Hull to ask me a question, so I should be given unanimous consent to answer him.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member for Hull rises on a question of privilege.
Before I give the floor to the next speaker, I might say that the hon. member for Lotbiniere, in opening his remarks, pointed out an error on page (i) of the order paper. He might perhaps point it out again to allow the Chair to decide whether there is an error or not.


André-Gilles Fortin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
However, I realized during the debate that I had the first version of the omnibus bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The Chair, having looked at Bill C-150, finds that there really is a paragraph (f).


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member for Lotbiniere on a question of privilege.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege.

May 2, 1969
Criminal Code
I felt the remarks of the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) were aimed directly at me. He hopes that I will lose my hair. I think that it would be more important to ask ourselves-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I think this is turning into a debate, which is out of order.


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I believe in giving credit where credit is due, even when this means giving credit to the Creditistes. I have listened, as have all other hon. members, with considerable admiration to the members of that party in this house speaking in support of the moral issues involved in this legislation. As the leader of the Creditistes party said a moment ago, they have not taken that stand on a partisan basis; they have taken their stand on the common, ethical and moral grounds with which we can all agree. There is a moral factor involved in these questions, regardless of what hon. members opposite may say, and my hon. friends to my left at the far end of the chamber can be congratulated on bringing it out.
They represent a viewpoint common to many Canadians, regardless of which language they speak. Many issues of a similar nature have been raised where common ground exists, regardless of language or province of origin. My hon. friends have done us a tremendous service in bringing these matters forward. Certainly, some of the matters they have raised are worthy of our consideration. Are we to compel doctors to perform abortions against their will or to serve on abortion committees when they do not wish to do so? These provisions are like many others being brought forward as part of the attempt to establish a permissive society. The accumulated wisdom of peoples shows that laws like the present one do not work. They are divisive, they destroy and tear apart the fabric of society.
Consider for a moment, Mr. Speaker, what kind of society we shall have if we introduce relaxed divorce laws, if we permit abortions to take place, the smoking of marijuana and homosexuality. Why, it will be just one long, swinging ball. But do you build a nation and defend freedom by lowering the barriers against vice?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I hope the hon. member is coming to the point. I point out to him that we are

considering a specific motion to amend a clause in Bill C-150, and I ask him to restrict his remarks to that motion.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I will come to the point. Next, we may expect the government to introduce a law legalizing graft and corruption.
During the debate on abortion, we have heard a great deal about permissiveness and the just society. Well, you cannot have justice for the few. After the legislation concerning abortion has been passed, we shall have a situation in which doctors will no longer be allowed discretion in refusing to perform abortions. On what grounds, Mr. Speaker, can a medical committee in a hospital refuse to grant an abortion? Will the grounds cover the mother's physical or mental health? These are so nebulous that, like charity, they cover a multitude of sins.
I submit that once you remove the child's basic right to live you have no leg to stand on in refusing abortions. I ask hon. gentlemen in this chamber this question: Do they honestly think that once this legislation becomes law, once this chamber has approved the principle of abortion, those demanding abortions will be satisfied with a simple "no"? They will not be so satisfied, and that has been the experience in countries like Japan, where abortions are allowed. In those countries it has been found in practice that the mere, simple request for an abortion is enough. The person requesting one obtains one.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Some will say, what is wrong with that? Actually, those favouring this legislation see nothing wrong with abortion as such; nor are they disturbed at the idea of abortions being as widespread as vaccinations are. Many of the advocates of this legislation would have adopted a position far more in line with their real views if they had said, "We favour abortion because there is nothing wrong with it." They simply do not believe in the rights of the unborn. They did not, however, say this, because if they had they would have trampled on the dearly held convictions of many thousands of Canadians of various religious denominations who hold that human life is sacred. Those who favour abortion laws leave out of their consideration entirely the rights of the child. A simple test will show that I am right. How many abortions would there be if the child had a say in the matter? Not very many.
May 2. 1969

There is a deep moral issue behind all the verbiage we have heard on this matter, that issue being the right to life. The unborn child has not illegitimately taken the life of another. The child has not transgressed any law. It wants to be born and under this legislation this becomes a crime.
With that closeness they have to the ordinary men and women of their province, my hon. friends at the end of the chamber to my left have determined the feelings of ordinary Canadians. They have raised this issue as a moral issue and that is the basis on which it must be approached. The framers of this legislation have chosen to ignore the history of experience and the wisdom of other nations.
We face the same problem with marijuana. Certain persons in this country are acting as though narcotics appeared only yesterday in our society. This shows a naivety, Mr. Speaker, that among supposedly responsible persons is almost unbelievable. The nations of Asia have had a thousand years of experience with the anti-social and destructive effects of such narcotics and have seen fit to outlaw them, with very severe penalties for those breaking the law. In 1969 marijuana was outlawed in India, not for ideological reasons, but simply because the drug had a destructive and catastrophic impact on society.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must interrupt the hon. member to remind him that his comments at this time ought to be related to the specific motion now before the house. I know the hon. member has followed this debate closely during the last few days and realizes that, on a number of occasions, the Chair has invited hon. members to limit their contributions to the specific motion being considered. If the hon. member is allowed to disregard that rule of relevancy, other hon. members must also be given similar treatment, and we might as well be prepared to stay here until Christmas.
I suggest to the hon. member that there will be other opportunities to make general speeches on abortion. Having said that, I hope the hon. member will now try to relate his remarks to the motion moved by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) which deals with therapeutic abortion committees.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, may I just say this in closing? I cannot help thinking that all these initiatives of the so-called just society or permissive society have one thing in common. If carried out unchecked they will completely destroy society. That is why the older 29180-525
Criminal Code
civilizations ruled out such things. The consequences will be on the heads of the members of the government. I will say nothing else.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, we are studying an amendment much similar to the one that follows, which refers more specifically to the famous hospital committees and requires greater guarantee than is offered in the present bill.
The hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) has just confirmed our assertions, for instance, that he would like to see a gynaecologist on those committees. We are not here to rely on what others will do. We must draft clear, definite and precise laws. If we admit that gynaecologists are the best experts in this field, we must not approve legislation which, at best, expresses the hope that a gynaecologist will be a member of those hospital committees.
The act should say "two doctors and a gynaecologist". In this connection, I agree with the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) who feels that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) isi still not definite enough, even if it stipulates that a gynaecologist must be a member of the committee. That is certainly not asking too much, because the bill could be much more strict than it is presently even with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Abitibi.
Even in the latter case, the only guarantee would be that a gynaecologist would be a member of the committee on which there would still be some doctors, the majority of them actually, who are not gynaecologists and who could always reverse the decision, whether positive or negative, of the gynaecologist.
On this I am not referring to the expert witnesses we called, but to other witnesses called on the suggestion of members of the other parties. I am not questioning the value of the witnesses called; they were serious and knowledgeable. I am speaking here of Dr. George B. Maughan, chief obstetrician and gynaecologist of the Royal Victoria Hospital of Montreal, who is a highly competent gynaecologist, and who said, as may be seen at page 555 of the minutes of proceedings of the committee that even if two doctors told him to "shoot" a foetus, the doctors were making the decision but not the operation. It was in fact the gynaecologist who had to practise the abortion. As a result, he said:

May 2, 1969
Criminal Code
It is nice to ask somebody else to take decisions when you do not have to do the work.
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt my remarks but I notice that we have no quorum.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I would ask the clerk of the house to take the count of the hon. members present to determine if we have a quorum.
The count having been taken, I believe that we have a quorum.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, it is a good thing that some members are staying close.
Dr. Maughan, on page 570 of the minutes of the proceedings, said the following in reply to a question asked by the member for Peel-South (Mr. Chappell). First, here is the question:
Now, my question is: Do you not think quite a few doctors would feel better if it were written out that it was legal for them to do it and not to have that shadow of guilt hanging over them?
Here is Dr. Maughan's reply:
X fully agree with you and X might add that the gynaecologist is the trigger man in this thing. He is the one who commits the murder. It is all right for the psychiatrist, or the internist, or the cardiologist to say: ''Stand up and shoot that guy".
It is the gynaecologist who, finally, will have to perform the operation.
That is why we want the act to be more specific, if the gynaecologist is to do the work. Nothing in the act guarantees that the gynaecologist will have to take part in the decision before performing the operation. That is why we feel that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Abitibi is excellent, even though it does not demand very much. We want the hospital committees to be protected, with regard to the competence of those who will make the decision and perform the operation.
This bill is odious. We regret that the government did not support this morning the motion for adjournment of this debate. We could have gone on to more pressing things.
Mr. Speaker, this bill says, for instance, that abortion must be performed. So, the therapeutic abortion committee will have to study the reasons for which the doctors will have to procure an abortion.
All the doctors and specialists who testified before the committee on justice and legal affairs told us that abortions cause more illnesses than they prevent. This means that by performing abortions we will increase the social problems. The health of our people is supposed to be protected, but by procuring

abortions to all those who will request them, for health reasons, we will in fact be endangering their health.
Several doctors, several psychiatrists have proved beyond a doubt that when a woman has been aborted, a feeling of guilt seizes her, not a couple of months after the abortion but several years after, and her health is more seriously damaged than if she had not been aborted.
For the very reasons given in the bill, we claim that abortions will ruin the health of an undetermined number of persons. That is why we are fighting with so much zeal and conviction.
We do not do so on the strength of our own personal knowledge. But, every day we get phone calls about this. Last night, doctors came to see me to suggest arguments of which I had not thought. Why do they come to the Creditistes? Because the members of the other parties do not express in the house the opinion of the people.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
If we look at the papers of the last 15 days, we can see that they do not deal with what is taking place in this house. We can quote the facts. In England, as far as committees on abortion are concerned, the Ministry of Health had to take certain steps for abortions were being procured quite extensively, for any reason.
So if the bill is not amended, it is the general medical practitioners-and not gynaecologists-those who cure colds, sore throats, who practise appendicitis or liver operations, who will take the decision to procure an abortion for a particular woman and to take the life of her foetus.
Mr. Speaker, since the bill is extremely serious and will affect the health and the morale of millions of Canadians, we feel duty bound to express the views of scientists etc, because the bill cannot be accepted. That is why we must fight. We shall keep on fighting, because we heard evidence which compel us to act. We would be held responsible if we failed to make the views of those people known.
It is all very well to want to pass legislation in the house but we must take into account those who will have to enforce the law and, who will have to perform abortions. And it is precisely because we want to take into account the evidence provided by the gynaecologists that we want one gynaecologist at least on the therapeutic committee. And it
May 2. 1969

is hardly enough for two doctors who are not qualified in the field of pediatrics, psychology and gynaecology, to order the gynaecologist to kill the foetus.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that even if this amendment somewhat restricts the extent of the bill, it is not strict enough, especially where it concerns those who will have to tell the gynaecologist: Did you have any decision to makke in order to procure the abortion of this woman? You have no decision to make. We have made it, and you, a gynaecologist, you must procure the abortion, you must shoot the foetus you, a gynaecologist, you must commit a murder.
It is on behalf of the gynaecologists of the province of Quebec and of the whole of Canada, that we are requesting, for the sake of their own protection and in consideration of medical science, of competence, that the gynaecologists be consulted. It must be mentioned in the bill, so that justice be done to the knowledge and science of our gynaecologists in Canada. Why are they gynaecologists, if not to be consulted and make decisions on gynaecologic matters. Why are they gynaecologists? Why should we demand that a gynaecologist commit a murder? Let us protect the doctors. At this stage of the bill, it is a most important thing to do.
We trust medical science and we respect our doctors, specially the gynaecologists of Canada.
We ask the Minister of Justice (M. Turner) to trust gynaecologists and their judgment. Unfortunately, in a few months they will be called upon to commit murder by practicing abortions. Why should a gynaecologist be held responsible for murder or abortion, if he could not take part in the decision-making, since this bill does not guarantee that he may be consulted?
The hon. member for Hull said a while ago: We hope that a gynaecologist will sit on this committee. But how is this guaranteed? In the house, there is no such thing as trust. We have adopted a Criminal code, in the house several years ago, and we want to amend it in order to punish offenders.
The Criminal Code exists; but why should not we also protect the gynaecologists? Why should we not insert a clause to that end in the bill? Let us not say: we hope that a gynaecologist will sit on the therapeutic committee of a hospital. We do not trust in hopes because we have already seen that the government has failed to honour some of his written official commitments.
29180-525J
Criminal Code
Since there is an important bill under study today, we are asked to hope that a gynaecologist will sit on a therapeutic committee. Let us not kid ourselves and entertain illusions!, because tomorrow the gynaecologists will have to kill the foetus and commit murder. We want that the gynaecologists1 be consulted before they are forced to practise an abortion, before performing an act which will have serious consequences for our decadent society.
Mr. Speaker, some hon. members may believe we are fighting for the love of it. No, Mr. Speaker, we have no time to waste. It is our opinion that parliament has many much more serious pieces of legislation to consider. We blame the government for not having put this bill aside for a while, if there are more serious bills to be introduced or passed. That is the reason why we regret having caused such a loss of time in this house on a bill that should never have been introduced in this house.
This bill is of British inspiration and nowadays newspapers from England and from the whole world show that such laws that stem from socialist countries, without morals, are now introduced in the house.
It is because we are aware of the unfortunate experience in other countries that we know what happened abroad will happen here as like causes produce like effects in like circumstances. This bill will produce in Canada and before long the same effects as in England. On account of that, the British government must pass laws today in order to prevent extermination of the people.
I have here statistics on extermination of people due to stupid laws such as the one under consideration now. However, I will quote those statistics in relation with another amendment as they will be more appropriate then.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I think it is my duty to take part once again in the debate on this amendment. First, I want to point out the answer given earlier by the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) to the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) who asked his opinion on this subject.
In fact, as we all recognize his competence in this field, we were anxious to hear what he had to say. He replied to the hon. member for Lotbiniere that he should be careful not to lose the few hair he has left! That is how serious the government members are.

May 2, 1969
Criminal Code
That, Mr. Speaker, is one way to evade the real question with which we are dealing in this debate.
We could answer him that we are not quite ready to determine the seal of intelligence, and it would be better I think-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I would suggest to him also to stay close to the amendment now before us.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to point out that what is under the scalp is much more important than what is on the top.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I come back to the amendment before us, and I would like everybody to understand the great significance of changing somewhat this paragraph (f), which reads as follows:
"therapeutic abortion committee" for any hospital means a committee, comprised of not less than three members each of whom is a qualified medical practitioner, appointed by the board of that hospital for the purpose of considering and determining questions relating to terminations of pregnancy within that hospital.
Mr. Speaker, a few moments' reflection should suffice to realize that a committee of three qualified medical practitioners is not enough. Of course, it will be said off hand that one qualified medical practitioner is enough, provided he can meet the requirements mentioned by the previous speakers.
Comparing that paragraph with the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Abiti-bi, (Mr. Laprise), we see a world of difference between the two. Allow me to read the amendment:
"therapeutic abortion committee" for any hospital means a committee, comprised of not less than two qualified medical practitioners and one gynaecologist, appointed by the board of that hospital and approved by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of the province concerned, for the purpose of considering and determining questions relating to terminations of pregnancy within that hospital."
As I say, Mr. Speaker, such is the difference that it befalls us to take the necessary time and care to analyze every word of this amendment. A huge difference, first as to the standards that should apply to those who will have to practice this kind of surgery.
Then, there is another kind of specifications: those which empower not only the doctors of a hospital but also the organized medical staff of the province concerned to keep an eye on the members of its committee and on their decisions. The previous section which

defines a "qualified doctor" does so under the laws of the province.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, we have here an extremely important difference. I shall not so much underline the points relating to the qualifications of the doctors themselves for my colleagues have very well indicated them. I shall deal rather with the provisions which require that not only should those doctors be with accredited hospitals but also be duly authorized by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of the province concerned. This, Mr. Speaker, is a provision which should be added because it makes a huge difference. Thus, we shall eliminate the cases where a not too consciencious doctor might perform useless abortions, thus breaking the law.
The more, responsible people there will be to check the standards and decisions governing such surgical operations, the more we shall be satisfied that the law is well enforced. Why? Because it would need just one case where a doctor would not have taken his responsibility seriously to see the hospital committee under attack and also the College of Physicians and Surgeons.
They will therefore be more interested in seeing that the law is fully enforced. And that is how we shall achieve through this amendment something really sensible, and avoid all the abuses pointed out since the beginning of this debate.
Mr. Speaker, when legislating on a subject of such importance, before coming to a decision it is our duty, to give some thought to the consequences. There is nothing more inconsistent than to disregard the experience of others.
Why, Mr. Speaker, do they want at all costs to repeat the errors made elsewhere, under the false pretext of improvement or of human progress? We are quite convinced that we are in the right in opposing this bill. We are confirmed in our opinion by the fact that all those who make representations make them to the Ralliement creditiste.
Why? Because when somebody wants to speak about freedom, one addresses himself to free men. The hospital committees, the doctors belonging to various Quebec associations-not only in the areas in which we are more particularly concerned, we, of the Ralliement creditiste, but throughout the province,-ask us to intervene, to go on fighting this battle which will end only when it is at last understood that there is an advantage for the country to suspend consideration of the litigious clauses of the omnibus bill.
May 2. 1969	COMMONS
It is not for nothing that every day we receive letters, phone calls, from the Canadian electorate. They tell us that they cannot address themselves to their member, because there is nothing he can do about this matter.
It is extremely unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, to find that such things can exist today. We are not surprised to see that one of the closest colleage of the Minister of Justice decided to depart from the policy of a party which deprived him of one of the most indefeasible rights one can enjoy, that is, the right to freedom.
When the electors find that their representative is not even free to express his opinion, it is unfortunate. It is a fact that is worth considering.
If this endless debate resulted only in having this bill amended rather radically, we would have gained something.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it four o'clock?
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)

The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Bechard): Order. It being four o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely private bills, notices of motions and public bills.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might have your indulgence for a moment. There has been some discussion, and there is good reason to believe there might be consent of the house, to proceed to deal with item No. 1 under the
DEBATES	8289
Private Bills
item private bills, namely consideration of Bill S-27 as reported from the particular committee and then adjourn. I would so request.
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Bechard): Is it so
agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. Raynald Guay (Levis) moved:: That Bill S-27, respecting the Quebec Savings Bank, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs on Friday, April 18, 1969, be concurred in.
Motion (for concurrence) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: When shall the said bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Pursuant to special order made this day this house stands adjourned until Monday at two o'clock in the afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
At four o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.
[Stage Direction]

[Stage Direction]

Monday, May 5, 1969