1970-11-24

Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Minister wilhoul Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table, in both official languages, copies of a report on the establishment of mail delivery services to private homes in some localities.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, has the Minister of Finance yet made any decision on whether he will produce an early budget with a view to indicating the measures that the government proposes to take to fight unemployment and get the economy moving forward?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, no such decision has been made at this time.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I ask the Minister of Finance whether he proposes to make an early decision and bring some plans forward shortly, or are we to go through the winter unemployment first before he decides to move?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, as usual-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Edgar John Benson: As usual-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Apart from deciding whether to bring in a budget, has the government decided to decide on whether to get the economy moving?



INVESTIGATION OF STEEL PRICE INCREASES

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, last week when the Steel Company of Canada announced price increases ranging up to 5.3 per cent I asked the Prime Minister whether he would consider asking the steel companies to withhold any increases until an investigation had been made in order to decide whether these increases were justified. The Prime Minister said he would consider the proposal. Has he given consideration to that suggestion, and what decision has been reached?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I am afraid not, Mr. Speaker. I asked that the question be followed up, but I have not given consideration to any suggestion which might have come my way. I have not seen any yet.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Since Algoma Steel has announced that it is raising its prices and other steel companies have indicated that they will follow suit, and in view of the announcement yesterday indicating that the profits of the four leading steel companies have increased by 27.8 per cent in the first nine months of this year, will the Prime Minister undertake to have this profit position investigated to see whether or not any price increase at all was required by the steel industry of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It was my understanding, subject to correction, that the Prices and Incomes Commission said it would investigate these rises in prices.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Will the Prime Minister urge the steel companies to withhold these price increases until the Prices and Incomes Commission has completed its report, and will that report be made public?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as I answered in the first part of my reply, it depends on what consideration has been given. The element which I think would need to be elucidated is whether or not these prices increases are compatible with the principles accepted earlier this year by all that sector of the economy, to wit, whether they would increase the margin between their price increases and the cost increases. I do not as yet have that information. I know that their costs rose considerably because of the labour factor, but I am not aware of the increase or otherwise of the discrepancy.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Does the Canadian government intend to ask U Thant, Secretary-General of the United Nations, to act as media-

November 24, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
tor in order to obtain an agreement providing for the release of James Cross in exchange for that of the so-called political prisoners, as required by the FLQ?


Mr. Andre Ouellel (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the question raised by the hon. member for Shefford is of direct concern to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The latter has indicated that he was available to act as intermediary in some cases, but that the request should come from a government and not from a criminal organization.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Since such a request can only come from the British or the Canadian government, does the latter intend to ask for the intervention of the Secretary-General of the United Nations?


André Ouellet: I have already answered the question, Mr. Speaker.



FURTHER STEPS TO SECURE RELEASE OF JAMES CROSS

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmonl):: Would the Prime Minister be prepared to make a statement on motions as to what further steps may be taken in order to secure the release of Mr. James Cross in view of reports in recent days that he may still be alive and that, hopefully, his freedom might be secured?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the offer which was made much earlier by the government of Quebec and by this government to ensure the safe conduct of the kidnappers out of the country in return for the safe release of Mr. Cross still stands. If through one mediator or another the FLQ wants to discuss this with the government, we are still prepared to discuss it.



EFFECTIVE LIAISON BETWEEN POLICE FORCES

Robert Lorne Stanfield: In
view of the apparent difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective liaison between the various police forces involved, has the Prime Minister personally checked into this to assure himself that there is effective liaison between the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the provincial police? Can he assure the House that this type of liaison exists and that the various police forces are working together as a team?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I discussed this with the Solicitor General and he might be able to report in greater detail in reply to a question directed to him. It is my understanding that an increased effort is being made to co-ordinate the work of the three police forces and that a special group has recently been constituted for this purpose.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. According to reports last week, the department will have to spend $1,200,000 on construction at Canadian Forces Base, Kingston, to facilitate the establishment there of the radar and communications school now housed on the Canadian Forces Base at Clinton. Will the minister not consider having this school remain at Clinton where there are already adequate facilities, along with other training programs which are being considered by various departments, both federal and provincial?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that his question is in the form of a submission or representation to the minister; I do not think it is acceptable as a question at this time. If there is urgency, the hon. member might give notice of his intention to discuss the matter at ten o'clock.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Woolliams:: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member obviously
cannot ask a supplementary to a question which has been ruled unacceptable.


Robert Elgin McKinley: My question is quite urgent, Mr. Speaker, because some of the facilities are being transferred at the present time. Could the minister give us an assurance that no more fixtures will be moved from the Canadian Forces Base at Clinton until a final disposition concerning the base has been made?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have already suggested to the hon. member that his important question might well be debated at the time of adjournment. I am sure he would wish to ask his supplementary at that time.



ADEQUACY OF ARMED FORCES TO MAINTAIN INTERNAL SECURITY

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether, in light of the use of the armed forces in the province of Quebec, his department has reached any conclusion that the standing forces as they now exist are inadequate even for the purpose to which I have alluded?
Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National
Defence): No, sir, we have not come to that conclusion. However, an assessment has now been made in connection with that operation, and the results of this assessment will undoubtedly find their way into the white paper on defence policy some time next year.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Defence arising out of the minis-

November 24, 1970

ter's earlier answer. He says there will be an assessment of the adequacy of the armed services. Can he advise the House whether this is a result of some criticism by NATO or the result of what has taken place in recent days in the province of Quebec?


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: I can confirm there was no criticism from NATO.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: And there was no criticism from any part of the country about the response of the armed forces. In fact, even Claude Ryan thought they had done rather well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



INCREASE IN RESERVE FORCE TRAINING

Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Is the minister in a position to announce any plans, if such plans exist, with regard to an increase in training for the reserve forces during 1971, either in numbers or in the length of courses given?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, sir, not at this time.



DESTROYER CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM-ADDITIONAL COST

Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasler):: Now that we know the two destroyers will be launched in the St. Lawrence in the next few days, can the Minister of National Defence tell us how much additional money is involved and, if not, when will he be able to give the House this information?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The program is currently being reviewed. As a matter of fact, negotiations are taking place between the representatives of the government and the two contractors concerned with regard to the contracts. It is expected that the result of the negotiations and the final assessment in this regard will be available by about the end of the year.
* *
*



FINANCE


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: My question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of reports that the banks have made tremendous profits, more especially the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, up by 13 per cent in one year, and the Canadian National Bank, up by 15.7 per cent, will the minister ask the banks to roll back their interest rates so that their profits may fall within the 6 per cent guideline suggested by the government?

Inquiries of the Ministry MANPOWER



QUEBEC-PROVISION OF RETRAINING COURSES FOR FARMERS' WIVES

Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
With a view to enabling farmers' wives to contribute to a larger extent to the success of agriculture, has the minister looked into the possibility of purchasing for those ladies training courses from the province of Quebec?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to take this question as notice.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Minister of Transport who I thought was supposed to be in the House today. In his absence may I redirect it to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development since he may have a personal interest in the matter. My question arises out of statements made at the International Aviation Council meeting last week with regard to the alleged lack of navigational and landing aids in the northern and Arctic regions. Would the minister confer with his counterpart to ascertain what action the Department of Transport is taking to provide adequate navigational and landing aids to ensure the safety of those travelling by air in Arctic regions?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, we passed legislation concerning control of navigation in the north last winter. I am also very much aware that the Minister of Transport is devoting a lot of his attention to the problem of navigation in the north, and I will convey to him what the hon. member has said today.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Now that the ministerial committee meeting with the ministers' counterparts in the United States is over, I wonder whether he would indicate when he, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will be making statements on the various subjects dealt with in the intergovernmental talks during the last two days?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Secretary of State for External Affairs will be tabling a communique tomorrow.

November 24, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. When are the regulations respecting land use operations in the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories coming into effect?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Soon, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member have a supplementary question?


Randolph Harding: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the required posting of $100,000 performance bonds by the two oil companies doing work on Banks Island in the Arctic, why has this regulation not been applied to all companies doing similar work in the Arctic area?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would not think that this question as asked is in order.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, who is doing so well today, whether he has had discussions with the government of the province of Alberta with a view to providing either a dam or other works in the Athabasca-Peace delta to compensate for loss of water caused by the Bennett dam?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, this is a very complex problem in which two provincial governments are involved as well as the federal government since it is responsible for Indians who live in this area. We have initiated consultations with Indians. I personally met with their counsel who intends to take action against the British Columbia Hydro Commission about damages they suffered and I think this may be the procedure in the circumstances, because the Bennett dam was built in British Columbia, not in Alberta.


Gerald William Baldwin: In light of the fact that it has now been suggested by knowledgeable engineers that there cannot be enough water released from the Bennett dam to make this compensation, will the minister be prepared to cooperate with the government of Alberta, if it should ask for aid for that purpose, of course, in arranging for some
works to be constructed in the area in question so that these people, including the Indians in question, can be helped?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I was in Edmonton two weeks ago and I discussed that problem with the Indians of Alberta. It was agreed that a meeting will soon be held between the Alberta premier, the president of the Indians in that province and myself to discuss all the problems. It was specifically mentioned that we should examine the problem of Indians in the Athabasca area.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Aihabasca):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that this Peace River-Athabasca delta problem has further reduced the ability of the Indian people in the area to make a living, would the minister be willing now to respond meaningfully to the Alberta government proposal to settle the question of the Wood Buffalo Park boundaries so that any industrial development that might take place would then be able to proceed?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we have a well-established policy on the matter and I do not think that it would be proper at the moment to reduce the present number of territories for conservation purposes. However, we have indicated to the Alberta government that we are ready to consider an exchange, if necessary, provided that our national parks system would not be the loser.



BARLEY-AMOUNT OF FINAL PAYMENT TO FARMERS

Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration who is in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the widespread conjecture and concern of Prairie farmers that there will be little or no final payment on the 1970-71 barley pool owing to the large cash forward sales at the lower prices prevailing last spring, would the minister inform the House whether or not this will likely be the situation?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot inform the House at this stage. It has been indicated before that until a pool has been closed or a calculation made, this information is not available.



AVAILABILITY OF BOXCARS-EFFICIENCY OF BLOCK SYSTEM ALLOCATION

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the considerable amount of space in terminals at Thunder Bay, and in view of complaints at a number of local points of a lack of boxcars to move grain forward, would the minister assure the House that the railway companies will provide adequate transportation in the near future to improve this situation?

November 24, 1970


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the grain in place at Thunder Bay is at about the ideal level for maximum working efficiency. There is a significant progress in maintaining space in elevators throughout the Prairie region in line with what is really the new objective, to see that there is space there and that congestion does not get in the way of proper handling of the grain.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, could the minister assure the House that the procedure under the block system whereby cars are supposed to be allocated following shipping orders is working effectively?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I can say that the block system seems to be working very well indeed. Of course there is some concern at particular points about the allocation of cars. I should remind hon. members that a portion of the decision as to where cars are allocated within the share allocated to a specific elevator company belongs to the elevator company.



PRODUCTION AND RECEIPTS POLICY-INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION

Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, could the minister inform the House when legislation based on his October 29 proposal for grain income stabilization will be introduced?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot put an exact time on that at this point.


Albert B. Douglas: Mr. Speaker, will the minister inform the farmers of the full details of the plan and provide adequate opportunity for them to make representations on the proposals before the legislation is finally enacted?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it certainly is our intention, and this has already been made known to producer organizations, to welcome representations, and I am inviting them directly from all producers in moving toward final details of the plan. Those details which have not been finalized have not been finalized simply because we wanted the full advice of producers before coming to such a decision.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, I wish to direct a question to his Parliamentary Secretary. In the light of the report tabled yesterday by the federal Department of Agriculture before the agricultural conference, held in Ottawa, to the effect that the net farm income, in Canada, will increase by approximately $120 million in 1971, and decrease by more than $10.6 million in Quebec, does the minister intend to review his dairy policy and
Inquiries of the Ministry
finally grant increased amounts to the dairy producers of Quebec?


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question asked by the hon. member, I must say that the policy of the Department of Agriculture concerning dairy products is presently under consideration, and when the department has taken a decision, we shall inform hon. members.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchesler North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Last week I asked him whether his government would reconsider its decision with regard to the study on the harnessing of the Bay of Fundy tides for power in view of decreasing interest rates and the anticipated heavy unemployment in the Atlantic provinces. The Prime Minister stated he would look into the matter. Has he had an opportunity to look into the matter and is he able to indicate the position of the government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There is no provision for reconsidering this matter at this time.



ALLEGED EFFECT OF DIVERSIFICATION PROGRAM ON HOG PRICES

Mr. Cliff Downey (Baffle River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the seriously depressed price situation in regard to live hogs, would the minister tell us what plans he has to rectify this disastrous situation since it is a direct result of his diversification program in relation to grain?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, quite clearly this was not a result of the diversification program. If the hon. member knew his local facts he would know the move was well under way before the diversification program, but it is also true, of course, that the stabilization program which we propose should have a very good indirect effect on the hog industry.



INTERNATIONAL GRAINS ARRANGEMENT STABILIZATION -DISCUSSION AT CANADA-UNITED STATES MINISTERIAL MEETING

Mr. R. R. Southam (Gu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration responsible to the House for the Canadian Wheat Board. With respect to the high level talks

November 24, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
presently going on between the Canadian and United States governments, can the minister indicate whether the two governments are discussing the matter of arriving at a formula to help stabilize the International Grains Arrangement?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, these conversations touched upon very many matters of interest between the two countries. That subject did come up as well.



STATUS OF PRODUCTION AND RECEIPTS PROPOSALS

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration whether the papers he tabled setting forth his stabilization program are to be regarded as government policy or simply proposals for discussion?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the papers tabled indicate a plan of action which of course the government is indicating it would be willing to support. In some respects, of course, the proposals are not complete in final detail because there is very much elaboration which is to take place after discussions with producers and producer organizations, and of course we, as always, are ready to listen to any reasonable alternative proposals which seem to improve the plan.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the report by Mr. Sedgwick tabled last week, is the minister in the near future planning to institute regulations so that people coming from iron curtain countries to Canada and who wish to immigrate here may be processed in Canada and therefore be on the same basis as would immigrants from other countries?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the whole question of the matters arising out of Mr. Sedgwick's report and related issues is under consideration, and a decision will be taken in due course.



STEPS TO RELIEVE BACKLOG OF INTERVIEWS, INQUIRIES AND APPEALS

['Mr. Speaker, the department should reply to questions tomorrow and I am sure that the minister will be pleased to answer this one.']
John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In view of the backlog of interviews, inquiries and appeals, what immediate steps does the minister propose to take to solve these problems?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It would seem to me that the hon. member is asking a question which should be answered by way of a general statement. Unless the minister can reply very quickly, I would think the answer should be given by way of a statement on motions.



Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs this question. What effective arrangements have been made by the federal government to ensure that Canada's $2 million in emergency relief will be properly distributed to the survivors of the East Pakistan catastrophe, and are any drugs for the treatment and prevention of cholera and typhoid part of our relief shipments?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the department should reply to questions tomorrow and I am sure that the minister will be pleased to answer this one.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether, in the interests of economy, he would warn his colleague the Minister of National Defence to guard against such wasteful practices as the moving of defence installations from places like Clinton to Kingston?


Edgar John Benson: I will make representations.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the statement by the President of the Ontario Medical Association that Canada's present abortion law is now more restrictive than before the so-called reforms came into effect and that the required procedures now make the obtaining of an abortion more difficult, can the Prime Minister inform the House whether the government will introduce new legislation in this field and, if so, when?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would remind the hon. member that this question was asked in similar terms a few days ago.



POLLUTION


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. In

November 24, 1970

view of the recent strong condemnation of the United States voiced by the minister and by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in relation to pollution of the Great Lakes, can the minister advise the House what steps have been taken, if any, concerning the industries at Dryden, Ontario and Saskatoon which are causing extensive pollution of Manitoba waters.


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, neither industry has polluted the Great Lakes system in any way. However, we have had meetings with the companies concerned and they have stopped dumping mercury into the adjoining waters.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the charge by the Canadian Electrical Manufacturers Association that foreign competition is creating undue hardship and high unemployment in the Canadian electronic industry, has the government made any move to investigate charges that Japan and Taiwan are dumping television sets in this country and, if so, will any tariff relief be granted to Canadian manufacturers?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, anyone who is injured can allege dumping and there is a procedure whereby national revenue looks into the matter forthwith; we have an anti-dumping tribunal to look into such matters.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Finance tell the House whether he has received any such representations from the Canadian Electrical Manufacturers Association.


Edgar John Benson: I have not myself, but I could not answer for the Minister of National Revenue in this regard. However, I shall make inquiries.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. J. Edward Broadbeni (Oshawa-Whiiby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister inform the House whether or not the government is considering acting on the recommendation of the Liberal policy convention that Canada declare itself a nuclear-free zone.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, there will be a white paper on defence policy in which all these subjects will be considered.
Inquiries of the Ministry FINANCE



PURPOSE OF INCREASE IN MONEY SUPPLY

["I regret to interrupt the hon. member but it is my duty at this time, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Huron (Mr. McKinley)-national defence; the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose)-air transport; the hon. member for Bumaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Goode)-energy, mines and resources.\nIt being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, as listed on today's Order Paper, namely public bills, private bills, notices of motions.\nCOMMONS DEBATES_____________________November 24, 1970\nPublic Bills"]
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Minister of Finance. It concerns some of the interesting activities of the Bank of Canada in the last several weeks. In light of the rapidly expanding money supply, I wonder whether the minister could tell us if the Bank of Canada is acting to expand the economy or is it supporting the Canadian dollar in the international market in order to maintain a subpar value for the Canadian dollar vis-a-vis the United States dollar?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, with regard to transactions on the exchange market, these become known only at the end of the month when figures are published, and my hon. friend can understand the reason for this. What has happened over the past eight or nine months is that the money supply has been increased by the Bank of Canada deliberately in order to stimulate the economy along with the steps that were taken on the fiscal side by the government.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Would the side effect of this be to maintain the Canadian dollar at a slightly subpar value in relation to the United States dollar in the hope that the Canadian dollar would soon be pegged at some value just below the United States dollar?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the reasoning that my hon. friend has brought forward is necessarily correct. The reason for the expansion in the money supply is the obvious one I have stated previously, that we are expanding the economy and have a much easier monetary policy than we had a year ago or eight months ago.



Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia-Lamblon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for the Post Office. My question was originally directed to the minister on Thursday, November 19. I would like to remind him of it. In view of complaints from postal workers that sums approaching $165 in income tax have been deducted from retroactive pay amounting to $574 awarded to postal workers will the minister undertake to determine if the amounts deducted at source are excessive?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minisler without Portfolio):: Following that question, Mr. Speaker, I asked officials of my department to check whether errors had been made in issuing these cheques. It seems that such is the case and I have asked the Departments of National Revenue and Supply and Services to inquire into this matter and remedy the situation.

November 24, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION


PROHIBITION OF SNOWMOBILES IN NATIONAL PARK
Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolieiie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
As the Chairman of the National Capital Commission has announced a ban on the use of snowmobiles on federal park grounds and in view of the announcement by the Quebec Minister without Portfolio in charge of inter-governmental relations that a decision has been made and that the federal government must abide by Quebec policy in regard to such parks, may I ask the minister whether the government has decided to accept the Quebec decision?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the National Capital Commission does not come under my jurisdiction.
Concerning operations within national parks, snowmobile policy is well known.


HOUSING
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: I would like to direct a question to the minister in charge of housing. In view of the fact that over the weekend a group has placed much stress on the problems of urban growth and the necessity for reaching early solutions, and in light of the fact that the minister has given a grant to the Vancouver inner city group to follow through with an attempt to find solutions, has the minister taken any immediate steps to see that initiative is taken by other large centres in Canada in this regard?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: All such initiatives are being considered by us. Some can be encouraged and some cannot. I rather think the question is somewhat general but I will be glad to discuss it with the hon. member privately if I have missed the substance of the question.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: To get into the specific area, in view of the fact that the same group-


An hon. Member:: What group?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: -indicated that there should be cities participating in federal-provincial conferences, is it the intention of the minister to approach his counterparts in the provinces in order to feel them out in this particular area?


Robert Knight Andras: Our views are already very clear on that. In fact there have been some informal discussions with various provincial ministers to continue to test their receptivity to tri-level discussions. That position has not changed.


Gerald William Baldwin: You should send Hellyer out.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Brelon-Easl Richmond):: Would the minister take this opportunity to answer the question that was asked him from the back bench while he was on his feet as to whether or not they are Liberal groups?


MONTREAL-DISCUSSION WITH PROVINCIAL AUTHORITIES TO ALLEVIATE SHORTAGE
Mr. Georges Valade (Sainle-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister in charge of housing.
In view of the emergency situation that exists in the field of housing in Montreal as a result of the proposed demolition of 4,000 housing units for the building of the East-West freeway, would the minister tell the House whether he has entered into any discussions with the provincial authorities in order to correct this critical situation, and what decisions were made in this respect?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that this question was asked a few days ago. If I am wrong, perhaps the minister can answer it.


Robert Knight Andras: few days ago I did make reference to some facts and figures on that. However, to repeat the answer in general let me say that we are consulting about this matter. We have poured great amounts of money into additional housing starts in the city of Montreal. We are aware of the situation which the hon. member describes and we will do everything we can to work with the provincial government to try to alleviate that distress.


Georges-J. Valade: My question was put to the minister to make sure that all the necessary means are taken to ensure that these displaced persons and families will find new houses when they are displaced or before.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: I wish to direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the many representations to the government concerning the sale of Ryerson Press to McGraw-Hill, is the government engaged in any discussion on this matter or is it considering any measures to assist in retaining Canadian control over this operation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure the hon. member will recognize that that question was asked in exactly these terms on a number of occasions. However, if I am wrong, perhaps the Prime Minister might wish to reply.


John Stratford Burton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, there have been new representations on this matter within recent days, and I thought the Prime Minister might like to comment in view of these representations, particularly from the Liberal convention.
November 24, 1970


POST OFFICE
Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: I should like to address a question to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Post Office. Could the minister indicate to the House when all employees of the Post Office will receive their retroactive pay resulting from the recent postal settlement?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, although these cheques were to be sent out within 60 days, it seems that as early as the end of the first month they were being mailed out. Most of the employees have already received them.

tEnglish]


MANPOWER
Robert Lorne Stanfield: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. As he is well aware, a goodly proportion of those who are unemployed and will be unemployed this winter do not have the necessary academic qualifications to qualify for vocational training. I should like to ask the minister whether his department is making a particular drive this winter to assist these unemployed people to achieve the necessary academic qualifications?


Otto Emil Lang: A portion of the additional funds which were made available recently, as well as the main portion of the budget for training, is of course devoted to basic skill training with a view to dealing with this particular problem. Of course the object of the department is to deal as much as possible with all of the applicants in a balanced way to produce the best over-all result.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: I have a supplementary question for the minister. Has he or will he undertake to enter into discussions with the provinces with a view to making available federal buildings, such as National Defence buildings, to handle the upgrading program in anticipation of the high unemployment this winter?


Otto Emil Lang: I have looked into the question of the problem which the provinces have in regard to facilities. Facilities of a temporary nature are not normally adequate for the more complicated forms of training. For the basic skill training which requires much simpler facilities, those seem to be available in adequate supply.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Would the minister make a statement on motions at an early date indicating how many persons it is proposed to upgrade in terms of basic academic skills during the coming winter?


Otto Emil Lang: A report can and will be made in the ordinary course after the completion of the year or the
Inquiries of the Ministry
placing of the full budget of the department. Until that is done it is impossible to put an exact number upon it because within the available finances more persons can in fact be trained if basic training is used than are trained if more expensive, higher skill courses are called for.


PENSIONS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will the government's proposed legislation regarding old age pensions be introduced in time so that any increase provided therein can be included in the December pension cheques?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The exact date will be known to the House when the legislation is introduced.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will that be soon?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


FINANCE
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: My question is for the Minister of Finance. In light of the estimate of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics that in real terms the gross national product may only rise 2.7 per cent for 1970, which would be the lowest in more than a decade, is the government going to announce tax relief measures soon in order to stimulate the economy?


Edgar John Benson: If the government were contemplating such a program of tax relief it would be announced in a budget in the House.
*[DOT] * *


PROPOSED FLOODING OF SKAGIT RIVER VALLEY-SUBMISSION OF BRIEF TO STATE OF WASHINGTON INQUIRY
Mr. Tom H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: My
question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the news reports that Mr. John Biggs, head of the Washington state department of ecology, has announced that his department is going to hold hearings on the proposal by Seattle City Light Company to flood 6,000 acres of the Skagit valley in British Columbia, and in view of the fact that Mr. Biggs has made public his intention to ask the British Columbia government and the federal government to participate, will the minister assure the House that the government will submit a brief in opposition to any such flooding?


Gerald William Baldwin: Order paper.

November 24, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970 EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING BRITISH POLICY ON SALE OF ARMS TO SOUTH AFRICA
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: 1 should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Will the Prime Minister inform the House if it is the intention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to advise the British government with respect to the conduct of its policy on arms sales to South Africa on his scheduled visit to London commencing November 26, 1970?


André Ouellet: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think the Canadian government's position on that matter is well known, and on his next trip to London, the Secretary of State for External Affairs will certainly restate the government's view.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: My question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. In light of statements made in this House by his predecessor that employees of Canadian Forces Bases who had been declared surplus as a result of base closures would receive six months notice before employment was terminated, can the minister give the House an assurance that this policy is still in effect?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I will have to make inquiries to see specifically what the hon. member is driving at.


GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, November 23, 1970, consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carle-ton) for the third reading of Bill C-181, to provide temporary emergency powers for the preservation of public order in Canada.
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands had between 30 and 60 seconds left to his credit when we adjourned last evening.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose I was pointing out to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) that it was not good enough for him to be attending seminars and meetings of

law societies to declaim about individual liberty and civil rights. He has an opportunity now to demonstrate that this is not mere empty rhetoric.
When the debate began the minister accused some of us in this corner of shrieking for our political lives. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that there is something worse than shrieking for your political life and that is shirking for your political life. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made it perfectly clear yesterday that the only reason the government is not agreeing to the setting up of a tribunal to ensure that there may be no abouse of the powers granted by Parliament is that the government of Quebec, and particularly the attorney general of Quebec, wants these extraordinary powers without any safeguards.
The position taken by the Minister of Justice demonstrates clearly that the man who has been held out as the Prince Valiant of the Liberal party now stands revealed as the spineless wonder of the just society.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As we adjourned last evening, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands had just moved an amendment to the motion that Bill C-181 be read a third time, proposing that the bill be referred back to the Committee of the Whole for the purpose of reconsidering clause 12 with a view to the inclusion therein of a provision for the establishment of an independent body to review the administration under the said bill.
I indicated I had some reservations about the regularity of this amendment. I should immediately put the hon. member's mind at ease and assure him that, although I still have serious reservations about the procedural aspect of the proposed amendment, I will put it to the House so that hon. members may have an opportunity to debate it and in due course, vote on it. Similar amendments were debated at length in Committee of the Whole House in relation to clause 12 and to clause 14 of the bill; I would think it would be the wish of the House that similar latitude be allowed at this stage of proceedings. A bill such as this one, which deals with individual rights and fundamental freedoms, should be discussed as freely as possible and should be given the benefit of the liberal interpretation of the rules and precedents.
As hon. members know, debate on third reading should be confined to the contents of the bill. This principle is enounced in May's 17th edition at page 572. May states further that reasoned amendments which raise matters not included in the provisions of the bill are not permissible. Citation 418 of Beauchesne's fourth edition reads as follows:
All amendments which may be moved on a second reading of a bill may be moved on the third reading with the restriction that they cannot deal with any matter which is not contained in the bill.
At the third reading stage a motion is always in order to refer the bill back to a committee for the purpose of reconsidering any clause thereof. It is doubtful, however,
November 24, 1970

that it is procedurally correct to refer a bill back to a committee with instructions to include a provision which is not included in the clause which it is proposed to amend and which in fact goes beyond the purview of the clause. If in fact the proposed addition goes beyond the scope of the clause it seeks to amend, it becomes a substantive motion and cannot be moved by way of amendment.
These are general principles which apply on third reading. I respectfully suggest to hon. members that these principles should not be deemed to have been altered or amended in any way by the Chair's action in putting to the House the motion proposed by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.
With this caveat I will, therefore, put the motion as follows:
That Bill C-181 be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole House for the purpose of reconsidering clause 12 with a view to the inclusion therein of a provision for the establishment of an independent body to review the administration under the said bill.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, the object of Bill C-181, An Act to provide temporary emergency powers for the preservation of public order in Canada, now at one of its most important stages, is to replace the War Measures Act now in force since mid-October as a result of the kidnappings of Messrs. Cross and Laporte. It is unfortunate that in Canada, in times of peace, the government should have been forced by circumstances to apply that statute in order to preserve public order.
Increasing social and economic injustices of all kinds finally breed public disturbances capable of doing considerable damage to our society.
The disturbances we are now witnessing in Canada are such that they could seriously harm the interests of Canadians and particularly those of Quebeckers.
I recently attended a reception given by one of the Canadian representatives at the United Nations and I was deeply humiliated and sorry to be asked the following question by several delegates from foreign countries: What is happening in that pacific country of Canada that did so much for world peace? Now it is fighting terrorism.
Mr. Speaker, if we are now afflicted by troubles, it is because authorities have been falling short of their duty for a number of years in failing to take the necessary steps to ensure a fair distribution of wealth in our country. Our economic system is defective, because some people who have an urgent need of money to meet their basic requirements have no purchasing power.
For many years, we have been warned by competent persons that if we did not reform our economic system,
Public Order Act, 1970
we would suffer from very serious social troubles. Only three years ago, American economists and sociologists, in a letter addressed to the President of the United States, stated that the first condition to avoid an unprecedented economic and social disorder would be to secure for each individual a guaranteed minimum income.
Since our country is close to the United States, obviously the warning served to Americans applies also to Canadians. Monopolies, trusts, economic dictatorship, all these keep on ruling the roost under the benevolent eye of this government. Financiers keep on controlling this country's money supply and credit and thus, they distribute the lifeblood through the economic system whose life is in their hands.
There, Mr. Speaker, is the main cause of the disorders that we live through and which also create misery and unemployment, as well as a lack of confidence from the younger elements of our present society.
So far, government authorities have met this disorder by displaying police machinery. Certainly it is the duty of the state to protect its citizens against aggression by those who threaten its legitimacy. However, it is also its duty to control the greediness of those who squeeze the people, of the big financiers who have abusively increased interest rates, one of the main causes of inflation and unemployment.
A social and economic situation cannot be remedied the way a bomb is defused. In a certain sense, when democratic governments have to rely on police forces to restore the prosperity and security of the country, it means they are gradually losing the game.
When groups of citizens, even if they are a minority, come to contest the legitimacy of government and to doubt the ability of public institutions to govern properly, when they resort to violence and disorder, it is a sign that something is wrong with the system.
This is an indication that it is most urgent that we should pass from the mere denunciation of the effects of violence to the consideration of its causes.
There are several other causes of disorder at the present time. A society is indeed in a permanent state of disorder when it tolerates the existence of the greatest number of unemployed in our entire history, half of them in the province of Quebec, lack of employment opportunities for millions of young people leaving colleges and universities, different standards of living from one region to the other in Quebec, especially in the rural regions which are not sharing in the affluence of large cities, inadmissible waste within the framework of an austerity program, useless delay in the reform of our fiscal and financial system-reform which would be possible without increasing personal income tax-nearly complete disorder in the development of our urban centres contaminated by pollution, noise, slums and poverty pockets.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
It is unconceivable in this so-called era of evolution and progress that modern man, so clever in other fields, should want to remain today the salve of his own crea-

November 24, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
tion and should be unable to free himself from a financial system which shows flaws and inefficiency.
According to Bossuet:
The greatest disorder of the mind is to believe certain things because we want them to be such and not because we have seen what they are.
What hidden power forces our governments to maintain such a financial dictatorship? The true question is: who directs this country's destiny?
Another major cause of disorder is the broadcasting of television programs which show day after day acts of violence to the children. This has been going on for 20 years on the CBC, a Crown corporation costing millions of dollars every year to the Canadian taxpayers. We teach violence and, of course, we get violence as a result.
I remember that few months ago, a group of people had been invited by the CBC to see a film in a movie-house of the Ottawa area. Among those present, there were a judge, a lawyer, a policeman, a clergyman and a politician who, in the circumstances, was your humble servant. The film being shown was "Z", which was presented for the first time in Canada. At the end of the representation, we were all invited to give our comments. Since it was a film on dissent, that the dissenters had finally resorted to violence, and there had even been assassinations of politicians, each of us contributed his comments. I remember that when the moderator asked me what was my view of the events depicted in the film and what my reaction would have been, had they taken place in Canada, I replied that everything seen in the film also happened in Canada now, only more hypocritically, and that it had been so for some time.
It is sad for parents who for many years made all kinds of sacrifices to bring up their children properly, give them good principles enabling them to live in society-paying the high price of this education-to see all those principles and training destroyed in all kinds of ways on radio and television. Everything likely to destroy, distort ethics and the highest human values, to hold them up to ridicule, is highlighted on the airwaves, and enters our homes to poison the minds of our children from their earliest years. However, only a very minimal part of broadcasting time is used to show the other side of the coin. Our young people should be shown programs which could help the parents to educate their children.
Television is a wonderful invention which could be very useful to society if the government would assume its responsibilities by giving to this means of communication a better orientation.
The authorities let agitators promote their views on the airwaves, stir up the fire of violence, and when this fire is making havoc, the government uses radical means which strike people with dismay, and make individuals fear for their liberties.
It is unfortunate for the province of Quebec that such legislation be passed. At first sight, the situation prevailing presently in Quebec seems to justify the darkest predictions.

According to the explanations given by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) in answer to questions asked by some members of the opposition, this legislation is solely intended for the province of Quebec.
The Minister of Justice said last night, as recorded at page 1393 of Hansard, and I quote:
This bill does not deal with force used or crime used to overthrow a government in Quebec with respect to the rest of Canada, whether by the FLQ or another association that might succeed it.
And he added:
I agree with the hon. member, but the target of this bill is the FLQ.
Let me remind you of a speech which a former RCMP Security and Information Director, Mr. Kelly, delivered before the members of the Canadian Club. He said in substance:
The Canadian campus has become the haven of dozens of foreign teachers and students who advocate political extremism.
And he went on:
School boards and universities-
-and as far as I know, there are universities outside of the province of Quebec-
-should make certain that professors and teachers are making use of their profession for teaching and not for spreading extremist ideas.
The educational institutions in Canada must not become incubators of terrorists.
He asked the following question:
"Who will have the courage to say that we have had enough?" He recommends that the public say it.
How many times have we heard similar remarks? What is the silent majority, who has always lived in a normal way and respected the rights and freedom of others, waiting for before it starts acting? What is this majority waiting for before it shows an attitude which could inspire confidence to the young who are now in search of their destiny?
The story goes on as follows:
He gave warning that unless severe measures are taken, Canadians will have to face other situations such as terrorism from the Front de Liberation du Quebec.
He did not only refer to Quebecers. He said: All Canadians across the country. He told the audience which was composed of federal senior officials and businessmen who gave him an ovation that he recommended
-capital punishment for the kidnapping and murder of political men and judges.
He added the following:
The federal policy permits revolutionaries like Jerry Rubin to visit Canada and make speeches provided they are under the aegis of persons of good character.
Provided speeches are made to persons of good character, we may allow anything to be said, by anyone
November 24, 1970

and we may allow the poisoning of our youth's mind. What is more, we put up with that, without saying a word. One may see what such an attitude is leading the nation to at present.
Mr. Kelly, former RCMP Commissioner, also said: Boards of Education, school boards and university administrators must make a wise choice, and this applies not only to Quebec but to the whole of Canada.
Calling upon the people to become aware of the present situation, Mr. Kelly stated that new measures were required to fight crime. For instance, the police should be given access to tax files in order to be able to fight organized crime.
Organized crime is found not only in Quebec but throughout Canada.
This is why we would have wished for the special legislation to deal as drastically with organized crime as with the FLQ in Quebec, because indirectly and more surreptitiously it is also terribly destructive.
Mr. Speaker, here is my personal opinion with regard to capital punishment. Whether it is a crime against a minister or an individual worker, the victim has lost his life. This is why we have recommended that capital punishment be restored. Whether the family of a politician or that of a worker loses its head, in both cases the family head is gone and either life is of equal value at the family level.
I cannot understand why, in some cases, the authorities consider life as being invaluable, when in other cases they allow it to be destroyed. Evidence of this can be found in the great number of abortions. We have even reached the point where they are shown on CBC. Is our society going through the process of deChristianization? What is done to maintain the highest degree of civilization in history?
Such tragedies do not occur only in Quebec. Here in Ottawa, since 1962, ten violent developments have occurred in Parliament. The last one took place on May 11 last, when 36 persons, 11 of them tied on their seats, demonstrated in all the galleries. And hon. members will recall that the business of the House was delayed for two hours because of that.
In Vancouver, a professor was dismissed for expressing his support for terrorism. Those are the many reasons for which the emergency powers legislation should not only apply to Quebec.
I would also have wished for the relatives and friends of the detained person to be immediately made aware of his arrest. That suggestion had been made by the members of the Ralliement creditiste upon the invitation of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
In order to avoid irreparable prejudice to certain persons who could be found innocent later on, the law should provide that the names of persons arrested should not be published before charges are laid. Democracy and justice still have their rights. Since this special legislation does not repeal the War Measures Act, that is one more reason why it should not apply only to Quebec.
Public Order Act, 1970
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the central government should show more understanding towards the legitimate claims of Quebec. For many years, people who have nothing in common with terrorism have been asking for a more equitable distribution of income sources between Ottawa and the provinces, including the province of Quebec. Progress is very slow in this area. Unfortunately, events leave us for behind. Steps should be taken much more quickly to establish important industries in order to provide employment for the greatest possible number of people. The present unemployment crisis is far from improving things.
How can the province of Quebec develop when it has to pay $2.5 million per day in interest on its debts, half of which is paid to American financiers? It is far from surprising that Americans should have funds to invest in Quebec.
Here is an example of American control in different areas of our economy. I have in my hands a table showing that we have to work to correct certain situations in order to control more efficiently the Canadian economy.
American control amounts to 85.8 per cent in iron ore, to 65 per cent in oil and natural gas, to 68 per cent in manufacturing of boilers and plates, to 89 per cent in manufacturing of industrial electric equipment, to 68 per cent in pharmaceutical products, to 67 per cent in paints and varnishes, to 66 per cent in toiletries, to 62 per cent in soaps and detergents-and God knows how much of them we consume-to 47 per cent in other chemical products, to 51.3 per cent in sporting goods and toys.
This is the situation. To correct it, we need not arm ourselves with sticks nor explode bombs. First of all, people should become aware of the facts and then take the necessary means to achieve the changes required.
The sum of the interests paid annually by Quebec is nearly $1 billion, and this excessive appropriation of funds keeps the province from expanding at a quicker pace. This is why we would suggest greater use of the Bank of Canada to finance the public sector.
Actually, taxes increase constantly, which creates discontent and hardship. So, the revolutionary forces take advantage of the circumstances to make claims that may be justified while resorting to reprehensible means.
Therefore, we must immediately try to correct the situation. Otherwise, we might witness a bloody revolution-and I am indeed weighing my words, Mr. Speaker
and regret our inaction. Similar situations have occurred elsewhere and they developed as I have just explained.
Thousands of young people bursting with energy and new ideas are unable to find support and confidence to initiate the changes which they think are necessary. Grown-ups are concerned by the eagerness of the young generation to which they belonged not so long ago. In the absence of a valid solution from the state, they are tempted to look for a leader who will know how to meet their aspirations.


C OMMONS DEBATES
[Stage Direction]
November 24, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
On Saturday, November 21, I met in my Montmagny office a young man aged 22. His first words were:J'Sir, can you receive me even though I wear long hair?" His hair was long enough to reach to his shoulders. I stood up as if he had been the Prime Minister, I shook hands with him and told him: "You are here at home, you came to meet your representative. What is your problem?
I do not care about your hair. I know you are a human being and that a heart is beating in your chest. I also know that in this heart there is something good and I want to help you." The young man replied: "I am jobless. I completed my studies last year in June and I am looking for work. Everywhere they ask me the same question: But, young man, do you have any experience?
I am disgusted that the same question is always asked. Put yourself in my place. What do you think is going on in my mind?
I kept him in my office for one hour. I tried by every means available to make him understand how confident we are in our young people and how prepared we are to make the necessary efforts to give them an opportunity to live in Canada, particularly in Quebec, not as millionaires but so as to meet their needs provided they be the regular needs of a human being.
When he left, that young man was satisfied. He told me: "There is a man who understands us, a man who has faith in youth." And on the same evening, I took the opportunity, on the occasion of a Canadian supper, to spread this hope among the young for they need to believe in the sincerity and in the responsibility of adults and if we all stick together we shall be able to dam the tide of confusion and disorder which is now rising in our province and across the country.
We must first assure the financial security and the civil liberties of the citizens in Quebec as well as in the other provinces for these values have an economic significance. We believe that today civil liberties do mean something, but in theory only. For a very long time our party has been advocating a more equitable distribution of incomes across Canada. It is time for the government to listen to our voice which is also the voice of the people who demand greater justice.
Now is the time for generosity, sharing, reform of the economic system, fraternity, and humanization of economic as well as social and political structures. It is time to make money serve the human being in order to remove the understandable feeling of frustration that the people have because they do not get their fair share of the national production.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, if we must consider deep constitutional changes to eliminate the causes of the FLQ in Quebec, we believe that Canadian society must show greater flexibility and liberality. Now is not the time for arrogance but for understanding. Our task is to build a country, not destroy it.
The legislation before us should not be used elsewhere in Canada to tell the population: The act aims at bringing Quebec to heel, and tell the Quebecers: The act seeks to bring the FLQ to heel, because, then, that one act would have two purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I spent five days in western Canada during the summer recess. I went there, not as a member of Parliament, but with my farmer's overalls. I visited the farmers to see what the situation was. In fact, in that part of the country, I saw people who live quite comfortably and others of modest means. I was impressed to see to what extent the people in that area are well aware of the situation that prevails in Quebec, to what extent they respect French Canadians.
If people in high places, and in information circles, were more objective and encouraged that feeling of Canadianism, of brotherhood and understanding, we could far more easily and rapidly build a strong and prosperous country, for our energy would serve to build rather than to divide and destroy.
In addition, we firmly believe that the federal government should from now on proceed with constitutional discussions in a spirit of brotherhood and reconciliation. As I said before, the essential matter is that Canadians should enjoy a decent standard of living. The constitutional problem should not be an impediment to the self-fulfilment of Canadians, including Quebecers. Such is my opinion.
As for me, I love my province and my country. I trust most of my fellow-citizens and I am ready to fight vigorously for the survival of democracy through democratic means. But I wish to goodness people would stop preaching patience to us and asking us to live with misery in the midst of affluence. This is becoming disgusting.
The silent majority will also have to become sensitive to social and economic problems and to co-operate to bring about the reforms necessary in order to build a society where life is enjoyable.
As for us members elected by the people, we must tackle immediately the task of settling the basic problems which gave rise to the FLQ. Finally, it will be necessary to bring back within the fold of democracy the individuals convicted under the special legislation. We must at whatever cost devise a rehabilitation system so that these individuals will come to believe in our form of democracy and its values. Action must be taken to prevent Canada from being perturbed again as it was in October last.
I know that this bill affects a single group and I am deeply moved by the fact that it is meant for Quebec only. It is unfortunate for my province. I also regret that our suggestions receive so little consideration. I hope that the present problem will not make us lose sight of our main objective, namely, to further the building of a beautiful and great Canada, from coast to coast.
e (3:20 p.m.)
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: In speaking to the amendment to the motion for third reading of this bill, it seems to me we are again addressing ourselves to the heart of the question before us, that is to say, the manner
November 24, 1970

in which the extraordinary powers which have been requested by the government are to be effectively administered in the best interests of the people.
I would say that nothing in the statements or actions of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) have in any way alleviated the fears, doubts and disquiet of members of this House or of the people generally. If anything, events over the past few weeks only confirm the tremendous need to have clearly stated in the law an effective form of review that will prevent, or at least will redress, the abuses that are more than likely to occur.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
The arguments that have been put before the House both by the Minister of Justice and by the Prime Minister to the effect that we should trust the provincial authorities, particularly the Minister of Justice, seem to me to be fallacious reasoning, if not to say a rather ill-informed view, as to how the law operates in this country. The minister of justice or attorney general of any province is as much bound to observe federal and provincial statutes as any other individual citizen. To say that in certain instances, particularly instances where extraordinary powers are to be set forth, we should simply set aside the normal processes of protection and allow what we believe to be the wisdom, good faith and good jugdment of the provincial minister to be exercised, to me is the weakest form of argument possible.
I think it is an even weaker argument when there is the kind of pressure-and the pressure must be very great indeed-that there is on provincial officials at this moment. When those of us who are concerned about basic questions of civil liberties and civil rights in this country examine some of the things said by the Quebec Minister of Justice-I refer only to the possible introduction of identity cards-we are given a clear indication that in passing this legislation the members of the House must be given assurance, not through some statement of good intent or through trust of any given individual but through the only kind of guarantee that is possible with regard to the workings of this House, namely a guarantee in law.
If there are any doubts, Mr. Speaker, that abuse of the law by the authorities is possible, then those doubts should surely have been confirmed last evening and yesterday afternoon when we heard the Prime Minister, not only in this House but on the national media, respond to the question why a review clause was not inserted into the bill. The Prime Minister responded in his well-known, off-hand manner by saying: "Well, you know, there is a lot of propaganda being circulated by the separatists and the FLQ about how we are calling the shots for the provincial government".
In the first instance, I wondered why it was that he referred to the separatists and the FLQ. The people of this country have been told by the government over past weeks and months that the one threat the government and the country must move against is the FLQ. In the
23568-19*
Public Order Act, 1970
Prime Minister's statement heard nationally on television and radio last night, he said that it was the propaganda tliat was being circulated by the separatists and the FLQ, indicating at the very least a confusion of mind, or if not confusion, a very dangerous intent, on the part of the Prime Minister. If the right hon. gentleman who leads this government is that confused, then how can the members of this House be expected to trust good intention and good judgment, not just of a provincial attorney general and minister of justice, but of individual police officers and authorities, thousands of whom will be acting under this special legislation?
If the Prime Minister is so confused as to lump together all those of separatist persuasion in the province of Quebec a factor that some of us have feared for some time now-and the members of the FLQ, who surely must to most reasonable people in this country be an entirely different order of individual, then it is all the more important that the amendment that has been requested over past days to this law be not only earnestly considered by the Minister of Justice, but acted upon at once.
Once more the Prime Minister seemed to return to his favourite argument, all reason seeming to be unworkable and ail answers seeming to be not worth mentioning, when he resorted over the past week end to suggesting that there is, of course, the well-known constitutional problem. How often it has been convenient for the Prime Minister to talk about the constitution posing a major problem. He has talked about it in response to the tremendous need there has been in this country over past years for something to be done about the desperate plight of those people who have no decent housing. His only response has been that we really cannot effectively meet that situation because there is the constitutional problem.
We are now again being told in this grave situation that there is this constitutional problem. I think Canadians should know that when the Prime Minister throws in, as his final and strongest argument, the statement that there is a constitutional problem, what he is really saying is. I won t do it, I don't want to do it, and I have made up my mind I am not going to do it". That is what the Prime Minister means. When dealing with questions of great importance to this country it is high time the Prime Minister stopped resorting to this shabby "non-argument", because, frankly, that is all it is.
Why is the question of review so important to this legislation? It is important for any number of reasons. I would say in a general way that, as we have gone through the clause by clause study of this bill during the past few days, we have come to realize collectively, as individual members have made contributions to the debate in this House, that there is much more than a first glance would indicate that is dangerous and unclear in this legislation. Even worse than the things it does say are the things that the legislation does not say, but to which there are hazy referrences. The fact that almost every clause is open to very dangerous misinterpretation should itself demand that the government be only too willing to respond to something that is overwhelmingly supported by the people of this country. Surely this was

November 24, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
obvious when the government's own party, meeting over the last week end, spoke favourably of the action taken by the government and at the same time spoke of the utter necessity for there to be some kind of review clause in the legislation.
A basic question has not yet been answered by the Minister of Justice, and this alone should underline the necessity for some kind of check being made on the administration of the bill. That basic question is this: What does the FLQ stand for? What in fact is the FLQ? In the preamble, and I think also in clause 3, the minister has tried to describe some of the things that the FLQ might do. In referring to those things he is referring to things which quite accurately and honestly will be covered by the provisions of the Criminal Code.
One question that is being raised here, a question that I think it is critically important that the minister answer, is: What in fact makes the FLQ different from other organizations? What are the stated aims and purposes of this organization, the members of which can be indicted and found guilty? The Minister of Justice has given no clear statement with regard to what the FLQ is, and neither has the Prime Minister. I doubt whether either of them has answered this question publicly outside the House. We know for a fact that the very dangerous step that has been taken by the government, both in its introduction of the regulations under the War Measures Act and its introduction of this legislation which makes an organization illegal in itself and its members subject to certain penalties, is the foggiest, fuzziest, most fraudulent kind of thing to do. It has been done in the hope of trying to deal with a very serious situation.
Apart from being very bad legislation, it is very old-fashioned kind of legislation. Members of the governing party some 30 years ago realized how foolish it was to try to define an illegal organization, and they did something to try to end such legislation. The fact that it is almost impossible to know from the legislation just what the FLQ really stands for, and that the government has not tried to define it in this House, is bad enough. But what is transparent to an increasing number of people in this country is not only that you cannot define what the FLQ is as a distinctive organization in itself, but the very action of outlawing a certain organization lends the possibility, the very real possibility, of smearing individuals, groups of people and organizations.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
We have seen an example of this as recently as a few days after the invoking of the War Measures Act when the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Mar-chand) inadvertently, to say the least, referred to the FRAP party in Montreal, indicating that it might be some kind of front organization for the FLQ. How a minister of the Crown could make that kind of a monumental slip in the last few days of a major municipal election campaign, and then not feel compelled to resign, is a principle I cannot understand.
Even more, there is a kind of ridiculous quality to this whole affair. I suppose the letters that have become most

well-known in our society in the last few months are, of course, the letters FLQ. In fact, I heard a little story the other day and apparently it is true. A child came home from school and asked his father how many letters there are in the alphabet. His father replied that there are 26. to which the child said: No, no, there are only 23, they have taken out F, L, and Q. Even the children realize the ridiculousness of this situation, and it is ridiculous I agree.
I presume that if somebody were to come to parliament hill this afternoon waving a placard with the letters FLQ on it, he would immediately be apprehended and obviously indicted because he was displaying these three letters. If it turned out that in very small print below FLQ there appeared "Federation de liberale du Quebec" I wonder, then, what in fact would be the interpretation of his innocence or guilt.
This is ridiculous because the idea of dealing with a very serious problem of terrorism and social unrest in the Province of Quebec or anywhere else is futile if it is based on the idea of outlawing an organization. If in fact the minister wishes to insure that justice is going to be done, in what I call an almost absurd situation, at the very least there needs to be the establishment of some kind of a review board. I would ask quite frankly when this bill becomes operable, as the successor to the War Measures Act, who will be the major victims of this clause outlawing this organization? I do not think the victims will be the people who have committed acts of terror.
I think the first and most obvious reason for this statement is, of course, the penalty which, as I recall it, is only five years or $5,000. In respect of a man who has participated in a bombing, in an act of terror, in a kidnapping, or in that most brutal act of all, an assassination, it would be utterly and transparently ridiculous to charge anyone under that kind of measure. Naturally, he would be charged under the Criminal Code in which there is a reference to these acts of physical destruction, kidnapping or of murder.
What is then left? If there were a group of people who were plotting to overthrow the government by violent means they, too, would not be charged under this bill because this is a major crime. There is a provision for sedition and treason in the Criminal Code. So, we cannot include those masterminds who may be plotting to overthrow an established authority in this country.
Who then remains to be convicted under this measure? We have seen that one person was convicted because he confessed. Presumably, if some person had not committed some obvious act of crime or terror but admitted freely to being a member of such and such an organization, he might well be convicted. In other words, those people who might be convicted under this measure would be those who might convict themselves of membership in the organization.
What happens in a society during a period when there is great focus upon a particular crisis or a particular act of social unrest? Some people who are on the fringes of sanity, or on the fringes of the regular mainstream of
November 24, 1970

society, will seek some kind of perverted sensationalism or publicity by coming forward. Any experienced lawyer will tell you that when a bizarre crime has occurred, perhaps robbery or murder, and the police are looking for suspects, all too frequently a number of people will come in to confess because they are intrigued with the publicity they will get, never thinking of the consequences that the confession might bring them. This is one of the very real dangers. A number of deluded people, misguided and forsaken, will allow themselves to be abused under this foolish and unnecessary provision of the law. I think more than likely those are the people who are going to be affected. I refer to these ill-advised individuals who, almost because of themselves, will be caught up and convicted under this provision.
The action of the government in bringing forth this legislation, without at least introducing a provision for review, seems to me to be the height of presumption and arrogance. Surely, it must only be because people have not had time to think through the total situation, or because the fear they have shared individually and collectively has been so great, that they have lost the willingness at least to question what the government is requesting.
As I have indicated, the government is asking for a drastic provision outlawing an organization without in any way attempting to define what it is. Secondly, it is going to reverse the standard corut procedure which has operated for centuries in relation to the presumption of guilt. It is going to ask as well that there be unlimited powers of search which will apply in every situation. It is asking that property may be seized and held for an indefinite period of time, a subject in respect of which there has not even been too much question here. The government is requesting that there be a period of detention of from three to seven days initially without charge, and following that a period of up to 90 days, a quarter of a year, before a person may be brought to trial. It is asking that evidence of membership or activity in this organization, which may have occurred years prior to this bill becoming law, be accepted as proof under this law.
This is a contravention of the basic workings of our legal structure in this country. Even 20 years ago, we were willing to sign an international declaration of human rights which said, in Article 11, that no government shall pass a law today declaring something which happened before that law was passed to be a crime. I am really wondering what our government is going to do about that. Is it going to indicate to the United Nations that we can no longer concur with that particular article of the International Charter on Human Rights? I will have more to say about that later because I feel that is only one aspect of the very retrograde steps this government is pursuing in this legislation.
The government is also asking for the right to arrest without evidence, but simply on how a certain police officer may feel on a certain day. He might have "reason to suspect" but it is not important whether his reason is good, bad or indifferent; as long as he has reason that is
Public Order Act, 1970
sufficient. The government is asking as well that this act be extended, if the government so desires, without too much fuss or bother even at that point.
We have here a series of truly amazing requests being made by the government without any substantial indication that there is a real need for them. In the early days when the War Measures Act was invoked and the regulations were passed, there was a certain sense of overwhelming support from this House, and one believes from the country, for what the government was doing. In succeeding days and weeks what has the government done to indicate either that it was right when it acted in the first instance or, even more important, at this point. We can only deal with the present and try to work towards a reasonable future. For what earthly reason does the government at this point, some five weeks after the imposition of the War Measures Act, now ask for the continuation of this legislation until the end of April next year?
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
That, surely, is the major question which must be asked by members of this House. Why is the government so anxious to have the legislation at this point? What are its reasons for asking for such sweeping, and in many aspects unreasonable, powers to be placed in the hands of those who have not overly proved their competence in the weeks gone by? In what way can the government or the Minister of Justice assure us that the passage of this bill will ensure the freedom of Mr. James Cross? In fact, if I may be frank about it, I have not been overly touched by the concern this government has exhibited in the past few weeks in respect of securing the freedom of Mr. Cross. Certainly, in so far as my question to the Prime Minister today was concerned, there seemed to be no real desire to consider new avenues and new ways in which the release of Mr. Cross could be obtained.


An hon. Member:: Suggest a couple.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: This would be shocking enough if a citizen of this country were involved, but we are talking about a man from whom this country has a very special responsibility, a representative of another sovereign nation. Yet for some days the government has acted as if this question were simply no longer important. If this is not the case, then I would simply urge the government to give us more evidence of the fact that it is doing everything possible to secure this man's release and to relieve the unbelievable suffering and uncertainty he has been living under these past number of weeks.
The government suggested a review commission is presently operating. It has suggested a group of men is operating on behalf of the provincial government which is quite able to fulfil all the concerns or even the problems which may arise in respect of the administration of these special powers. I think, however, that perhaps the government, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice have been less than frank in telling us what real responsibility this commission has or what real stature it has.

November 24, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
In today's newspaper the Prime Minister is reported as having said that the commission will be able to look after the problems that would be raised in this respect. But the reporter for the Globe and Mail, in trying to check out the position this commission might hold in relation to the authorities in Quebec, was told this commission apparently has no legal power. A spokesman in the office of the Quebec justice minister, Mr. Jerome Choquette, said yesterday that he believed the commission has government approval but no government mandate. That is the sum and substance of it. The commission has government approval, presumably for as long as the government feels it is acting in its best interests, which is reasonable to assume, but has no government mandate. In fact, it operates merely at the whim of the authorities. I am sure that if Mr. Hebert could be here to report on everything he could give us a particular review of what has been happening in respect of the administration of War Measures regulations and it would not be a very encouraging tale.
The government has given the impression that the institution of such a review board would be difficult to achieve. One wonders where the members of the government have been for the past 30 or 40 years. I have been a member of this House long enough to know that almost every piece of legislation, whether in an area of joint jurisdiction, as much of it has been in the past two years, or legislation in one jurisdiction or another, has time and again included provision for review boards or boards of some kind. This provision gives the public and the members of this House some feeling that the administration of a particular measure will be carried on in an effective way. Right now, in this country there must be hundreds of separate advisory and review boards which act to protect the public interest. For the government to fall back on the weak and irrelevant constitutional argument seems to be the last vestige of any reasonable argument at all.
Yesterday afternoon in this House of Commons the Prime Minister reported that, as a result of the Liberal policy convention, he tried to work out with the Prime Minister of Quebec some kind of instrument. I And it difficult to believe the Prime Minister can sincerely believe in that argument or that he could be so short of imagination. I find it difficult to believe that he and the Quebec Prime Minister would be that unwilling to follow the express wishes of the country and of their party by failing to introduce an amendment which would provide for an effective review procedure that would guarantee at least minimal safeguards in respect of the administration of this bill. The dangers that are inherent in this bill are difficult for any member of this House to accept, but I think it is even more important that we remember the climate in which this bill is being brought forth. This bill has been introduced as a result of a special situation; in many senses of the word, it has been a crisis situation. From being in contact with and talking to people in the province of Quebec, I know there has been a deep feeling not only of unrest but of great fear.
The authorities who have been trying to root out those responsible for terrorism, kidnapping and murder must

be frustrated and must be becoming more and more tired. One might expect that some of the thousands of people who have been working night and day for a period of almost two months must be becoming almost desperate in trying to write an end to this unhappy page in our history. What makes me so fearful in this instance is that when men are frustrated, tired and desperate they are quite likely to do very desperate things and innocent people who have a right to expect basic protection under the law suddenly find themselves in the most unfortunate situations. This is something that members of this House should not treat lightly. If the Prime Minister can be so easily confused between the FLQ and separatists, and we know that some men and women in the province of Quebec have been moving toward separatism, we cannot be happy about the fact that the abuse and misuse of these sweeping powers could achieve ends opposite to those for which this legislation is intended.
If we should find ourselves in the unfortunate position of having to look back on this period and realize that the legislative action taken has, in fact, deepened and worsened the problems that exist in the province of Quebec, then not only the members of the government but all members of this House will bear a great sense of guilt. I am not saying we can remove ourselves from that guilt even with the introduction of a review commission, but I think it is the kind of minimal guarantee that the government surely must recognize is a necessary requirement, even at this point. If the government does not recognize this, then I can only say that, to the best of my knowledge and understanding, they have not acted in the best interests of this country.


Mr. Douglas A. Hogarth (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I had not planned on speaking today, but I am absolutely astonished that the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) does not know what the FLQ is. There was a man in Quebec not too many weeks ago who pleaded guilty to being a member of the FLQ and received 15 months in prison. I think he knew what the FLQ was. There was a 65 year old Montreal watchman who, on April 20, 1963, was the first bombing victim of the FLQ, and his family knows who they are. A month later a demolitions expert was endeavouring to demolish one of the bombs that have been put in 15 mail boxes in the city of Montreal. That man knows who the FLQ are. There are 23 convicts in the penitentiary in Canada whom the FLQ are trying to get out. They know the FLQ exists and they are there because since 1964 there has been a series of thefts, hold ups and every other conceivable form of nefarious crime, including the theft of every type of weapon, munitions and equipment from military establishments. These people are obviously responsible for these crimes and at times boast about it.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
On August 29, 1964 two people were killed during an unsuccessful attempt to hold up the International Firearms store in Montreal. This was attributed to the FLQ. Who are the members of the FLQ? They are a group of psychopathic terrorists who are doing exactly
November 24, 1970

what the bill before us is trying to stop them from doing. You asked for evidence. In 1965, FLQ terrorism included the derailment of two trains, endangering the lives of hundreds of people.


Mr. Paproski:: What did the government do about it?


Douglas Aird Hogarth: On May 5, 1966, a 65 year old office employee was killed by an FLQ bomb. His family knows who the FLQ are. In 1968, 300 sticks of dynamite were stolen from The Chomedy quarry, and that year there were 21 bombings, including the bombing of the Montreal city hall.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Where was the government?


Douglas Aird Hogarth: The FLQ bombed the Montreal stock exchange on February 13, 1969, injuring 27 innocent people. On September 28, 1969, the home of the mayor of the city of Montreal was bombed. On June 24, 1970, an FLQ explosive killed a 50-year old Ottawa civil servant.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Perhaps at this time the Chair should remind hon. members that the debate is now on the amendment which would refer the bill back to the committee for the purpose of establishing an independent body to review the administration of the said bill. The Chair has been lenient and has given some leeway to the previous speaker, but I feel that at this time I should remind hon. members to try to confine themselves as much as possible to the amendment. It is only after a vote has been taken on the amendment that a general debate on all the clauses of the bill can be entered into, unless another amendment is put forward.

So I would ask hon. members to keep as much as possible to the matter now under consideration, that is, the advisability of referring the bill to the Committee of the Whole, with a view to adding to it provisions aimed at the establishment of an independent review agency.
Even if so far the discussion has extended over the subject of such an independent committee to review those measures provided in the bill, I feel that it is important at this stage to ask hon. members to keep as much as possible to the amendment under consideration.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: I certainly appreciate your directions, Mr. Speaker, but it would appear to me that since the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald), asked these questions and said that there was no evidence, I am entitled to put some of the evidence before him and before the House.
Let me say, to conclude, that there have been riots. There is ample documentation to show what the FLQ intended eventually. There have been kidnappings and the infiltration of federal and provincial agencies. There has been all kinds of evidence.
Public Order Act, 1970


Steve Eugene Paproski: But you did not believe it was in the Company of Young Canadians.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: There has been all kinds of evidence to indicate that this legislation is necessary. When the hon. member says he does not believe it, may I point out to him that if he reads the Committee minutes relating to that evidence he will find I asked why it was that the then government of Quebec had not requested assistance from us. He will see that when the present government of Quebec asked us for assistance, this government acted.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You should have acted there and then.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: That is the point on the proposed amendment of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas). The government of Quebec, whatever political philosophy it might have, is and has been responsible for the administration of justice in the province of Quebec. We are responsible for the establishment of the substantive law.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Then be responsible.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: We are responsible for the establishment of the laws of criminal procedure, but this government is not responsible, nor can it assume the responsibility, for looking after the administration of justice in Quebec. The political decision has been made, and the sound constitutional decision has been made, that the law that we have before us is to continue with the same constitutional provision we have with respect to all our criminal law, and that is that the administration of justice is the responsibility of the attorney general in any province in which justice is to be administered. In this instance we have provided that the attorney general of Quebec have broad powers in dealing with the liberty of the citizen, and he has established de facto what is really requested in this amendment.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Where?


Douglas Aird Hogarth: It was announced in this House. The names were given. In addition, there have been absolutely no complaints filed with the federal Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) that he has not carried out his duties properly in the interests of the administration of justice not only in Quebec but in the whole of the country. How could we gain by, first of all, entering the field of the administration of justice by accepting this amendment or one of the amendments similar to it that have been put forward and then telling the attorney general of Quebec that, on the one hand, we give him these powers but, on the other hand, not only are we going to ensure that they are properly carried out but we are going to have independent citizens see that they are? This is absurd. So, we would delegate the administration of justice not even to the Attorney General of Canada or the attorney general of Quebec but, in the last analysis, to a group of independent citizens. How absurd can you get. This is manifestly out of the question.

November 24, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
A suggestion has been made by the hon. member for Egmont that this law eventually will bring about the aims of the FLQ. That is absurd. I suggest that the moment we interfere so drastically with the administration of justice in any province we will bring about a constitutional problem which will just amplify those we already have on our hands.
Hon. members opposite are concerned, and so are we, about the resolution that was passed at the convention last weekend. We must all be concerned about that, particularly on this side of the House, but let us bear in mind that that resolution was predicated on the belief that there would be no want of confidence in the attorney general of the province of Quebec. It is obviously absolutely impossible to do what these projected amendments and the resolution suggest on the one hand, and then say we have complete confidence in the attorney general on the other. That is the only way in which we can deal with the resolution.


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley Wesi):: In my contribution to the debate on this amendment to the motion for third reading, I would like to deal at least with some of the points raised by my colleague, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hogarth). I would like to suggest to him that he put his case forward strongly and urgently. A colleague close to me adds "ridiculously". Anyway, he spoke very forcefully about this particular matter. It seems to me, however, that on a number of other occasions the constitutionality argument has been raised and, I believe, answered.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
There are a number of special cases in our legal system which result from the government of Canada having passed special laws and because of the speciality of these laws the federal authority has handled their administration. I should like to cite three or four of these. There is, of course, the narcotics legislation which is under the authority of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


An hon. Member:: That is different.


Mark Willson Rose: There is customs and excise; there is the Income Tax Act.


An hon. Member:: That is different.


Mark Willson Rose: There is the Food and Drug Act.


An hon. Member:: That is different.


Mark Willson Rose: It seems to me that it is not a closed case, no matter how loudly are shouted the positions from either side of the House. I believe some room for argument exists and I think we delude ourselves if we suggest there is no room for a constitutional argument on this or even on the matter of the war measures proclamation itself.
I think we can claim that our debate during the last month has shown that there is another side of the coin in
our dealing with the vicious things that happened due to the FLQ in Quebec. People are now beginning to realize that all the arguments that have been used by the government in the proclamation of the War Measures Act are not necessarily valid and that there is room for another opinion. I think more people are beginning to take a look at the alternative option.
Dealing with the amendment before us, I should like to read a brief excerpt from the Gazette of November 14, 1970, dateline Quebec where Derek Hill writes:
The honest law-abiding citizen has nothing to worry about whatever measures are taken by the government, concluded Mr. Choquette.
Mr. Choquette's argument has been raised a number of times all over the country, not just in Quebec. We hear that you have nothing to worry about as long as you are a law-abiding citizen. We are always told this, but try and put that across to the 397 people who were in jail for days and weeks without charge and were subsequently released. I would like to ask if their experience illustrates that law-abiding citizens had nothing to fear under the legislation and regulations following proclamation of the War Measures Act. Obviously, a number of those people had a great deal to fear.
How many innocent reputations have been tainted, not because they were charged and convicted but because they were picked up in the street? They were left to languish in jail with no opportunity to inform their families. They were a worry to their families and employers and have had the finger of suspicion pointed at them for the rest of their lives. We should think of these things and ask some of these people who were picked up and released without charge how they feel about the absurdity of a review board.
Police can make mistakes, Mr. Speaker, as can all humans. I happen to believe that the Montreal police may be more accident prone than others. I say this because my province had a recent nasty experience with the Quebec police when a British Columbia civil servant was pistol whipped on the the street by the Montreal police.


An hon. Member:: Quebec.


Mark Willson Rose: I am sorry, Quebec City.


An hon. Member:: Get the facts.


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think that this case is before the courts and so the hon. member may not want to say too much more about it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: He can
certainly discuss the facts of the case.


John Napier Turner: The case is before the courts and one of the rules of this House is that members use their best discretion when a matter is before the courts. I think the member could use his best judgment.

November 24, 1970


Mr. Lewis:: He can just say it has happened.


John Napier Turner: That is right.


David Lewis: That is all he is saying.


John Napier Turner: That is right.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The Chair is not aware of the conversation that took place between the two hon. members, so it might be a good time to remind them to address themselves to the Chair so that a decision can be made if it relates to the work of the House.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry you were not in on the exchange but I sat down and the Minister of Justice was kind enough to update me on some of the facts of this particular case and to admonish and warn me that I must not go too far here. I accept the warning. I really did not wish to comment on it but I think I could ask a question. What would have happened had this particular situation occurred with a common labourer, say an unemployed labourer from British Columbia who happened to be visiting Quebec City on his vacation?
I hear a comment from the wings to the effect what would have happened if the War Measures Act had been in effect? There was no apology. Since I understand this matter is before the courts, I shall not comment on it further except to say it is unfortunate that a British Columbia civil servant happened to have the bad luck to resemble a bank robber.
Mistakes can happen in spades with the normal powers of police. Some of us fear that with the special powers granted under Bill C-181 more excesses will become a matter of course, and we are worried about this. This is why, aside from the constitutional problem, people on this side of the House and at least one on the other side have risen repeatedly to make their views heard. Canadians need some kind of officially constituted review board, not a review board that operates on sufferance. It has been said repeatedly that special powers need special kinds of protection. One of Parliament's hangups has been that while the federal government passes and transfers these awesome powers to the attorneys general of the various provinces, our federal government has no responsibility for the control of them.
As I said yesterday, trust is a wonderful thing and so is faith, but so often these are not enough. We have heard that all members of the FLQ are not necessarily terrorists. I do not know whether that makes them any more acceptable; certainly terrorists are unacceptable in this country. Canadians have had very little experience with terrorist behaviour. If FLQ members are not terrorists, then what are they and what are they doing? Are they pursuing legitimate ends through legitimate means and just happen to be separatists, a view not particularly acceptable to me nor to many other people in Canada.
Why do we need these powers? Is it to deal with FLQ members who are not terrorists but may be separatists? Are we looking for the kind of power necessary to deal with people who have not committed any crime? It seems to me that our democratic institutions should be sound
Public Order Act, 1970
enough to deal with these ideas without special powers to apprehend people not because they have committed crimes but merely because they possess ideas that may be unacceptable. Our system must be strong enough to be victorious over ideas or it is not worth keeping. We are afraid at this stage that the cure contemplated by the special powers, or the legacy of the cure, may well be much worse than the disease. We say this in all sincerity, and without any frivolous intention whatsoever. Therefore, we are speaking in support of the k'nd of review board, tribunal or body that may be acceptable to the government, that will take care of worries, concerns and fears relating to the excesses which I have mentioned. We do this because we think that if there is a will there will be a way in which to protect the civil rights of people, regardless of the rigidity and inflexibility of the government and the constitution.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I should like to say a few words of congratulations to my colleagues in the Conservative party for the valiant fight they have carried on in order to make Bill C-181 more acceptable to those Canadians who are sensitive about matters affecting civil rights and threats to our civil liberties. I was impressed by the indignation expressed by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). I listened carefully to the Leader of the Official Opposition, who is a fair minded man. I have great respect for him. His words and logic convinced me that unless the government does something to make Bill C-181 more acceptable, I ought to vote against it on third reading. If he was able to convince me that I ought to vote against Bill C-181 on third reading, I do not understand why he did not convince himself to do the same.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mark Willson Rose: This is the part of his position that I find particularly difficult to understand. It seems to me that the Conservative party in this whole issue has been attempting to ride two horses.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Leave the Conservatives out of this.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, at least one Conservative has been left out. He has just walked out. In that party's attempt to ride two horses-


Steve Eugene Paproski: I am back again.


Mark Willson Rose: -that party may have fallen between them.


An hon. Member:: Not the hon. member who has just returned.


Mark Willson Rose: I was not referring particularly to the hon. member for Edmonton West who has just returned.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, my constituency is Edmonton Centre.
1428

November 24, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I wish the hon. member who has the floor would tell us what his party intends to do.


Mark Willson Rose: I am pleased that the hon. member tor Edmonton Centre, who fell between two stools, was kind enough to identify himself just now.


An hon. Member:: Surely, he would not fall between two stools.


Mark Willson Rose: I suggest to the hon. member for Edmonton centre in all sincerity that we are all big enough to tolerate having some fun poked at us once in a while. I am sorry that, despite all his fine words, despite all his fine arguments and despite his real and sincere concern, the Leader of the Opposition stated publicly, before the House had embarked very far on the third reading debate, that he would support the government on Bill C-181. I feel sorry, because I feel he has closed off his options. Because the minister knew that he could count on the support of a substantial portion of the House, he was probably less willing to accept amendments on third reading. In other words, I feel that the options of the party headed by the Leader of the Opposition have been closed in this way. I think the minister certainly would have been more convinced by the kind of sincerity expressed by people such as the Conservative justice critic from Calgary North if he had not been absolutely and positively assured of support on third reading.
I feel, too, that many members of the hon. gentleman's party will vote in favour of the bill on third reading, regardless of their particular convictions on it, because they will legally want to follow their leader. I regret that they have been put in this position.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Do not go too far, now.


Mark Willson Rose: I say this in all sincerity. Many rumours have come out of the rumour mill that the FLQ has infiltrated into various agencies of government and various institutions. The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) told us in the House that we have no idea of the extent of such infiltration.


Mr. Peters:: Neither has he.


Mark Willson Rose: I ask, what federal agencies have been infiltrated by the FLQ?


An hon. Member:: The government cannot answer that.


An hon. Member:: The CYC was.


Mark Willson Rose: What does the government plan to do about this alleged infiltration? How many federal employees have been fired because it is alleged they infiltrated from the FLQ? Or is all this talk really scuttlebutt and part of the general picture of crisis that the government has been attempting to portray for the past month? How bad is the situation? Let the government come clean and tell us. In the meantime what we are debating at present is a motion that may lead to the establishment of a review board.
May I conclude by saying that I support such a concept. Many other Canadians support it. I think the House ought to try to establish something to meet this need.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member permit a question? Can he tell me of any instance in which the criminal law is administered by the federal government in a province without the consent of the attorney general of that province?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Take that question as notice.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to look into that matter for the hon. member and have a reply as soon as possible.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That is the sort of answer they give us all the time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The
hon. member sounded just like a Parliamentary Secretary.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker,
I had been hoping that perhaps the debate on this amendment might be concluded rapidly and that we could vote on it. I see that a number of hon. members are ready to speak on it. I shall, therefore, make a few remarks at this time and give the House my reasons for supporting this amendment which seeks to establish a review procedure applicable to those people who would be held under this bill. This is the first and last time I shall speak on this bill, and I should like to give a brief background of the reasons that led me to my conclusions.
The national pride of Canadians has been severely hurt by recent events. We had always felt that we are above and free from those ills that have beset others, particularly ills such as political kidnapping and assassination. As a result, the majority of Canadians reacted angrily and violently to the recent outrages. They are prepared to support almost any measures that look as if they will prevent this sort of thing from recurring. I believe it is only because Canadians are in this state at this time that they and their government would consider the introduction of a piece of repressive legislation of this kind, without including in it at least the power of reviewing the situation of people who may be thrown into jail without charge, without warrant, and on the mere whim of the police. This, certainly, is not a situation of which we can be proud. Mr. Speaker, it is not easy, as many have assumed, to arouse our anger. We in this Parliament must not continue to act out of the sense of anger and shame that currently fills our country. We cannot react in the savage or violent way that individuals are free to do. We are charged with responsibility for the future.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Over the years the state has had to take the long view. It has had to avoid meeting violence with violence and has had to administer justice in the knowledge that the
[Mr. Paproski.)
November 24, 1970

state will exist long after the present people are gone and perhaps forgotten. Accepting the danger of being misunderstood, I want to deal with the present situation under this bill, a bill without a review procedure, to see what our position is at at this particular time.
Over many centuries nations have learned that there must be a continuous, strong and well understood set of laws which are enforced in a firm and understandable manner if there is to be public order and respect for the law. When laws are unreasonable or poorly enforced, respect for the law disintegrates and public order breaks down. Furthermore, we have learned from many sad examples that releasing power to a government or head of a government in a crisis is almost as dangerous an aberration as convicting several innocent persons in order to catch one guilty person. The powers to act without review in such a situation are even worse.
What has happened during the past six weeks as a result of the government's action? I believe they have polarized positions in the province of Quebec, leaving no place for the moderate who might possibly have got us through the dangerous and difficult days. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has gone out of his way to attack those who oppose his policy in this particular instance in an effort to discredit them politically. I am not talking about the FLQ. I am talking about those who favour peaceful evolution in this country.
The government has created a state of fear, hatred and anger in this country which we all love so much. People are now buying out the gunshops for their own protection. This situation is self-escalating. The government should try to cool down the national anger and lessen the use of emergency and repressive laws, rather than building them up. In introducing the legislation now before us, the government has now expended the whole residue of available federal power; first, by calling out the troops; second, by proclaiming the War Measures Act and, finally. by the introduction of the temporary measures bill. What is left if we have a real national emergency or insurrection? The federal government has nothing left. When there is no power to review arrests, there is even less freedom in the country and it is more difficult to return to normal.
In English speaking Canada a backlash is growing, almost unnoticed, because of fears and hatred. I know a few people who do not like Quebec. I have been surprised and humiliated when these people have said to me that the Prime Minister is the greatest man who has ever lived. They certainly misunderstand the situation, either by intent or by mistake. As a nation, this does not lead us anywhere.
Our international image has fallen to a new low. Several members commented today on our international problem and the low regard in which we are held in other countries. We are now known as a land of insurrection, government by aid of troops and war measures. That is the picture from abroad. If the present legislation is enacted and people can be thrown into jail without charge, held without bail, with no provision for review of
Public Order Act, 1970
the situation, our international image will fall even lower.
According to many sources, Canada has passed a watershed and as a result is a changed and poorer country. When was this watershed reached? Was it reached at the time of the kidnappings of Messrs. Cross and Laporte or was it reached after the proclamation of the War Measures Act and the introduction of this legislation? We do not yet have the answer.
The economic loss in the province of Quebec will result in the federal government pumping millions of dollars into that province. The need has been created and it must be filled. Unfortunately, it will not go unnoticed in other parts of the country. It will not do anything for national unity. In the short rim, because of our national humiliation and anger, this repressive measure we are now considering may receive some commendation from those who want to see a repressive government deal with that part of our society that is dangerous and non-conforming. The situation will not continue forever. Some people say that because of this situation unity is being achieved in Canada, but I believe it is unity of anger and hatred, not love or compassion and it will not survive in that form.
The emergency that was, and continues to be, escalated by the government will be escalated even more by introducing measures without review procedures in an effort to show that we are in such a desperate and dangerous situation in this country that we need measures of this repressive nature. I think this escalation of the emergency is wrong. The least we can do is to ensure that the legislation before us is something more normal than a war measure. Surely, any measure that does not have an appeal procedure is not normal. On many, many occasions we in this House have worked for appeal procedures. The minister introduced legislation to establish federal courts which essentially are a great series of appeal courts from all boards and tribunals. Now these are appeals from decisions made in offices concerning matters which many people believe to be inconsequential. Yet we pile on provision for appeal after appeal. And I have no objection; I think it is right. But when we come to a matter affecting fundamental freedoms the government declines to bring in a normal appeal provision, in an attempt to give the impression that the emergency is greater than it really is. In my opinion, the emergency has been escalated to an abnormal degree.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
To indicate exactly what I am trying to say I should like to turn to the poll which was run by CTV and released a week ago Sunday. Some of my Liberal friends-and I have some-take great comfort from this poll.


An hon. Member:: You might have a lot of them, but you are losing some now.

November 24, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I don't mind losing a few. I hope the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) did not identify himself as one. Supporters of the government are saying "See, we were right in everything we did; look at this poll; we are in tune with the mood of the people; the Prime Minister is a great statesman." I want to say that the government has created the mood of the people, and if that mood is really reflected in the poll we are really in trouble in this country. I believe that far from being a great statesman the Prime Minister has created a state of mind from which it will take years to recover. What do Canadians want, now that their baser instincts have been encouraged? They want student activists, hippies, labour militants, communists, women's liberation groups sent to gaol and stifled; they want censorship of the press and imposition of the death penalty for a host of new crimes, and Heaven knows what else.


An hon. Member:: That came from Jack Horner.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Is this something of which a so-called Liberal government could be proud? I am a Conservative, and I think it is tragic. It might be said that this was all brought on by the FLQ, not by the government. I deny this. The potential was there. There has been a growing reaction to the government's careless attitude toward the immigration of people with criminal records and its failure to enforce the law. There was an exchange a few minutes ago-it was out of order-involving everything that has happened in connection with the FLQ since 1963. The concern of the government was not very evident during those seven years, and we cannot say there was no violence. The hon. member who spoke before the last hon. member set out to prove that there had been FLQ violence over the last seven years. I say it was the government's panicky and fearful reaction to the situation in the City of Montreal which brought us to the difficulty we face today. We are now considering legislation which should not be found in any free country even in wartime, legislation under which people do not have the right to be represented or to have their cases looked into, legislation under which there is no recourse to appeal from the actions of police.
Even if the War Measures Act were the only tool available to the Montreal police in hunting the criminals responsible for the kidnappers of Mr. Cross and Mr. Laporte, even if its invocation was necessary, it should have been the objective of the government to abandon this extraordinary measure as quickly as possible and to take steps toward reestablishing normalcy. Even if the bill before us has to be passed-and there is some doubt about that-surely it should be our aim to approve a law as close to normalcy as possible. To leave this measure as it is merely advertises to the world that we are still in a state where insurrection is apprehended. This is where the government has taken the wrong course.
Like a good many other members, I feel trapped in voting on the War Measures Act and on this bill, because there is no doubt some need for continuing supervision of
the explosive situation in Montreal. That need exists. But I blame the government for what it has done in connection with hundreds of ancillary matters-for statements such as that made by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) that thousands of subversive people had infiltrated the civil service and that many of them held high rank in government employment. Dozens of other things were said and done in order to build up the situation in justification of the government's action.
In my view a more statesmanlike course would have been to cool off the situation and let the international community feel that at least we were masters in our own house and knew what we were doing. I believe the government has maintained a state of emergency either to justify its original action or because of a belief that there is still some danger.
Mr. Speaker, there is always danger. There is no way known to man to prevent murder or assassination. The only defence lies in removing the will to commit these crimes while maintaining ordinary prudence. Has this been accomplished in Canada during the last few weeks? I say it has not. There are many more dangerous mental psychopaths, sex criminals and potential murderers walking the streets than there are revolutionaries in hiding or in gaols. The average citizen is forced to take his chances with these maniacs. There are lots of them. There is an average of one murder every day in Canada-the figures show something like 364 reported murders a year on an average, although the murderers are not always convicted. There is one kidnapping, on an average, every week-in the neighbourhood of 67 charges of kidnapping are laid each year and convictions are secured at the rate of almost one a week. So we have one murder every day and one kidnapping every week.
Mr. Cross is entitled to special consideration. Mr. Laporte, we weep for. We do not know yet what happened to him. We hope we shall know. But with all this in the background, let us keep our perspective. Two mounted policemen were murdered in Saskatchewan in the course of their duties. Is this any less the concern of the Canadian people? I say that we will have freedom in our streets when law and order are established, but not so long as we have repressive measures. This is not law and order at all, and a lot of people are making this mistake today. I say clearly that those who say that we now have law and order are wrong. We have the opposite of law and order; we have repression. Law and order is respect for the law, and the maintenance of that respect.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
In conclusion, may I say that this bill is directed toward maintaining or restoring law and order in Canada. Against whom is it directed? Certainly, it is not directed against the 300 people already picked up and released, nor against those now held under the War Measures Act. Certainly, it is not directed against the

November 24, 1970

kidnappers and murderers who are guilty of crimes and subject to procedures under the Criminal Code. Actually, it is directed against those shadowy, unknown figures who have been lurking in the background since this crisis began, people who have never been defined, named or found but who are the justification for a continuing state of emergency and crisis. Who are they? How many are there? Where are they? Will they ever be caught?
Do these few people-if there are any-who are still at large and cannot be charged under the Criminal Code in any way justify this bill? Even if the bill is justified, is it justified in its present terms without the normal protection of the law? I say that regardless of what we have done up to the present time, and regardless of the mistakes that have been made or the praise that has been given, it is time to get back to normal. I think we can make one move toward getting back to normal in this country by accepting the amendment that has been offered.


Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: Mr. Speaker,- Mr. Faulkner: Call it five o'clock.


Steven Otto: With friends like that I do not need enemies. Listening to this debate over the past two weeks, it would appear that we are introducing some sort of new legislation. We have had speeches about the severity of the measure and its lack of justice as if, indeed, we were introducing some brand new law that would restrict the rights of all citizens.
I would remind this House that this is not new legislation. We have in force at the present time the War Measures Act; the purpose of this legislation is to replace that act with something less onerous, something not quite so severe, and something that will last for a specific length of time. Indeed, the time is so short that I wonder whether we will get through the bill before the expiry date of this legislation. But my point is that we are not imposing new restrictions on the Canadian people.
If members want to be honest, they would have to say: "We don't want this legisation. We want to do away with the War Measures Act. There is no crisis in Montreal or in Quebec, indeed no crisis whatever. Let the FLQ do what it likes". That is what is being said.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Come, come!


Steven Otto: The hon. member who has just taken his seat said there was no crisis and never has been one. If hon. gentlemen believe that, let them stand up and say so. But why say that this legislation is so repressive-


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
Public Order Act, 1970


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. Is the hon. member rising on a point of privilege?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I hope the hon. member was listening to my speech, because I did not say that there never was a crisis.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I wish to remind the hon. member that the point he has made is not a point of privilege but merely a point of debate. The hon. member for York East.


Steven Otto: I wifi not debate the issue, Mr. Speaker. I thought I heard the hon. member say that he doubted whether there was a crisis. However, if he now says that there was and that the introduction of the War Measures Act was justified, then I am pleased to hear him say that. May I remind the members of this House that this legislation is indeed less onerous than what is in force at the present time, and no one has denied that. Neither has anyone mentioned that this legislation has a definite expiry date.
Now, I am not going to deny that there will be abuses of this legislation. There are always abuses of legislation which deprives people of their rights. That has been the history of this kind of legislation, and no one wants to use it.
The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) referred to the introduction of the War Measures Act during the last war. I bow my head in shame with him, and with all Canadians, at what we did to those Canadians of Japanese descent in British Columbia. These things happen, and as I say, I have no doubt there will be abuses of this legislation or of any legislation of this sort.
I should like to ask hon. gentlemen whether these abuses will be more onerous and harder to bear than abuses of the body-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order!


PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but it is my duty at this time, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Huron (Mr. McKinley)-national defence; the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose)-air transport; the hon. member for Bumaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Goode)-energy, mines and resources.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, as listed on today's Order Paper, namely public bills, private bills, notices of motions.
COMMONS DEBATES_____________________November 24, 1970
Public Bills



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


[Stage Direction]
measure to establish as legal holiday
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough) moved: that Bill C-8, respecting Sir John A. Macdonald Day, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker-


Douglas Aird Hogarth: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The hon. member for New Westminster is rising on a point of order.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the hon. member who is presenting this bill could get it to committee immediately, with the unanimous consent of the House, if he made two small amendments, namely in paragraph 1, that the act be cited as the Sir Wilfrid Laurier Day Act, and the same amendment at the bottom of paragraph 2.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Hillsborough.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, unlike King Agrippa, I am not even "almost persuaded'' by that interesting suggestion. I must note that this is the third time I have attempted to make it up the aisle on this, and having lost out on private members' hour before I want, in the kindest way, to suggest to my colleagues in the House that henceforth I will no longer be inhibited from protesting personally the dropping of private members' hour. In the future, when I am here during private members' hour I will want to be convinced that there is a clear and present value in cancelling private members' hour or there will be no unanimous consent coming from this member. I have watched the diminution of private members' time in the House of Commons in my long and laboured 13 years here, but I would not like any further development along these particular lines. Having said this, with all the kindness of my heart, I hope it will be borne in mind so I will not have to be an unrepentant interrupter in the future.
We Canadians, we must admit, are unfortunately not an historically minded people. In this we are unlike the Americans whom it is now again so popular to denigrate. They have, of course, their Washington's birthday, their Lincoln's birthday and so on. Since I last presented this motion we in Canada have shown our lack of historical mindedness by allowing Glensmere, the beautiful home of Sir Robert Borden, to fall before the wrecker's hammer. We can in this country celebrate St. Andrew's day, St. Patrick's day, St. George's day, St. Jean Baptiste day and even Robbie Burns day.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel).]
John A., like Robbie Burns, was not a saint, but surely he was an essential Canadian, the father of his country. Surely, he is among the architects of confederation, the builder of a coalition government which fostered the union of the colonies. He was at all the great conferences, including the one at Charlottetown in 1864 where the whole thing was really decided.
Sir John A. was prime minister from 1867 to 1891, with a brief, inglorious interregnum from 1873 to 1878. He was a member of the legislature of the then Canada at the age of 29. He was in public life for nearly half a century. He was a consummate politician and a vigorous but not hysterical nationalist. He was interesting, colourful, engaging, a charming man, a man of gaiety and a man who was not noted as a teetotaller. He was a man of joyous nature, but for those who know of his life he was not a man unacquainted with personal sorrow. Along with the burdens of personal problems and pain, he had more than his share of public anxieties. He, too, knew insurrection and his handling of the Louis Riel crisis was not quite as easy then as it now seems to be from the comfortable hindsight of several decades. He knew the terror and anguish which comes from the assassin's bullet and his sorrow over the death of Thomas D'Arcy McGee was bitter and agonizing.
In the days before image makers, before hidden persuaders and even before Information Canada, he came through as a genuinely interesting public man, a good fellow, and we used to say that great and gay John A, until that last adjective took on a certain meaning we do not like, and a man deserving of his country's trust. The word charisma was not in vogue in the 1870's and 1880's, but this uniquely unhypocritical man, this thoroughly political person, seemed to be able to command public confidence and to engage successfully in the art of nation building. It is a part of our tepid lack of interest in our history that we do not realize how difficult was the task facing our founding fathers, nor how splendid was the achievement of those who brought this about.
Sir John A. himself declared that his greatest work was done before 1867, an interesting tribute to this earlier period. Deserving a major place in this era was the creation of the political party of which I am a member. In 1854 he set the pattern and parameters of a party, and incidentally gave it the name which it was to pick up much later. He said in 1854 "there would be a new House and new people to choose from, and our aims should be to enlarge the bounds of our party so as to embrace every person desirous of being counted as a progressive Conservative."
Although he gave little time to theory or philosophy it is clear that Macdonald wisely knew, recognized and appreciated, that political parties are in fact older than democracy and without political parties the parliamentary process does not work. Of all the qualities which made Sir John A. Macdonald a great figure, and made it possible to create and maintain a nation, I think the quality most notable was his moderation. In a country so
November 24, 1970

vast and diverse as Canada, it is the man of the middle course who will prevail. Indeed, it is men like Macdonald, and I am proud to mention Laurier, who was referred to a moment ago in a humorous way, and men like Mackenzie King who have triumphed.
Macdonald refused always to play the race or religious game. He was unwilling to be an extremist, although God knows he was tempted. I am a little concerned when I hear public men today laud the virtues of polarization, and I do not like to hear moderates decried as wishy-washy bleed ng hearts. When I hear that I fear a little for the land and for the political institutions which must play a vital role in holding this land together. The greatest danger in Sir John A. Macdonald's day was polarization of different groups, and especially and very simply the group which spoke English and the group which spoke French. That is still a very great and serious danger.
Old tomorrow, the great compromiser, the driver of a six horse team, as Professor Lower called him, saw the essential virtue in reaching consensus but not encouraging confrontation. Heaven knows, he was often tempted to assume the brittle and immediately satisfying role of a sharp protagonist. But like Edmund Burke he knew, and knowing he cherished the value of compromise. It was Burke who said that "all government and indeed every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue and every prudent act is founded on compromise and barter." The word "compromise" is another one of which we have lost the meaning, as we think now in terms of the habits of a loose female.
So today, as I have before, I ask that we look upon this our founding father and set aside one day-not a day that usually comes on the weekend, nor a summer celebration because summer is more pleasant, but a day of historical significance, the birth of the father of this country, the chief architect of confederation. I ask in the words of Ecclesiasticus "let us now praise famous men and our fathers that begat us." I think we should do this for our political fathers as well. I want my friend across the way to know that as soon as the committee reports on this bill and it becomes law I will join vigorously with him in getting a Laurier day, too. This is not a compromise or a barter, this is a fair declaration of intent.
I am pleased, sir, that something has been done in the country. I had the pleasure of being in Kingston last June on the anniversary of Sir John's death. It was a splendid ceremony arranged by the Progressive Conservative party. I also visited the home where Sir John A. lived. It is a fine, national institution well maintained under the direction of a very able, sensitive and understanding curator. This is one thing for which the present government deserves credit. Not just Kingston should honour Sir John A. Macdonald. He was the hon. member for Kingston, of course, but he was the father of the country.
As an additional inducement, when we set aside this day as a holiday, we shall honour some of our great contemporaries as well; the hon. member for Lafontaine
Public Bills
(Mr. Lachance), whose birthday is January 11, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), his birthday is on that day, our much-beloved whip, the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell) who also has January 11 as his natal day. What a time we would have in this House with so many birthdays. This date is also the birthday of the premier of Ontario, Premier John Robarts, who in these last seven lean years of federalism has through his wisdom, moderation and common sense done more to hold this country together than any man in public life. Therefore, I commend to all my colleagues this suggestion which I have long advanced and which in these trying times I advocate with more feeling and fervour than ever before.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the hon. member for York East rising for the purpose of asking a
question?


Steven Otto: I am rising to ask a question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the hon. member for Hillsborough would answer my question. He says that January 11 was the birth date of Sir John A. Macdonald or at least the alleged Sir John A. Macdonald. I and others understand that there is no certificate of birth or record and indeed not even a certificate of death of one called Sir John A. Macdonald.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The Chair feels the hon. member should put his question.


Steven Otto: The question I have just put is whether the hon. gentleman has any record to show that the man called Sir John A. Macdonald did indeed exist or was sort of a figment of mass imagination.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: If I may be permitted to reply, Mr. Speaker, for a moment I thought when this wavy suggestion was made that the hon. member was speaking of another prime minister who was somewhat spiritualistic. But I am confident of the existence of Sir John A. Macdonald and I am satisfied with the date of his birth. I shall try to get the appropriate documents for the hon. gentleman.


Steven Otto: They do not exist.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: We are satisfied he was there.


Mr. R. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) for introducing this private member's bill, C-8 which is designed to give national recognition to Sir John Alexander Macdonald, one of the most decisive figures in North American history, a man whom the Canadian author, Bruce Hutchison, has described as "a magnificent paradox-as widely known for his scandalous public conduct as for his political acumen". As is the fate with almost all private members' bills, this one will not likely become an act of Parliament. However, it

November 24, 1970
Public Bills
seems fitting, Mr. speaker, that a bill similar to C-8 should be introduced annually at or near the birthdate of this Father of Confederation. In this way at least once each year the House of Commons could honour Sir John A. Macdonald, and members would have the opportunity of commenting on the man, his ideas and his significant accomplishments. The federal Parliament ought regularly in some way to pay homage to this outstanding Scotsman who saw so clearly that the scattered and divided colonies of British North America had no future apart from one another. He dreamed and worked for a united Canada, a future nation with a dual society. Progress toward Macdonald's goal was slow and tortuous, but it was this cause which give meaning to his life and guaranteed him a privileged position of prominence in our history. He once said in the period before 1867:
-for twenty long years I have been dragging myself through the dreary waste of colonial politics. I thought there was no end, nothing worthy of ambition; but now I see something which is well worthy of all I have suffered in the cause of my little country. The Question of "Colonial Union" .. . absorbs every idea as far as I am concerned.
Many members of Parliament may well envy this politician and statesman who found a genuine cause into which he could pour all his energies. The Dominion of Canada, as it was then called, was proclaimed here in Ottawa on July 1, 1867, amid cannon salutes, bonfires and orations. The new dominion included only four provinces and the boy from Kingston who had become its first prime minister knew that his nation was as yet only a structure of paper documents. Today it is much, much more than that. A man's dream and his ambition, a necessity for survival and an act of the British Parliament have together become an economic and political reality made possible by the work and sacrifice of a diverse people occupying a land with an equally diverse geography. The dry bones of history acquired sinews and muscle; life and spirit were breathed into this body politic and a new nation was created.
The story of Canada clearly reveals that we have had our times of trouble. We have experienced periods of despair and we have had our bouts of illness. Even now, the surgeon is seeking to eradicate a tumorous growth which threatens our health and perhaps even our very existence. The threat of terror and violence could lead to this nation's destruction. Sir John A. in 1865 was deeply distressed by the forces which were at work to destroy the legislative union of 1841. In the parliamentary debates of 1865, speaking on the subject of Confederation, he uttered some words which would have been most appropriate to the current crisis in Canada. He said:
This condition of things was well calculated to arouse the earnest consideration of every lover of his country, and I am happy to say it has had that effect. None were more impressed by this momentous state of affairs, and the grave apprehensions that existed of a state of anarchy destroying our credit, destroying our prosperity, destroying our progress, than were the members of this present House; and the leading statesmen on both sides seemed to have come to the common conclusion that some step must be taken to relieve the country from the deadlock and impending anarchy that hung over us.
For many, the concept of Confederation was strong medicine to cope with the crisis. Even so, for us, the
measures taken to deal with terrorism have been direct and forceful. I am reminded, however, of what Albert Camus, the French novelist once wrote:
-our world has no need of lukewarm spirits. It needs ardent hearts that can place moderation in its proper perspective.
Mr. Speaker, I can readily support the principle of this bill which is to honour one of the most important architects of our federation, but I do have some reservations about declaring a national holiday for this purpose. We are fighting inflation, and another day off would decrease our productive capacity and increase costs thereby contributing to this economic malaise. Another long week end would result in additional deaths and injuries on our highways. Students would be deprived of another day in their education at a time when educators are concerned with the knowledge explosion, and at a time when legislators and the taxpayers they represent are seriously questioning both the degree of efficiency and the rising expenditures of our schools, colleges and universities.
Sir John A. worked to build a nation and that task is far from complete. It is sometimes said that today's youth lack a purpose; that they are bored with life and disillusioned with society, so many seek escape in chemical dreams which all too frequently turn out to be nightmares. If anyone needs a challenge, let him turn his eyes northward. In the region of Canada which I represent, and even further north, there is a tremendous need for trained and dedicated people with a wide variety of skills which can be used to develop our resources, to serve the needs of people and their communities, and to help in protecting and restoring the national environment. Many people coming to Canada from abroad have responded to the needs of the north, but for many of our own young people the call has either not been heard or else has gone unheeded.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Nation building is for the bold and for the committed, and in this regard Sir John A. Macdonald has a meaning and message suitable for our day and vital for our future.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take only a few minutes to indicate my support of Bill C-8, as introduced once again this year by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie). In his various speeches on this bill he has made it clear that it is important for us to be aware of our history and to keep its memory alive. I think that the suggestion he has made is one that should be implemented. I was glad to hear the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner) say that he agreed with the principle of this bill. I was sorry, however, to hear him suggest that we should confine ourselves to an annual one hour in Parliament talking about Sir John A. Macdonald. We all smiled at some of the arguments he put up as to why we should not have a holiday. May I suggest to him that thanks to the foresight of Sir John A. Macdonald, he was bom in the early part of January, so we could arrange, certainly in the parts of the country from which the hon. member for Thunder Bay and I come, for a blizzard to take place

November 24, 1970

on that weekend so that the day will be one on which people stay home and think about our history and not run the risk of the dire catastrophes referred to by the speaker.


An hon. Member:: You still stay here anyway.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, we can stay here and have a blizzard even in this place. In fact, it might be good for us to have one here once in a while.
I hope that my hon. friend, the hon. member for Hillsborough, will not feel that I am taking some of the time in this hour simply for the purpose of giving the House some useless information, but when he was telling us about the various people who had birthdays on the same day as Sir John A. Macdonald, it led me to pursue still further some research that I was doing in the Canadian Directory of Parliament. This is a book that was published in our centennial year and gives brief biographies of all those who were Members of Parliament during the first 100 years of this nation's history. On going through the book I find that we have had in Parliament since we came into being 45 persons by the name of Macdonald, 29 of them spelled Macdonald and 16 spelled McDonald.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: How many were spelled with a capital D and how many with a small d?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That was the kind of information that I was anxious to complete, but the way this book is set up did not accommodate me on that point. May I point out that in addition to having that number of members by the name of Macdonald we have had eleven John Macdonalds, seven John A. Macdonalds and four John Alexander Macdonalds. So, the place has been overrun. We have two right now as a matter of fact, but we will not go into their biographies at this point.
The hon. member for Thunder Bay had some doubts about having a holiday, but when you look at the total picture, it seems to me it is significant that we should honour our Macdonalds, beginning with the first one.
I wondered about some of the other famous names. I find that we have had only three Lauriers, two Bordens, four Kings, four Bennetts, two St. Laurents and three Pearsons. Thank heaven, as someone will say, we have had only one Diefenbaker and one Trudeau.


An hon. Member:: How many Knowles?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Four, I believe. If hon. members are interested in this kind of research, I can pass the book around and I am sure that someone else might take away the medal for useless information.
At any rate, even though I have spoken in this light vein, the fact is that not only have we had many Macdonalds in this House of Commons but that the one whose name is mentioned in this bill today has played a significant part in the history of Canada and in the
Public Bills
history of North America, and I believe we should honour his memory in the way suggested in this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. James Hugh Faulkner (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: I would like to make a few comments on this bill. I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). That was one of the most interesting speeches and useful contribution of information that he has made in the House in a long time. I am sorry that the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) called for the question when he saw me rise because I was impressed by the argument adduced by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) that in view of the fact we are not dealing with one birthday but a variety of birthdays, and among them are included the birthday of the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell) and the hon. member for St. John's East, it makes the over-all proposition more compelling than it was before.
I might start by paying tribute to the hon. member for Hillsborough. If one looked objectively around the House for a suitable apologist for Sir John A. Macdonald one would be hard pressed to improve upon the happy choice of circumstances which have led to the hon. member for Hillsborough being the apologist that we have.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You mean eulogist.


James Hugh Faulkner: Eulogist or apologist. Not only has he, to many of us, embodied some of the finer qualities that we associate with Sir John A. Macdonald in his own presence, but also he demonstrates those qualities of moderation to which he referred and qualities of middle of the road moderation, as he described it, plus the jovial, erudite and good natured exterior which makes the total man so attractive. I also admire his persistence, because I do not know if all members of the House are aware of the fact that this is not the first time the hon. member for Hillsborough has introduced a bill to create a Sir John A. Macdonald day and if my instinct is correct it will probably not be the last. He has done it over a period of years, and prior to his efforts there were other members who have done the same.
In an effort to brief myself on the complete significance of the debate in which I intended to participate I reviewed previous debates. It seems to me that one of the problems which has persistently hampered his efforts is that this is a popular measure and there have constantly been more people interested and talking about it than there was available time.
I reviewed the speeches back in 1964. The hon. member attracted some very strong support in favour of his efforts. At that time the hon. member for Renfrew North, the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) spoke on the subject. That is an interesting speech for private members to read because it gives new members an idea of how private members' hour can be used to discuss a variety of subjects, not necessarily the

November 24, 1970
Public Bills
subject immediately before the chamber. In fact, reading the remarks of the then hon. member for Renfew North I was not sure whether he was speaking about Sir John A. Macdonald Day or St. Patrick's Day. In the course of developing his argument he quoted a wide variety of historical sources from Pliny the Younger to Henry Ford, who described history as bunk.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Not only did we have speeches from the hon. member for Renfrew North, who is the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, but also from a gentleman who is now Premier of Nova Scotia. Reading his remarks it is difficult to know whether he was more enamoured by the concept of Sir John A. Macdonald or Joseph Howe. It was an interesting debate in so far as it revealed a great deal about private members' hour.
The idea of a national day for Sir John A. Macdonald creates a number of interesting questions, Mr. Speaker, but I do not intend to deal with them all. Aside from the merits of the man himself and his particular and unique position in Canadian history, one of the really compelling arguments is the broader idea of recognizing in a suitable way those Canadians who have made a remarkable and unique contribution to our history.
As a part-time teacher, one of the things that I find depressing about our situation in Canada is not so much the absence of heroes but that we do not seem to know very much about any Canadians who have made a contribution. This is probably as much the fault of our publishing industry, boards of education, departments of education or to the shortage of interested and creative authors, as anything. The fact remains, however, that Canadians generally are not too conscious of figures of historical importance. What is worse, they are not aware of the rather unique qualities of the Canadian historical process, not just the evolutionary constitutional process which is dealt with in university courses but some of the very particular qualities of our history. I do not think it is possible to overcome this by agreeing to a Sir John A. Macdonald Day. As we have already noticed, there would be a variety of claims from different members of this House for other heroes who more closely reflect different political affiliations. I am sure J. S. Woodsworth might have some support in the House, as certainly would Sir Wilfrid Laurier and some others.
In discussing the merits of this particular case we expose a real problem within our country that in our schools, universities and the population at large there is an appalling ignorance of our history, of our antecedents and of the process that led to the development of our country. It may not be argument sufficient to justify Sir John A. Macdonald Day, but it is sufficient for everybody to examine what is going on in the country and ensure that something be done not in a chauvinistic way but in a rational and broad minded way to overcome this deficiency. It could instil in Canadians an understanding and appreciation for the history of their country and in particular for the people who made the important decisions at various times in its development.
Mr. Speaker, when I started making a few notes for this debate today, having lost the notes I had prepared for the three previous aborted sessions we had, I sent to the reference library for some material.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What about Information Canada?


James Hugh Faulkner: As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, Information Canada is not dealing essentially with Sir John A. Macdonald.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They will tell you about Laurier and Trudeau.


James Hugh Faulkner: I was going to add that, but I thought it had better come from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). One of the documents the library sent me is very interesting. It is entitled "The Dominion Campaign! Sir John Macdonald on the questions at issue before the people. The Premier's great speech before the workingmen of Toronto." Inside is the title "A brilliant review of the vital issues of the present Campaign." I am not sure who published it, but I could hazard a guess.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Information Canada!


James Hugh Faulkner: What is particularly interesting about this speech is the first two pages. Unlike the speeches today, in that day they used to add the audience response to the remarks made by the speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Hugh Faulkner: We are probably just as lucky that it is not done, today, but in Sir John A's day there was no risk apparently. In the first page he has one "loud laughter", one "loud cheers", one "laughter", one "cheers and laughter", one "renewed laughter" and one "great cheering". On the second page he has one "hear, hear and applause", five "cheers", one "loud cheers" and two "applause".
This occurs throughout the speech, Mr. Speaker, and is characteristic of the quality of the speech. But one thing I ran across is a familiar argument to people in public life. He was explaining his record to the workingmen of Toronto and was caught in the ambivalent position of all politicians in power, that of trying to claim credit for great achievement and explaining away those areas where there was not achievement. He said: Why then, I ask, has not more been done?
Three years Is a short time, but in three years much has been done.
Mr. Speaker, the argument will come as a surprise to you. It was:
Because we have had an unscrupulous opposition: because we have had an unpatriotic opposition.

November 24, 1970

It was as it says, Mr. Speaker, "A brilliant review of the vital issues of the present campaign," but it reminded me very much of political speeches I have heard in more recent times.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In Peterborough?


James Hugh Faulkner: Never in Peterborough.
There are two particular points to be considered in dealing with this man. If you read this material about Sir John A. Macdonald and read some of his speeches, one of the facts that impresses itself upon you is the extraordinary relevance of what he said at that time to the situation today, particularly in two areas that have been alluded to. One is that he was a nationalist, and the other is that he understood the rights of the minority as few Canadians have done. He understood the significance of language rights. If we had only had the wisdom as a people to follow the advice of Sir John A. Macdonald on language rights and minority rights, we would have largely eliminated the problems we face in this country today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Hugh Faulkner: I should like to turn briefly to his record as a nationalist and the relevance of that today. One authority on Sir John A. Macdonald, of course, is the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). In the debates of January 11, 1967, commemorating the 152nd anniversary of the birthday of Sir John A. Macdonald, the right hon. member for Prince Albert said:
-his principle for Canada, that it must be an independent nation on the north half of the North American continent willing to co-operate in freedom but insisting on the right that policies for Canada be made by Canadians. That was his contribution.
Mr. Speaker, that has extraordinary relevance to Canada and to Canadians today. He rejected the liberal option of that day of free trade. In many ways that option could be viewed, to use modern language, as the continentalist option today. He rejected it then, and many of us who are looking at a similar proposition in contemporary terms are wondering if we should not be equally vigilant against the continentalist option. For that reason Sir John A. Macdonald's relevance today is undisputed.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I read an article in Maclean's about the formation of a committee for an independent Canada. I suggest that if Sir John A. Macdonald were alive today, he would be a charter member of the committee for an independent Canada. As one reviews the eight-point program of that group it becomes clear that the nationalist position has as much relevance today as the nationalist policy had in 1878 and in subsequent elections. I will not go into the program of the committee for an independent Canada.


James Aloysius McGrath: Please do.
Public Bills


James Hugh Faulkner: Those who are concerned about the classic problem of Canadian national identity and Canadian policy could well review this program in light of some of the advice given by Sir John A. Macdonald.
I should like to make another point which deals with the other element of his policy. This, too, is extremely relevant to our scene today. I am speaking of his policy in the area of language rights. He made a great speech on February 17, 1890, in which he dealt with language rights in the Northwest Territories. The hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) pointed out very ably the circumstances in which he made the speech. Considering the prevailing degree of religious bigotry that characterized not only this country but other countries, the degree of distrust that characterized relations between language groups and religious groups in this country, when Sir John spoke in this area, and particularly when he spoke in a way that had a particular affect on his following within his own party, he acted with extraordinary wisdom and courage. As I said before, if we had only had the wisdom to follow the example of Sir John A. Macdonald on this delicate question throughout our history, many of the problems that plague us today would not exist. In his speech on February 17, 1890, he said:
I have no accord with the desire expressed in some quarters that by any mode whatever there should be an attempt made to oppress the one language or to render it inferior to the other; I believe that would be impossible if it were tried, and it would he foolish and wicked if it were possible. The statement that has been made so often that this is a conquered country is d propos de rien. Whether it was conquered or ceded, we have a constitution now under which all British subjects are in a position of absolute equality, having equal rights of every kind- of language, of religion, of property and of person.
If we had had the wisdom to follow the principle of the first, second and fourth points, our history until 1970 might have been somewhat different and, hopefully, somewhat happier. Throughout the speech-and it is a speech of wisdom and courage-he asks: Why is language so important to individuals? Halfway through the speech he says:
Why, Mr. Speaker, if there is one act of oppression more than another which would come home to a man's breast, it is that he should be deprived of the consolation of hearing and speaking and reading the language that his mother taught him. It is cruel. It is seething the kid in its mother's milk. The greatest, perhaps, of all the objections to this measure is that it is a futile measure. It will not succeed.
He understood precisely the significance of language for our people. Our failure in part to understand this has puzzled me in the debate we have had in recent years on language rights. I happen to be one whose mother tongue is the tongue of the majority in this country, if one likes to put it that way; yet I know the umbrage and strength of feeling I would bring to bear if I were in the minority position and my right to use the language in which I had been raised, which embodies the heritage of which I am proud, were interfered with in any way. My feelings would be as strong as the feelings of the people wo are in the minority position.
Sir John A. Macdonald had the wisdom to see the importance of the question and to see its relevance to our

November 24, 1970
Public Bills
confederation. He had the courage to pursue a principle that was unpopular in its day but is tremendously relevant to our history. That is all I wish to say, Mr. Speaker. I have enjoyed participating in this debate. Since there are others who wish to speak, I shall take my seat. I end by saying that in the areas of nationalism and language rights, Sir John A. Macdonald is as relevant today as he was more than 100 years ago.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must advise the House that the Parliamentary Secretary's time has expired and he would need unanimous consent in order to answer the question. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned in a very serious and proper way what Sir John A. Macdonald had done for us with respect to unity and language. Does he not also agree that if we had followed his advice in other respects there would be no Grits or teetotallers in this country today?


An hon. Member:: I will drink to that.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I think Sir John A. Macdonald would have appreciated thoroughly the flavour of this debate. He would have said, "Oh, well, it is almost six o'clock and this measure has not passed. Perhaps it will pass some other time- hopefully, tomorrow."
I am pleased to second the continuing effort of the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) to pay tribute to Sir John and his attempt to allow all Canadians to pay tribute to the man who put Canada together. I, too, had the pleasure of going to Kingston and taking part in the ceremony performed each year by the Kingston Progressive Conservative Association to do honour to Sir John A. Macdonald. I think even hard-shelled Grits could gain something from making a pilgrimage to that city. They have there a fantastic graveyard, and if we must go to one, and we all shall one day, we might as well go to one as fine as that. The ceremony is sincerely staged by the Conservative Association with the help of cadets wearing uniforms of former times.
Then, of course, there are the speeches-one was made this year by my hon. friend from Hillsborough and one was made last year by myself-that go back a considerable time. I suggest that the Grits could very usefully see our ceremony and hear us pay tribute to Sir John and, in return, we would be glad to attend their ceremony when they pay their annual respects to Sir Wilfrid Laurier. We would be glad to accompany them at that time.
I think one of the most moving experiences I had during the 1967 centennial celebrations was seeing costumed actors of Canada visit Halifax and play the roles of the Fathers of Confederation. The man who played Sir
John A. Macdonald was Robert Christie. It so happens, I think, that Mr. Christie is a teetotaller or as near a teetotaller as one can imagine, if one can imagine such a
state.


James Aloysius McGrath: I can't imagine it.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The man who played George Brown, another great figure of that time, I will not name. George Brown, as everyone knows, was the founder of the Globe and Mail and, as one can imagine, he had no use for booze whatsoever. The actor who played him had a great deal of use for booze. Therefore, the teetotaller was playing Sir John A. Macdonald and the tippler was playing the part of George Brown. It added a certain merriment to the evening when these "Fathers of Confederation" sat down with the citizens of our day. I recall it because Christie did a very good job of playing the part of Sir John A. Macdonald. That Halifax audience responded in a way in which I have rarely seen an audience respond to an actor. Their attention was riveted on Robert Christie. If he did epitomize Sir John A. Macdonald, one could imagine the magic hold that Sir John A. had on people. I understand that Mr. Christie spent a considerable amount of time learning Sir John A's mannerisms. Therefore, he may be the nearest that any of us will ever see approaching the mannerisms of Sir John A. I was tremendously impressed.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I support the efforts of my hon. friend. Anyone who has visited the office of the hon. member for Hillsborough, one of the original settlers in the West Block, will have noticed a plaque on his wall from one of the early election campaigns. It is a picture of Sir John A. Macdonald leading the successful Conservative party with the words, "The old flag; the old policy; the old leader". In 100 years people have gone from the belief in established things to the point where in the last election the successful party brought someone in from virtually under the rug, one who probably was not known to most Canadians. It is an interesting reflection on how political techniques have changed. In past years people voted for something in which they believed; now they will accept almost anything born in the age of advertising, any charismatic promise. I will not get into a discussion on advertising. I will do that when the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) introduces his bill in that regard.
I vigorously support the bill of the hon. member for Hillsborough. It may be all very well for each party to espouse its own heroes but with this bill we are doing more than just paying tribute to Sir John A. Macdonald, the greatest Conservative of all. We are asking Parliament to recognize the fact that confederation, the union of provinces from the Atlantic to the Pacific, is really his handiwork. Oddly enough, at one stage of his career Sir John A. had no use for the concept of confederation. He then saw it as the means of solving the great instability between the quarrelsome Canadians in Quebec and Ontario. Once he set his foot on the path toward confederation, he used his skills and ability to bring it about.

November 24, 1970

Great persons such as George Brown were associated with him in that endeavour. I am sure that historians in this House, including the hon. member for Hillsborough, will agree that if Sir John A. had no1 set the course for confederation it would not have been accomplished, or would have come about in a vastly different form. Such was his ability to deal with people. Above all, he was a master at dealing with people. Long nights spent sitting around tables with the conversation flowing as freely as the wine may have been responsible; I do not know. Sir John A. was not a great orator. I understand that his speaking technique was to stand, more or less turn his back on the opposition and speak in somewhat confidential voice to his followers, urging them to support some sensible measure which he was introducing.
I hope we will not be waylaid into choosing heroes of the various parties, laudable though that may be. What we are now discussing is paying tribute to the one person who created confederation.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, in light of the Conservatives' singular lack of success in recent elections, I suppose it is appropriate that the day which they celebrate each year should take place in a graveyard. I in part support the principle of this bill, but I would have been happier if it had been founded upon the premise of a Prime Minister's Day rather than a Sir John A. Macdonald Day.
I have done some reading and research concerning Sir John A. Macdonald. I feel if this suggestion had been made to him personally, his answer would have been decisive, abrupt, eloquent, clear, rude and it probably would have been "No". I think Sir John A. Macdonald would be more pleased that we have seen fit to name an icebreaker after him, in keeping with the independent and pioneering spirit of this man.
If this bill had suggested a Prime Minister's Day, tribute could have been paid to the former member for Lambton West, the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie. We recognize that a politician who beats another politician deserves some credit and it should not be forgotten that Sir Alexander Mackenzie did, in fact, defeat Sir John A. Macdonald.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) that Bill C-181, to provide tem-
Public Order Act, 1970
porary emergency powers for the preservation of public order in Canada, be read the third time and do pass.
And the amendment thereto of Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands).
Steven Otto: Mr. Speaker, before five o'clock I was indicating to the House that the bill we are discussing is not, in a sense, a new bill or some strange measure introduced for the first time, but a bill to replace the War Measures Act presently in force. I was dealing with the question of possible abuse raised by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas). It is true there are bound to be abuses and that some people will be arrested who should not have been arrested. The question we have to decide is what type of abuse there is to be. In the absence of a bill of this type there will be abuses by the FLQ, because this is what Bill C-181 is about: it is not legislation in a vacuum; it deals with a specific problem. I am sure there is a problem in Quebec, and it is one which arises because of the FLQ. The hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) and the other hon. member who spoke from the Conservative side of the House made certain remarks about the merging of separatists with the FLQ. Let me remind hon. members that the aim is still separatism; what we object to are the means by which to bring about separatism.
The amendment seeks the provision of some sort of safeguard, one which would amount, I suggest, to a pretrial trial. Hon. members with legal training on both sides of the House will know that one thing the common law does not tolerate in criminal matters is a trial before a trial. The speeches made before the amendment was moved indicated there should be some body, some committee, which would investigate not only the condition of prisoners, whether they had been given an opportunity to get in touch with their relatives and solicitors, but also to find out whether or not they should have been arrested. But how would the committee, or commission, find this out? By guesswork? Prisoners do not wear labels on their coats.
The only way to find out would be by investigation and getting evidence. However, evidence obtained in this way would not be in the purview of a court. Let us say the committee decided that a person under detention had been properly arrested. What bearing would this have on his subsequent trial? A committee would already have reached the conclusion that he ought to have been arrested and, as I say, it is one of the principles of our law that a person to be tried should be tried in the courts where he has an opportunity to examine witnesses and bring forward evidence. I should like the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands to tell me how this committee or board would do its work without getting into a pre-trial trial which is obnoxious to our system of law.


David Lewis: It is obvious, when you think about it.


Steven Otto: The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) will have an opportunity to let us know how this is to be done. I have heard these points of view expressed over and over again. There are some, Mr. Speaker, who

November 24, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
think they have a monopoly of conscience, a monopoly of concern for the rights of citizens. They do not. We are all seriously concerned with this aspect of the bill. I am sure the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) struggles with the thought that after 800 years of striving for civil liberty, the rights of citizens are being placed in jeopardy for a short time. But we have to make up our minds. Shall we allow a party or group to use bombs, violence and kidnapping to attain a certain end, an end which would obviously mean the destruction of Canada, or should we use every means at our disposal to prevent this happening?
We on this side have thought this out. We, too, have struggled with our consciences and we have concluded there is only one way to deal with the situation, and that is to make illegal the fraternity or group of people who are dedicated to the overthrow of this nation by threats and by violence. I would not have supported this bill if it concerned merely an attack on property rights or something of that nature. But something else is involved. The obvious purpose, and the only purpose of the FLQ is to achieve an end which is the destruction of Canada as we know it by using ways and means which we consider obnoxious and dangerous.
I urge all members of the House, if they cannot accept this bill, to say so and vote against it. Let them not delay it, though, and allow the War Measures Act to remain in force while they continue to expound the same points. I do not for one minute suggest that anyone in this House or on the other side is trying to delay the passage of this measure for a political purpose; I believe legislation of this nature is too serious for that. Everybody here is wrestling with his conscience in an attempt to decide whether or not to support the bill. Surely, though, an answer must come one way or another and we must take our stand and determine whether or not the FLQ shall be allowed to use the methods it has used in the past, or whether we should say: No, we cannot allow the destruction of this nation by violence, threats, kidnapping and murder.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, the amendment currently under study reads as follows:
That Bill C-181 be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole House for the purpose of reconsidering clause 12 with a view to the inclusion therein of a provision for the establishment of an independent body to review the administration under the said bill.
Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of this amendment which provides for the establishment of such a body for three reasons. First of all, we are all human beings and for that reason we may all make mistakes, whatever our chosen field of endeavour. Secondly, owing to the nature of their work, policemen are more liable to make mistakes than other people. Their having to work fast makes them all the more liable and the fact that we live in a bilingual country does not make their work any easier.
We all remember the case of the minister from British Columbia who was arrested in Quebec City last spring
and put in jail simply because the officers who arrested him could not speak English. They did not understand him when he explained.
I myself speak only French, and on two occasions in one week I had troubles with the police, because Ottawa police officers, who spoke only English, pressed two charges against me.
Unfortunately, policemen work under a system of quotas, that is, in order to get promotions, they must make a certain number of arrests.
So, if a policeman wants to be honest, and only arrests true culprits, he may very well never reach a senior position. So, to gain promotion some of them take awful chances and I repeat, that is exactly what they did to me twice in the course of a single week.
The first chance they took on March 28, 1969. It was a Friday evening and I was driving to Quebec City. At ten after six, I was ordered to stop in the outskirts of the town of Alfred, on Highway 17, and charged with driving without having my headlights on. The sun had set at five after six. Charged for the fun of it, I was convicted by mistake. The hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte), who had witnessed this incident simply said it was ridiculous. Being a little fluent in English, he asked to meet one of the superior officers in charge of the stupid fellow who had stopped me. The hon. member for Champlain was granted the interview. He asked the sergeant: "Will you please tell me what is going on? Why this stupid handing out of tickets? Has there been a violation and, if so, why convict people that fast? Would it not be possible to warn people when they commit the first offence?"
I felt relieved when the sergeant said that the policeman had been extravagant and that there had been no traffic violation. He asked the member for Champlain to urge me to return the copy of my ticket. The following week I received a request for payment from the Magistrate's Court of the province of Ontario. Again I was guilty and I had to pay. Once more I asked the hon. member for Champlain to plead for me. Therefore the member wrote to Sergeant Washburn of the Ontario Provincial Police, and I quote:
Sir: In spite of the clear agreement reached during our meeting, Mr. Godin has nevertheless received a request for payment from the Magistrate's Court.
I would ask for immediate correction of this embroglio.
Trusting that you will give this request your attention, I remain, Rene Matte, M.P. for Champlain.
And the letter was dated May 14, 1969. Then, on May 16, 1969, the hon. representative for Champlain, received from the Provincial Police a letter worded as follows:
Dear Sir: Further to your letter of the 14th, this is to inform you that an error has been made in Magistrate's Court, L'Ori-gnal, Ontario, in connection with the notice of payment sent to Mr. Roland Godin, indicating that he had been found guilty and was to pay a fine and costs. This was a mistake on the part of the court clerk.
A letter will reach Mr. Godin in the near future from the Magistrate's Court, explaining that the notice of payment was sent to him in error.

November 24, 1970

I regret any inconvenience this may have caused you and rest assured that all necessary steps will be taken to remedy this.
With best regards, I am,
Yours very truly,
D. F. Washburn,
Sergeant, No. 1588
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I had been arrested for the fun of it and condemned by mistake.
I would not say all officers are stupid, but even if there were only 5 per cent of them, the establishment of an independent body as is now proposed would really be essential for the protection of the public.
The third reason why I support this amendment, is that I am a Quebecer and, as a matter of fact, because Quebecers do not hold the Bar and the Bench in very high esteem. On March 9, 1970, one could read on the front page of the Quebec newspaper Le Soleil the following, and I quote:
The Quebec people have no great regard for the Bar and the Bench, according to the findings of three public opinion polls published today in Montreal.
These polls were taken at the request of the Royal Commission on the administration of penal and criminal law presided over by the Assistant Chief Justice of the Court of Social Welfare, the Hon. Yves Prevost.
Two of them were conducted by a group of researchers under Professor Denis Szabo, head of the Department of Criminology at the University of Montreal, and the third was effected under the guidance of Professor Andre Normandeau.
Like the people of the province, criminologists were consulted and Appendix No. 6 is entitled: "The Quebec people on criminality and penalties"; let us note that the authors assume all the credit and responsibility for these polls.
That article shows us what is happening in Quebec, with regard to the Bar and to the Bench.
And those who have commented on the findings of this survey have stated, and I quote:
Some 62.4 per cent of Quebecers think that lawyers are hypocrites, 20.2 per cent believe that they are rather useless to society, 43.1 per cent consider them dishonest and 34.4 per cent go so far as to say that they are thieves.
Furthermore, according to the Quebec people, the law profession-


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. Is the hon. member for Charlevoix rising on a question of privilege?


Martial Asselin: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
I am a member of the Quebec Bar and I say that the hon. member's assertions are absolutely without foundation and, furthermore, the survey merely concerned itself with a sample group and did not produce any conclusive evidence.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I must say that lawyers are respected in Quebec. They are not all hypocrites and thieves. I must add that the hon. member's comment has nothing to do with the debate now under way. I would ask the Chair to call him to order.
Public Order Act, 1970


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The Chair must inform the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin) that his question of privilege is not motivated. It is rather a question of procedure. The hon. member has not broken into a torrent of abuse against an hon. member or against Her Majesty. However, I would like to take this opportunity to point out to the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin) that even if up to now the Chair has allowed some latitude to hon. members and that some of them have temporarily digressed from the subject under consideration, he must limit his remarks to the amendment under consideration.


Roland Godin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Hon. members know how sensitive I am and incapable of expressing malevolent views or making charges.
I am merely quoting a newspaper article supporting the motion before us. Nothing in our Standing Orders could prevent me from quoting a newspaper article. I would ask the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin) to please be patient. At the end of my speech, he will realize that he stands among a number of good lawyers. Indeed, if he had been bad, he would now fill another position in society. It is because he is honest that he is nothing more than an ordinary member of Parliament.
For the information of the hon. member for Charlevoix, I was quoting the following:
Only 8.5 per cent of the people think that the law is a distinguished profession, while 49.8 per cent feel that physicians rank first.
Moreover, most of the people interviewed (59.1 per cent) consider that criminal lawyers' fees are too high. What is even worse, Quebecers do not have any regard either for the Bench. Indeed-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. After having appealed to the goodwill of the hon. member, the Chair must once again ask him to restrict his remarks to the amendment now before us. To my knowledge, the House is not now judging the Bar, lawyers or other people and to develop this line of argument does not contribute anything to the progress of the debate.


Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, I take leave to read the text of our amendment once again:
That Bill C-181 be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole House for the purpose of reconsidering clause 12 with a view to the inclusion therein of a provision for the establishment of an independent body to review the administration under the said bill.
We want an independent body to be set up, Mr. Speaker, precisely because we find this, in my article. I quote:
-the poll revealed that 43.3 per cent of the people feel that Judges are individuals with prejudices, 34.4 per cent feel that they are uncomprehending, 30.1 per cent accuse them of being corrupt-
On the other hand, 21.9 per cent of those who answered believe that judges are appointed solely because of their political convictions.
If it were not the case, Mr. Speaker, we doubtless would have felt that the amendment before the House was not required.
It is precisely to provide for such cases that we want an independent body to review the administration of the

November 24, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
law. In fact, we doubt that the present crisis will end, which concerns us greatly. Now, let it be clearly understood that I am not saying that all judges are bad.
We must admit that in the opinion of Quebeckers we are hypocrites, useless, dishonest and thieves. For instance, it is known that important people have been involved in the forgery of certificates and in fraudulent bankruptcies while others have been accused of patronage. Before being a judge, I think one must be a lawyer.
I know that many judges come from such circles. Unfortunately, to save the legal profession the government-controlled by lawyers-has found no better means than to appoint them to the bench. This is how their past activities are cast into oblivion. Quite a number of lawyers would now be in jail had it not been for their occupation. Means have been found to hide them. They cannot even be called as witnesses before any court. So, what are the verdicts based on? I have already told how I had been charged twice within the same week.
One night the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) took ill, here in Parliament. The Parliament nurse who was really ill at ease, called upon some medical doctors to visit the hon. member for Bellechasse in his office. Those were the hon. members for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie), for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) and for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk); Senator McGrand, also a physician, was present.
Four physicians advised him to go to the hospital but the hon. member, unable to move, had to be carried out by ambulance. In the hospital, English only was spoken. They could not find any room for him and he was sent back out in the middle of the night. The next morning, the hon. member for Bellechasse asked to drive him to the airport so that he could go to a Quebec hospital where he could be admitted. Since I had driven at 50 miles an hour in a 30 mile an hour zone on Riverside Drive, and at 65 miles an hour on McCarthy Road in a 50 mile an hour zone, I was fined once more and charged with impaired driving. I was charged in English, I was tried in English and an English speaking judge sentenced me to a $250 fine. My driver's licence was also suspended for a period of three months and, three months later, the lawyer sent me a bill for $1,000.
At the same time, the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Marceau) a Liberal member, went through a 30 mile an hour zone at 100 miles an hour. He simply had to pay a $50 fine. Well if politics do not come into play in cases like that, I certainly would like to know. This is why I shall vote for the amendment under consideration and if I could, I would even vote twice.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The question is on the amendment to the main motion. All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: All those opposed
will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Call in the members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the main motion. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in speaking on third reading yesterday my leader set out our position lucidly and forcefully and there is no need to repeat all that he said. I rise first to indicate what happened during the committee stage of the proceedings and, second, hon. members opposite will be delighted to hear, to move another amendment to the motion before
Public Order Act, 1970
the House. If I may, I should like to refer to the remarks that I made on October 16, similar to those that my leader made on the same date. I said on that day:
If we had been faced today with a request by the government for certain specific changes in the law, with evidence that those changes which this House of Commons would pass were necessary, we would have a different situation.
Later in that speech I also indicated that it may well be that the criminal crisis in Montreal and Quebec-and it was a crisis dealing with criminals-required expanded rights of search without warrant and some expansion of the right to arrest without warrant and to detain for three or four days.
In a memorandum which my leader sent to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in reply to a letter from him which was discussed by our caucus on two occasions, he made suggestions of the kind of thing that this party might be prepared to support. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) indicated, we voted for second reading of this bill in the hope that it might be possible during Committee of the Whole to get the bill amended, thereby reducing its repressive, undesirable and obnoxious aspects.


Mr. Gibson:: You don't seem to care.


David Lewis: I wish some hon. member opposite would take the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Gibson) behind the curtain and pat his head. Of course, if he has his head patted he might make more noise than ever, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Ricard:: He is sitting on it.


David Lewis: I think it is important to review what happened during the committee stage of this bill. Amendments were moved by the official opposition, by members of my party and by the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane). These amendments were reasonable and none would have interfered with the basic needs that the government claimed were necessary to deal with the situation still present in the province of Quebec.
I repeat that the situation, if it needs any expansion of powers, needs no greater powers than an expansion of the right to search and the right to arrest and detain for a short time in order to apprehend the criminals who are members of the FLQ, and in order to find the dynamite, the arms and ammunition which we were told were stolen-and there is only a suspicion of that in many cases-by the FLQ. This bill goes away beyond that, Mr. Speaker. On several clauses we tried to bring it into greater harmony-


Colin David Gibson: You don't understand.


An hon. Member:: Down, boy.


David Lewis: -with the sense of civil liberties and civil rights. On every point the minister and the government remained adamant and would not move an inch. Why is that, Mr. Speaker? That is what I ask myself.

November 24, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


William Arnold Peters: There is nothing new in that.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Nobody wants to listen to the hon. member.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair is experiencing some difficulty in following the hon. member's speech. I wonder if hon. members in the chamber would allow the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) to conclude his remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I do not mind interjections from the Liberal benches if they are even half intelligent. I can tolerate them then. May I remind hon. gentlemen opposite that whenever somebody interjected on an earlier occasion, they were all indignant at not being taken seriously; but apparently the defence of civil liberties is something they can laugh at. They are laughing at that this evening, as they have before.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Colin David Gibson: The hon. member knows better than that.


David Lewis: We tried to bring in a number of
amendments-


Colin David Gibson: The hon. member knows better than that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


David Lewis: I wish hon. members would not pay attention to the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Gibson). It is really such an awful waste of time and energy. As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, we tried during the committee stage of the bill to amend the law so that its most obnoxious aspect would be removed. We tried, for example, to persuade the minister to change part of clause 4 of the law so that it would be impossible to intimidate people and inhibit them from communicating information regarding the FLQ, something which journalists all over Quebec were worried about. They are inhibited in this matter today. The hon. member for Matane tried to suggest to the minister that in clause 5 ought to be incorporated provisions similar to those now contained in the Criminal Code, so that the right of a spouse, which under the Criminal Code is extended to the spouse of a kidnapper or murderer, would also be made available to the spouse of one who might be arrested, I suggest to you, for a much lesser offence, the offence of having participated in some meetings some years ago as set out in clause 8.
We tried to persuade the minister that the provisions of clause 7 with regard to bail ought to be a matter for the judiciary and that the power ought not to be given to
a political officer and, therefore, to the police forces of a province. My hon. friend, the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) asked the government to accept an amendment which was surely correct, right and just. It sought to provide that no one should be convicted of a crime under clause 8 unless when he attended a meeting of the FLQ many years ago he knew of the criminal aspects of the organization.
I tried to persuade the minister to remove the provision that a policeman may arrest people on mere suspicion and to replace it with reasonable and probable grounds for that suspicion. We emphasized the importance of this provision, because we were not talking in a vacuum; we were speaking with experience behind us, with the experience that 400 or so of the 450 people who had been arrested were released without charge. We had 400 innocent people incarcerated from between three and 21 days and then released without charge. Above all, we tried to persuade the government to establish some supervisory body. We moved such an amendment, as did the official opposition. We tried to persuade the government to allow Parliament to say that if ten members so signified with their signatures, this law could be terminated on a date prior to April 30, 1971.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that every one of the amendments to which I have alluded, and I remember those that we moved better than those the hon. member for Matane moved-many that he moved fell into exactly the same category as the amendments we moved-would have removed the most obnoxious parts of this bill and made the bill not a good bill, because it would still have interfered with civil liberties, but one that would have been confined merely to the powers that the police in the province of Quebec could reasonably desire and expect. They would have removed the excessive arbitrariness of that bill. But the minister sat there unmoved, adamant and intransigent.
I ask myself, why was that, Mr. Speaker? I can find only two reasons. The first is that there was some kind of order from the cabinet to the minister, an order given perhaps with the acquiescence of the Attorney General of Quebec, saying that there would not be a comma changed in this bill: it had to go through with every word and every comma just as originally drafted.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


David Lewis: The second reason I can think of, Mr. Speaker, is that the minister and the government feared that if they reduced the severity and arbitrariness of this bill, they would be admitting that invoking the War Measures Act and the regulations under that act were clearly panic-stricken measures for which there was no excuse. Indeed, there was none then and there is much less now.
I say to this House, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) was entirely right in what he said this afternoon. We in this party have said on many occasions that the Prime Minister set out deliberately to create in Canada a state of panic and a state of hysteria. He deliberately set out to do that, and he can wave his arms all he likes.

November 24, 1970


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am not waving my arms. I say the hon. member is a phony.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister suggests that I am a phony.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: All I can say in return is that he is an expert to learn from.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Every act of his since he has taken power and rejected and discarded every progressive idea he ever held shows precisely who is phony in this House and in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: The people don't think so.


David Lewis: He set out deliberately to create a state of panic and hysteria in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: And he succeeded, Mr. Speaker. He succeeded in making many of the people in Canada feel that there was an army of people in Quebec that was about to spring not only on the government of that province but on the government of every other province and the government of Canada.


An hon. Member:: Cut it out.


David Lewis: There may be 50 or there may be 100 of these criminals in the province of Quebec; but there has been nothing move than a failure of all the police authorities to deal with this situation as they ought to have dealt with it.


An hon. Member:: Who are these people?


David Lewis: What the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka said was absolutely right. I suggest to hon. members of the House that he spoke profoundly and sensibly when he said that since the criminal difficulty has receded, the time has come for us to act in such a way as to reduce the tension in this country, to reduce the tension in the province of Quebec and to reduce the tension between Quebec and the rest of Canada. We ought not to pass a measure such as this one which will merely continue the same hysteria, the same panic and the same arbitrary, regressive legislation that has been in force since October 16.
There are some improvements in this bill, of course, but in some ways the present legislation is worse than the law it replaces. When you keep hysteria like this going, you merely increase it and escalate it. The abuses which have already taken place will continue under this legislation, and there is no reason why we should permit legislation that makes it possible to continue those abuses.
Public Order Act, 1970
[DOT] (9:10p.m.)
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, my leader has stated our position so lucidly and forcefully that I need not deal with that any longer. After these few words of introduction I will deal with what I consider to be one of the most reprehensible parts of this bill, namely, the feature of retroactivity contained in clause 8. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters):
That Bill C-181 be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole House for the purpose of reconsidering the retroactive aspects of clause 8 thereof.
There is nothing in this bill more reprehensible than the retroactive aspect of clause 8. The amendment seeks to remove from the bill the most objectionable feature of this legislation. Hon. members will recall I moved a similar amendment during the debate on clause 8 at the committee stage. It was negatived by 51 votes to 29. I am again moving this amendment to see whether our object can be achieved on third reading. It will at least give all members the opportunity to stand and be counted on this reprehensible part of the bill now before us.
Despite the effort, involvement and prestige of the administration, the majority of those who voted at the recent Liberal convention could not approve the retroactive feature of the legislation. According to newspaper reports, the resolution dealing with this was defeated by 471 votes to 331, with 219 undecided. A total of approximately 550 could not accept the retroactive feature of the legislation, as opposed to 471 in favour. At the Liberal convention this objectionable feature was rejected by a majority of the delegates.


John Napier Turner: That is straining it a bit.


David Lewis: It is not. It is perfectly clear that the 219 who were undecided were certainly not in favour of this feature of the legislation. If they are undecided, they are not in favour. Although the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) and other hon. members tried to persuade the delegates, the majority did not accept their position. The 219 undecided were against this feature or they would have voted in favour of it. I interpret it as merely a sense of loyalty to the smile of the Minister of Justice that prevented them from saying no. Therefore, they sat on the fence, an appropriate posture for a Liberal. None the less, they were not in favour.
I suggest the vote at the Liberal convention is further evidence of the instinct of Canadians to avoid that which is repugnant to fundamental rights. As I reminded the House during committee stage and as my leader stated on second reading of this bill, retroactivity has been condemned by the constitution of every civilized country that contains this kind of provision. It has been prohibited by an international agreement to which Canada is signatory and which Canada has ratified. Clause 8 is against the tradition of justice in this country, our obligations under the international agreement and what is accepted in every civilized country in this world.

November 24, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
Retroactive legislation is always wrong. Retroactive criminal legislation is particularly obnoxious and unjust. There can be no argument about the retroactivity of clause 8 of the bill. It states in simple words that anyone who at any time before the passing of this bill attended a meeting of the FLQ or of any branch, committee or members thereof, who communicated statements on behalf of the FLQ or gave support to it at a time when it was not an unlawful association, can be found guilty of being a member of the FLQ unless that person disproves it through acceptable evidence in court.
Anyone who has had experience in court, and my experience has not been as long or as wide as that of many other members of this House, knows very well that an accused, faced with evidence of past activities when the organization was perfectly legal, would be in a terrible situation. He would have to give evidence he is not now and has not been connected with the FLQ whether he likes it or not. That is contrary to our traditions with respect to criminal charges. In essence, a person is in jeopardy of being convicted for acts performed at a time when the acts were entirely lawful, a time when the law did not prohibit attending meetings or communicating statements on behalf of an organization which was only made illegal on October 16. I want to emphasize that I am not speaking of a person who has committed or is charged with a criminal act.
If the minister had accepted the amendment of the hon. member for Broadview it would have been a different story, but he did not. I am speaking about a person who participated or was present at a number of meetings of the unlawful association, spoke publicly in advocacy of the unlawful association and communicated statements at a time when the association was not unlawful. That is the retroactivity feature of this clause.
The precedent that clause 8 would establish is very regrettable. A precedent will be set that if an organization is declared illegal at some date, after it has been declared illegal we can add that anyone who participated in its activities before it was declared illegal is guilty of an offence. That method is used by dictators throughout the world to stifle freedom of speech and intimidate freedom of association and expression of opinion. Dictatorships throughout the world have done that. There is a danger in legislation which is made retroactive to any date the government may wish so that they may spread their net and take in everyone they do not like or anyone opposed to the social or political situation.
This amendment gives Parliament, assembled in the House of Commons rather than in committee, the opportunity to at least remove this vicious, unnecessary and retroactive feature of the bill. I appeal to hon. members to do so.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


Colin David Gibson: Mr. Speaker, as one who has listened with great attention-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Colin David Gibson: -to the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) both in the House in this debate and for many
hours recently on radio and television, as one who has patiently, through force of circumstances created by the generous time allotment enjoyed by a splinter group in this House, been waiting to answer the sardonic and ill-conceived, partisan attacks launched by the said member on the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)-


Some hon. Members:: Author.


Colin David Gibson: -I take great pleasure in responding to the ill-considered views of the said member which, on reflection, I believe to be based on a false appraisal by a man who has no real understanding of the problems of Canada today-


Malcolm MacInnis: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, to bring to your attention that it has always been the custom and the rule of this House that no member may read a speech, especially one prepared by somebody else.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. The hon. member knows, I am sure, that the rule is not one which has been entirely respected, especially in recent years, and hon. members are familiar with the reply sometimes given by Mr. Speaker to the effect that members may refer to what have been called copious notes. Obviously, this is what the hon. member is indulging in at the present time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I think the point is well taken. I have always felt that as an assembly we should try to enforce the long-standing practice that speeches should not be read, except perhaps for those connected with technical subjects, ministerial statements and the like; the ordinary speeches should be delivered extempore rather than read. I hope hon. members will keep this in mind as far as possible when addressing the House.


Colin David Gibson: -by a man who has no understanding of the problems of the day and absolutely no sympathy or tolerance for those in authority in the province of Quebec, which is one of our provinces, a part of Canada and a part of this nation. Moreover, it is a province in which the party to which the hon. member for York South belongs has no representation, never has had any representation and never will have any representation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Colin David Gibson: This situation is, I am sure, partly the result of the asinine comments the hon. member has made against the wishes of the people of Quebec and against the wishes of the people of Canada. It is high time somebody spoke out against the hon. member for York South when he unfairly attacks this administration and the Minister of Justice on a basis which has no legal sanction or support. He has failed to acknowledge that under the laws governing narcotics and many other laws of Canada, the rules of evidence provide for a shifting of the onus of proof in certain circumstances, related to peculiar crimes, where an accused has particular knowledge of the facts.

November 24, 1970

This is a trend in the law of evidence, and the hon. member has sufficient experience in court to know it. But he does not bring this out into the open; he surreptitiously meanders through the debate in a sardonic and sarcastic manner and avoids bringing out the true nature of the circumstances.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: I am going out for a while.


Colin David Gibson: He cannot take it any longer. He is on his feet. He is on his way.
It would have been a sad day for Canada had the deputy leader of the New Democratic Party been prime minister, for he would have gambled with the lives of cabinet ministers and of public officials as well as with the safety of the city of Montreal, threatened by explosion. He would have waved the phony white flag of justice against the barrels of machine-guns, shooting with peashooters against the FLQ gangsters and kidnappers. If the real force of the tragedy of the Laporte murder had penetrated the skull of the member for York South, he would have appreciated that the very existence of law and order was seriously in jeopardy and that emergency measures were required.
Unless the said member was speaking for the sake of partisan benefit, seeking to gain the support of bleeding hearts like Claude Ryan and others in Quebec whose actions were calculated to undermine the stability of the Quebec government, unless he spoke with the intention of getting support for his party in the province of Quebec, unrepresented as his party is in either the legislature of Quebec or in this House with regard to that province-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Colin David Gibson: I do not know whether that is the case or not, but his party has not enhanced the cause of Canadian justice one iota. The feeble utterances of the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Douglas) would better be expressed-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member's interesting speech, but I remind him that what we should be discussing at the present time is the amendment before the House, not the approach or the attitude of individual members toward this bill. I believe we should keep it in mind, while we have an amendment before us, that the debate should be related to that amendment.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On the
point of order, Mr. Speaker, it should probably be explained that the person who wrote the speech probably did not know that the amendment was coming up.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) did not make that observation in a serious vein, because he
Public Order Act, 1970
cannot suggest that an hon. member is not making his own speech.


Colin David Gibson: -as using a peashooter to shoot a murderer, in contrast to his words "using a sledgehammer to smash a peanut."


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Colin David Gibson: As to the merits of the administration, I submit one can only turn to the arguments made so forcibly and clearly by the learned Minister of Justice who has gone over the matter carefully. His assurances are more to be relied on than the arguments produced by the so-called brilliant experts in the NDP splinter group who have failed to produce any authority for their assertions.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, we now have before us an amendment by the New Democratic Party which opposes clause 8 of the bill.
Unlike my predecessor, I will attempt to put the debate back into perspective. Clause 8 states, and I quote;
8. In any prosecution for an offence under this Act, evidence that any person, either before or after the coming into force of this Act,
(a) participated in or was present at a number of meetings of the unlawful association or of any branch, committee or members thereof,
Mr. Speaker, I shall limit my comments to the first part of that clause. In my view, retroactive legislation, as evidenced by precedents, is not an usual feature of our legal system of criminal law.
In that respect, clause 8 is a precedent, an exception. The retroactivity of the legislation becomes necessary in special circumstances where the security of the state may be jeopardized. As for criminal law, the retroactivity of a legislation has seldom been invoked.
When I read clause 8, I thought in the first place, owing to the troubles in Quebec and the extremely confused, anarchic and dangerous conditions, that to my regret I would have to accept the retroactivity of the bill since that measure was quite unusual and could be a dangerous weapon in the hands of the government.
When I read the amendment moved by the government concerning clause 8 as well as the preamble to Bill C-181 which states that the government could declare unlawful the association called the FLQ operating only in the province of Quebec and not in the other parts of Canada, it can be assumed that the retroactive effect of this legislation, on account of clause 8, would be a weapon for eliminating any individual who in the last five, ten, fifteen or twenty years might have opposed the government or the present system by means of violence, verbal incitation or otherwise.
Being a Quebecker, what hurts me most is the will of the government to bring the people of Quebec to heel and to keep them within Confederation against their wishes. And now the government wants to use this

November 24, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
retroactive clause to condemn and to hunt down any individual opposed to the established order.
Sharing the views of the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) in this connection, I claim that this is another step toward dictatorship, toward tightening the gag on Quebec people. To impress upon them the benefits of living in Canada, we intend to break them and force them into it.
Those who might have objected during the present crisis are definitely the convicted ones and we readily agree to this proposal. But there is a feature which we refuse to accept and that is to make it an offence to have carried on activities two, ten, twenty or twenty-five years ago. At that rate, the government should go back-and I say "should"-over the discussion which were held last year with respect to the Company of Young Canadians in the Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts. In fact, at that time, the Chairman of the Montreal Executive Committee came to Ottawa and told the government: "You should assume your responsibilities. At this very moment there are people paid out of public funds who are busy undermining the Canadian nation, in Montreal and elsewhere and they are doing it under cover of the Company of Young Canadians". The Chairman of the Montreal Executive Committee was then urging the government to look into and to investigate the activities that these people were carrying on and he went as far as asking for a termination of the appropriations to the Company of Young Canadians. Instead, this government, bent on fostering anarchy, said No.
Mr. Speaker, this government is seeking votes. That is why it attempts to break whoever would oppose its views, for it knows well that it will be defeated at the next election. Indeed, it believes that the only way to remain in power is to gag people.
Mr. Speaker, making an act retroactive is unusual. It is most unfortunate that following the events which took place in Quebec, the legislation under consideration should be made retroactive, taking into account the preamble, as well as the broadness and the obscureness of clause 8, which I quote again:
-either before or after the coming into force of this act,-
Do we have to go back 30, 20 or 5 years in order to lay a charge, for instance, against someone who was a member of the Arcand group or any other group which would have incited people to violence? Thus, all the persons who would have directly or indirectly protested or incited people to violence, to overthrow the government of Quebec or to change the status of that province in connection with the rest of Canada, would be considered as outlaws.
We will have from now on to ask ourselves what is permitted in Canada and if it is quite democratic. The bill states and I quote:
-either before or after the coming into force of this act,-
What is even more damaging and dangerous is that this legislation, with the amendment imposed by the government in clause 3, and considering what the preamble says, applies only to Quebec. This means that any act
of terrorism, any incitation to violence in any other province, before or after this legislation is promulgated, would not be an indictable offence, whereas in Quebec, because some people are asking themselves questions, such action would be blamed and a constitutional framework would be imposed on those guilty of it.
In conclusion, I wish to say that the imposition of a constitutional framework on the people of Quebec will not solve the problem. The only effective method is to show them the benefits involved in federalism. The government saw fit to impose a constitutional framework and also-which is more serious-to muzzle any person who, before or after the coming into force of the act, would have more or less advocated violence.
Then, one should remember the Asbestos strike, on which occasion our three doves prompted the workers to resort to violence.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, we come again to another aspect of this bill that is not only obnoxious but retrograde in its implications; an aspect that indicates that this particular clause is not only retroactive but that the bill itself is a retrograde step, one taken on the initiative of this government. Indeed, it is quite true that because we have been dealing with this bill for some weeks now, even the members of this House may have lost the sense of proportion expected of them by all fair minded and justice-oriented people in the country.
I pointed out yesterday to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in the question period not only that we were taking very serious steps to reduce normal liberty in this country and reverse not simply decades but centuries of advancement in the law; we were in fact denying some of the very instruments that have been ratified internationally under the auspices of the United Nations. Yesterday afternoon I pointed out, perhaps not too successfully, that the international charter of human rights, the international bill of human rights, or the universal declaration of human rights as it is sometimes called, as adopted and proclaimed by the General Assembly on the United Nations on December 10, 1948, contains a provision in article 11 to which, if we are to be consistent-which seems to be one concern that the government has at this point-we must indicate to the international community, and more specifically to the United Nations, we can no longer give our assent. Article 11 reads as follows:
1.	Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
2.	No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
In both the first and second sections of article 11 of the universal declaration of human rights we have a declaration that runs directly counter to that which we find in
fMr. Fortin.]
November 24, 1970

clause 8 of this bill. The presumption of innocence is substantially altered by this clause. There is also the offensive aspect of the clause that establishes a criminal act retroactively. I am impressed by the fact that not only did Canada vote for the resolution adopting the universal declaration of human rights, but in response to the charter of human rights our delegate at the United Nations on December 10, 1948, had this to say:
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
So far as the position of Canada in regard to the maintenance and extension of human rights is concerned, we shall, in the future, as we have in the past, protect the freedom of the individual in our country where freedom is not only a matter of resolutions but also of day-to-day practice from one end of the country to the other.
The representative for Canada who made that statement was Mr. L. B. Pearson, chairman of the Canadian delegation. How tragic it is that a man who was later to become Prime Minister of this country, and having affirmed what certainly was the will of the Canadian people at that time, should now live in this year 1970 to see his good words and ideals abrogated by the proposals of the government in this temporary public bill.
It is inconceivable to me and it was certainly inconceivable to members of the party who moved this amendment, as the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) pointed out, that such a provision could be made the law of this country. As of yet we have had no explanation from the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) as to the necessity for this action. The reason this debate has continued so many days can be related to the agony that many members of this House are expressing increasingly about the very grave and bad provisions which are being put into law by this House. Certainly as one member, even as an opposition member, I cannot be proud of being a witness to these unfortunate events.
I think also, as I said earlier in the House, that the long and arduous process of this bill through committee and now through third reading has been symptomatic of the fact that there has been no real willingness on the part of the government to consult in good faith and legislate in good faith on the issue facing this country at the present time. The government has neither clearly informed the House nor the people as to the reason for its request for this legislation, nor has it entered into consultation in respect of the necessity of this bill at the present time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I respectfully suggest to the hon. member that his remarks should be germane to the amendment before the House and not of a general nature such as he is now making.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my words of just a moment ago, I respectfully suggest, were quite relevant in that I was indicating the reason we have this particular amendment before us and considered the earlier amendment, namely, that the government was unwilling at the committee stage to deal in a consultative and realistic way with the provisions which are increasingly offensive as the people in this country become aware of them. There should be no reason for anyone in
Public Order Act, 1970
this House to apologize for this amendment, or any other, because it deals with something that goes to the heart of our whole system of justice.
What in fact the amendment seeks to do is remove clause 8 of this bill, which in effect states that what a person did yesterday today becomes a crime. I want to make it quite clear that we are not here referring to activities and acts which in the past have in fact been crimes, when people committed acts of terror whether by way of bombings or harassment of one kind or another, or caused a social disturbance or the more serious crimes, for instance, of kidnapping, threat to kidnap, physical assault or murder. Those offences have been well known to the body politic and have been offences not just for decades but in most cases for centuries.
What is being attempted through this clause we are seeking to amend is, in effect, to establish that membership in a particular organization and evidence of that membership, which may go back a number of years, is sufficient to convict a person of a criminal offence. That, I think, must be regarded not only as a serious step but one which is particularly offensive. I think, too, in this context we must realize that the precedent it establishes is surely one of the most shocking that we could consider. By allowing this legislation to pass we will be, in effect, allowing a precedent to be established that a person who may hold a particular belief or who has participated in a particular organization may find that while it may not be a criminal offence at the present time, two years from now or ten years from now Parliament may be able to say, "We now consider membership in or support of this organization or its ideals to be crime."
I think we only have to look at the fact that there has been almost no definition of what the FLQ stands for to realize how broad and how vague that kind of implication can be. We are asked, in effect, to allow the authorities to arrest men and women on the evidence of having attended a meeting or two of this organization two years ago, five years or seven years ago. We are being asked to agree that someone who may have in an informal conversation with a friend half a dozen years ago spoken well of this organization should be regarded now as having committed a criminal offence.
Because this clause refers to a communicative statement, we are being asked to regard even those who transmitted information relating to this organization as having committed a criminal offence. While the Minister of Justice has argued that it is now clearly stated that a simple transmission of this information, without doing it for propaganda purposes, would not constitute a crime, we only have the minister's words in the House in that regard. But we know only too well that when statutes are being interpreted in the courts, only what is in the statutes counts and no desire expressed in this House will affect that interpretation one way or another.
Perhaps most shocking in regard to this retroactive clause 8 is the fact that the government was unwilling to even provide a time limit. It is known to almost everyone in this country that before the month of October those who belonged to or participated in the organization

November 24, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
known as the FLQ, unless they were then participating in accepted criminal activity were not regarded as having done anything illegal. We know of people who have been close to some of the parties in this government who have over the years participated in the FLQ without in themselves having committed a criminal offence.
Now we are being told that if at any time an individual before the month of October participated in, spoke on behalf of or transmitted information with regard to this organization he is liable to a five year term of imprisonment and a substantial fine. How far back are the authorities going? Since there has been difficulty in apprehending some of the individuals who have been directly involved in recent FLQ activity as frustrations and suspicions have increased, we know how much easier it might be to go back and root out these individuals. It might be much easier to go back further in order to deal with those who perhaps at an earlier time, without any thought of participating in a criminal organization, lent their support however briefly it may have been to this organization. Are they to be convicted because of that earlier act or innocent involvement?
One could even ask the question: How widely will this clause be interpreted? The minister has said from time to time in the House that he is not only talking about the FLQ per se, but about a successor or an allied organization. What does that mean, and what will it mean in the interpretation of this statute? What kind of definition or what kind of limits will be set if evidence is gathered about the activities of people? Will it involve those who have been opposed to a certain point of view which perhaps is held by the Prime Minister or by the authorities in Montreal or in Quebec city? What is to be the criteria for guilt under this clause?
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
This clause is so vague and so bad that when coupled with the preamble and clause 3 it literally gives the authorities carte blanche to arrest and charge just about anyone whom they dislike or feel they would like to put away for a period. Quite frankly, the vagueness of this clause in particular and the bill in general terrifies me. The fact that it might be acted upon by men who are tired, desperate and frustrated leads to greater fear on my part. I believe it is interesting to note that since this crisis occurred, and since the shocking kidnappings and the tragic murder of Mr. Laporte, certain individuals have said things at least in support of some of the ideals of the FLQ while in no way supporting the criminal activities in which the FLQ has been engaged. They, too, surely could be arrested and convicted under this clause.
Even in the riding of the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane) a substantial number of the clergy have spoken out in support of some aspects of the proclamations of the FLQ. Are they not also liable under the edict of this clause? Again I would urge the government to realize that it is directing the country on a most serious, retrograde course and that in asking for this retroactive power, which at no time in my estimation has been justified, it is in effect asking the country to close its eyes to the administration of justice. I do not think the

Canadian people should be asked to do this, nor in the final analysis to do something of which they would not approve.


Mr. Ross Whicher (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, this is the second sermon I have heard from the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) today on the same subject. I humbly suggest that he try to get a church where only one service is held on Sunday so that he would not have to deliver the same sermon twice in one day.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) rising on a question of
privilege?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would be quite happy to offer the hon. member counselling service whenever he feels the need of it, which obviously might be right now.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: If I ever have such a need I will try to get somebody who is not quite so wet behind the ears. As my hon. friend said, we have been talking about this subject, whether in respect of the War Measures Act or Bill C-181, for several weeks. It seems to me it is high time those of us who are really interested in this House and in seeing other matters discussed which are important to the people of Canada, such as the prospective increase in old age pensions-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: -increases in veterans allowances, and so on, should be given an opportunity to get on with these subjects.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Save your speech for caucus.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I suggest to my hon. friends to the left that what the government is attempting to do in bringing forth Bill C-181 is to keep the solemn word it gave Parliament four or five weeks ago, when it said it was initiating the War Measures Act for a limited period because it went too far in respect of civil liberties and that less restrictive legislation would be presented as soon as possible. This is what the government has been and is trying to do. One might very well wonder what would have happened had the government, instead of initiating the War Measures Act-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member. Perhaps his remarks are merely introductory at this stage, but I remind him and all hon. members that they should limit their contributions to this debate to the amendment before the House. I do not want to be restrictive because it may be that the hon. member is building up to a speech which will take into account the amendment before us. However, I hope he will keep this in mind.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Mr. Speaker, I assure you that was only
a preamble. I wish to speak about the civil liberties
November 24, 1970

which greatly interest our friends to the left. When they suggest that no one on this side of the House is interested in civil liberties across Canada, I wish to assure them that we are just as interested as they are, and have been for many years. One might wonder what would have happened if this bill had been presented to the House some weeks ago when the Premier of Quebec, the mayor of Montreal and the chief of police of the city of Montreal asked for such legislation. I suggest there could very well have been an insurrection in Montreal. My hon. friends to the left take delight in the fact that there has not been a rebellion in Montreal. May I say that perhaps as a result of the initiation of the War Measures Act that was prevented from taking place.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being ten o'clock, in accordance with Standing Order 40 a motion to adjourn the House-


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Without trespassing on the patience of the House, I wonder if there might be disposition to extend our sitting for an hour.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Under Standing Order 40, a motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been made and seconded at this time.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, today I addressed a question to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) in which I asked him to consider keeping the radar and communications school at the Canadian Forces base at Clinton rather than moving it to Kingston. The Canadian Forces base at Clinton is scheduled for phasing out in September of next year. This question is urgent and proper because last Thursday night, the last day on which the House sat and the minister was in the House, it was announced on the news that the Department of National Defence was to begin construction shortly at the Canadian Forces base at Kingston, at a cost of $1,200,000, for accommodating the radar and communications school which is being moved from the Clinton Canadian Forces base which is scheduled for closure in 1971.
There were many other reasons for asking the question. I was told by the former Minister of National Defence, when there were rumours last June, that there would be new construction but there would be only minor renovations made to the Kingston base to house this school. Therefore, I did not feel quite so badly. Many months ago I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamie-
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
son) to place a new air services training school for the training of air traffic controllers at Clinton in order to keep something operating at the base. This came up previously when consideration was given to spending $6 million on a new building to do this.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
I was turned down at that time, but in the meantime Treasury Board refused to grant the Department of Transport the $6 million and told them they should use existing facilities. I immediately wrote the Minister of Transport and requested that another look be given to the Canadian Forces base at Clinton. I received an answer to my letter from the Department of Transport, dated June 19, which stated:
Reference is made to your letter of April 30, 1970, concerning the possibility of the facilities at Canadian Forces base, Clinton, being suitable for the proposed air services training school.
Treasury Board has requested that the feasibility of joint civilian-military air traffic control training be investigated. The decision in this matter could have a major impact on the type of training facility required. Accordingly, consideration of your proposal regarding the use of the Clinton base will be deferred.
The minister goes on to say that he expects a decision to be made about the middle of the summer. I waited until the middle of the summer, and the feasibility study was carried out by the department. I can report on some of the recommendations that were made. The first was that military-civil air traffic control training be combined, and that a common manual of operations for Canadian air traffic control be developed: standard military deviations from the norm shall be noted therein. The recommendations went on to say that an investigation into surplus buildings and suitable sites for an air traffic control school should be completed by December 15, 1970, which is yet to come.
Naturally, the Department of National Defence is involved in any suggestion that would combine the training of military and civilian air traffic control. I am advised by the minister that that study is now being carried out by his department. I am sure that the completion of this study, in co-operation with the Department of Transport, will affect the decision as to where the training will be carried out.
The fact that the station in Clinton was built for radar and communications would make it most suitable for carrying out training. Many of the facilities and training requirements are similar to those used for training at the radar and communications school. It would be sensible and reasonable to have both carried out at that site if the decision is that civil and military air traffic control training should be combined and carried out at the existing location.
Furthermore, we have investigated further requirements for the base after it is closed, or even before, and that is at Conistoga College which is a community college which serves the Huron County area. They have already put in their requirements, at my request, as to how much of the base they might be able to use if it is not to be used fully in the way I have suggested. This matter is

November 24, 1970
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion being considered by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, who are waiting for these other people to make up their minds.
I am not in any hurry for an answer so long as it is the right one, but the people in the area are becoming quite concerned and they hope to have an answer as soon as possible. I suggest that an answer should be given early in the new year. I am trying to establish that this question is urgent. In my opinion it should have been allowed by the Speaker. In any case, this adjournment debate gives me a little more time to deal with the matter.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please I must advise the hon. member that his time has expired.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Forces base, Clinton, is mainly devoted to giving training in radar and communications. For a considerable period of time the Canadian forces activities for training in that field have been divided between Clinton and Kingston.
It had also been evident for some period of time that it would be desirable to consolidate the technical training, and the fact that the military reason and requirement for training provided at Clinton would no longer be required in the near future made it possible to consolidate the operation at Kingston for reasons of economy.
The hon. member referred to the fact that there would be a capital expenditure at Kingston of $1,298 million for the purpose of establishing the consolidated facilities in that city. I would point out that as a result of the closure of Clinton there will be a net saving in annual costs of $2.9 million. In other words, the annual saving from closing the base will be more than twice the amount expended in the first year in putting into effect the training facilities. I might point out to the hon. member, if he does not already know, that the department has been active in locating civilian personnel in other employment.
With regard to his request for the school for air traffic controllers, I should point out that he has a competitor in the field, because the provincial government of Prince Edward Island has made clear its feeling that the air traffic controllers' school should be located at Summer-side and this has been supported by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald). We will be in touch with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) on this question and will give favourable consideration to both possibilities when the time comes to decide the location of the aircraft controllers' facility.



AIR TRANSPORT-INSTALLATION OF RADIOS AND HOMER BEACON DEVICES ON PRIVATE COMMERCIAL PLANES

Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, my remarks tonight concern homer devices to be installed on private commercial planes. I am no expert on the subject, but my interest was prompted by my concern for a lost helicopter pilot whose wife happened to be from my riding. It might interest hon. members of the Conservative party to know that he was formerly the pilot of the

right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). This man was lost in the bush area of northern Saskatchewan for 21 days before the search was called off by the search and rescue section of the Department of National defence.
The area covered by the search seemed to me to be extensive, although it was considered by Search and Rescue as limited. Seventy-two thousand square miles were covered twice by search and rescue planes, but during the 21 days there was no sign of the lost pilot and the search was called off. Finally the miracle occurred and the pilot, because he was wise in the ways of the bush, walked out of the bush 30 pounds lighter. Everybody was pleased to learn that he was still alive.
After discussions with a number of people it seems to me that there is in this regard a tremendous expense to the Department of National Defence and also a tremendous risk to the pilots of Search and Rescue. It also seems to me that in this day of sophisticated, technical knowledge we might expect some of this technology to be used to assist pilots lost in a country as vast as ours.
My investigations reveal that the pilot had flown from his base during a white-out and was without radio or homing device of any kind. Upon further investigation I was appalled to learn that the Department of Transport regulations do not prescribe even such fundamental lifesaving devices as radio or, indeed, any kind of homing device. Why not? Lost planes are common, especially in British Columbia and Ontario. Why are regulations not necessary, not only to save the lives of people who are lost but also to protect people who by nature of their occupation have a professional duty to find them? On November 6, I put a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) and part of this answer was as follows:
The difficulty is that at the moment there is no such assurance of proper standards and we would not want, for example, to require their installation and perhaps give people a false sense of security which, indeed, the equipment now available might not be able to provide.
That seems reasonable enough. We are aware, of course, that all military and commercial transport aircraft using IFR-those letters stand for "Instrument Flight Rules"-are equipped with CPI, otherwise known as Crash Protection Indicator devices. Unfortunately, these devices cost approximately $10,000 each to instal. This amount, of course, is far beyond the reach of many private and small commercial aircraft operators, the loss of whose aircraft causes so much anguish and difficulty to the Department of National Defence. That, I think, is reasonable to assume.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
I think we all should examine the criteria necessary for VFR, or aircraft using visual flight rules, the losses among which are probably far greater than among aircraft, the pilots of which can fly on instruments. I have a letter from a constituent of mine which reads in part:
When our own and other companies' personnel got together, discussions often centered around two points; firstly the difficulty associated with suitable crash detection gear, i.e., Sarah & Dart. It was generally agreed that before such a device could be made compulsory by the DOT it would have to meet the following standards-
November 24, 1970

The device must be light and small enough so as not to rob valuable pay-load space. It must be sufficiently inexpensive for private and commercial operators. It must produce a signal, audible or visual, which can be picked up by other VFR aircraft. And, above all, it must be 100 per cent efficient.
In the time remaining I think I ought to elaborate a little on these points. My constituent, incidentally, has submitted an experimental device and I think the Department of Transport would be well advised to assist in the development and research of devices of this kind which do not seem to be available at present. All Canadian flyers and all those interested in aviation ought to be concerned about this matter. I think many other groups are concerned. In conclusion I wish to quote from a booklet entitled "British Columbia Chamber of Commerce, General Policy Statements and Resolutions, 197071". On page 11 the following notation appears: RECOMMENDED
That the government of Canada require all aircraft operating in Canada to be equipped with crash position indicator or homing beacon device.


Mr. Gerard Duquei (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the specific subject matter, that of issuing regulations requiring all aircraft using Canadian airways to instal homer beacon devices, has been raised several times in the House. It is an important matter and it is one which the Department of Transport has been directly concerned with for a number of years. I congratulate the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) as well as the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle) who have continued to emphasize the need to require aircraft to carry such equipment.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) indicated in the House, in answering the hon. member's question on November 6, that he is prepared to initiate such regulations. He explained to the House that the matter is not as simple as it would appear on the surface. To merely set out regulations would not solve the over-all problem at this time. What is required is a relatively low-cost locator beacon which is capable of meeting an agreed common technical standard. I should point out that a standard was established and adopted by the International Civil Aviation Organization last year. Subsequently it was incorporated in national technical specifications which were issued in May, 1970, and which are presently administered by the Department of Communications.
The specifications which I have mentioned cover four different types of emergency locator transmitter, only one of which, the personal locator beacon, could be called low-cost. I understand that there are no personal locator beacons on the market which could meet these specifications. However, one Canadian manufacturer of such equipment has recently informed the Department of Transport that he will commence production of a personal locator beacon in 1971. The availability of this equipment will be given very full consideration by the Department of Transport and by the Department of Communications, as will any other similar devices which appear on the market in future.
23568-21}
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
In conclusion I would like to point out to the hon. member that proposed regulations with respect to emergency locator transmitters were circulated in early 1969 to the aviation industry. Comments received were encouraging and generally favourable.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Parliamentary Secretary, but his time has expired.



ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES-POWER-PROPOSED FLOODING OF SKAGIT RIVER VALLEY-SUBMISSION OF BRIEF TO STATE OF WASHINGTON INQUIRY

Thomas Henry Goode: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I put a very important question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) on the subject of the proposed flooding of 6,000 acres of the Skagit Valley in British Columbia by the Seattle City Light Company. I should say at the outset that the fight against this agreement, which was made in January of 1967 between the province of British Columbia and Seattle City Light, has been led in Victoria by the Liberal members of the legislative assembly, notably David Brousson, and here in Ottawa by all the members of the British Columbia Liberal caucus, especially the member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle).
My concern on the issue is prompted by the firm conviction that what the Socred government has done in British Columbia is wrong and is both a disgrace and disservice to the people of our province. What they have done, Mr. Speaker, is to sell out to United States interests, for an annual rental of $5.50 per flooded acre, one of the few remaining wilderness areas in the lower mainland of our province. By agreeing to let the city of Seattle raise by 125 feet the level of the reservoir behind the Ross dam, the government of British Columbia has shown that over the protests of its own citizens it is not only willing but eager to sacrifice the last wilderness valley in the lower mainland, to flood ten miles into British Columbia, to cover over nine miles of fish spawning ground, to inundate the spring feeding ground and nursery for some 450 deer, and to do all of this just so the neon lights in Seattle can shine a little brighter at the expense of the recreational needs of our children and our children's children.
The people of British Columbia will not stand for this, Mr. Speaker. As a last resort they are looking to the federal government to provide a means of saving the Valley. In an effort to help I have introduced into this House Bill C-130, an act to amend the International River Improvements Act. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall read the effective paragraph of that bill. It is as follows:

November 24, 1970
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
If the government decides to accept this bill I will be very pleased indeed, and so will the scores of persons throughout British Columbia who have written asking me to do my very best to prevent this outrage. I will be just as happy if the government can stop the flooding by some alternate means. That is why this afternoon I asked the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry a question along the following lines: "In view of press reports that Mr. John Biggs, head of the Washington State Department of Ecology, has announced that his department will hold hearings on the proposed flooding of the Skagit Valley in British Columbia by Seattle City Light Company, and in view of the fact that Mr. Biggs has indicated that the government of British Columbia and the Canadian government will be encouraged to submit briefs, will the minister assure the House that the government will submit a brief in opposition to the proposed flooding?"
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the minister is prepared now to make a statement on the government's position in this regard.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, it is good news that ecologists on the U.S. west coast are beginning to line up against the flooding of the Skagit Valley, particularly the flooding back mto British Columbia. My department will gladly supply any information which Canadian interveners may require when appearing at hearings held in the territory of the United States in opposition to this project. I have not yet had an opinion from the Department of External Affairs as to whether it would be proper for an agency of the
federal government to appear in a foreign court dealing with matters of this kind, but if there is no problem in this connection I would certainly want us to appear. To repeat, I qualify this, depending on advice I expect to get from the Department of External Affairs.
I should like to outline the present status of the application of Seattle Light and Power to U.S. authorities to raise the Ross dam and flood back into Canada. The Seattle city council voted in favour of its application, but action has been held up by the mayor of Seattle. The Seattle City Light and Power Company will also have to obtain permission after January 1, 1971, from the new department of ecology set up in the state of Washington and get another annual permit of the kind they have been getting every year since 1929. I understand that the new department will require a hearing to be held so there will be an opportunity, early in the new year, for interested Canadian citizens to appear in the Seattle area in opposition to this project.
Assuming the Seattle City Light and Power Company does obtain authorization from the new department of ecology, it would then be obliged to apply to the United State Federal Power Commission in Washington, D.C., which would also require a hearing to be held. A number of Canadians have been asking why we do not require hearings in Canada. Seattle City Light has been contacted on several occasions by the government of Canada with respect to the application of the International River Improvements Act, and we have yet to hear from the company in that connection.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Wednesday, November 25, 1970