1970-11-10

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, we have learned with deep emotion of the death of General de Gaulle, one of the great figures of our time. I want to render homage to his genius as a soldier, and to the outstanding qualities of a statesman who, in his own lifetime, became an historical figure.
Even before the outbreak of the World War in 1939, Charles de Gaulle had shown an extraordinary understanding of the dimensions of modem war. But the defeat and occupation of France brought out in him, during long and hard years, the courage and pride of the patriot in exile, and the patience and authority of the politician. During the war he embodied for millions of men the hope of liberation; single-handed, so to speak, he sought to preserve, and afterwards sustain, the permanence of France, which owes to him the fact of having found once again its high place in the concert of nations.
Mr. Speaker, the departure of Charles de Gaulle calls up everywhere a great surge of memories. A great man has just died. To the French people and Government, I express our profound sympathy.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I join with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in his eloquent words concerning General de Gaulle. I knew the General very well. I met him on a number of occasions. One of my treasured memories will be that a few days ago I received from him a volume of his memoirs inscribed with a personal message, the acknowledgement of which he will never receive.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
He was one of those personalities who are above age, who lived in his day and generation and made a contribution not only to freedom in his own time but for all mankind. He was, as the Prime Minister said, a prophet in the years between 1935 and 1939-a prophet without honour in his own country. Indomitable, incorruptible, inflexible-he stood for what he believed. In the dark days of war there were many who were pessimists when France was down, he was never one of them. He stood
and in the clarion words of freedom predicted over and over again that victory would ultimately come.
Everyone, however great, is entitled to make mistakes. Many will recall his words in this country in 1967. This is no occasion to weigh those words. The moving finger writes and, having writ, moves on. But whatever mistakes he made he will always be remembered in the eternal books of history and will always have an overwhelming credit in those books.
With the approach of Remembrance Day I recall November 1958, when he asked me whether I would be willing to go to Verdun on November 11, Remembrance Day, and be in the saluting stand as the legions of France moved past. It was in the battle of Verdun that he was wounded. It was there, in the saddest charnel place in all the world, where some 700,000 Frenchmen and Germans met their deaths in support of those things for which they stood. The General said he himself could not be present because of his memories of those days of the Battle of Verdun. As I walked over that battlefield I could not but recall the awfulness of what took place during those dark years when he gave his dedication to devoting the rest of his life for peace for all time.
I recall him in Ottawa in 1960. He spoke in the most feeling terms of Canada's sacrifice. He was with Churchill, when freedom was under siege, when for a period of a year and a half we in the Commonwealth and France were alone. He never lost faith.
I remember him as an orator, a model for orators. Beset by blindness he would have read over to him a speech that was prepared by himself, and he would deliver it as it was written in the ringing words of freedom. The last of the titans of the second world war have now departed. He is the last of them. His memory will live for all time.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, I wish to express our grief on the occasion of the passing of General de Gaulle. It is true that his relations with Canada were at times marred by his intervention in the rather delicate question of our national unity. However, he will remain a very famous man. As commander of the French resistance forces and leader of France during the Algerian crisis he ranks high among the great patriots in world's history.
He had an incredible moral fortitude and a very remarkable literary talent. His autobiography sheds light on an era in which he played a predominant part.
It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that even after his retirement as President of France, his influence remained and will probably diminish very slowly after his death.

November 10, 1970
Tribute to Late General de Gaulle
Some of us may have wondered about his preoccupation with grandeur, may have disagreed with him on some aspects of his social philosophy and may have worried about his nuclear policy, but we cannot deny that he was an outstanding statesman, whose devotion to France and French culture was unlimited.
We join with the Prime Minister in offering Mrs. de Gaulle and the French people our most sincere sympathy.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, as the previous speakers, I would like to say a few words on behalf of the members of the Ralliement creditiste, and pay tribute to a man whose name will go down in history, since Charles de Gaulle has left his mark as the champion of democracy during the last world war, while working without respite for the recovery and stabilization of France seriously affected by that war.
The military strategists consider that General de Gaulle was probably one of the greatest thinkers of the French army, when he devised even before the war the setting up of a highly armoured and motorized army. His plans were brushed aside and France was caught off guard by the German invasion.
Instead of accepting defeat, on June 16, 1940, he left for London where on June 18, he called on the French to go on fighting with Great Britain.
Thus, he gave the people of France new hope, brought to his side what was left of the colonial French army, and free French forces fought with Canadian and British troops until victory, when he was acclaimed as a liberator first in Bayeux then in Paris.
De Gaulle was not merely a military man but also a great statesman, probably the one who did most to rebuild France's world prestige that had been diminished by the weakness and the divisions of its governments.
Once more, he saved France from disaster. Following the events in Algeria and the threat of a civil war in 1958, the French people called upon him, and the General agreed to form a government.
He prepared a reform of institutions and at the next elections, he was given a great majority. Elected president of the Republic by 78 per cent of the voters in France and overseas, he governed according to the spirit of the Constitution and left a definite mark on French politics. He solved the Algerian problem, gave France a striking force, and kept his distance with regard to NATO.
De Gaulle was a controversial figure and will doubtless be for years to come because the Memoirs he has written and which have yet to be published in full reveal new aspects of the man.
I have just read this tribute: the Memoirs of de Gaulle will go down in history and be compared to Caesar's Commentaries on the Gallic war.
We therefore join the Prime Minister and all hon. members in mourning the death of this great Frenchman.
[DOT] (2:20 D.m.)



PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF PRIME MINISTER OF GHANA, OTHER MINISTERS AND OFFICIALS

Mr. Speaker:: May I bring to the attention of the House the presence in the Speaker's Gallery of a number of distinguished guests. We are delighted to have with us for a few moments the Prime Minister of Ghana, the Right Hon. Dr. Kofi Busia, and Mrs. Busia. The Prime Minister is accompanied by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism, the Hon. R. A. Quarshie, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Victor Owusu, as well as a group of senior officials of the government. We welcome these distinguished visitors to Canada's House of Commons. I am sure that hon. members would want me to express their particular gratification that under Dr. Busia's leadership Ghana has returned to parliamentary rule and continues to play a leading role in the life of the Commonwealth of Nations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ELECTION EXPENSES


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy-Council):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask unanimous consent of the House to name the members of the Special Committee on Election Expenses. If I have unanimous consent I should like to move, seconded by Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):
That members of the Special Committee on Election Expenses be Messrs. Breau, Brewin, Chappell, Cullen, Deachman, Forest, Forrestall, Howe, Laflamme, Laprise, McKinley and Ouellet.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the President of the Privy Council. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
*	* sjs


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43 there is provision whereby a motion may be accepted by unanimous consent if it relates to a matter of urgent and pressing necessity that has previously been explained by the mover. It is one of the few mechanisms that Parliament has available to it to deal with matters in a special way because normally Parlia-

November 10, 1970

ment has cumbersome arrangements for dealing with urgent problems. The sale or proposed sale of Ryerson Press to the McGraw-Hill Company of the United States has brought into very sharp focus the fact that we are perilously close to complete domination by foreign industrial and economic interests. What I propose by way of motion is to permit a parliamentary committee to examine this matter.
I might add as an aside that the request for unanimity also encompasses with it the idea that we do not seek to have any debate upon this matter if that is also unanimously accepted. Therefore I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) but with a companion and honorary seconder, the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald):
That the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs be authorized to inquire into the steps which may be necessary to maintain Canadian control of the publishing industry and to permit the said publishing industry to enhance and develop its position and that the said committee report its findings and recommendations on or before December 15, 1970.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Skeena. The motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity. Therefore, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 the motion cannot be put at this time.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Haslings):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. When the present crisis is over, which we hope will be very soon, is it the intention of the government to examine carefully the methods of inquiry and surveillance which have been employed by our national police force and the other police forces with which it co-operates in respect of national cases such as the Cross case to ensure that they are the most up to date and the most effective known to modern police forces, in view of the fact that the greatest manhunt in peacetime history, backed by the widest possible powers, unfortunately has not been able in a period of one month to return Mr. Cross safe and sound to his family or to apprehend his kidnappers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this type of review has been under way in the federal government as a result of the report last year of the
Inquiries of the Ministry
Royal Commission on the matter of security. At that time we did introduce certain changes in the structure of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and since then on a continuing basis we as a cabinet have been examining the question of security. But the comments of the hon. member are well taken. We will continue this examination to see if there is some way to have a more efficient police force which would perhaps in the future dispense with the need to have recourse to such extraordinary measures as the War Measures Act. This being said, I think we do owe a vote of thanks to the police for the work they have done. That they should not have been a little more efficient is perhaps a reflection of the kind of society in which they and we live, a society which is not accustomed to dealing with terrorism and subversion of an underground kind.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Harris Hees: 1 thank the Prime Minister for his answer.



CONTROL OF RESALE OF ARMY SURPLUS AUTOMATIC WEAPONS

George Harris Hees: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Supply and Services. Could he advise the House what steps have been taken or are planned for the near future to control the resale of army surplus automatic weapons in view of the ease with which these weapons can be purchased in Canada as described in the evidence of Mr. Bernard Lortie last Saturday?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to take that suggestion under consideration and report back to the House if any changes are contemplated.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Perhaps I might be permitted a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday I asked the Minister of Justice if the particular section of the Criminal Code in reference to prohibited and restricted weapons had been proclaimed. I wonder whether the Prime Minister or one of his ministers, because of the importance of this matter and because these sales are still going on, could make a statement to the effect that this regulation has been passed and that these are now prohibited and restricted weapons?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the minister took notice of the question yesterday. He is not in the House today and I suggest it would be proper to wait for him to give the answer.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darlmoulh-Halifax East):: I wonder whether the Minister of National Defence would take note of certain advertisements in "Armed Forces Review" which is very close to being a government publication? In recent months it has carried advertisements close to its editorial page, or in any event in a prominent place, for the sale of revolvers, .38 Enfields, Italian automatic pistols, shotguns, ammunition, and offering free

November 10, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
catalogues, in fact, the whole bit in a publication that is so close to our Canadian Armed Forces as to be indistinguishable.
Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National
Defence): Mr. Speaker, first I should make it perfectly clear that "Armed Forces Review" is not an official publication.
As to the marketing of, for example, .303 Enfield rifles, the hon. member will recognize that they are not prohibited by the changes in the law, and it seems to me that there can be no objection to them on that ground. Parliament faced this question a year or so ago and decided not to outlaw them. It may well be that it should have, but there has been no change in the law in that regard.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: I want to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Supply and Services. Would he be prepared to place a moratorium on the disposal of such automatic and semi-automatic weapons until a review of the whole situation has been made?


James Armstrong Richardson: No, Mr. Speaker, I have indicated that the situation is being closely examined. Until I report back I would not contemplate a moratorium.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Finance arising out of the unemployment situation in the country. May we expect from him or someone else in the government shortly, within days or weeks a statement of some new policies or new programs to deal with the situation?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, as we have new policies to bring forward to Parliament, we will do it in the ordinary manner.


David Lewis: I am not asking the Minister of Finance to do it in an extraordinary manner. I am asking him to tell the House whether we may expect such an announcement within days or weeks so as to deal with the winter unemployment situation.


Edgar John Benson: My hon. friend will just have to wait and see.


David Lewis: Can the minister inform the House whether any special attention is being paid, if some programs are being worked out, to the situation in the province of Quebec and the particular need to deal with unemployment in that province?


Edgar John Benson: The matter of unemployment is a matter of concern to the government, and our economic policy and programs are continuously under review. I hope that if we do bring forward some additional programs my hon. friend will vote in favour of increased taxes in order to finance them.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, we will wait to see what the program will be. I think the minister's answer requires another question, namely, whether he is being hypothetical about his programs or whether we may expect such a program before Christmas?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me the hon. member is now reiterating the original question asked of the minister.



SUGGESTED REPEGGING OF CANADIAN DOLLAR

Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Among these programs that the minister is considering, is he giving consideration to repegging the Canadian dollar before the Canadian automobile parts industry goes out of business altogether?


Edgar John Benson: I do not think there is any danger of that at all. If my hon. friend will take a look at the export of automobile parts under the automotive trade agreement he will find that in spite of his party's opposition to it it has been and continues to be of great benefit to Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.


George Harris Hees: -let me point out that the automobile pact was started by our government when we were in power.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.


George Harris Hees: You can bet your sweet life it was.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
*. * *



HOUSING


Mr. J. Edward Broadbenl (Oshawa-Whitby):: I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for housing. Following the decision of the Conservative government in Ontario to go ahead now with deferred programs in order to meet the rising unemployment, can the minister inform the House to whether or not his department has decided to go ahead with urban renewal projects during the coming winter months which had been deferred earlier?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: The urban renewal projects which were authorized for implementation during the past year will proceed but additional ones will not be funded in the immediate future.

November 10, 1970



QUEBEC-SPECIAL, MEASURES TO ALLEVIATE UNEMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS

Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: I should like to ask the
minister in charge of housing whether he intends to bring forth any special measures to deal with housing problems in Quebec so that the unemployment situation there may be alleviated as well as the social problems?


Robert Knight Andras: We have in fact accelerated investment in housing in Quebec diming the past several months. Some of the evidence is showing up in the housing starts statistics for October, and there will undoubtedly be a continuation of this kind of activity in that province.



INCREASE IN AMOUNT FOR URBAN RENEWAL

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: I have a supplementary question for the minister in charge of housing. In view of the bleak picture shown in the rising unemployment figures and in the light of the fact that the minister has indicated that $25 million will be projected yearly for the next five years toward the urban renewal program, is the minister reconsidering this position at this time in order to help to alleviate the unemployment situation and increase housing starts?


Robert Knight Andras: This year we will have invested through CMHC slightly in excess of a billion dollars in commitments for housing. The suggestion that urban renewal is the best or the only method of providing relief from urban decay or, in fact, providing employment, is one which I do not necessarily accept.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I appreciate the minister's answer but in effect he has not answered my question. I was wondering whether the minister intends to increase the amounts allowed for urban renewal.


Robert Knight Andras: I think I answered that question in my reply to a question put by an hon. member earlier.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Since the Quebec government has just requested that the Armed Forces remain on duty for another month, could the Prime Minister say whether final agreement has been reached between the two governments as to who will foot the bill for the stay of the Armed Forces in Quebec?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, this question has not yet been finalized.
Inquiries of the Ministry



TRANSPORT


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: My question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Could the minister indicate when the government's policy with respect to urban rail line relocation will be made public, and could he also indicate whether such announcement will be followed by projects that would be of assistance in overcoming the current unemployment problems?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: I believe the House knows that last week an announcement was made of a three-way study under way in the city of Winnipeg with the co-operation of the government of Manitoba and the government of the city of Winnipeg with a view to making this a pilot project to determine the best means of dealing with these problems which exist in many parts of the country. I have no idea at the moment how long this study will take, although I have asked for an answer as quickly as possible. I hope that the recommendations will be such that we will be able to get under way with the project very quickly after the report is received.



POLLUTION


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has an agreement been entered into by the federal government and the provinces of Ontario and Quebec on a plan to control pollution in the Ottawa river?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The ministers in charge of the water pollution questions and environmental management from the provinces of Quebec and Ontario attended a meeting here yesterday at which we reached an agreement to the effect that on the completion of the Quebec-Ontario study of the Ottawa River which will be completed early in the new year we will proceed to enter into a joint water quality management agreement pursuant to the terms of the Canada Water Act.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I ask my supplementary question in view of the fact that members of this House for at least as long as I have been here, some 12 years, have frequently asked questions about this particular subject of the Ottawa River. Therefore I ask the minister why he did not make his statement in the House today rather than make it outside the House at a press conference?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, my counterpart ministers from the provinces were here yesterday and it seemed important that they join in the announcement as this is a provincial-federal agreement. When the actual agreement is entered into at the time the study is completed it will, of course, be tabled in the House and announced in the House in the normal manner.

November 10, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Then I assume from the ministers answer that there was no agreement entered into yesterday at all, and that this was just a P.R. job.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



EXTENT OF STUDY OF OTTAWA RIVER

Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: May I ask the minister how extensive the survey will be in Lake Timiskaming, the headwater area for the Ottawa River?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I believe the study is a comprehensive one. I will take note of the question and answer the hon. member more completely, but I am aware it goes from the headwaters right to where the Ottawa River flows into the St. Lawrence, so the water quality management area will be a complete one for the Ottawa River.



DISCUSSION OF CONTAMINATION OF WATERS FLOWING INTO JAMES BAY

Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Could he tell us if during his talks with his counterparts in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario there was any mention of polluted waters flowing into James Bay and threatening fishing in those regions?


John James Greene: No, Mr. Speaker. We only talked about the Ottawa river.
*	* He



INFORMATION CANADA


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasler):: Mr. Speaker, I direct this question to the Prime Minister because of the over-all responsibility involved. Will the Prime Minister assure the House that the newly announced so-called digest of responses to government announcements will be made available to the House at the same time as it is made available to government departments?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am not
sure what the hon. member is talking about, Mr. Speaker. I will take the question as notice.


Thomas Miller Bell: When the Prime Minister checks into this newly announced so-called digest, will he make certain that those responses which may be unfavourable to the government, such as Le Devoir, are also included?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is now making a suggestion which he must presume will be taken into account.



INTERNATIONAL GRAINS ARRANGEMENT-RESULTS OF MEETING ON RENEWAL

Mr. R. R. Soulham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the great importance to Canadian grain markets and pricing, is the minister in a position to report to the House, under motions, the results of the meeting just concluded in London in connection with the International Grains Arrangement?


Hon. Ofto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be unnecessary to do it on motions. Agreement was reached at that meeting to hold a negotiating meeting in January.


Richard Russell Southam: Can the minister indicate in a more optimistic vein whether any agreement on floor pricing will be reached before next year?


Otto Emil Lang: This is the object of the negotiating meeting, to determine whether or not there is the possibility of an international arrangement. The meeting of the World Wheat Council which has just ended was intended to decide whether or not negotiations would in fact take place, and this was agreed upon.



PRESENCE OF RUSTY BEETLE IN WHEAT SHIPMENTS- NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS-REJECTION OF CARGOS

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, further to the questions asked yesterday about insect infestation in shipments of Canadian grain, can the minister responsible for the Wheat Board advise the House as to the number of complaints received from overseas customers in regard to insect infestation in shipments of wheat from Canada, and if there have been any rejections of cargos of Canadian grain?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can add anything to the information given to the House on this subject yesterday by my colleague the Minister of Agriculture.



AIR TANSPORT


Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In light of the announcement that Canada is one of the countries proposing new air travel taxes, which appear to be endangering the international air fare agreement, will the minister assure the House that these new charges or any other new charges will not apply to the cost of domestic air travel?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely complex issue. I do not believe I could do justice to it in a reply of this sort. I will take the question as notice and see if I can prepare something comprehensive for the hon. member.

November 10, 1970



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Has he received representations from the Public Service Alliance in favour of changes in the Public Service Staff Relations Act so as to permit collective bargaining on behalf of members of the Canadian Armed Forces, and will he give favourable consideration to this request?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I have read news accounts of this particular initiative but as far as I know I have not received such representations.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of supplementary questions which I think should be asked at this time. Can the minister give some assurance not only to the House but to members of the Canadian Armed Forces that their views will be assessed before any decision is taken by the government in response to the Public Service Alliance request?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: At the moment as far as I
know, Mr. Speaker, we have no such examination under way.


J. Michael Forrestall: I direct another supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Has he had a chance to review the letter sent to him by the President of the Public Service Alliance, and can he indicate whether he has convened any meetings of his colleagues on the subject matter of that letter?


Mr. Barney Danson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: As a supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Do I understand the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister wants to ask a supplementary?


Barnett Jerome Danson: My supplementary is to the Minister of National Defence. I wonder whether giving the Armed Forces collective bargaining rights would increase their strike capacity?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I attempted to ask the right hon. Prime Minister a question but apparently he is engaged on some other matter so I will direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. Would he give consideration to giving those Members of Parliament who have Canadian Forces bases in their constituencies the right to seek out the views of members of the Armed Forces on the question of their unionization from outside?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As far as I know no member of this House is under any inhibition in speaking to members of the Armed Forces.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breion-Easl Richmond):: Since the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister has asked a supplementary question of the Minister of National Defence about the strike right of the Armed Forces, was he reflecting on the one that has just taken place recently in Quebec?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Explain.


Malcolm MacInnis: See me after hours.
* * #



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the Governor in Council, acting under the authority of the War Measures Act, authorized the government of the province of Quebec to issue and enforce criminal measures against medical specialists of that province which permit trial and conviction in absentia, presumption of guilt without plea, and forfeiture of their property?


Mr. Speaker:: I have some serious doubt about this question. I wonder if it might be rephrased to make it acceptable from a procedural standpoint, although I doubt whether that is possible.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Then I would like to ask the Minister of Justice if there has been any consultation on this matter?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, that particular legislation, so far as the Department of Justice is concerned, lies within provincial jurisdiction. I do not know if there has been other consultation.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Since Bill 41 will have the effect of regulating the conduct and behaviour of the individual, would the minister not refer this matter to the Supreme Court of Canada for a ruling?


John George Diefenbaker: In connection with Bill 41 and also those measures which have been taken to stop the movement of eggs and broilers from one province to another, both of which orders are unconstitutional within the concept of confederation, has the government given any consideration to the disallowance of the legislation passed by the legislature of Quebec which denies to doctors the right to leave that province?


John Napier Turner: No, Sir.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfooi):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice. Has he considered whether Bill 41 passed by the legislature of Quebec contravenes the Canadian Bill of Rights? I ask that because it stipulates that fines between $5,000 and $50,000 per day will be levied against those who comment in such a manner as to influence any doctor to leave the province or to be absent from his practice.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have not reviewed the bill from that point of view.

November 10, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry INDUSTRY



PLANS TO ESTABLISH CORPORATION TO ASSIST PUBLISHERS

Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister as the leader of the government. Inasmuch as we have a Canadian Film Development Corporation to assist in the development of the film-making industry in Canada, has the government, either by itself or in conjunction with the provinces, any plans to establish a similar corporation for publishing?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have not heard of any.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia-Lamblon):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Will the minister assure the Indians of Stanley Point that when the Camp Ipperwash property is no longer required by the Department of National Defence it will be returned to the Indians and not transferred to the province of Ontario?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the government does not at the moment intend to give up this training facility on Lake Huron. I might indicate to the House and the hon. member that there is a fairly substantial quantity of unexploded ammunition on the grounds of Camp Ipperwash. That being so, I am not sure whether he would want me to transfer it to the Indians or to the province of Ontario.



HIGHWAYS


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Since the voters of the state of Maine have indicated that they are unwilling to undertake the full responsibility for constructing a corridor road between the provinces of New Brunswick and Quebec, will the Prime Minister given consideration to initiating discussions between the government of Canada and the governments of the United States and Maine to determine if it might be possible to develop this transportation link that would be of such tremendous value to the Atlantic area?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would have to ascertain first what the will of the Atlantic provinces is in this regard. I understand that they are not completely united in their desire to build this road.


Robert Carman Coates: Will the Prime Minister consult with the governments of the four Atlantic provinces to determine whether they wish such an initiative to be taken by the federal government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in my periodic meetings with the Atlantic premiers this question frequently comes up. I am sure it will come up again in our subsequent meetings.



TRANSPORT


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that navigation can be opened up in Georgian Bay and Lake Huron eight to ten days before Lake Superior, is it the intention of the government to winter the icebreaker Alexander Henry in Owen Sound or Collingwood?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would think that this question ought to be placed on the order paper or discussed at the time of adjournment if there is urgency.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Justice and to thank him for breaking the roster system and coming here today. I wonder if he would answer the question I asked yesterday about restricted and prohibited weapons and about an Order in Council?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I understand that there were earlier questions on this subject. I should like to review them. Also, I have not had the opportunity to complete the investigation as I promised the hon. member I would. I will do that tomorrow or Thursday.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If the minister is going to check on this matter I just want to tell him that there were no answers. The Prime Minister just passed the matter over to him.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. David Orlikow (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the decision of his colleague, the Minister of Labour, to prosecute the CNR because of its failure to pay its hotel employees the federal minimum wage, could

No vem ber 10, 1970

the Minister of Transport discuss this question with the president of the CNR since it is, to say the least, peculiar to have a government department prosecuting a Crown corporation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question is in the form of an argument. I wonder whether it is in order. Perhaps the minister might be allowed to Teply briefly.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I hope it will be appreciated that I am not falling back on a stock reply. The matter is before the courts and under the circumstances it would not be appropriate for me to refer to it at this time.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. R. J. Orange (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development but in his absence I will direct it to his Parliamentary Secretary. 1 wonder if the minister will make a statement on the effect of the future drilling program of Panarctic as a result of the gas well blowout on King Christian Island. I should also like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to bring this question to the minister's attention: what steps are being taken to cap this blowout and to alleviate the concern relating to the effect of this blowout on the ecology of that particular area of King Christian Island?


Mr. Judd Buchanan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to bring this observation to the attention of the minister.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, in the minister's statement, if he makes one, could he indicate the cause of the blowout and what safety measures are required by the drilling companies in the high Arctic to ensure that there are no future blowouts such as the one which lasted a full year?



MANPOWER


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Does the minister intend to institute a special manpower training program over and above the program already announced in order to meet the anticipated excessively high rate of unemployment in the Atlantic province this winter?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as has already been announced, some additional training programs have been instituted
Inquiries of the Ministry
to make courses available, especially in those areas where unemployment is high. We are at the same time examining the extent to which facilities are available for the courses which now can be provided.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
I wonder if the minister would be prepared to discuss with his colleague, the Minister of National Defence, whether armories and other national defence facilities could be made available for special manpower training programs this winter to meet the high unemployment?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would be glad to talk about almost anything with my colleague. But I think that in large measure the hon. member should know that the provision of these courses basically falls within the responsibility of the provincial governments in the areas concerned. So it might be more fruitful if I discussed this matter with them.


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, may 1 direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Will the minister make a statement on motions on the disposition of his department's share of the $60 million mentioned in the contribution of the Minister of Finance to the debate on the Speech from the Throne?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it has been my intention to make a statement, perhaps not on motions, in regard to this disposition. I will see about doing so at an early date.


James Aloysius McGrath: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I refer the matter I raised in my question to ten o'clock so the Minister of Manpower and Immigration will have an opportunity to make that statement.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinihe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the statement made last Friday by the premier of the province of Quebec, would the right hon. Prime Minister be willing to tell the House if the Quebec premier made him a request for greater financial aid to fight unemployment in the province of Quebec?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the premier of the province of Quebec knows that we have held discussions on a practically continuous basis for several months to arrive at granting supplementary substantial aids in the province of Quebec.
Effectively, it was after these discussions that we increased considerably assistance to low cost housing, regional development and construction of technical schools.
This involves a series of continuous programs, Mr. Speaker, which are continuously increasing in numbers.

November 10, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry FISHERIES



DEPLETION OF MARINE RESOURCES-DISCUSSIONS WITH SOVIET UNION

Mr. Waller C. Carter (SI. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Can the minister say if he has succeeded in arranging talks with the Soviet Union concerning the depletion of our marine resources? If so, when will these meetings take place?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, no meetings are scheduled at the moment.
*
* *



MANPOWER


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Some time ago I asked the minister about the position of employees at the potash plant of Consolidated Mining and Smelting near Saskatoon, and whether these employees would receive assistance under manpower when they transferred to new jobs. Can the minister inform the House whether or not arrangements have been made to give such assistance to these employees?


Otto Emil Lang: There are several types of assistance available, Mr. Speaker. There is the type which can be offered by the Department of Manpower and Immigration under its rules and which is, of course, being offered to them. To my knowledge, no agreement has been reached with the company under another head of the manpower facilities.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I did not ask the minister if he had worked out an agreement with Consolidated, I asked whether arrangements had been made to give assistance to these employees when moving, which comes under the manpower program?


Otto Emil Lang: As I indicated to the hon. member, the rules are certainly being applied. Such assistance as is possible under the rules is being made available to them.


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: hesitate to give a definite date, Mr. Speaker. I hope there will be a statement later on.


Mr. Comeau:: In light of the APEC report, can the minister say whether science policy will directly encompass regional strategies for technology and innovation?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: This will be dealt with in a peripheral way, Mr. Speaker.
*
* *



WHEAT-ESTIMATED ACREAGE TO BE SEEDED NEXT SPRING

John (Jack) Henry Horner: I wish to direct a question to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. I understand that when the minister was in western Canada last week he advised the farmers that they could grow more wheat. Would the minister give the House the benefit of his wisdom and inform us the number of acres the western farmers can seed to wheat next spring?


Otto Emil Lang: I did that not long ago, Mr. Speaker, when tabling the proposals for next year. If the hon. member reads through the proposals he will see that at the back there is a table indicating a possible acreage system.



PRESENCE OF RUSTY BEETLE IN WHEAT SHIPMENTS- SOURCE OF CARGOS

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that inspections were made of the grain shipped to various countries, and which is reported to have rusty beetles, has it been determined whether these cargos were from grain held at terminal elevators or from grain at country elevators which was trans-shipped?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: I will look into that, Mr. Speaker. To the extent we are able to determine that, I will advise the hon. member when the information is available.
* *
*
* *
*



SCIENCE


Louis-Roland Comeau: 1
have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. In light of the conclusion of the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council that a broadened economic base for the Maritimes will substantially depend upon technology and innovation, can the minister inform the House when a science policy for Canada will be announced?
[Mr. Trudeau.)



POSSIBLE BRITISH ENTRY INTO EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY-CANADIAN CONTINGENCY PLANS

Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: My question is for the
Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It is in connection with the remarks the minister made to the effect there are serious risks that the eventual membership of Britain in the European Economic Community will lead to discriminatory arrangements that will affect Canada. Is the minister or members of his department making
N ovember 10, 1970

contingency plans against this eventuality? If so, when will he be in a position to announce these contingency plans?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what is meant by risks. If the hon. member is asking whether we are having discussions with the EEC or with the government of the United Kingdom looking for ways and means by which the damaging effect on Canadian trade of the enlargement of the community could be remedied the answer is yes, we are doing that. It is difficult to predict five, six or seven years in advance what will need to be done to accommodate ourselves to this event.


Max Saltsman: A supplementary question. I appreciate the discussions being carried on with members of the EEC. However, in view of the serious effects Britains membership in the community will have on Canadian trade, is the minister discussing contingency plans or programs on which Canada might embark in the event these programs do not meet with success?


Jean-Luc Pepin: We will do that as much as possible.



TRANSPORT


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: My question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the importance of rail transportation to the government's regional development policies and employment in the Atlantic area, can the minister, who reports to Parliament for the Canadian National Railways, ensure that no action is being taken by the CNR to discontinue rail service on the short line in the province of Nova Scotia?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: will be glad to bring the representations of the hon. member to the attention of the CNR. I believe I will be discussing the whole matter with them next week.



REDUCTIONS IN RAILWAY SERVICE-REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE

['Mr. Speaker, we are waiting for directions from France as to the level at which representations will be requested and only then shall I take a decision.']
John Leroy Skoberg: 1 have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the drastic reduction of rail transportation in this country, will the minister be kind enough to refer this entire subject, including the National Transportation Act as it now exists, to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No,
Mr. Speaker, not as such. Of course, there will be adequate opportunity for the appropriate committee to deal with this subject when dealing with the CNR estimates and in various other ways.
Inquiries of the Ministry



Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I want to direct to the Prime Minister.
I want to know whether the Prime Minister intends to represent Canada personally at General de Gaulle's funeral as President Nixon said he would represent the United States?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we are waiting for directions from France as to the level at which representations will be requested and only then shall I take a decision.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Murray McBride (Lanark-Renfew-Carleion):: I wish to direct my question to the President of the Privy Council. In view of the fact that we are on the eve of November 11, is the minister in a position to advise the House when the veterans' pension legislation will be introduced?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It had been our hope to introduce this legislation in the House before November 11, Mr. Speaker. We will have it very soon.



STATUS OF VETERANS HOSPITALS-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT

Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: A supplementary question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Shortly after November 11, will the minister make a statement on motions as to the status of veterans' hospitals in Canada, particularly those in Saint John and Halifax?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker, that will not be necessary.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A supplementary question. Perhaps the minister did not get the full purport of my question. I ask if we can expect a statement. It must be necessary because some changes are contemplated. These changes have been in the air for the last several months, if not years.


Jean-Eudes Dubé: When there are changes, Mr. Speaker, they will be announced in the proper way.

November 10, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs if there is any reason why he cannot file notice of the legislation this afternoon so the country will know about it tomorrow?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jean-Eudes Dubé: The country can now take notice that legislation will be introduced very soon, Mr. Speaker.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, November 9, consideration in committee of Bill C-181, to provide temporary emergency powers for the Preservation of Public Order in Canada-Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)-Mr. Laniel in the chair.
The Deputy Chairman:: When the committee rose last evening we were studying clause three of the bill.
On clause 3-Unlawful Association.

I want to remind hon. members that towards the end of last night's sitting the hon. member for Matane informed the committee of a proposed amendment which is in itself a new drafting of the French version of clause 3, which does not change its substance.
The Chair has some reservations about the amendment and would be prepared, at this stage, to hear the hon. member for Matane and allow him to set forth his motives for submitting the amendment.


Mr.   De Bane@: Mr. Chairman, I think that in Beau-chesne's, in citation 400 or thereabout, it is stated that an amendment may be moved providing it does not alter the substance of the clause; that is plain common sense.
If a word is missing in a text and that, through this fact, it becomes impossible to enforce the law, one can move an amendment in order to add the missing word or letter, and this should not preclude a member from moving later a substantive amendment.
I tried to demonstrate that the French translation, while correct, was not in keeping with the spirit of the French language, then later, I moved a substantive amendment. I believe the two are quite compatible. We must start with the amendment dealing with the translation, then, I shall move another one dealing with the substance.
Then I think that if I am allowed to suggest to the House that there is a word missing in a sub-clause, this does not affect my right to introduce an amendment to that sub-clause.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Does the Minister of Justice agree that this amendment merely relates to a change in the translation, in which case every reasonable member of the committee would surely agree to it? If that is all the amendment put forward by the illustrious hon. member is about, we could surely agree to it and get it over with.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, as I said yesterday evening, perhaps the hon. member is not satisfied with the translation. This translation was examined on two or three occasions. Perhaps it is not as polished as the hon. member would like it to be, but I feel that, legally, it is correct.


Mr.   De Bane@: Mr. Chairman, if I may reply to the Minister of Justice, I shall say two things. The first one is that the bill-

I will try to say it in English. Quebec's problem is not a problem of language. As a French Canadian, I do not fight to say "eheval" instead of "horse". It is not a problem of language, it is a problem of culture. It is not a problem of poverty, it is a problem of dignity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr.   De Bane@: While, as the Minister of Justice says, the French text is correct, I say we do not write that way in French. The laws which are made in the Province of Quebec are not written in that way. I have myself tried to put this into the French language because, in fact, this special law is so largely applicable to French speaking Canadians. I have prepared a translation of the whole bill and I have given it to the Minister of Justice. I am putting forward, without reference to the substance of the clauses, a better translation and one which has been checked by a specialist in these matters. While I agree that the translation made by the translation bureau is correct, it is not really correct French, because translation into any language is more than words-it is a way of saying something.


Mr. Deachman:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.


An hon. Member:: He is already speaking on a point of
order.


Grant Deachman: We have enough people in this House who speak English, but we do not speak as if we were writing a government bill. We speak English, but we would certainly expect to find different language used in writing a government bill.


Gérald Laniel: Order. I might bring to the attention of the hon. member for Matane and of the committee generally, the fact that we are not dealing at this stage with a translation. The French text and the English text are both official here and are original texts. If an hon. member wishes a text to be changed he should, in the opinion of the Chair, present an amendment to-change an original text. If the committee attempts to

November 10, 1970

become some kind of linguistic assembly with regard to interpretation or translation, I think we shall be here for a long time on all our legislation. This is the opinion of the Chair. If the hon. member for Matane wishes to put an amendment to change part of the wording, the Chair will be ready to accept it but, when we come to a clause of a bill, and he wishes to substitute one text for another,
I think it would be very difficult to accept.

At this stage, I would remind the hon. member for Matane that according to Beauchesne, and I quote:
It is irregular to propose to leave out all the words from "That" to the end of a clause in order to substitute other words, as such an amendment is in the nature of a new clause.
According to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Form, the hon. member for Matane may vote against clause 3 which is under consideration and if the clause is not adopted, then he may propose a new French version of clause 3.
At page 551 of the 17th edition of May's Parliamentary Rules and Forms-and I am making an attempt at translating the text into French-one can read:
Furthermore, an amedment may not be moved ... to substitute in effect a new draft for an existing clause.

The English wording of May's 17th edition at the bottom of page 550 and the top of page 551 reads as follows:
Furthermore, an amendment may not be moved ... to substitute in effect a new draft for an existing clause.

If I take these two reference as a guide it seems to me that at present the Chair cannot accept the amendment of the member for Matane as it is formulated now.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, I am in complete agreement with what you just said. Last night, I listened closely to the statement of the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane), and I came to the conclusion that here in Ottawa, we had nothing left to envy the Quebec National Assembly: we now have our "Jean-Noel".
I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Deachman), who says that if we accept the French version proposed by the hon. member for Matane, we will have to reconsider the English version of the same clause.
At any rate, Mr. Chairman, whether clause 3 is worded in the jargon of the law or in excellent French, as stated by the hon. member for Matane, the fact remains that before the courts, we will witness unending quibblings by lawyers concerning the interpretation of this clause 3.
But right now, Mr. Chairman, I think that we are losing valuable time and that we should decide immediately on the matter.
[DOT] (3:20p.m.)


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Chairman, I feel that the matter being raised here is one of some importance,
Public Order Act, 1970
particularly in view of the fact that the bill has direct and specific application to a problem that lies within the borders of the province of Quebec. Although the bill is a national statute, and obviously has application to the whole country, presumably the legislation will be read and understood primarily by the French-speaking people of this country.
If there is any danger at all that the French text is in fact a literal translation of the language used in the first instance in an English statute, then I think the minister has a very real responsibility, not only to the Frenchspeaking people of the country but also to his own government and to this Parliament, to make sure that the text does not give the impression, as the hon. member for Matane has suggested, that the legislation is a sort of colonial statute. There is as much in the spirit of the law as in the letter of the law, and in dealing with the sensitive issue with which this House has been seized over the past few weeks I find it remarkable that the minister would not offer the benefit of the doubt to a member of this House whose mother tongue is, in fact, French.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. The Chair does not feel that we are discussing the whole problem of translation but that we are discussing it in relation to a specific amendment. I do not think this is the time to question a decision of the minister. We are discussing the rules of the House, not addressing ourselves to the decision of the minister to accept such an amendment.
The basis for the decision of the Chair at this stage is that the amendments presented to the committee on the different clauses of the bill are not, in the opinion of the Chair, to be regarded as translations but are to be dealt with on the basis of their substance. It is for the members of the committee to decide whether they accept the substance or want to change some part of the amendment. It is difficult for the Chair to accept the argument that one text should be substituted for another text because linguistically it is better.
I do not think the Chair can entertain the other argument made by the hon. member as to the application of the bill to one province or another province. Some hon. members from that particular province are accepting the bill. We could have a debate that would move quite a distance from the subject before the committee at the present time.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, I very much resent the degree to which the Chair takes a debating position on a matter of substance.


Gérald Laniel: Order. The Chair also takes exception to the argument advanced by the hon. member and would ask the hon. member to revert to his argument on the amendment.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I am fully prepared to discuss the substance of this amendment, not only for its own sake but also because I am fully aware, as are all hon. members, that these amendments are being put forward on each clause, so to speak, because in

November 10, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
the view of the hon. member for Matane the translation does not effectively state the content of the clause in the French language. This is why, through you, Mr. Chairman, I am suggesting to the minister that he give serious consideration to the rewording of the text so that we will not produce a text that will have some counter-productive effects in its application.
I feel that there is an opportunity, during the early stages of this legislation, for the minister to make a clarifying statement in order that we do not have to face this question continually throughout the passage of the bill. I am asking for this kind of assistance in order to facilitate the passage of the bill, not to delay it. As the matter stands now, we are being forced to repeat this debate on each and every clause of the bill, which I suggest would be wasteful of the time of the committee. I believe the points raised by the hon. member for Matane to be well taken, and I ask the minister to give them very serious consideration.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, may I just reply to two great authorities on the French language, the hon. member for Matane and the hon. member from Prince Edward Island. I want to explain to them, as I have to the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs who have been made aware of the drafting process, that for the last three or four years there has been no such thing as a literal translation from one language to another language in the preparation of bills, either from French to English or from English to French. The policy memorandum is prepared in each of the two official languages, and they are both quite separate. One is prepared in the English language by a common law lawyer, the other in the French language by a civil lawyer from Quebec. The two versions are not prepared for literal comparison; each version grasps the concept that it is wished to insert into the bill. That being so, translations are not literal one from the other.
Secondly, I have heard no criticism from the attorney general of the province of Quebec, who has primary responsibility for administering the bill in the French language. He has had a copy of it ever since the bill received first reading.
I can only say again to the hon. member from Prince Edward Island and to the hon. member for Matane, who moved the amendment, that those charged with the responsibility for administering the bill have had an opportunity to review the legislation and are satisfied that, within the limits of human frailty and the literary boundaries of both languages, the bill does in fact do what it attempts to do.


Mr.   De Bane@: Mr. Chairman, I am ready to wager that this text was written in English only, and I would say that there is indisputable evidence of it, especially if the situation has not improved since I left the Department of Justice.
What I wish to say, Mr. Chairman, since there is a debate on a procedural point, is that, according to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, citation 408, and I quote:
The Committee can so change the provisions of the bill that when it is reported to the House it is in substance a bill other than that which was referred. A Committee can negative every clause and substitute new clauses, if relevant to the bill as read a second time.
So, once again, Mr. Chairman, the wording of my amendment, and I say this in all modesty, appears to me to be more French, if I may express it thus, and a closer translation of the official version. I had no intention, when I presented my amendment, to change the English version.
In any case, I would not want to delay unduly the proceedings of the House. If such is your decision, Mr. Chairman, I will only read the texts I have proposed, without tabling them, and I will be satisfied with making substantive amendments.


Gérald Laniel: Considering the last remarks of the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane), he does not intend to move his amendment. Therefore-


Mr.   De Bane@: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I said "If such is your decision".


Gérald Laniel: I must point out at this stage that the Chair feels that the amendment tabled has not yet been put to the House and cannot be accepted as an amendment to the French version of clause 3.
If the hon. member for Matane wishes to put his amendment in another form, if he asks the House to substitute certain words after such and such a line, or the fourth word of a given line, I do feel the committee would not refuse him the right to do so; but he must base himself on the interpretation and substance. But he cannot do it, as he apparently intends to do now or later for several other clauses, on the basis of the translation. Then, if he moves an amendment to correct some lines or parts of a clause, the Chair has no other choice but to accept his suggestion.


Martial Asselin: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
You are overlooking an important point of the Standing Orders. When an amendment to a legislation has been put forward by a member, it no longer belongs to the member but to the House. Even if the member wished to withdraw his amendment, Mr. Chairman, he would have to ask unanimous consent of the House. Otherwise, we would have to vote on it.


Gérald Laniel: Order. I must point out to the hon. member for Charlevoix that the amendment has never been put. It has not been presented to the House, but only tabled for the sole purpose of allowing members to read it beforehand. This somewhat complicates our procedure. It has been done as a result of an understand-

November 10, 1970

ing among the parties, in order to facilitate consideration of the proposed amendments. The present one has not yet been moved as such.


Mr.   De Bane@: 
John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, once again the hon. member is changing the French text. I suggest that the committee should not accept the amendment.


Mr.   De Bane@: This is word for word what was said yesterday.


Gérald Laniel: Order. At any rate, I must point out to the Minister of Justice that the Chair still allowed the hon. member to move an emendment to change the wording because, according to the rules of the House, he is allowed to change some words.
I must read at once the member's motion. It is moved by the hon. member for Matane that all the words following "association" which is found in clause 3 of the bill now under consideration be replaced by the following words:
-known as Front de Liberation du Quebec and any successor group or successor association of the said Front de Liberation du Quebec, or any group or persons or association that advocates the use of force or the commission of crime as a means of or as an aid in accomplishing the same or substantially the same governmental change within Canada as that advocated by the said Front de Liberation du Quebec, are declared to be unlawful associations.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I do not object to your courtesy towards the hon. member who has just moved a third French version of his amendment. However, I think that we should turn down this third version as we did the second and the first.


Mr.   De Bane@: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman.
What I have just heard is totally and completely invalidated by yesterday's Hansard. What I did, Mr. Chairman, was to move a change in clause 2 (d) which says that "the unlawful association" means "an unlawful association". I suggested that the definition contained in clause 3 should appear in clause 2 which already contains the definitions. Last night, I moved another definition. The Chair asked me not to read the whole definition but to start after the first three or four words, which I have just done.
Public Order Act, 1970


Gérald Laniel: However, the Chair should point out to the hon. member for Matane that the point raised was not a question of privilege but rather an exchange between the hon. member and the Minister of Justice.


Mr. Lachance:: Mr. Chairman, we must recognize that an amendment is before the House and that we will have to vote on it. It is hard for me, at this time, to reach a decision on this matter. I wish to ask the Minister of Justice whether this amendment allows the legislation to reach its aim. Indeed, if the new wording is actually good, I do not see why we would not vote for it.
I wish the Minister of Justice would tell us whether the aims of the legislation will actually be realized by the new definition or if the previous one would be more appropriate?


John Leroy Skoberg: If I understood correctly, Mr. Chairman, the question was asked of the Minister of Justice. I am wondering whether the Minister of Justice has enough consideration for the House to at least acknowledge the questions asked of him in order that we may have the opportunity to assess the merits of the question.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I have already answered that question on two occasions. The difficulty here is that the hon. member for Matane does not understand the relationship of Section 3 of the bill to the second preamble, since it must be interpreted in accordance with the second preamble. Taken together, the texts in both English and French as they now read incorporates, in the opinion of those who advised me on those matters, the purpose of the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Gérald Laniel: Is the Committee ready for the question? All those in favour will please rise. All those opposed will please rise.
Amendment (Mr. De Bane) negatived: yeas, 10; nays 44.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Gérald Laniel: I declare the amendment lost.
Shall clause 3 carry? The hon. member for Matane. [Translation]


Mr.   De Bane@: I should like to remind Your Honour that I have moved a second amendment which reads as follows:
That the words: ... that advocates the use ... be deleted in line 6-
-as well as the following words, and that they be replaced by the following words:
"Designated or described in an order of the Governor General in Council".
Mr. Chairman, allow me to say a few words about the meaning of this amendment.
1054

November 10, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
Since the first amendment which I moved has not been carried, I refer to the wording which is proposed to us.
One can read on line 5 the following words:
-or any group of persons or association that advocates the use of force or the commission of crime as a means of or as an aid in accomplishing the same or substantially the same governmental change within Canada as that advocated by the said Front de Liberation du Quebec-
The French wording is as follows:	. .identique ou a
peu pres identique..the English wording reads:

"The same or substantially the same". As I was quoting yesterday from Webster's Third International Dictionary, "substantial" means the most important part related to something. Then, the question arises, what is the most important part of the FLQ.

In reading the preamble, one finds that the legislation is aimed at the FLQ, while in section 3, one finds that three types of associations are singled out: The FLQ, its successors or any other group with the same or substantially the same views.
I tried yesterday to demonstrate how difficult it is to know which criteria should be used in determining whether an association is aiming at the same goals as the FLQ. First of all, what are the FLQ's objectives? To say that it is the independence of Quebec is absolutely wrong. To say that it is the welfare of the workers is utterly false. To say that they have been written in a formal document is also false. The content of the FLQ's manifestoes changes daily.
In view of the power given to the peace officers to arrest on mere suspicion an individual falling into one of those three categories, it is desirable to limit the scope of this bill. This is why I move that each association be mentioned in an order in council. Faulty as it might be, this procedure will enable us at least to debate the government's decision. Otherwise, we will hear from the court, after several months of proceedings, that an individual already arrested and detained without bail, was actually a member of an unlawful association provided for by this bill.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman-


Gérald Laniel: Order. The Chair will put the motion first.

The hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane) moves to replace that part of clause 3 beginning on line 6 with the words:
-"that advocates"-
-up to the end of the clause by the words:
-"designated or described in an order of the governor general in council".

It is my interpretation that the hon. member for Matane wishes to replace all the words after the word "association" on line 6 by the following words: I shall read his amendment as it is in French.

-"designated or described in an order of the governor general in council".
The hon. member for Calgary North. Did you want to get up on this?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say something, not only on the amendment but also on the clause. I wish to refer for a few moments to the royal commission on security because we have heard government spokesmen make frequent reference to the responsibility of the Attorney General of the province of Quebec. I should have thought the government at least would have followed the recommendations of the royal commission on security, particularly since the report was published in 1969. Not only do I wish to refer to the report because of the interpretations, but also in order to bring to the attention of members of the committee, the fact that it has been suggested the government might have taken some action as long as two years ago. I wish to read a paragraph which I believe answers any argument that the government acted in time when there was a crisis. This paragraph deals with unlawful associations. It deals first of all with the administration of justice generally and reads:
However, if there is any evidence of an intention to engage in subversive or seditious activities, or if there is any suggestion of foreign influence, it seems to us inescapable that the federal government has a clear duty to take such security measures as are necessary to protect the integrity of the federation. At the very least it must take adequate steps to inform itself of any such threats, and to collect full information about the intentions and capabilities of individuals or movements whose object is to destroy the federation by subversive or seditious methods.
Here, in paragraph 22, is the part I think we should remember.
Although the more moderate elements of the Quebec separatist movement have up till now been conducting a largely political campaign, it appears to us that there is in certain quarters a tendency to resort to activities that could well be regarded as seditious.
That was written two years ago by the commission which investigated security in Canada. It said two years ago that this problem, the FLQ and its seditious activities, existed. Then, all of a sudden on Friday, at four o'clock in the morning, the government moves and says there is a crisis when this situation existed before.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. It is the opinion of the Chair that the hon. member for Calgary North is discussing the whole problem and is not relating his remarks to the amendment we have before us which is quite specific. The amendment is an attempt to define associations other than the FLQ that would be designated

November 10, 1970

by the Governor in Council. So, I think the hon. member's remarks are a little removed from that aspect.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, in his amendment my friend asks for a definition of the FLQ. I do not know what the FLQ is. I do not think the Minister of Justice can define it, and yet we are legislating on it. I should like someone to stand up in the House and define it. Nobody can define it. This is the point I am trying to make. Perhaps the royal commission on security defined it in paragraph 22. This may at least make his amendment sound, or make the clause sound or unsound. I should like to finish the few lines in question.
.-it appears to us that there is in certain quarters a tendency to resort to activities that could well be regarded as seditious.
Listen to this:
What is more, there is no doubt about communist and Trotskyist interest and involvement in the movement. Both groups have established "autonomous" Quebec organizations as somewhat transparent attempts to exploit separatist sentiment; members of both have achieved positions of influence in at least some of the separatist groups and agencies, helped by the often bitter factionalism within the movement itself. For these reasons alone it seems to us essential that the Canadian security authorities should pay close attention to the development of these particular elements-
I am sure at that time the Commission was dealing with the FLQ.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Then paragraph 23 of the report reads:
Foreign involvement is more difficult to establish with any certainty.
However, it is clear that there is evidence to this effect, and it is time the federal government moved. They have not moved for two years. They cannot explain today what the FLQ is but we will have to vote on it. We may have to go along with the government, but I would like the Minister of Justice or one of his law officers to tell me what the definition of the FLQ is. I do not know it nor does anyone in the Committee. What does it mean? Does it mean communism? As I understand it, it is any group or association that suggests that crime should be the means of change or that violence should be the means of change. That, as I understand, is the amendment to clause 3. Does this just apply to the FLQ, and what is the FLQ? Is it an association that stands for the two things I have mentioned, or is it something more than that? If a court can convict a person for belonging to the FLQ, can communists also be convicted, if that is what communism stands for? I am not here to define communism. I think this is a most ambiguous clause and I can see why the hon. member is concerned about its interpretation.


John Napier Turner: Speaking to the amendment of the hon. member for Matane, I said earlier that the Committee should read clause 3 together with the second paragraph of the preamble. Clause 3 reads:
The group of persons or association known as Le Front de Liberation du Quebec and any successor group or successor association of the said Le Front de Liberation du Quebec, or any group of persons or association that advocates the use
Public Order Act, 1970
of force or the commission of crime as a means of or as an aid in accomplishing the same or substantially the same governmental change within Canada as that advocated by the said Le Front de Liberation du Quebec, is declared to be an unlawful association.
The second paragraph of the preamble reads:
And Whereas the public order in Canada continues to be endangered by elements of the group of persons or association known as Le Front de Liberation du Quebec who advocate the use of force or the commission of crime as means of or as an aid in accomplishing governmental change within Canada with respect to the province of Quebec or its relationship to Canada-
On reading those two together, one sees that the clause makes an unlawful association of the FLQ or of any successor or substitute organization or of any other association having substantially the same purpose and using substantially the same means, namely, attempting governmental change in Canada by aid of force or by the commission of crime with respect to Quebec or its relationship to Canada. Those are the perimeters of the definition. They are more narrowly drawn than they were under current regulations to make it precise that this is the situation we are trying to meet.
The hon. member for Matane suggests that we eliminate the words that begin with:

-"that advocates"-

which would mean in English the elimination of the words:
-that advocates the use of force or the commission of crime as a means of or as an aid in accomplishing the same or substantially the same governmental change within Canada as that advocated by the said Le Front de Liberation du Quebec

He wants to substitute:

-designated or described in an order of the Governor General in council.

In other words, he wants to say that the FLQ or any other organization decreed by the Governor in Council is declared to be an unlawful association. This would be rendering illegal any association, no matter what it was, decreed by the Governor in Council. I do not think anybody in the House, except for the hon. member for Matane, would allow a crime to be created unilaterally by the Governor in Council or the cabinet.
For that reason, there is no way we can accept that amendment.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the minister answer one question before the hon. member for York South rises to speak? I hold in my hand a document by Mr. Elmer A. Driedger, Q.C., B.A., LL.B., assistant deputy minister and parliamentary counsel to the Department of Justice. At page 94 of his book "The Composition of Legislation" he sets out very clearly that a preamble can be used as a guide but cannot be used to interpret a section or sections of the act. Is the minister suggesting-and I am not
23226-67^

November 10, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
dealing with the point he made in reference to the amendment-that the preamble should be used to interpret the section of the act and must be read with that section so that it can be interpreted? If he is, one of the officers of the Crown disagrees with him.


John Napier Turner: I can cite other statements of Mr. Driedger which bear particularly on the point, and which would substantiate the contention that the preamble is part of the bill. It is a well known rule of statutory construction that a preamble may be referred to to give meaning to any provision in the bill. If, at some later stage in the proceedings, the hon. member wants me to produce authorities to that effect in the United Kingdom, in Canada and in the United States, I would be pleased to do so.


David Lewis: This is obviously one of the crucial clauses of the bill, and I want to say a few words on it if I may. First I want to express-


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. Is the hon. member speaking to the amendment?


David Lewis: I assure you, Mr. Chairman, that I am aware of the amendment and will speak to it. First, I want to express my doubts as to the value of making any organization unlawful, although, as I said in my remarks the other day, in my view this is a criminal conspiracy and against the law even now. But perhaps the minister could make some change to clause 3 that would make some of us less unhappy with the wording which now appears to go beyond what the minister wanted. Although obviously what the minister said with regard to the preamble is relevant, I wonder why he should leave it in doubt so someone will have to argue with reference to the preamble.
I cannot see how it is possible to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Matane. If I understand it, it means that the government will have the right to designate organizations as unlawful, against which there would be no appeal. No one dragged into court under that provision would be able to argue that the organization he belongs to is not unlawful, as he might if he were dragged in under this rather broadly worded provision. Under this provision he would at least have the right to argue that under the proper interpretation of the clause, the organization of which he is a member is not unlawful. If you give the government the legislative right to designate a list of organizations as being unlawful-I have not had a great experience in criminal law-but it seems to me to be simple logic that once the government has done that there is no argument about it. No one can argue as to whether or not the organization is unlawful if the government has so designated it.
I cannot think of any less desirable power to place in the hands of the government than this kind of power. Therefore, much as I sympathize with what the hon. member for Matane is trying to accomplish, I suggest to him with great respect that this proposal is a bad one and that it does the opposite of what he intends it to do. I believe that Parliament cannot give that sort of power to the government.
Now, if I may, I should like to turn to the Minister of Justice and ask him through you, Mr. Chairman, the following question in order to avoid any misunderstanding. As I will have occasion to say perhaps two or three times in this committee, and I do not intend to speak long now or at any other time, does he not agree that the difficulty about a bill restricting people's rights is that, in addition to any problem of the legal effect of the bill, there is the very real problem of the psychological effect of the bill, or the inhibitory effect it has on people's behaviour, the fear it arouses as to whether one can do this, that or the other thing? The fewer provisions you have in a bill such as this inhibiting people from doing perfectly proper things, the better the bill is. Therefore I wonder why, instead of leaving the interpretation to argument based on the second paragraph in the preamble, the Minister of Justice could not give consideration to placing those words right in this clause? May I just finish, Mr. Chairman, because that will take less time than for you to rise and tell me to sit down?
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Gérald Laniel: The Chair feels that the hon. member is out of order. The point he is making now could be made after the committee has decided on the amendment. There may be other hon. members who want to speak for or against the amendment. It is for that reason the Chair has interrupted the hon. member.


David Lewis: I must admit you are right, Mr. Chairman.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I pay tribute to the hon. member for Matane for attempting to deal with a very difficult problem in clause 3, although I do not agree with the method he has chosen. His amendment would give a wide power to this or any other government, and I do not think that would be wise. However, in presenting the amendment, he has brought forward a basic point to which the Minister of Justice did not respond when it was originally brought forward by the hon. member for Calgary North and referred to by the hon. member for York South. There is no substantive definition of FLQ, and using the preamble to do this is a debatable method. That is one of the weaknesses in this kind of legislation, or in the steps being taken by the government to outlaw the FLQ. I realize that is the substance of clause 3, and I will speak to that when we are dealing with the clause itself.


Mr.   De Bane@: Mr. Chairman, I only want to clear up a matter.
Obviously, it is complete nonsense to introduce a bill asking us to authorize the Governor General in Council to decree what associations are unlawful.
In its present form, the clause in question does not make sense. What I want to point out is that we are now experiencing a situation in which the government can, even today, if it so desires, pass orders in council.

While we are debating here this afternoon, the government has power, by virtue of the War Measures Act, to
[Mr. Woolliams.)
November 10, 1970

designate a lot of associations illegal by Order in Council. What I am suggesting now is that what the government can do by virtue of the War Measures Act be put in this law, which is to be in effect for a few months. What I am saying is that it should not be left to the court to decide whether somebody who has been arrested, who has been detained without bail because he is not entitled to it, is a member of an illegal association or not. Hon. members should remember that the Governor in Council already has the power to declare the association of which he is a member illegal. When the government decided the FLQ was illegal, it did so by virtue of an Order in Council passed during the night. Suppose that tomorrow people from Newfoundland were to kidnap a minister of the Crown, a federal minister whose riding is in B.C. Would their organization be similar or substantially similar to the FLQ?
The government might proclaim the War Measures Act a number of times and declare associations illegal by Order in Council. The government has this power already, and so I am saying, put it in the law which is to be in effect for three months. If the government decided one of the parties, especially the opposition, was illegal, then the government would fall before the opposition. We would have a debate in Canada about that decision.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I wonder if I may ask the hon. member if that is not precisely one of the reasons we are hoping to get rid of the War Measures Act, because it does give such sweeping powers which now are taken away by this bill. However, his amendment would restore that power to the government, would restore that right to declare any organization in Canada illegal?


Mr.   De Bane@: If I may answer through you, Mr. Chairman, if we pass this bill it will be effective for three months, but the other measure is there permanently.


Gérald Laniel: The hon. members have heard the amendment moved by the hon. member for Matane. Those in favour of the amendment will please rise. Those opposed will please rise.
Amendment (Mr. De Bane) negatived: Yeas, 1; nays, 55.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 3 carry?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: May I ask the minister a question with particular reference to the answer that he just gave to the hon. member for Calgary North. I believe the minister indicated that he is placing great stress on the preamble in order to define the FLQ. Because of the ambiguity of this particular procedure, leaving the committee in a very peculiar position, I would like to refer the minister to Driedger on "The Composition of Legislation" at page 94 where we find the following:
If a preamble is intended to have legal effect-
I stop there. I think this is the minister's intention.
-it would perhaps be better to insert in the act itself a section that will produce that effect;
Public Order Act, 1970
Could the minister indicate why he found it unnecessary to include within the definition clause the second statement of the preamble?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I am sure members of the committee appreciate that this was a very difficult section to draft, both in the regulations and now in the bill, because the FLQ does not have a corporate charter, nor does it set forth its objects and purposes in the way that the purposes and objects of an association are usually set out. I put the question that hon. members are now putting to me to those who advise me, who happen to be among the best legislation drafters in the country. They assured me that the best way to state the purposes, in so far as they can be rendered precise enough to deal with the organization we are trying to combat, but also general enough to deal with any attempt by that organization to disperse, or regroup under another name, or operate through allied organizations having the same purposes and using the same means, was to use the words that are chosen here.
The words in the preamble are left in the preamble to apply evenly throughout the act because the preamble applies throughout the act. If they were incorporated in this clause, then there would be an unevenness which would not achieve the result we are trying to achieve. I can assure hon. members that I, personally, went over this point very carefully with those who are charged with advising me, who are the successors of Mr. Driedger.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: But you cannot discount it.


John Napier Turner: I am not discounting it, but I can read you other passages from Driedger to support what I am saying. I may add he is now retained by the Department of Justice in the Chair of Legislation Drafting that we set up last year in the University of Ottawa. I can assure hon. members that the results we have attempted to achieve will be achieved by the way the bill is now constructed. We rang the changes on the various ways so that this could be done.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
First of all, as the regulations were drafted, they gave rise to a situation, as hon. members know, where attorneys general across the country might well have looked at words such as "having as its aim and purpose the overthrow of the government by violence, crime or force," and drawn certain broad conclusions. We had to indicate that the governmental change within Canada was to be accomplished by groups such as Le Front de Liberation du Quebec. The key words are, "governmental change within Canada". Those words are interpreted by that part of the preamble which reads, "... governmental change within Canada with respect to the province of Quebec or its relationship to Canada". As I say, those words are found in the preamble. It will depend on judicial construction. Of course, we can never be sure how they will be construed. Nevertheless, on the basis of the rules of statutory interpretation that have been given to me, I am assured that the purpose of the bill will be achieved.

November 10, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I listened to the minister very carefully, and I have not the slightest doubt that he has given this very careful attention and is no more desirous than anybody else of widening the ambit of the law. But he has not persuaded me that it would not be of value to incorporate the words to which he referred in the second paragraph of the preamble in clause 3.
As the minister was speaking, I glanced through the bill quickly. I think I am not wrong in suggesting that every clause of the bill bears some relationship to the unlawful association, directly or indirectly. Therefore, the definition of unlawful association governs the entire bill, in my submission. I ask the minister, in what way would it harm the bill if clause 3 were to incorporate the words he read in the following way, so that the clause would read, ".. any group of persons or association that advocates the use of force or the commission of crime as a means of or as an aid in accomplishing the same or substantially the same governmental change with respect to the province of Quebec or its relationship to Canada .. ? Why could we not take out the words, "within Canada"? In themselves the words, "within Canada", add very little.
I have not written out my proposed amendment. If you will give me a moment, Mr. Chairman, I can write out my amendment, which would read that clause 3 shall be amended by deleting the words "within Canada" on line 10 of page 3, and substituting therefor, "with respect to the province of Quebec or its relationship to Canada." I beg your pardon. We should delete the words on lines 10, 11 and 12, beginning with "within Canada as that advocated by the said Le Front de Liberation du Quebec" and substituting the words I indicated. I will write out my amendment, if I may.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, perhaps we could stand the clause and go back to it when the hon. member has had time to finish his drafting. When you are dealing with this type of organization, drafting a bill is not easy as some hon. members might suggest.


Mr. Baldwin:: That is what the Supreme Court says.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Before clause 3 carries, Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak on it.


Some hon. Members:: It is to stand.


The Chairman:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause stands.
On clause 4-Offence and punishment.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I wish to move an amendment to subclause (c) of clause 4 of the bill. I wish to say a few words in introduction. In my remarks last Thursday, I said I was not quite certain whether this bill was any longer necessary. The report of the evidence of Bernard Lortie, as my colleague, the hon. member for Timis-kaming pointed out quite properly last night, indicates that there appears not to be the kind of organized plan that some people in Canada thought there was. In any
IMr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton).]
case, if Parliament is to give to the police forces extended powers, which this bill seeks to do, I suggest that those extended powers should be carefully limited to those that are absolutely essential to accomplish the purposes which the bill appears to have.
We should not go one iota beyond the most essential powers needed for the purposes of the bill.
I find the words, "communicates statements on behalf of" in subclause (c) very disturbing. The other day the minister dealt with this. He said that in his view those words mean that there would have to be an element of agency on behalf of the unlawful association before a person could be said to have committed an offence by communicating whatever he may have communicated. He gave us an example. I ought to look up Hansard to get his exact words. Perhaps he will forgive me for not having them; I have not had the time to look them up. I think he said that you must decide whether the journalist permitted himself to be used as an agent of the unlawful association or whether he was merely reporting something that was news about the unlawful association. I think that is the kind of statement the minister made. Why should anybody be put in that position? Why should you include language in the bill which makes a reporter doubt whether he has authority to exercise the freedom of the press? That is what we are talking about here. Why should those words be included, unless they are absolutely essential. Why should you have words in this bill, unless they are absolutely essential, that create censorship, whether the minister intended it that way or not.
There have been quite a few instances of this sort of thing flowing from the regulations under the War Measures Act. As I remember it, this clause is word for word the same as a similar clause in the regulations. As a result of that subsection in the act, a number of newspapers were interfered with by the RCMP. The editors of those papers wondered whether they should publish the manifesto of the FLQ as information for students at the university or whether they could publish certain comments with respect to the situation in Quebec. The RCMP went into the editorial offices of student newspapers and into the printing shop where those student newspapers were being printed, looked over the material, and said, "No, you cannot put that in; you can only put that in." According to my information, and I assure you it is accurate, in some cases they said, "You can print it, but not this paragraph and not this sentence". If that is not censorship, I should like to know what is. And by whom is there censorship? Not by the Minister of Justice and not by the Attorney General; it is exercised by the police. This will continue to happen.
As the minister may know, an association of journalists in Quebec met the other day and expressed concern about this particular wording in subclause (c). They had already experienced, they said-and I am merely referring to what they said-an interference with what they considered their right and duty as journalists to give information to the Canadian people. We have had examples of this kind of thing with radio stations and television stations. No matter how much the minister or anybody else may deny it, I have not any doubt in my mind
November 10, 1970

that there has been interference and censorship of news that has come over the air and on the screen. If I thought that this power was necessary, if I thought that the purpose of the bill could not be served without these words, perhaps my attitude would be different. But it would require an awful lot of facts, as well as much argument, to persuade me that these words are necessary. What ought to be prohibited in this bill is communication by representatives or purported representatives of the unlawful association. Their work of communicating is clearly unlawful.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I repeat what I said earlier with respect to clause 3. It is not only what the legal effect may be, it is the moral inhibiting effect of a clause like this on reporters, people in universities, teachers and professors. They will constantly be asking themselves whether they can do this or that or whether it is against the law. As has been stated in many stories, publishers and printers are likely to seek advice from their lawyers. The lawyers are likely to reply that they are not quite sure, they have some doubt and therefore it is better to cut that portion. That is always safe advice for a lawyer to give his client.
The inhibiting effect of the words, "communicates on behalf of" is extremely dangerous. It is the same kind of idea to which we are objecting, and will be objecting, in a number of amendments which we will move, not for the purpose of weakening the essential thrust of the bill, but cutting out the unnecessary interference with civil liberties and rights which are not essential to the fight against the terrorists organization known as Le Front de Liberation du Quebec. I therefore, move:
That clause 4(c) of Bill C-181 be amended by deleting therefrom the words "on behalf of or" so that the subclause shall read as follows:
(c) communicates statements as a representative or professed representative of the unlawful association.


Mr. Hogarth:: Mr. Chairman-


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. The Chair will put the motion. The hon. member for York South moves:
That clause 4(c) of Bill C-181 be amended by deleting therefrom the words "on behalf of or" so that the subclause shall read as follows:
(c) communicates statements as a representative or professed representative of the unlawful association.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Will the hon. member for York South permit a question? At what university did the Royal Canadian Mounted Police exercise surveillance over the student newspaper?


David Lewis: At the moment I cannot-my memory is-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Lewis: Just take it easy. My memory is either the printers of the Carleton newspaper or that of some other university. I will find that out for the hon. member. I assure him that what I said is accurate, even though I
Public Order Act, 1970
cannot give him the name of the university at the moment.


David Orlikow: May I be permitted to add to that, Mr. Chairman? The Ottawa newspapers, radio and television stations were very explicit that the issue of the Carleton University newspaper which carried the FLQ manifesto was not printed until after the RCMP were called in by the printer. I express no view of whether they should or should not have printed the manifesto. The RCMP instructed that there should be a paragraph printed on the front page making it clear that the manifesto was printed only as information and did not express the views of the editorial staff.


An hon. Member:: What is wrong with that?


David Orlikow: It may be that we are living in a time when censorship is necessary. I suggest to the hon. member who asked "What is wrong with that?" that if we are to have censors, it should be understood who they will be. The censor should be the Minister of Justice. I am not being critical of the RCMP, but in my view police officers are not competent by their education, training and experience to be censors of sedition, pornography or anything else. I am opposed to censorship, but if we must have censorship, it must be done by properly qualified people who have been designated by specific legislation. In answer to the question asked by the hon. member for New Westminster, in the case of the Carleton University newspaper the RCMP gave instructions as to what had to be added before something could be printed. I say that is censorship.


John Napier Turner: Do you have first-hand knowledge of that?


Douglas Aird Hogarth: The hon. member for Don Valley and I happened to be at Carleton University on that day. We were advised by students closely connected with the newspaper that the printer, who is not in the university, was advised by his solicitor to have the RCMP look at the newspaper before being published. I want to make clear that the RCMP did not walk in just to look at the newspaper.


David Lewis: I was at the same meeting. I think the hon. member is correct on those details. However, it remains true that the printer, publisher or someone was concerned about it because of the wording of the regulations under the War Measures Act, which is the same wording as in this bill. I submit we ought not to create the kind of situation where a publisher or printer is afraid of what may be published and, therefore, calls in the police for advice. For the purpose of this bill, that is completely unnecessary and undesirable.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I think that hon. members might concede that the purpose of clause 4(c) which makes it an offence to "communicate statements on behalf of"-and I will leave those words in abeyance for the moment-"or as a representative or professed representative of the unlawful association", if

November 10, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
this bill is to be accepted, is a relevant offence. Anything that deliberately extends the seditious conspiracy is a part of the offence. These words are found in the definition of sedition, the communication of words. There will always be a situation where a line must be drawn. This will have to be drawn in every individual case on the basis of individual facts as to what is legitimate reporting of news and fair comment on the one hand, and participation in the seditious conspiracy on the other. That is always a question of judgment. There is no way we can codify this to anticipate all arguments that will arise. That is what the courts are for. There is no way the members of this committee will be able completely to resolve the problem.
The drafting attempts to separate fair comment and reporting of the news from statements that may be made by way of an agency relationship on behalf of the FLQ or any other "unlawful association". The word "representative" is used. That implies an agency relationship or professed relationship, he who is speaking professedly on behalf of someone else. The idea of representative implies an agency situation. If the word "representative" was the only word, I submit that the agency relationship would have to be proved as well, namely not only that the person acted as an agent but had authority to act as an agent.


David Lewis: You also have the words "professed representative".


John Napier Turner: This is why the words "on behalf of" are used in addition, so that ratification by him who authorized the agency would not have to be proved. Obviously, that is beyond proof. These words "on behalf of" or "pour" in French are quite indicative of objective analysis and absolve the Crown from proving the ratification of the agency relation. I said yesterday, in answer to questions put on a point of order by the hon. member for Calgary North, that there is nothing in this bill which constitutes censorship. The legal advisers who report to me gave an opinion to that effect to the CBC who requested it. The reason we gave an opinion to the CBC is that we have a lawyer-client relationship with that corporation, it being a Crown corporation; we do not give legal opinions usually, but the corporation sought one. The hon. member says he is interested not only in the legal aspects of this, but in the moral aspects of it; a climate of fear has been set up, so he says. I wonder whether he could really explain to the committee how the withdrawal of the words "on behalf of" would change that climate, whatever it is, and I do not intend to concede that argument to him. It really would not affect the moral situation at all.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Faced with the extraordinary situation which confronts us, the FLQ, and the extraordinary remedy we are seeking to apply to it as precisely as we can, without casting the net too wide but casting it wide enough to immobilize the conspiracy we are attempting to immobilize, there is in this bill and in the regulations, some flexibility.

We think we have probably profited from the experience we have had over the last two or three weeks. We have had the flexibility I mentioned in the speech I made supporting the proclamation of the War Measures Act. We are dealing now with regulations which one can amend, and which we are now, in effect, amending by this bill, on the basis of the experience we have gained and we think we are as precise as we can be.
I do not believe the withdrawal of the words "on behalf of" would cure the situation to which the hon. member for York South referred in his argument. I believe it is incumbent upon, sometimes in difficult circumstance, a newspaperman who may come into possession of an FLQ communique to ponder what he should do with it. He is free to publish it. There is nothing in this bill which says he cannot do so, but he has an obligation, probably, to give it to the police first in order not to put himself in a position where he is obstructing justice under the terms of the present provisions of the Criminal Code.
There is the question of how he responds. When, for instance, in connection with the photographs of Mr. Cross over last weekend, several photographs were sent to Quebec newspapers, they sought out the Attorney General of Quebec. After one of those photographs had been sent to the Associated Press in New York, and that photograph was published, the Attorney General said "Publish the photographs". I think what the Attorney General of Quebec is trying to do is get a bit of lead time on these communiques so that immediate publication will not impede or obstruct the legitimate investigation of sources of the FLQ. The legal effect here is as precise as we can make it. We want to impede communication only in so far as that communication may represent an agency or representative aspect. In order not to have to prove the agency as a complete concept, in which event we would have to seek out and prove the ratification by a principal, the words "on behalf of" are added to make it perfectly clear with what we are dealing. That was the mental process we went through.


David Lewis: I am glad to hear there was one.


John Napier Turner: Thank you. I understand the difficulty, but I do not think the difficulty to which the hon. member addressed himself would be resolved by the omission of these words, and the effectiveness of the provision would be weakened by their elimination.


Gerald William Baldwin: I have listened with great care to what the minister has said. I think that he has given us, unconsciously, the real reason for the inclusion of the words "on behalf of". I still believe this is a form of indirect censorship. The minister may shake his head. He may not think so. But he has indicated that people in the position of the newspapermen in Montreal, in order to make sure that they would not be caught by the terms of this clause, would be obliged to go to the authorities and ask for permission to do certain things. This is an indirect form of censorship. I believe this is what the provision is meant to ensure; it certainly is the result.
November 10, 1970

We support the amendment. We would have moved a similar amendment ourselves but we knew the hon. member for York South had put one down. The argument advanced by the minister would be fascinating if put forward before an appellate division, especially if the minister were arguing on behalf of the Crown that the words "on behalf of" were wide enough to catch people who communicated statements when they could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt to be representatives of the association. But there are two aspects of the bill which ought to be taken into account when evaluating the minister's statement.
It is not a question under this legislation of facing a charge, getting out on bail and then having a fine academic argument in a case where both the accused and the Crown are represented by counsel. In clause 9, we see what can happen to a person or an individual who is charged with communicating statements on behalf of an association. He can be picked up and detained for the period provided in the legislation. This takes him out of this fine, academic consideration of what the law is and whether or not he can be convicted. The second point is that in normal circumstances one could get into a fine academic argument concerning the burden of proof, mens rea, the necessity of an offence being proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the weight of evidence. But there is in this legislation an evidential clause which provides that communication "on behalf of" is assumed to be an offence though there is an opportunity for an accused person to prove his innocence. Clause 8 makes this provision beyond any shadow of a doubt. It reads:
In any prosecution for an offence under this Act, evidence that any person, either before or after the coming into force of this Act... communicated statements on behalf of or as a representative or professed representative of the unlawful association . .. is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary proof that he is a member of the association.
So, there are two retroactive aspects to this bill. I understand that this may be necessary. This is extraordinary legislation and I recognize it as such, but when we come to consider the amendment before us, provisions of the type to which I have drawn attention must be taken into account. Obviously, the government did take these things into account, because when we look at the regulations which were promulgated under the War Measures Act we find precisely the same wording as to the definition of the offence in clause four. But when we come to the question of the evidential aspect, it appears that the government had second thoughts because the words "on behalf of, or" are omitted and we find in 8(c) of the regulations under the War Measures Act the words "communicated statements of the unlawful association as a representative or professed representative of the unlawful association." The words "on behalf of, or" are omitted.


John Napier Turner: That was an oversight. Those words are caught in 4(c) of the present regulations. That is a regulation similar to the subsection of the bill we are now bringing in.
Public Order Act, 1970


Gerald William Baldwin: I know that as far as putting the burden on the accused to prove himself innocent is concerned, those words were omitted from clause 8. The minister says that this was an oversight. I would hate to think that an oversight of that character would be introduced into legislation of this kind, with the effect that it might have.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I therefore suggest, on those two grounds alone, that since we are dealing here with people who are not associated or connected with the unlawful association or the FLQ, the minister should relent and accept the very useful amendment introduced by the hon. member for York South.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, before the hon. member for York South and the hon. member for Winnipeg North escape, I wanted to inform them that I recall either having read in Hansard or heard the Solicitor General deny that the RCMP had been censoring or attempting to censor student newspapers. May I say I have been advised by the RCMP that student newspapers across Canada are not being censored by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Application of the powers contained in the War Measures Act has been restricted by the RCMP to the activities of the Front de Liberation du Quebec. In the event that a publisher questions the RCMP as to the legality of printing matter involving the War Measures Act, the publisher's attention is drawn to section 4, along with the suggestion that he discuss the question with his solicitors. No university student newspaper editors were warned that action would be taken against them if they distributed newspapers.
That is the information I have from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and it is my recollection that the Solicitor General said something to that effect in the House.
May I suggest to hon. members that statements of the kind they made in the House are statements for which they ought to take responsibility. If there is evidence of censorship and they make that statement, then they have a duty both to the House and to this committee to disclose the details of the censorship and where it occurred.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister a question arising out of the statement he made. Is the Minister of Justice saying that the RCMP have informed him that they did not look over any editions of university newspapers; that on no occasion did they tell either the publishers or the editors of newspapers that certain texts must be eliminated or certain paragraphs or sentences added, or should be added, before the material is published?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I have made perfectly clear what the RCMP instructions were to their own people and what their advice was to me. If the
1062

November 10, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
hon. gentleman has evidence to the contrary, I would be grateful to have it, and I think the committee would too.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I would be very happy to follow up the matter. I was one of those who asked the Solicitor General that question, and he made the denial to which the Minister of Justice alluded. I put the question down for discussion at ten o'clock, and I have been attempting to get in touch with the university newspaper editors who have been mentioned. Let me assure the minister that I will get the information, and if the information is incorrect I shall say so. If the information is as alleged, then let me also inform the minister that he has not been given the full story by the RCMP.


John Napier Turner: I am suggesting to the hon. member that before he alleges something he take some responsibility for his statement and do his checking before-hand.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I alleged nothing when I asked my question; I simply asked the minister about it. So far as taking responsibility is concerned, this question was discussed in some considerable detail on radio and television programs, including the CBC Ottawa. I suggest to the minister that he should not be so touchy. If he thinks I am wrong, then either he or the RCMP should long ago-this matter occurred several weeks ago-have been in touch with the CBC in Ottawa so that some correction could have been made. If the minister or the RCMP have not been in touch with CBC television in Ottawa, then I suggest it is because there is a good deal more to the story than the minister has told.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Chairman, I have sympathy for what the minister is trying to do with these three or four contentious words, but for the reasons advanced by the hon. member for Peace River, as well as by the mover, I think I would have to support the amendment.
However, there may be a way out, and I suggest to the minister that perhaps my wording would commend itself to him. It seems to me the minister is trying to cover those people who fall short of being representatives or professed representatives of the Front de Liberation du Quebec. For example, they may be the sort of people who stand on street corners and try to muscle their way into the organization by being apostles for it yet do not know anyone in the FLQ with whom they can join up. In other words, they could be people who are preaching for a cause but are also putting forth the message of the FLQ and in that sense, though not a representative of the FLQ, giving it help.
It has also been very well argued that there is the danger that the minister is looking here for an intentional act but that the words "on behalf of or" can be taken in another way. Let me give a very obvious example taken from this miserable history of events leading up to this bill, namely when Radio Canada broadcast the FLQ manifesto as part of the bargaining going on at the time. This manifesto was broadcast because it was in the

public interest to do so. It might also have saved somebody's life; at least that was the hope at the time. The fact was that while the broadcast was being made in the public interest, and while the newspapers were publishing it also in the public interest, the wish of the FLQ for publicity was also being met. In that sense, statements were being communicated on behalf of the FLQ. There was no criminal intent, no mens rea; nevertheless it served the purpose of the FLQ, though their own intention was to serve some other purpose.
Therefore, I suggest that instead of using words like "on behalf of or" some thought be given to using the words "with the intention of promoting the interests of", which I think is what the minister has in mind. Although I would support the amendment, it unfortunately leaves a vacuum in the type of behaviour at which the minister is aiming. Perhaps the simplest course, having advanced my argument, is to present an amendment along the lines I have suggested after we have voted on this particular amendment.


Mr. Kaplan:: Mr. Chairman, after listening to this discussion, it becomes obvious that the supporters of this amendment are using the language to which they object to object to the policy-if it is a policy-of censorship or indirect censorship by the RCMP. I myself do not think the language is as objectionable as the practice to which they have referred. Perhaps the Minister of Justice would indicate that the RCMP have no authority at all to give legal opinions, which could be construed as a form of censorship or indirect censorship. Surely, it would be most objectionable for lawyers in Canada to direct their clients to the RCMP for legal advice. Certainly, this is not done in connection with any other matters. It strikes me as most improper for the RCMP to hold themselves forward or to be held forward as experts on the law.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
As a matter of administration, the RCMP and all government officials should be told that they have no business whatsoever giving legal advice to members of the public. It can quite rightly be construed as a form of censorship, direct or indirect. I wonder if the minister could assure us that there is or will be a directive issued to law officers under the jurisdiction of the government to the effect that they are not to give legal opinions.


John Napier Turner: Certainly, I will confirm that, Mr. Chairman. The advice I received from the RCMP is quite the opposite. When they are faced with this problem they refer the particular publisher or printer to his own lawyer. I think it would be inappropriate that a lawyer, in reverse, should refer his client to the RCMP. The RCMP are not in the business of giving legal advice as hon. members know. When they get it and follow it, they get it from the Department of Justice.


Gerald William Baldwin: That is why there are so many acquittals.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take a few moments to express my views on the amendment before the House. This bill applies to an organization that is rather difficult to define.
November 10, 1970

We are not here attacking a co-operative, a credit union, the Bar or the College of Physicians, for instance. The FLQists, as far as I know, do not have membership cards. It is therefore difficult for those who are responsible for applying the law to identify the members of the FLQ or those who strive to achieve its aims.
Mr. Chairman, that is why the following words were inserted in clause 4 (c):
-on behalf of or-
If those words were not included in the clause, some people could work for the FLQ without being liable to prosecution, since they would not be or profess to be members of the FLQ. Here, Mr. Chairman, some claim it is censorship. But I wonder if a different yardstick is not applied to the same thing.
I recall that not so long ago the House passed a legislation against hate propaganda and hon. members will remember whom was attacked by the so-called hate propaganda.
In such cases, censorship can be allowed. But if publishing texts, information orders or instructions such as those that were given between October 5 and 15 is forbidden, it is said that censorship is applied and that it should not be.
Mr. Chairman, I feel that some distinctions must be made. For example, if the RCMP forbids a university newspaper to publish the FLQ manifesto, as some of our large newspapers did, that could perhaps be considered as censorship, but if the board of the university prohibits the management of a university newspaper from publishing that text, I think that it will no longer be the same kind of censorship. Then, an organization which can allow or prevent the publication of such and such a thing is involved.
Mr. Chairman, in our Canadian universities and junior colleges, the publication of quite inflammatory articles has in the past been allowed and as far as I know, we have never heard protests from those who object to clause 4(c).
In my opinion, clause 4 (c) should be passed as such and I intend to support it.


Gérald Laniel: Order. Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Lewis) negatived: yeas, 17; nays, 41.


Gérald Laniel: I declare the amendment lost. Shall clause 4 carry? It is my duty to interrupt proceedings in order to proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, before you leave the chair I shall make a proposition which you can carry forward when you go to the chair. I should like to ask the committee, when they become the House, if they would be prepared to give up private members' hour-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
Business of the House


Gerald William Baldwin: -provided we agree to sit long enough tonight to end all questions put in the House.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, 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 Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles); Finance, suggested interim income tax changes to assist pensioners; the hon. member for Fron-tenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Alkenbrack); Egan-ville, progress toward new federal building; the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett); Industry, Trade and Commerce, European common market and Canada's agricultural products, discussion at congress.
It being five o'clock the House will now proceed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I now formally put my suggestion forward as the representative of the official opposition.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member for Peace River would withdraw the condition that we must finish tonight. Certainly, members in this party want to finish as early as possible. Yet at the same time, we intend to make what we regard to be serious arguments on serious amendments. If we have this hour now, it may be that we would finish tonight. However, I believe it would be unwise and undesirable from our point of view to make such a commitment.
a (5:00p.m.)


Gerald William Baldwin: With the type of flexibility we will display when we form the government, I am prepared to accept that condition.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that the private members' hour will be dispensed with under the conditions outlined and agreed between the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and the hon. member for Oshawa Whitby (Mr. Broadbent)?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The committee will resume.

November 10, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-181, to provide temporary emergency powers for the preservation of public order in Canada-Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)-Mr. Honey in the chair.
Russell Clayton Honey: The committee is now on clause 4. Shall clause 4 carry?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I made the argument before, so I shall simply read my amendment which I hope will find favour. I am sorry I do not have a French translation. It would involve replacing one French word "pour" by several but if my amendment should carry in English presumably the law officers of the Crown would draft the French version. My amendment is:
That clause 4(c) be amended by deleting the words "on behalf of or" and replacing them with the words "with the intention of promoting the interests of".
The purpose of the amendment, very briefly, is to show that the element of intent is clear.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order. I shall put the amendment. It is moved by Mr. McCleave that clause 4(c) be amended by deleting the words "on behalf of or" and replacing them with the words "with the intention of promoting the interests of". Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.'


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on the amendment. Those members in favour of the amendment will please rise. Those members opposed to the amendment will please rise.
Amendment (Mr. McCleave) negatived: yeas, 14; nays, 41.


Russell Clayton Honey: I declare the amendment lost.


Robert Jardine McCleave: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think there was a vote on the other side in favour of the amendment that was not counted.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, I wish to move two amendments to clause 4. I will start with the first one and when it has been decided upon, I will move the second one. I move that paragraph (g) of clause 4 be struck out and replaced by clause 4A which reads as follows:
A person who advocates, promotes or engages in the use of force or the commission of crime as a means of or as an aid in accomplishing the same or substantially the same governmental change within Canada as that advocated by the unlawful association, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to life imprisonment.
Mr. Chairman, I move this amendment because we are dealing with an organization whose avowed purpose, according to its manifesto and all sorts of indications given to the Canadian public and to the government, was to overthrow, by force, the government of Canada.
So, Mr. Chairman, as this is an organization that advocates means that are not accepted in the free world, in Canada, we must take drastic measures to bring the revolutionaries to reason and to give cause for reflection to those who might be tempted to imitate or support them.
Mr. Chairman, that is why I propose that the wording of clause 4 be made a little more stringent, as a deterrent for those who would use violence to achieve their purposes.


Gérald Laniel: Order. The hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) moved:
That subclause (g) of clause 4 be deleted and replaced by the following:
A person who advocates, promotes or engages in the use of force or the commission of crime as a means of or as an aid in accomplishing the same or substantially the same governmental change within Canada as that advocated by the unlawful association,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to life imprisonment.
Is the House ready for the question?


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, I only want to say that this subclause should become clause 4A.


Gérald Laniel: For clarification purposes, the hon. member for Abitibi tells me that his amendment is only designed to delete subclause (g) of clause 4 and to replace it with clause 4A which will read exactly as the amendment I put earlier.
Is the House ready for the question?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I would like to reply briefly to the hon. member. The five year period with regard to the offences mentioned in clause 4 is the same as the one provided under the War Measures Act. According to section 4 of the latter, a term of imprisonment not exceeding five years may be imposed for violations of the regulations.
I believe that in this case, it is not logical for us to attempt to weaken the legislation altogether, any more than to isubstitute the five year penalty for life imprisonment.
Therefore, a person who comes under clause 4 (g) to which is related the amendment moved by the hon. member, may at the same time come under the provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with sedition and be liable to a maximum penalty of 14 years.
Thus, the Crown would be free to choose between clause 4 (g) of this bill or the provisions of the Criminal Code. That is why the five year penalty provided in clause 4 (g), compared to that of 14 years under the Criminal Code for sedition, is a little more consistent with the 14 year penalty provided in the Criminal Code

November 10, 1970

than with the life imprisonment suggested in the amendment moved by the hon. member.
For these two reasons, I feel I must recommend to the committee that the amendment be rejected.


Gérard Laprise: Not being a lawyer, I find it difficult to follow the hon. minister. He suggests that when it comes to convicting those who are found guilty under clause 4-if I understood him correctly-it will be possible to use either Bill C-181 or some other existing provisions in the Criminal Code.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I wonder who will decide whether the five or the 14 year penalty will be imposed. I imagine that the Crown Attorney will call for a penalty of 14 years in certain cases, and that the defence attorney would rather be in favour of the five year penalty. You would certainly see, as we have seen before, unending battles between equally qualified lawyers.
This is why, in my opinion, the bill under study should be as specific as possible in order to avoid any controversy. This act should be strict enough and clear enough that those who would have to enforce it, or those who would intend to break it, know what to expect.


Gérald Laniel: Is the House ready for the question? Hon. members have heard the text of the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Abitibi. Will those in favour please rise. Will those opposed please rise.

Amendment (Mr. Laprise) negatived: Yeas, 3; Nays, 45.


Gérald Laniel: I declare the amendment lost.


Mr.   De Bane@: Mr. Speaker, one of my colleagues was asking me why I voted in favour of the amendment. I did so because I feel that subclause (gr) of Clause 4-


Gérald Laniel: Order. I must point out to the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane) that no comment is permitted on a vote taken in the House.


Mr.   De Bane@: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a statement which is one of the most important I will make during the debate. I submit that it is absolutely essential to add on line 14 the words "without justification or legitimate excuse for which the burden of proof is on him."
It will be replied that the adjunction of these words is not essential to prevent such offenses from being, in legal terms, offenses of strict responsibility. For my part, I submit that this argument is false legally, and I will explain.
First of all I wish to refer to page 454 of the first addendum to the treatise written by one of our most prominent authorities on criminal law, Mr. Justice Lagarde, and published in 1967. In this particular instance, I find an explanation of the concept of strict
Public Order Act, 1970
responsibility, or the actus reus without the mens rea. I quote:
Strict responsibility or absolute responsibility obtains whenever the legislation makes an offence of the mere occurrence of an action or omission, i.e. the mere occurrence of an "actus reus" irrespective of the "mens rea".
The most common example is this: When you go through a red light, whether intentionally or inadvertantly so as not to miss the train or the plane, you still commit an offence.
What is important is not the intention.
And I continue to quote Mr. Justice Irenee Lagarde:
1 We can say that there is strict liability when
(a)	the statute which creates the offence indicates that there is absolute liability in express and formal terms, OR
(b)	after consideration of the object and the subject of the legislation concerned, one reaches the conclusion that there is a necessary implication.
2. Necessary implication:
The word "implication" means that a notion gives rise to another, either under the guise of a necessary effect, or by experimental liaison.
Generally, there is a strict liability offence by way of necessary implication in case of minor offences, punishable under summary conviction and which are classified under the general title of public welfare offences. These offences are related mainly, but not exhaustively
(i)	to provincial laws on alcoholic beverages, hunting and fishing, traffic regulations and stocks and shares;
(ii)	to federal laws on food and drugs, weights and measures, temperance in Canada and regulations under the War Measures Act.
One might wonder whether the opinion of Mr. Justice Lagarde when he says that offences to regulations under the War Measures Act are strict liability offences, is the personal opinion of a magistrate or whether it is based on judgments previously delivered.
In view of the authority of Mr. Justice Lagarde who, in Quebec, is the highest authority at the moment in criminal law and who, incidentally, is the only French-speaking authority, it would be ridiculous to suppose that his opinion is not based on judgments previously delivered by the Courts.
Doubtless this is the reason why at page 466 of the first supplement of his "Droit penal canadien" published in 1967, Mr. Justice Lagarde refers to two rather recent rulings. He deals first with the case Rex vs Duquette (76 C.C.C. 304, Quebec) when one of Duquette's employees sold codeine without prescription. According to the judge, "such sale was made by the employee in the discharge of his duties but against instructions received. This is a strict liability offence which makes the employer responsible for his employee's action".
Mr. Justice Legarde summarizes the judgment in the case of Rex vs Rhyno, (1945,83 C.C.C., 186) in the following way:
The sale of gasoline without coupons constitutes a strict liability offence. The service station operator is guilty by proxy of the offence perpetrated by his employee in the discharge of his duties.

receiving a statement from the FLQ to the effect that they are completely willing to surrender and to release Mr. Cross would not have the right to communicate it.
Third, a citizen would not be able, without infringing subclause (e) and particularly the words:
"to anyone for the benefit of the unlawful association"
to supply funds for the services of a lawyer.
I therefore suggest that the following words be added to line 14:
without justification or legitimate excuse, the burden of the proof bearing on him.
I should like also to point out an apparent incoherency in the sentence. Indeed, clause 4 stipulates that the maximum penalty is five years for a person who resorts to the use of force, is a member of the FLQ, communicates information to the FLQ or advocates the use of force to attain the aims of the FLQ.
Clause 6 says that such a person is liable to a fine of five thousand dollars and to imprisonment for a term of five years. Since clause 4 specifies a maximum term of five years and clause 6 mentions a term of five years and a $5,000 fine, there is an apparent incoherence between the two clauses.
As far as I am concerned, I think both clauses 4 and 6 should provide the same penalty, and I quote:
-is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a fine of not more than five thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to both.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I think we should add to clause 4 two subclauses to cover the offence defined in clause 6, because clause 5 deals with an accomplice after the fact while clause 6 deals with another offence which should be included in clause 4 under subclause (h) which could read as follows:
An owner or lessee of any building, room, premises or other place or a person having the charge or the surveillance of any building, who knowingly permits therein any meeting of persons who violate one of the preceding paragraphs.
And as in clause 8-


Gérald Laniel: Order. Merely to assist the hon. member, I still feel he should limit his remarks to clause 4, which is now before us. I do not believe that it can be helpful, at the present stage, to put forward amendments to clauses 6 and 8.
I will point out to the hon. member that the Chair does not have in hand the text of the amendment to clause 4.


Mr.   De Bane@: Mr. Chairman, I would not want to discuss clause 6 before we get to it. However, it seems strange to me that clause 4 should list offenses, clause 5 deal with accomplices after the fact while clause 6 goes back to deal with persons who would encourage the FLQ or other unlawful associations to meet on their premises, or allow them to do so.
Public Order Act, 1970
And that is why I said that it might be advisable to add clause 6 to the enumeration of offences already mentioned in clause 4. Subclause h) should be added to clause 4 and would read as follows:
takes part or is present at a meeting of members of the unlawful association
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that subclauses b) to g) read as follows:
b)	fait ou declare faire office de dirigeant d'une association illegale,
c)	communique des declarations, soit au nom de l'association illegale, soit a titre de representant reel ou declare de cette derniere,
d)	appuie l'association illegale, preconise ou encourage le re-cours a des moyens illegaux pour la realisation des desseins ou la mise en oeuvre des principes ou lignes de conduite d'un telle association,
e)	foumit une contribution quelconque, sous forme de cotisa-tions ou autrement, a l'association illegale ou a qui que ce soit a l'avantage d'une telle association,
f)	sollicite des souscriptions ou contributions au profit de l'association illegale, ou
g)	preconise, encourage ou pratique le recours 4 la force ou au crime comme moyen de rcaliser ou contribuer 4 realiser au Canada un changement de regime politique identique ou analogue 4 celui que preconise l'association illegale.
I want to say that I would support subclause (c) were it to be amended in such a way as to read "en faveur" instead of "pour le compte de". May I point out that the legislation read "pour le compte de" and in the press release issued by the department, it was "en faveur de". Here the word "pour" is used. The translation as it now stands is slightly ambiguous, I think. It should read instead, in subclause (c):
communique des declarations, soit au nom de l'association illegale, soit 4 titre de representant reel ou declare de cette derniere.
So I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, copies of all the amendments I propose.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Gérald Laniel: Order. It is not easy for the Chair to find its way among the amendments. First of all, I should suggest to the hon. member that he cannot introduce alternate amendments to the House.
I believe that the Chair should now put the question on a series of amendments or an omnibus amendment. Thereafter, if the hon. member feels that the substance of his alternate amendments is not somewhat similar to the former amendments, he can introduce another amendment.
The hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane) moves that the last three lines of clause 4 be deleted and replaced by the following:
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a fine of not more than five thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or to both.

November 10, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
The hon. member for Matane also moves the addition of the following phase at line 14 of clause 4:
"without justification or legitimate excuse, the burden of the proof bearing on him".
Besides, the hon. member-


David Lewis: Which subclause?


Gérald Laniel: Line 14, page 3. The first line of subclause 4 ends with the word "who" and the hon. member requests the addition of the following words: "without justification or legitimate excuse, the burden of proof bearing on him".
Further, in subclause (b)


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.
I should like to make some remarks on subclause 4. Two amendments have just been introduced. However, they seem to me somewhat dissimilar. I would be inclined to support the first amendment, which I quote:
Is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a fine of not more than $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years-
-while I object to the second one, which adds to the text so that it reads as follows:
without lawful justification or excuse, the onus of which lies on that person.
I cannot see how anyone could justify his membership in the unlawful association, or act as an officer of this unlawful association or violate any other of the subclauses of this clause.
I wonder, Mr. Chairman, whether we should not vote separately on these amendments.


Gérald Laniel: Order. The Chair agrees with the point raised by the hon. member for Abitibi to the effect that the committee will proceed by stages, voting separately on each of the amendments. Therefore, I now read the first amendment moved by the hon. member for Matane, to strike out the first three lines of clause 4 and to substitute the following words:
Is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a fine of not more than $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to both, anyone
Is the House ready for the question? I recognize the hon. member for Matane.


Mr.   De Bane@: I have moved this amendment because of the maximum sentence provided by clause 6 when someone permits at his place a meeting of the FLQ. This is the maximum sentence provided in clause 6. Clause 4 provides a lesser maximum sentence for anyone who uses force to overthrow the government than that provided in clause 6. This is an obvious inconsistency.


John Napier Turner: I do not want to go into this matter in too much detail. Clause 6 mentions the
maximum because of the effect of section 622 of the Criminal Code. Those who compare the clause with this section of the Criminal Code will realize that there is a dinstinction.


Gérald Laniel: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. De Bane) negatived; Yeas, 3; nays, 40.


Gérald Laniel: I declare the amendment lost. I will now put the second amendment of the hon. member for Matane.

The hon. members have heard the amendment moved by the hon. member for Matane. Will those in favour please rise. Will those opposed please rise.
Amendment (Mr. De Bane) negatived: yeas 3; nays 40.
It is moved by Mr. De Bane that line 16 of clause 4 of Bill C-181 be amended by adding, after the word "who", the following words:
-without lawful justification or excuse, the onus of which lies on that person.


Mr.   De Bane@: Mr. Chairman, I would like to answer to the hon. member who asked me a while ago how one could have a lawful excuse or justification. There is under our law two kinds of offences: for the first one to carry an indictment, there must be an intent apart from the action, and for the other, the mere fact of committing an action, regardless of the intent, is enough to have the accused convicted.
In the second case, the action is sufficient to have the accused convicted, no intent being required.
I gave a while ago the example of going through a red light. Whether the person does it intentionally or by accident or because he was in a hurry, he has gone through a red light and is quilty ipso facto.
This is what we call strict liability. And for most of the crimes provided for in the Criminal Code, apart from committing the action, there must be a criminal intent. And I have quoted about ten sections under which even treason or the traffic in counterfeit money is a crime without lawful excuse or justification, the onus of which lies on the person who committed the act.
Therefore, in addition to committing the offence, one must have the intention of doing so. I have quoted some cases which demonstrate that this bill is creating strict responsibility offences. Fortunately those who legislate are not those who interpret the laws. This is indeed the basis of democracy. According to jurisprudence, the war measures regulations must be interpreted as creating offences of strict responsibility.
[The Deputy Chairman.]
November 10, 1970

I gave the example of the employee who sold gasoline without coupon and without his employer's permission. The judge ruled that this was an offence against public order.
Clause 14 of this legislation states that sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Regulations under the War Measures Act are supposed to be reproduced here. Therefore the judge will interpret them as creating offences of strict responsibility.
I will give some examples of crimes which, in my humble opinion, are cases of "strict responsibility".
Subclause (e) mentions a person who "contributes anything as dues or otherwise to the unlawful association or to anyone for the benefit of the unlawful association".
Any lawyer that would give his time and that of his employees to defend an unlawful association would be guilty, in my opinion, unless were added the words "without legitimate excuse, the proof of which is incumbent on him" or, for example, in subclause (a), "if a police spy admits he is a member to infiltrate an unlawful organization", in my opinion both are committing an offence.
In subclause (b): "acts or professes to act". The same would happen to a spy and I could take all the other cases.
This is why according to the provisions of subclause (c), in my opinion it is forbidden with or without police authorization to pass a communique. Jurisprudence is categorical on this point.
The War Measures Act regulations are drastic. We are not interested in the intent of the accused. For my part, I would suggest that the onus lie upon the Crown. Obviously, when we say "being a member", it is impossible to have lawful justification or excuse but in other cases, such as the one I mentioned earlier in connection with subclause (e), an attorney cannot work without a fee and I will attempt to prove that the wording of clause 5 leaves no doubt about that.
I have quoted quite a number of sections from the Criminal Code and even from the omnibus bill passed two years ago which provide that a person who, without lawful justification or excuse, refuses to submit to a breathalyzer test or a person who, without lawful excuse, threatens someone with a weapon commits an offence. Such a law is therefore necessary, otherwise-again, I may be mistaken, but I have taught law at university and I have talked with prominent legal experts and with teachers of criminal law-we have before us a case of "strict liability" under section 14 of this act and in the light of statute law.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Gérald Laniel: Is the committee ready for the question?
Public Order Act, 1970


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. De Bane) negatived: Yeas, 1; nays, 45.


Gérald Laniel: I declare the amendment lost.

Before submitting to the House the following amendment of the hon. member for Matane, I will take the liberty of asking him to say what he wants exactly. In the wording before me, a correction was made and I wonder if the hon. member wants to say "dirigeant d'une association illegale" or "dirigeant de l'association illegale"-


Mr.   De Bane@: -de l'association, Mr. Chairman.


Gérald Laniel: If I understand the wording of the present act, I find that the amendment moved by the hon. member seems to be on all fours with it. Therefore 1 do not see how an amendment can be moved to a wording which is on all fours with subclause b).


Mr.   De Bane@: If you will allow me, Mr. Chairman, I submitted as a translation to subclause (b), not:
b) fait office ou declare faire office-
-which is a translation of the English, but
b) fait ou declare faire office-


Gérald Laniel: It is moved by the hon.
member for Matane to replace clause 4b) by the following:
b) fait ou declare faire office de dirigeant de l'association illS-gale.
In short, the hon. member deletes the word "office", the second word of the subclause.


Mr.   De Bane@: Exactly, Mr. Chairman. My amendment reads as follows: change from (b) to (g) in the following manner according to the texts you have on hand.


Gérald Laniel: Hon. members of the committee have heard the motion. Is it the wish of the committee that I repeat that amendment moved by the hon. member?


An hon. Member:: Dispense.


Gérald Laniel: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Gérald Laniel: Those members in favour of the amendment will please rise. Those members opposed to the amendment will please rise.
Amendment (Mr. De Bane) negatived: yeas 3, nays 40.
It is moved by the hon. member for Matane that clause 4(c) be amended as follows:


Mr.   De Bane@: The amendment being similar to the one that was moved, it is withdrawn.

November 10, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970


An hon. Member:: By unanimous consent.


Gérald Laniel: The amendment has not yet been put to the committee, so I do not think there is need for unanimous consent. We shall pass on to the next .amendment.

The hon. member for Matane moves that clause 4(d) be amended by replacing it by the following text:
(d) supports the unlawful association, advocates, or encourages the use of unlawful means for accomplishing its aims, principles or policies,
Is the House ready for the question?


Mr.   De Bane@: Mr. Chairman, may I call it six o'clock?


Gérald Laniel: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Gérald Laniel: Order. When the committee jcose at six o'clock it was considering an amendment moved by the hon. member for Matane which reads as follows:

The hon. member for Matane moves that subclause (d) ,of clause 4 be amended to read as follows:
(d) supports the unlawful association, advocates or promotes the use of unlawful means for accomplishing the aims, principles ,or policies of such an association.
Is the House ready for the question?

Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
During the taking of the vote:
The Depuiy Chairman: Order. It is known to all hon. members that it is not permitted to enter the House once a vote has been called.
Amendment (Mr. De Bane) negatived: Yeas, 0; nays, 31.
After the taking of the vote:


Gérald Laniel: I declare the amendment lost. [Translation]


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.
I merely wanted to draw your attention to Standing Order 12(2) and I quote:
When Mr. Speaker is putting a question, no member shall enter, walk out of or across the House or make any noise or disturbance.
I noticed all afternoon, Mr. Chairman, hon. members walking in or out at will during the taking of votes.
I thank you for having a moment ago called the House to order, even if the noise during the taking of the vote seemed to drown your voice. However, I would be grateful to you if you would point out again to the House the provisions of Standing Order 12.
The Depuiy Chairman: The Chair, as stated by the hon. member, has dealt with the matter during the taking of the vote, but this does not prevent a member, if ever it occurs again from raising the matter again.

The committee will now consider another amendment moved by the hon. member for Matane.


David Lewis: He is not here to move it.


Grant Deachman: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether it would facilitate the work of the committee if we grouped these amendments together and then voted on them.
The Depuiy Chairman: With regard to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, it is very difficult for the Chair to put forward some kind of omnibus amendment on which the committee would vote, so the suggestion cannot be accepted. With regard to the other point that was raised, the committee has just voted on an amendment presented by the hon. member for Matane and moved by him before the adjournement. Since the hon. member for Matane has just come into the chamber I will put his amendment to the committee.

It is moved by the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane) that subclause (e) of clause 4 be amended as follows:
(e) contributes anything as dues or otherwise to the unlawful association or to anyone for the benefit of such an association.
Is the house ready for the question?


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, what is the difference between the two clauses? What are we doing?


Mr.   De Bane@: I would answer that this is not the way I had moved the amendment. I had moved an amendment dealing with subclauses (b) to (g) of clause 4. Only a few words have been changed. At first I only read the translation.
With the unanimous consent of the House, Mr. Chairman, we could withdraw this amendment.


Gérald Laniel: Does the hon. member for Matane have leave of the House to withdraw the amendment which I have just read and which is relevant to subclause (e) of clause 4?

November 10, 1970



Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member for Matane to withdraw his amendments to clause 4(e)?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendments (Mr. De Bane) withdrawn.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


Gérald Laniel: In view of the fact that the other amendments to clause 4(f) and clause 4(g) have not been presented to the committee, there is no need for unanimous consent to withdraw them. Is it agreed that the Chair will not put them?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gérald Laniel: I have before me another amendment by the hon. member for Matane

who proposes to add a new provision to clause 4, reading as follows:
(h) or (t) takes part in or attends a meeting of members of the unlawful association.


Mr.   De Bane@: So, that amendment, Mr. Chairman, provides for the inclusion in clause 4 of the provisions of clause 6 because, as can be seen, clause 4 lists offences, clause 5 relates to complicity after the fact and, with clause 6 there is a reversion for the purpose of adding an offence that was omitted from clause 4.
So, I asked that clause 6 be incorporated in clause 4, since clause 5 which relates to complicity after the fact, deals with a subject altogether different from that of clause 6.


Gérald Laniel: Is the House ready for the question?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, before the vote is taken I must say that I cannot take part in it because I do not understand the amendment.


Gérald Laniel: Was the point raised by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka a point of procedure? The Chair did not hear what the hon. member said.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, I merely said that I did not understand the explanation and I could not, therefore, take part in the vote.


Gérald Laniel: It is moved by the hon. member for Matane that a new provision be added to clause 4, which would read as follows:
(h) takes part in or attends a meeting of members of the unlawful association.

Is the committee ready for the question?
Public Order Act, 1970


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. De Bane) negatived: Yeas, 1; nays, 50.


Gérald Laniel: I declare the amendment lost. The Chair has before it an amendment by the Minister of Justice which reads as follows:
That Bill C-181 be amended by striking out line 39 on page 3 and substituting the following:
"Canada with respect to the province of Quebec or its relationship to Canada as that advocated by the"-


Mr. Bechard:: Mr. Chairman, I regret to say that I disagree with you at this time, but we have not moved any amendment up to now.
So clause 3 has been allowed to stand.


Gérald Laniel: The Chair must nevertheless point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that it has in hand an amendment dealing with line 36 on page 3. And if I am not mistaken, line 36 is in clause 4 and not in clause 3. So I shall require some explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Chairman, never to my knowledge have the Minister of Justice or myself officially moved an amendment to clause 3. It has simply been translated and this suggestion, which might be made later, was deferred for printing purposes only.


Gérald Laniel: Order. The Chair was trying to make itself useful. Shall clause 4 carry?


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, I have here an amendment I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin).
Under clause 4, I propose to add subclause (a) which would read as follows:
4(a): A person who forcibly kidnaps one or more persons, confines them against their will, mutilates, tortures or injures them with the intent to kill or kills them, as a means of or as an aid in accomplishing the same governmental change within Canada as that advocated by the unlawful association, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to capital punishment or life imprisonment.
Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier today in an another amendment, I want this bill to be stringent enough to give cause for reflection to those who have committed such crimes or intend to do so.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, for clarification purposes, is this the amendment covering clause 4(b)?


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, since the amendments moved previously have been rejected, this clause would then become clause 4(a).


Gérald Laniel: If the Chair has understood it right, the hon. member for Abitibi means clause 4-A with a capital A to differentiate it from clause 4(a) with a small a?

Public Order Act, 1970


Gérard Laprise: No, Mr. Chairman.


Gérald Laniel: The hon. member for Abitibi moves that clause 4 be amended by adding the following:
4-A. A person who forcibly kidnaps one or more persons, confines them against their will, mutilates, tortures or injures them with intent to kill, or kills them, as a means of or as an aid in accomplishing the same governmental change within Canada as that advocated by the unlawful association, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to capital punishment or life imprisonment.
Is the House ready to vote on the amendment?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, if I understand the proposed amendment correctly, it aims at creating a new offence involving the death penalty or life imprisonment for anybody who:
-forcibly kidnaps one or more persons, confines them against their will, mutilates, tortures or injures them with intent to kill or kills them, as a means of or as an aid in accomplishing a governmental change within Canada as that advocated by the unlawful association.
If I may make a short review of the Criminal Code, I note that kidnapping involves at present a maximum life sentence as stipulated in section 233.
The offence consisting in mutilating, torturing or injuring with the intent of taking life or killing is mentioned in clause 210 of the Criminal Code and it involves a maximum life sentence.
Finally, to kill a person is murder, and the death penalty will be imposed if the victim is a policeman or a prison guard on duty at the time of the murder.
The amendment proposed by the hon. member raises the question of capital punishment, and I believe that, according to the resolution passed by the House in December 1967, with its trial period of five years, the House should have the opportunity to discuss once again this quite important subject before December 29, 1972, under section 4(1), chapter 15, of the Statutes of Canada, 1967-68.
Under the circumstances, I believe that the best way to handle the death penalty is not to amend this legislation which is quite general, but to give the House the opportunity to reconsider the question of the death penalty before the limit set under the present act, i.e. December 29, 1972.
For this reason, I think it would be more advisable to consider the whole question in general terms and not under this legislation.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


Mr. Thompson:: Mr. Chairman, I say to the Minister of Justice that I do not follow his logic. I think he is confusing the issue. The legislation we are dealing with is the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act. It is legislation designed to take care of a particular crisis; therefore it does not fall under the Criminal Code or relate to the legislation passed three years ago that put aside capital punishment for a trial period of five years.
[The Deputy Chairman.]
November 10, 1970
If we were to accept the logic the minister is using, the whole of the temporary measures legislation would be null and void because it would supersede the Criminal Code, and the argument is not on that point. It would seem to me that we want to put some teeth into this legislation. It is a temporary piece of legislation. There is to be permanent legislation, as I understand it, before the end of April that will amend the Criminal Code, and therefore this amendment as it relates to the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act is in my opinion valid.
I cannot accept the argument of the Minister of Justice because it does not relate to this situation. If it does, then everything we are doing here is out of order. I believe it is public opinion throughout the country and in this House that there should be teeth in this bill so that it will be a deterrent to those who commit the heinous crimes to which the legislation refers. I believe this amendment should have the support of the House.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, I must say that I have had some difficulty in attempting to follow the minister's argument. In introducing this amendment, I did not want to reopen the debate on capital punishment which started in 1967. As the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) just said we are now dealing with temporary legislation which will expire on April 30, 1971, and which applies only to one or several specific cases.
May I ask the minister what would happen if Mr. Pierre Laporte's murderers were discovered tomorrow morning; what would happen to them? Would they be given a medal for good behaviour or are they going to be punished as they deserve? This is what I want to know and what I would like the bill to be more specific about.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak briefly in favour of this amendment. I think the hon. member for Red Deer very correctly pointed out that this is a bill to provide temporary emergency powers for the preservation of public order in Canada. I emphasize the words "temporary emergency powers for the preservation of public order in Canada". There is no question in my mind about the need to have a strong deterrent in order to preserve public order at this time. This was the whole purpose of invoking the War Measures Act. The purpose was to create a deterrent and give the government the power necessary to deal with this emergency situation. There is no doubt in my mind that this amendment would create a deterrent in a society in which there is a great deal of unrest and concern.
In my estimation the Minister of Justice is very weak in referring to section 210 of the Criminal Code and suggesting that we have two degrees of murder, noncapital and capital, and that capital murder applies only to prison guards and policemen on duty. Every one of the 264 members of this House of Commons believes in his own mind that capital murder in respect of acts of treason or acts against the wishes of this or any other government in a lawful society, such as we have today in Canada, should involve the maximum penalty of death by hanging.
November 10, 1970


Grant Deachman: I do not agree with that.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We have one member who does not agree. Now I see there are eight. I count eight hands up, Mr. Chairman.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. The Chair finds it very difficult to hear what the hon. member for Crowfoot is saying.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I noticed a number of raised hands. Someone has accused me of not counting him, so there are nine.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member cannot count.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Nine members out of perhaps 150 members here tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The Minister of Justice jokes about this matter. Will he allow a free vote on this amendment? Will he stand up and say that members of his party can vote any way they like? Will he stand up and say that every member from the province of Quebec can vote the way his heart and mind dictates? He will not. He knows the party whip has things in hand. The minister laughs and jokes about this matter. It is a very serious matter today in Canada. We are confronted with acts of terrorism. We know that the War Measures Act was brought in because of an uprising within the country for the purpose of overthrowing the democratic rights of the people.


John Napier Turner: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Because the record goes out to a great many people, I should like it recorded that I am not joking or laughing at the issue.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: But the minister is laughing and joking at the amendment moved by an hon. friend to my extreme left. He is laughing and joking at this amendment.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: Tell the truth.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am telling the truth right now. I wish that every member of the party of the hon. member who told me to tell the truth could vote truthfully according to his conscience and the wishes of his constituents.


An hon. Member:: Come on, Jack.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: But no, the whips are on. The Minister of Justice could not rise to speak when I asked him to. He shied away from that point because he knew that if he did not, this amendment would carry. There is not a member of Parliament in the House who does not agree with this amendment and who does not believe that most of his constituents agree with it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: There are not nine members out of the 150 here tonight who can say, "We disagree with this amend-
Public Order Act, 1970
ment". Everyone here knows that their constituents agree with this amendment.


Mr. Francis:: We want to hear how your side votes on it.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Now we hear great comments from the hon. member for Ottawa West. Let him make his speech after I am through. I would like to see the name of everyone opposing this amendment on the record, because their constituents will long remember it. They will long remember the government that brought in the War Measures Act.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: This is the government that said there is terrorism and there is an uprising that is going to overthrow democracy. But each and every one of them will be turning against his constituents in voting against this amendment; there is no question about that. The minister drags out the five-year trial ban on capital punishment that was put into effect in December of 1967. We know that on that particular date the whips were on. But that does not necessarily apply to this act, because the bill before us is to provide temporary emergency powers for the preservation of public order within Canada.
There is no question in my mind that 70 per cent, 80 per cent, 90 per cent of the people of Canada believe that if a person is prepared to commit treason, to kill and torture human beings, good, law abiding Canadian citizens, he should receive the maximum penalty of death. I leave it to the government to decide by what means capital punishment should be applied, whether it be by hanging, the gas chamber or whatsoever method may be decided upon.
There is no question in my mind that most of Canada wants this amendment accepted and that most members of the House want it accepted. It is a cowardly act of the government to try to slide this amendment under the carpet tonight by dragging out the Criminal Code and saying that capital punishment is on a five-year trial period, so this amendment does not apply. This is a temporary measure for the specific purpose of preserving public order in Canada.
There is no doubt in my mind that capital punishment is in fact a deterrent. The Minister of Justice was a great believer in the value of a deterrent when it came to introducing the breathalyzer test. He used the argument that a deterrent was very important for the purpose of safeguarding persons using public highways. Now he does not believe in the value of a deterrent. He would rather have soldiers standing at the corner of every street, guarding every public building in Montreal with loaded machine-guns in their hands and fingers on the trigger. Is that not a deterrent? You bet it is a deterrent-but it is one that affects every law abiding citizen as he walks by the soldier with his finger on the trigger.
This amendment would bring in an effective deterrent for anyone committing a murder or an act of treason in order to create public disorder in an emergency situation such as the one we are now experiencing.

November 10, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
Everyone who votes against this amendment will be duly recorded and will not be forgotten in the minds of the public or in the minds of the members of this House because, as the government has testified, this is an emergency situation which needs emergency action. I know some of my friends in the Socialist party to my left do not believe in capital punishment, but they accept there is an emergency situation in Canada today. At least, I believe they do. They also accept the fact that at this time the government must have some extraordinary powers. Therefore, maybe as a temporary measure they would support this amendment.
I conclude by saying that 80 per cent or 90 per cent of the people of Canada would vote in favour of this amendment. There is no doubt in my mind that the day will come when Members of Parliament will be elected to speak as their consciences dictate and to speak for their constituents. They will not be buying party favours by kow-towing to the wishes of the cabinet. Maybe we are five or ten years away from that day, but I say the day will come when this House will be directed by the consciences of the people who are elected and not by the wishes of the almighty party in power or the wishes of the almighty Minister of Justice who is afraid to stand up and say to his party, "You can have a free vote on this issue. Vote the way your conscience tells you".


An hon. Member:: We are free to vote the way we want.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The day will come when members on this side of the House will register the true feelings of the people. When that day comes perhaps we will have less rioting in the streets, less turmoil in our society and perhaps more turmoil in this place where the feelings and wishes of the people are supposed to be voiced and reflected accurately. But today we are still under the thumb of the almighty party; the party must come before our country and we must vote the way the party dictates. That day is nearly ended. I agree with the youth of Canada who say it must be near its end.
The Minister of Justice will rue the day he did not rise and say to his people, "Vote the way your constituents want you to vote", because every person in Canada will be watching how Parliament votes on this emergency measure at this crucial time when public order must be restored within our country.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Before I make my point of order, Mr. Chairman, I want to make it abundantly clear that under no circumstances would I vote for the death penalty under this amendment or any other. Apart from that, it is abundantly clear that this amendment is entirely outside the scope of the bill. The bill deals entirely with le Front de Liberation du Quebec. Clauses 3 and 4 of the bill set forth the offences. The amendment which is proposed is actually an amendment to section 233 of the Criminal Code which deals with kidnapping. That being so, it appears to me that the amendment is completely outside the scope of the bill. It does not mention the FLQ.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It is too late. The Chairman ruled it in order.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I must remind the hon. member that the Chair has already accepted the amendment. I also remind him that clause 4 of the bill is identified as relating to offences and punishment and that identification is not related only to the FLQ, although the bill might be. In any case, the Chair has already made the decision to put the motion, so it is before the committee. I recognize the hon. member for Greenwood.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear that at least some members of the House are perfectly prepared to vote against this amendment out of conscience and not out of any coercion by their party. I think it is a delusion for anyone to believe that you get a better deterrent by putting in capital punishment. The way to handle this matter is to have efficient police forces and to alleviate the social conditions which have led to the problems that exist. Of course, people have forgotten that when petty crime in England and other countries was punished by capital pimishment, crime was more prevalent than at any other time in the course of history. I suggest that the whole theory behind this amendment is an illusion and a delusion, and we should not support it.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Chairman, I must repeat what I have often said in the House in the last two years. In 1967, removing capital punishment was a disservice to the population. It was an error.
The first duty of members of Parliament is to protect society. During the last session, I said that considering the large increase of criminal offences in Quebec and in Canada, only one deterrent could prevent murder, namely capital punishment. I do not suggest a return to Middle Ages practices. One can be for or against deterrents.
I believe that-
Mr. Chairman, could hon. members be called to order?


Gérald Laniel: Order. The hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin). It is rather difficult to hear his remarks. Perhaps the hon. members could allow him to complete them.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Chairman, the death penalty was retained for the murder of prison guards and police officers. In addition, the cabinet, using its prerogative to grant free pardon, ignores the decisions of Parliament to commute death penalties, with the result that we now have in Quebec a considerable increase in the number of crimes, because those people-


Mr. Boulanger:: That is not true.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member allow me a question?


Martial Asselin: Certainly.
[Mr. Horner 1
November 10, 1970


Albert Béchard: Would the hon. member give one instance where the cabinet ignored the wishes of Parliament with regard to capital punishment?


Martial Asselin: Mr. Chairman, the recollection of this example is not fresh in my mind. I remember a case where no recommendation for clemency was made to the court and where the sentence was commuted by the cabinet. If I am mistaken, it cannot be helped, but I shall send my notes on the subject to the hon. member who just asked the question.
Two categories of people only are protected against murder: jail guards and policemen. Not even the Prime Minister of Canada nor members of Parliament are protected against maniacs who could come to the House of Commons, throw a bomb and kill perhaps 50 or 60 members. That murderer would be sentenced to life imprisonment and knowing the conditions of parole, he would stay in jail for 10 or 12 years and then be set free in society.
Mr. Chairman, it is time that Parliament-and I repeat it-should protect society. If some people do not want to be eventually given capital punishment they need only comply with the laws of a society wishing to live in peace and in order. This amendment is justified and should be given consideration.
I also urge the Minister of Justice, as did the previous speaker, that when this amendment will be put, to be broadminded to ask the hon. members to vote according to their conscience.
At the present time the population of Quebec lives in terror and in fear. It is revealed by the economic situation prevailing in Quebec. I do not say that we must do it in retaliation but capital punishment should be given at least until April 1971 to those found guilty by a competent tribunal of kidnappings, sedition and murder of innocent people. But this means was used as an attempt to affect the decisions of legitimate governments.
Mr. Chairman, in my opinion this amendment is warranted. It must be objectively considered, not as advocating revenge, but as a parliamentary means to protect the society in which we are living. We have to get rid of people living on the fringe of laws established by society.


Gérald Laniel: Again I must ask hon. members to refrain from carrying on private conversations in the chamber, because these make it very difficult for the Chair and other interested members to hear the speeches being made. I hope hon. members will heed this request.


Georges-C. Lachance: Mr. Chairman, I must say I have much sympathy for the mover of this amendment.
When the House discussed the abolition of capital punishment a few years ago, I moved during the debate on second reading that the matter be referred to the committee on justice and legal affairs.
I spoke many times on the subject of capital punishment and my views are well known. I am not saying that l am in favour or against the abolition of capital punish-
Public Order Act, 1970
ment, but at that time, I was in favour of that legislation, specially as it concerns prisoners, who have rehabilitation problems.
Since this law is a temporary measure, I do not see why we should raise this problem at this stage, and I believe the hon. members will easily understand that if this amendment is accepted, in any event, it will lapse in a few months and become non operative.
Under the present circumstances, I do not think we should vote in favour of this amendment.
If the hon. member who moved this amendment believes that capital punishment must be meted out for similar crimes, he should move a separate legislation. As this bill is of a temporary nature. For this reason, Mr. Chairman, I do not think that this amendment should be approved now by the members of the House.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I will repeat briefly in English some of the things I said in French. At the moment kidnapping bears the maximum punishment of life imprisonment. Kidnapping includes confining a person against his will. That is pursuant to section 233 of the Criminal Code. Everyone who mutilates or wounds a person with intent to deprive that person of his life in effect attempts to commit murder, and that is punishable by life imprisonment. I draw to the committee's attention section 210. Of course, everyone who kills a person commits murder, and that carries with it the penalty of life imprisonment.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Will the minister permit a question, Mr. Chairman?


John Napier Turner: When I have finished, Mr. Chairman, I shall answer the hon. member. Killing a person constitutes murder. Except in the case of the murder of a policeman or of a prison guard in the course of his duties, that offence constitutes non-capital murder punishable by life imprisonment.
We are dealing, therefore, with the three offences mentioned in the amendment of the hon. member, all of which already carry the penalty of life imprisonment. Now he wants to include the alternative of the death penalty. I suggest to him and to the other members of the committee that whatever their views are about capital punishment, this is no time for the House, within the context of a specific law of temporary duration to meet a specific purpose-as the hon. member for Lafontaine has said-to pronounce itself on the question of whether it will continue in force the abolition of the death penalty. That penalty was abolished three years ago.
I said earlier in French that the House will be given an opportunity in general terms to debate this issue fully before December, 1972. It will do so in general terms and the debate will apply to the full range of the Criminal Code. That is when the House ought to deal with the matter. I think it would be inappropriate for the House now, in dealing with this specific piece of legislation which is to last for a limited period of time, to consider

November 10, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
this matter. I say this in all seriousness. Whatever the views of hon. members may be about the death penalty, I urge the committee to reject this amendment because Parliament is not addressing itself to the general subject at the moment and I do not think these are the appropriate circumstances in which to deal with so fundamental a subject.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister a question? He intimated that he would answer me. Will he explain to the committee what is meant by the term "life imprisonment"? Is it not a fact that on the average life imprisonment in the past has meant about ten years' imprisonment, and not more? Could he just explain that term fully, so that we may understand it?


John Napier Turner: It is a mandatory punishment-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would the minister repeat that? I did not quite catch him.


John Napier Turner: It is mandatory in the case of non-capital murder. The sentence can only be commuted or the prisoner can only be paroled, as I understand it, by Order in Council. It is not automatic. I feel I ought to mention, that the offence of treason, as set out in section 46 of the Criminal Code, I think, carries with it the death penalty.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, is it not correct to say that life imprisonment on the average in the past has meant a sentence of ten years' imprisonment or thereabouts?


John Napier Turner: No.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Does the minister say it means more than ten years? I notice that he shakes his head negatively. His gesture will not appear on the record. I have described it for the record. Will he say whether life imprisonment means ten years, more than ten years, or less?


John Napier Turner: Before there is parole in the case of non-capital murder, an Order in Council has to be passed. Parole is not automatic.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: But after what length of time, on the average, has the Order in Council been made effective in the past?


John Napier Turner: I cannot give the hon. gentleman that information.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I suggest that the period has been less than ten years.


John Napier Turner: I think the hon. gentleman is wrong.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Then why has the minister not said so before?


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. The hon.
member for Crowfoot was seeking the floor for the purpose of asking a question and not for the purpose of starting a debate.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to prolong
this discussion but I wish to say that I think the Minister of Justice is being just a little unfair when he insists that this amendment relates to a general, over-all debate on capital punishment. It does not. We undertook a little research during the general debate on capital punishment, and throughout 1966 and 1967, and learned that life imprisonment has meant a sentence of about eight years, five months and two days. That has been the average sentence over the last 30 or 40 years. The amendment seeks to deal with an emergency situation and it relates to the very essence of the bill we are now considering.
There is no attempt on our part to open up a general debate on capital punishment. We are merely trying to provide a deterrent and to enact adequate punishment for the crime we are considering in this crisis. The Minister of Justice refuted his own argument when he told us that treason is punishable by capital punishment. If his argument holds water, treason ought not to be included so far as capital punishment is concerned. The Minister of Justice tried to leave the impression that the amendment was endeavouring to reopen the whole debate on capital punishment. As I said, this amendment is merely to provide an adequate deterrent and an adequate punishment for the crimes we are considering in this temporary emergency measure. Let that be clear.


Gérald Laniel: Is the committee ready for the question?


Mr. Roy (Timmins):: Mr. Chairman, almost from the beginning of the debate on this amendment I had made up my mind to vote in favour of it.


William Arnold Peters: That is not surprising.


Jean Robert Roy: But if I vote for the amendment- and I want to make sure my remarks are on record-it will not be because of the idiotic drivel spoken by the hon. member for Crowfoot. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, his remarks disgusted me to the extent that I almost wanted to vote against the amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: How often is the hon. member in the House? He is practically a stranger.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, since we are dealing with the question of penalty I wish to draw certain matters to the attention of the committee. One of the things that struck me throughout the entire tragic incident of the death of Mr. Laporte was that the police received very little information. I think the reason will become apparent when one analyses the Criminal Code.
The offences of capital murder and non-capital murder carry the same penalty of life imprisonment, and that is where the problem lies. We created the difficulty when we made certain changes in the Criminal Code of Canada. For instance, if a police officer asks a citizen to assist him in an arrest when there is a riot or violence, the person so asked must come to the aid of the police officer and if he fails to do so he is guilty of an indictable
November 10, 1970

offence. If, during the process of assisting the policeman the citizen is shot and killed, the consequences are as follows. If the accused is convicted, he will be liable to life imprisonment. On the other hand, if the police officer is killed, the accused, if convicted, will be sentenced to hang.
Therein lies the root of one of the great problems not only in Canada but in the United States. People do not wish to become involved. In Canada they do not become involved, largely because we pussy-footed on this issue when it was before Parliament. If one were to go to Montreal and to the very place where the crime against Mr. Laporte was committed, one would see that people do not want to become involved. The reason for that, in my opinion, is the great mistake that we made in the law when we said that a person convicted of killing a police officer will hang, but if he is convicted of killing a person who is helping the police officer he will not hang. To me that was a very great mistake. I believe the argument, however, is relevant.
We are now dealing with a very sensitive problem, the problem of the permissive society. There must be some indictment and perhaps some reproaches in respect of our permissive society. As I pointed out this afternoon when reading from the report of the Royal Commission on Security, the government two-years-ago knew the situation was as bad as it now is, yet they did nothing. Because they vacillated and procrastinated we are now in this mess.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
I shall vote for the amendment. I believe it is right to do so because the law as it now stands is discriminatory. I believe that every member from the province of Quebec, if they vote according to their conscience, will vote for the amendment.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot of heat in this debate. There is little doubt that it is a most serious matter. One member who has really tried to deal with it in a factual way is the hon. member for Greenwood, who made a brief statement of fact to which there has been no reply. Those of us who are seriously concerned about dealing with terrorist activities must present some kind of evidence. The hon. member for Greenwood referred to the fact, and there is evidence to support this, that capital punishment is not a deterrent. There have been many studies in the past-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: It would be appreciated if hon. members would listen. In the past capital punishment was not a deterrent. There are many stories about pickpockets being caught while witnessing executions of people convicted of pickpocketing.
If this has been the case in the past, what evidence do those in favour of capital punishment have to present to those of us who are prepared to listen? I emphasize that. If it can be shown that capital punishment will deter this kind of terroristic activity, I will be prepared to listen because it is a serious matter.
Public Order Act, 1970
In terms of modem psychology, all available evidence is in the other direction. What type of person becomes involved in this kind of politics? There is the pathological type whom many psychiatrists say is looking for punishment, the man who is guilt-ridden. The more the punishment is increased, the more likely it is that he will enter into this kind of political activity. That argument cannot be dismissed. If members want to argue against it, they should provide evidence and not just an emotional, silly reaction.
The other type of person likely to become involved in such politics, although not pathological or sick none the less takes a very violent view of politics. Rightly or wrongly-and I think it is wrongly-some people believe that violence is essential for political change. If someone has that conviction, does anyone in this House seriously maintain that he will be deterred by capital punishment? My personal view is that the answer is no. A man who accepts violence as a legitimate form of politics will not be deterred by capital punishment. Because of these two basic facts, the pathological case on the one hand and the ideological commitment to violence on the other, I conclude that even on the ground of deterrence there is not a sound reason for a rational man accepting the reinstitution of capital punishment.


Mr. Leblanc (Laurier):: Mr. Chairman, at the time of the debate on the death penalty a few years ago. I was against such abolition. I was discussing a few minutes ago with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Bechard) the problem we have most at heart, namely the problem of the FLQ in the province of Quebec. I feel we should reestablish capital penalty when there has been kidnapping and loss or life, or when the explosion of a bomb results in loss of life.
I will therefore vote in favour of the amendment put forward by my friends of the Ralliement creditiste, although I am not in full agreement with it. I am not prepared to give unqualified support to the minister's arguments because I was and still am against abolishing the death penalty although, in conformity with democratic principles, I had to yield to the views of the majority who voted for the measure.
Recently, I have been making inquiries in my riding about the identity card which the Quebec Attorney General wishes to make compulsory. He has adopted my idea and I appreciate it.
I have also made a survey about the death penalty and, once again, my electors are ready to support my stand that we should have retained capital punishment. It may not be the perfect remedy for all the ills that are now being felt in Quebec, but, in the circumstances, I believe that I shall have to vote against the government and for the amendment before us.
This is a temporary measure, of course, as indicated in the bill itself, and when the revoking of the amendment to the Criminal Code is introduced, then of course we will have an opportunity to develop our arguments further.
1 078

November 10, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
I wanted however to express my opinion on the existing problem tonight.


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I have been listening for some time to the views expressed by various members on the subject of the amendment and I think I may speak to it without reservation since I was one of those who voted for the abolishment of the death penalty.
I thus feel absolutely free about the issue, since at the time I voted to abolish the death penalty, I never suspected that exceptional circumstances would some day make me change my mind.
Mr. Chairman, in reply to the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner)-I would appreciate it if he would listen to me-and I wish he could understand my French just as well as he might understand my English.

I ask hon. members to listen carefully to what I have to say. I voted in favour of the abolition of the death penalty. Tonight I am prepared to vote against my own party, which will prove to those who have challenged the minister that this will be a free vote. That was the old story during the time of Mr. Diefenbaker and your gang, but today we are free. Since this means I can say what I think, I will say it.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is the best quote I have heard in a long time.


Gérald Laniel: Order. I should like the hon. members to bear in mind that the hon. member for Mercier has the floor.


Prosper Boulanger: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To make sure that what I have to say is exactly the answer you wanted, I am giving it now.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. May I remind the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger) that he must address himself to the Chair and not directly to the hon. member of Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). Moreover, he cannot call the member by his name, but must designate him as the member for such and such constituency.


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I thank you. For the third time I tell you that I am addressing myself to you. When I voted for the abolition of the death penalty, I never would had thought that one day I would have to reconsider my decision. It is not necessary that I make a speech or describe all the circumstances that have existed for more than a month. It is a fact, Mr. Speaker, that if today a man is found guilty of treason, he can be hanged. Since we are ready to condemn to death a man who kills a policeman or a prison guard, I think that by adopting this temporary legislation today-because it is 
still a temporary legislation which will remain in force until the end of April 1971-we should inflict the same penalty on the person who, through a fanaticism that I am at a loss to explain, can kill one, two, three or four public men, Ministers of the Crown or other prominent figures.
I do not agree with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) and, in my opinion, the amendment moved, because of the temporary character of the legislation, should allow us to condemn the guilty persons to death. Therefore, I will vote in favour of the amendment.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Chairman-


Gérald Laniel: Order. Is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice rising to put a question to the hon. member for Mercier?


Albert Béchard: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Could the hon. member for Mercier tell me what will happen after April 31, 1971 to those who, on May 1st will kidnap a politician or someone else?


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I never thought that some day I would have the pleasure and the privilege of answering a question put by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. His question however is quite hypothetical. If this legislation is of a temporary nature, I think that it is because if on the 1st of May, there is still an apprehended state of insurrection, we will again introduce the legislation which we know and we will deal with it in the House.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I intend to vote against this amendment. I do not intend to vote against it for the reasons put forward by the Minister of Justice, nor because of my views on capital punishment. It is my belief that the government by its own acts and on its own responsibility has elevated the present situation into an unreasonable state of hysteria. The government has yet to give this House a full and true statement of the facts concerning the events of the last month. They have not been totally honest with us.
If we were to accept the position of the government that the situation in this country, particularly in the province of Quebec, is as bad as they say it is, we would have no alternative but to vote for the amendment; but I cannot accept that position or believe that the situation is as bad as the government says it is. I believe the government is being inconsistent in playing the situation up on one hand and playing it down on the other, and in these circumstances I cannot support the amendment.


Mr. Haidasz:: Mr. Chairman, I rise only to ask the Minister of Justice for an explanation of the word "crime" in subclause (g) of clause 4. In particular, I would ask him to tell the committee whether the word "crime" includes murder and, hence, whether a murder committed by a member of the FLQ or of another similar group in Canada would be punishable only by a term of imprisonment not exceeding five years.
November 10, 1970


John Napier Turner: We are talking hypothetically, because the hon. member put his question in abstract terms. If a murder were committed by a member of the FLQ the charge, obviously, would be murder, under the Criminal Code, rather than a charge under clause 4 of this bill. If a member of the FLQ were to kidnap somebody and the evidence were sufficient, he would be prosecuted for kidnapping for which the term is life imprisonment. The proceedings would not be under clause 4 of this bill.
If the victim was mutilated or tortured and death followed as a result, the person committing the offence would be prosecuted under the Criminal Code, which provides a life sentence as a maximum penalty. It is conceivable that if an attempt to overthrow the government were analagous to the crime of kidnapping or murder, the death penalty could result if a charge under section 46(l)(d) of the Criminal Code were sustained, that is, treason for which the penalty is death.
I Translation]
I take this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to say to all my colleagues that this law is not aimed at raising the question of abolition or retention of capital punishment.
That question is raised by an amendment of an hon. member of the Ralliement creditiste. The House will have the opportunity before December 29, 1972 to make a permanent decision on the matter of capital punishment, and I submit to Your Honour that the time to discuss and to vote on abolition or retention of capital punishment is not during a debate on the passing of a provisional law.
The House of Commons has to be given the opportunity for a serious consideration of that very important question and must not try to deal with it now. I believe the question is much more important than that and it would be unfair either to the people of Canada or the people of Quebec to make a decision on so basic a question when the House has not at present the opportunity to make an exhaustive study of that question.
The opportunity will arise before December 29, 1972.
lEnglish~\


Gérald Laniel: Order. Before I recognize the hon. member for Skeena perhaps the Chair should take a moment to remind the minister that the amendment before the committee permits hon. members to elaborate on the question of capital punishment, and the Chair has no alternative but to allow hon. members to do so if they wish.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, it was interesting to notice the great attention that the Minister of Justice paid in his remarks not to all parts of the House but to one particular section of it.


John Napier Turner: I learned that from the right hon. member for Prince Albert.


Frank Howard: I never saw the minister's face once. He was looking in the other direction, not at you, Mr. Chairman. Apart from that, I think the most telling
Public Order Act, 1970
argument presented to the committee so far in regard to the amendment before us was that made by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. He levelled, I think quite properly, the accusation that the incendiary feeling which exists in the province of Quebec is to a large extent to be laid at the doorstep of this government, whose Minister of Regional Economic Expansion distorted the facts of the situation on more than one occasion for purely political reasons and inflamed feelings far in excess of those which one would have expected to be aroused. That is where the blame should lie.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frank Howard: I see hon. members opposite shaking their heads.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. May I remind hon. members that the hon. member for Skeena has the floor and should be allowed to make his speech as others have done up to this point.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I do not really mind the interruptions from members like the hon. member for Mercier, but I would point out that if they are entitled to interrupt they should not object when others interrupt them. That is only fair.
Apart from the fact that the government is to a large extent responsible for the feelings that exist in Quebec, I think we are approaching the question of capital punishment from entirely the wrong angle. There are those who feel we should look at the question whether or not there should be capital punishment from the point of view of vengefulness, from the point of view of exacting a toll from those individuals who commit this crime. They subscribe to the view that in our decision we should reflect the desire for revenge on behalf of those who have been injured.
This is not the function of a legislator. The function of a legislator is to try to look at things rationally and dispassionately and not let his heart rule his head. To do otherwise would mean that every time he considered something that was crucial or heinous to society, the Parliament of Canada would be expected to move hither and yon as emotions developed. We have known since long ago that acting out of revenge does not solve the situation or help matters one little bit. In terms of the force of the law we know that capital punishment, or the threat of it, is no more nor less a deterrent to the commission of the crime of murder than some other penalty; and the penalty we impose at the moment for this crime is life imprisonment.
With regard to those who kidnapped Mr. Laporte and Mr. Cross, whatever the punishment that would have been imposed upon them-I think the Minister of Justice said the sentence for kidnapping was life imprisonment and that the penalty facing those who committed the heinous murder of Mr. Laporte was life imprisonment or hanging, depending on how they were charged-they were not deterred in any way by any threatened penalty of capital punishment. I suggest it was not even a factor.

November 10, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
People who have criminal intent, or are psychotic or unbalanced, are not deterred one way or another by the threat of capital punishment. In their own deluded minds they feel that they must commit the crime, and when they do commit it they convince themselves that they can get away with it. They gamble. True, they gamble with somebody else's life, but they also gamble with their own. I suggest that in that sort of situation exacting revenge from those who committed the crime of murder against Mr. Laporte is not a reasoned course of action to take. We might just as well exact the same revenge in the case of an individual who murders as the result of some emotional, love situation that exists in a family.
A number of hon. members have indicated that they intend to vote for this amendment. I hope that when they do, they vote not on the basis of vengeance but on the basis of what they truly believe is the proper detterrent in our society to the commission of such an offence. I think it is true that you can equate life imprisonment with capital punishment as a sentence. But it is not correct to say that the National Parole Board can with impunity grant parole to a person after he has served six or seven years without looking at the merits of the case. What we as legislators have before us tonight is the question whether or not we are enacting a law that will be a true deterrent against the commission of this crime. As I say, we should not look at it from the point of view of revenge, of hanging all individuals who commit such crimes.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, I only want to recall what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) said a moment ago, namely that we were opening a debate on the abolition of capital punishment. I think that the Minister of Justice can speak better French than he understands it since I told him earlier, and others understood, that we were not trying to deal with the whole subject of capital punishment, either its abolition or its reestablishment, but to deal with specific cases.
I asked him a question a moment ago which I will ask again in a much more direct manner.
I would ask him what would have happened if instead of kidnapping Pierre Laporte, the kidnappers had kidnapped and killed a police officer? It is likely that the amendment adopted on December 21, 1967, to section 202A of the Criminal Code would have applied. This section reads as follows:
Murder is capital murder, in respect of any person, where such person by his own act caused or assisted in causing the death of
(i)	a police officer, police constable, constable, sheriff, deputy sheriff, sheriff's officer or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace, acting in the course of his duties, or
(ii)	a warden, deputy warden, instructor, keeper, gaoler, guard or other officer or permanent employee of a prison, acting in the course of his duties.
So, Mr. Chairman, if the kidnappers had kidnapped the director of the Montreal police department or a simple police officer or a gaoler and had killed him, the law could have applied capital punishment. But as for the

kidnappers of a Quebec minister they can only be arrested, deprived of some of their freedom, but given shelter, heat, good food at the expense of Canadian taxpayers.
Mr. Chairman, I repeat that we are not trying to start a debate on the abolition or reestablishment of capital punishment but to deal with Bill C-181 which is temporary legislation.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Grant Deachman: Mr. Chairman, we are within half an hour of the closing of today's session. We are not in session of the House but are simply in committee. In the chamber tonight we have approximately 80 Members of Parliament, a little less than one-third of the total membership of the House of Commons, and we are discussing an amendment which would implement capital punishment through a clause of the single bill that is before us. A few moments ago this matter was smuggled onto the floor of the committee as a debate on capital punishment.


Robert Norman Thompson: It was not. I protest.


An hon. Member:: That is not fair to the Chairman.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. When the hon. member imputes motives, as he is doing now, he is completely out of order. It was not an insidious way to enter into a debate on capital punishment; it was a legitimate-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra said there are approximately 80 members in the chamber. In fact there are 50 members on this side, and as I look closely at the other side I see that there are well over 80 members in total. Therefore, that statement cannot go without challenge.


Grant Deachman: If we were to introduce capital punishment through a clause in this bill, I feel sure we would be very ashamed of ourselves for toying with life and death.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: They didn't toy with Laporte's life.


Grant Deachman: Tomorrow, when we settled down to read our papers, we would find that we had...


John (Jack) Henry Horner: They were teasing and torturing him.


Grant Deachman: -passed a clause of great solemnity in this bill. I agree with those who have suggested that there is a place in this House of Commons for dealing with capital punishment, and that it is a matter which should be dealt with fairly soon. But members opposite, as well as members on this side of the House, would not want to see that subject dealt with, put into a statute and made the law of Canada as summarily as it would be if we were to pass it tonight. Many hon. members agree that this is a subject which should wait until the whole membership of the House is here and until Parliament has time to adequately reflect upon it. Surely, our task at the moment is not to address ourselves to bringing into
November 10, 1970

this House, just 20 minutes before the end of the day's sitting, a clause to reinstitute with capital punishment.
If a vote is taken on this amendment tonight, I hope it will be soundly defeated not only by those who do not agree with capital punishment but by those who believe that Parliament ought to consider the subject in a more serious way when all the members of the House are here.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words-*


Russell Clayton Honey: Order. The hon. member for Battle River.


Mr. Downey:: Mr. Chairman, what prompted me to say a few words tonight was that some members suggested that those who supported the capital punishment area of this amendment were doing so because of emotion rather than fact. The question of deterrence was raised. I suggest that the whole basis of our legal system is deterrence. Consider fines and imprisonment. What are these, if they are not deterrents? When one takes a life, to hang is the maximum deterrent. In connection with the FLQ kidnapping of Mr. Laporte we see there was no deterrence after the kidnapping. At one point it did not matter one iota to them whether he was released or murdered, because the deterrent was the same.
The member for Charlevoix stated that the first object of the law is the protection of the citizenry, and I suggest this-is the principle as it was originally conceived. I have figures here relating to some countries wherein capital punishment has been abolished except for treason. In the Netherlands war criminals were executed as late as March, 1952. Norway executed 25 prisoners for treason, and Belgium executed some well into the 1950s. Britain and West Germany are experiencing strong support for the reintroduction of the death penalty.
The figures I have here indicate that the murder rate has gradually increased since the death penalty has been abolished. In 1966 there were 1.3 murders per 100,000 of the population. The rate goes up to 1.8 in 1968, and a little over 1.9 in 1969. I think there is adequate evidence that over the years the death penalty has been a deterrent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in response to the remarks of the hon. member for Crowfoot. He indicated that he thought most of the people of Canada would favour the reintroduction of the death penalty. I must admit that I have received letters from people recommending that the death penalty be reintroduced and I have been to many public meetings, some in my own riding, where people have spoken out in favour of its reintroduction. But, Mr. Chairman, they are far from the majority.
In any event, I would oppose the reintroduction of the death penalty whether on a permanent or, as suggested by the hon. member for Red Deer, on a temporary basis. The supporters of the death penalty argue that those crimes which society finds the most revolting should be
Public Order Act, 1970
punished by a maximum penalty, death. The hon. member for Crowfoot said that he did not care whether it was death in the gas chamber or by hanging. He said he would leave that to the government-


An hon. Member:: Good old Crowfoot!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -but the maximum punishment should be imposed. I ask hon. members opposite this question: If we are to introduce the maximum penalty that society can impose, why are they asking for the humane penalty of death by hanging or in the gas chamber? These are the two most humane methods of killing people. Would the logic of their position not dictate that they should be driven to imposing the most painful method of inflicting death? Why are they satisfied with hanging and the gas chamber? Why are they not talking about drawing and quartering people?
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Why don't you say what they did to Laporte? Let the people know the truth about what they did to Laporte.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: What I am trying to point out in asking these questions, which I hope are rhetorical because surely no member would advocate a death penalty of that nature, is that there is a logical fallacy in their argument. I think it shows how absurd the argument is when we take it to its logical conclusion. It shows that the whole argument is without merit and that the death penalty would serve no useful purpose whatsoever.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Chairman, I tend to agree with the speakers who have said that this argument does not really belong in this discussion. We are discussing a measure which the government has chosen to bring before Parliament as an alternative to the War Measures Act. This amendment simply introduces a great deal of emotion which does not add to the discussion.
May I say, as has been said before, that this emotion-charged atmosphere is partially due to the government itself. When the Prime Minister of this country chooses to label those who oppose him as weak-kneed, bleeding hearts, what is he saying? Instead of using rational talk, he chooses to use the epithets of the intellectual gutter. I as a farmer would use the epithets of the gutter because I understand them and can use them very well. But the Prime Minister, having the advantage of more sophistication and so on, uses the epithets of the intellectual to label his opponents.
I am very much concerned about the hysteria and emotion that is evident in this Parliament rather than the rational approach we should attempt to take in meeting this most unfortunate situation. Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the type of penalty we use to deter really has no place in the measure we are now discussing.


Mr. Harkness:: Mr. Chairman, I fail to see any logic or reason in reviving at this time the arguments we heard

November 10, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
ad nauseam three, four and five years ago in connection with the abolition of the death penalty. The chief reason there is no logic to it is that the death penalty exists in our law at the present time. It exists for treason and it exists in respect of the murder of a policeman, a penitentiary warden, and so on. Therefore, I find it difficult to understand why members should continue to argue about whether we should or should not have the death penalty. We have it now.
This amendment would merely extend the death penalty to the type of crime that has been committed by the FLQ and which may be again committed by members of the FLQ under the present rather difficult circumstances. It would seem to me that the reasonable thing to do is to stop arguing about whether or not we should have the death penalty, because we already have it for certain crimes. I think we should vote on this measure. I thought this bill was a matter of urgency which the government wanted to get through as quickly as possible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Scott Harkness: Certainly, the members of the official opposition are very anxious to get it through as quickly as possible. Therefore, I do not understand why we should take up so much time arguing about something which really has no application to the matter. I would hope we would have a vote on this amendment now and get on with the measure.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, I have tried for some time to get your attention. I have a few observations to make. The hon. member for Calgary Centre has said pretty much what I wanted to say. I am very opposed to the type of discussion I have listened to in the last hour or so. I am also very much opposed to the suggestions of gentlemen in this chamber who should know better, such as the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, suggesting that this is not the proper place to discuss this question. Of course it is the proper place. Whether we are in committee or whether we are in the House, this is the place to discuss it and suggestions to the contrary are not fitting during a discussion of a matter so serious.
I cannot understand why in this chamber we cannot get on with the business before us in a much more efficient and orderly manner than we have in the last few days. The items we are considering were placed before us with some assurance, both quiet and spoken, by the government almost a week ago, but we are still debating this bill while other urgent matters are waiting on the sidelines. My suggestion is that we stop fooling around with a matter as serious as the sanctity of life, and get on with the amendment and the bill itself as well as the business of running this country.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I shall speak briefly because I, too, would like to see this matter come to a vote. I think this whole discussion is misleading, in that we seem to be spending a great deal of time talking about deterrence when the real issue behind this legislation is detection. When the people concerned are not yet

apprehended, I think we are putting the cart before the horse.
It strikes me that a discussion about reintroducing capital punishment is, in effect, a kind of counsel of despair. If this is the best way in which we can respond to the very serious situation and to what may exist in the minds of those who create terror, we really have not successfully entered the twentieth century. I think we have had ample experience to know that our system of social vengeance, instituted to its ultimate degree with capital and corporal punishment, has not been very successful. I suggest that all members in the committee should do their duty immediately and vote against the amendment.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, and the committee that I will not talk past ten o'clock. I now recognize the time as being seven minutes to ten o'clock. I assure you, Mr. Chairman, that I will allow this amendment to come to a vote tonight. I am prompted to speak again on this question because there has been much talk about vengeance, about the fact that those who moved the amendment and who spoke in favour of it are motivated by vengeance. I assure the committee that this feeling is not motivating me one bit. I am motivated by the fact that our whole system of justice is based upon the effectiveness of a deterrent. In fact, clause 3 of the bill outlaws a group of persons or association known as le Front de Liberation du Quebec or any successor group or successor association. So in a sense we are creating a deterrent against anybody joining the FLQ or for any group of FLQ members creating a new association with the same purpose in mind.
This bill in essence is a deterrent against anybody in the House of Commons or any citizen of Canada attending meetings of the FLQ. It is based on the principle of deterrence. I say that this amendment is also a deterrent against acts committed by the FLQ. What did the Prime Minister call these people? Did he say they were bleeding hearts? It seems to me, listening tonight to the bleeding hearts bleeding for the life of somebody who eradicates an honest, law abiding citizen of this country, that no sympathy can be felt for him. I have these bleeding hearts around me and they are also on the other side of the House. I am somewhat like the Prime Minister; I am not too sympathetic toward bleeding hearts.
Our whole system of justice is based upon the principle of deterrence. Once the members of an FLQ cell kidnap a person, it does not matter who he is, the punishment for them is life imprisonment, so the Minister of Justice tells us. If they release that person or if they take his life, the punishment is no greater: it is still life imprisonment; there is no additional deterrent. I hope that I live in a society which values human life and is prepared to so signify when we face a serious crisis. I agree with the hon. member for Skeena that the government has made all Canada aware of this crisis. We have to act upon it. The purpose of bringing in this bill was to deal with the crisis. It is a temporary measure, and we have to act upon it.
November 10, 1970

I urge all Quebec members to vote for this amendment. What will the people of the Labelle and Frontenac constituencies think when they vote in the by-election next Monday? What will they think of their federal government if it votes against this amendment at this time? The people in the province of Quebec know there is a crisis. They feel it far more than I do in western Canada, and they want a deterrent. Mr. Laporte's life meant something to them. They wanted him alive, not mutilated and quartered as the hon. member for Don Mills suggested. I want every member in the committee to weigh that issue when they vote. Do we need more, or less, deterrence? I say we need more deterrence in this crisis situation.


Russell Clayton Honey: Is the committee ready for the
question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Laprise) negatived: Yeas, 27; nays, 72.


Russell Clayton Honey: I declare the amendment lost.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, November 3, as recorded in Hansard at page 825, I put a question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) in the following words:
-Having regard to the delay which is being experienced in bringing in over-all income tax changes, is the government giving consideration to an interim measure which would remove some of the anomalies and unfairness faced by persons whose only income is their pensions?
The reply of the minister, if I may paraphrase what he said, was to the effect that if any changes were to be made, they would be announced in the House in due course. That reply, of course, has been taped and computerized; we get it fairly often.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
I am glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mahoney) here tonight to answer my question, and I look hopefully for a helpful answer. I trust he will not spend any time telling me that we must not deal with this problem simply by raising the income tax exemption levels on the ground that that does more for the rich than it does for the poor. I trust he will not assume that some of us do not know that. I trust he will realize that we are aware of tax credits and of other ways in which a problem like this can be solved.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
In my question on Tuesday, November 3, I referred to certain anomalies. May I indicate very briefly three such anomalies. First I mention the gross unfairness that is involved in giving to some of our old age pensioners a guaranteed income supplement, the purpose of which is to bring their income up to a certain level, and then turning around and taking some of that income away by taxing that bit of extra money. The Parliamentary Secretary can tell me that this applies in some cases and not in others. I am concerned about the cases where it does apply. I am concerned about retired persons who have their position improved on the one hand and downgraded on the other. This must be corrected.
A second anomaly relates to the fact that persons 70 years of age and over are allowed an extra $500 income tax exemption which does not apply any longer at age 65; at least, it does not apply to anyone between 65 and 70 who is in receipt of old age security during any month in any calendar year. I know the arguments for and against all this, but the anomaly I would like to point out to the Parliamentary Secretary is clear and straight forward. There are people between the ages of 65 and 70 who have nothing else but their pension income-people who are retired, who are out of the labour market-and yet because they are in that age bracket their exemption level, for single persons, is only $1,000. On the other hand there are people over 70 years of age who have income other than the old age pension, even people who have income from employment or income from investment. There are some in that age bracket who might have quite a lot of income and yet they are permitted an extra $500; in other words, a total $1,500 exemption so far as income tax is concerned. This I think is quite unfair, and it ought to be corrected.
I also think it is an anomaly, or a case of adding insult to injury, that pensioners, people who are on fixed incomes, have no opportunity to get an increase in their income to cope with the rising cost of living, and yet it is argued that because rules must have general application they cannot get an extra tax exemption or an extra tax credit. Precisely because their income position is fixed, precisely because they are denied some of the advantages that are available to those who are in the labour market, I think there is a case for different tax treatment of those people who are retired, those people who are on pensions only. I urge the government to give favourable consideration to this situation.
I know I repeat myself when I say to the Parliamentary Secretary: Don't come back and give me that line about the unfairness of raising income tax exemption levels because it does more for the rich than for the poor. It can be done by a system of tax credits. These pensioners of ours, our retired people, are having a terribly rough time today. They have to wait for white papers and legislation and for all the time it takes the government to deal with these matters. I think pensioners should benefit both ways. I have argued on previous occasions in favour of increasing the old age security pension to $150 a month, and I shall continue to do so. They should also benefit through whatever can be done in the matter of tax changes in their favour.

November 10, 1970
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
The government has talked about tax changes; it has talked about a $1,400 exemption level for single persons, and yet we are having to wait for that. That, in itself, will not do the trick. Time is running out. I urge that in the present session there be some specific tax arrangements for our retired people, and I am speaking particularly and precisely of those who are on pension income only. I urge that there be tax rebates, special tax treatment and tax arrangements that will give them a bit of justice instead of the unfairnesses and anomalies they now face. Mr. Speaker, the position of these people is desperate. For God's sake, I hope the government will do something about it soon.


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should like again to note with favour and approval the hon. member's traditional and continuing concern for those living on pensions and fixed incomes only. This concern, of course, is shared by the government and is one of the principal reasons why the government has been so determined to beat inflation. I think the hon. member is very well aware that a specific answer to his question must, in the tradition of this Parliament, await a budget speech or a minibudget.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) recently had a lengthy meeting with a group of retired persons from Toronto who have designated themselves as "Pensioners Concerned" and who are launching a national campaign to bring the attention of the public to the situation of retired persons, the specific situation which the hon. member has so well articulated. This group was very eloquent in its appeal and during a 90 minute session with the minister explained the problems of retired persons without ignoring the revenue problems faced by the federal government or, indeed, any government.
The Minister of Finance is sympathetic to their views but questions whether the government can legislate more favourably toward lower-income retired persons than toward any other lower-income group. He noted the $500 deduction for persons over 70 years of age, something which the hon. member mentioned. While it is acknowledged that not all persons over 70 require this exemption because they are not all persons with low incomes, nevertheless I think it is a truism that the vast majority of people over that age are on fixed incomes, be they adequate or inadequate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is sadly true, and most of them are inadequate.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Many persons and organizations have tried to divorce the issue of increased exemptions from the comprehensive issue of tax reform, but this is not possible. It may seem trite to mention, but the growing programs that the government now has under way cost money; and it is unrealistic to suggest that the government can get along with less total revenue and continue programs that are now in effect.
If pensioners are to be treated, aside from the special $500 deduction, no more generously than persons of any other age on low incomes, then one has to look at the cost to the treasury of $1 billion under the exemption

increases proposed in the white paper. The cost of these proposals is to be paid for by the other tax reforms put forward in the white paper. The changes in the rates schedule which would place a slightly heavier tax on those in the upper middle and high income groups would raise an extra $1-| billion, approximately. Capital gains taxation and other changes in taxation of business would yield other revenues. There are other reforms, of course, which would cost the treasury money.
The hon. member urged action in the present session. The government intends to place tax legislation implementing reform before Parliament as soon as possible.


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



PUBLIC WORKS-EGANVILLE-PROGRESS TOWARD NEW FEDERAL BUILDING

Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Fronlenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday afternoon during the oral question period I asked the following question of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing) as reported at page 877 of Hansard for November 4:
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works which I hope is in order because I gave him notice of it. What progress is being made by his department on the project for a new federal building in the town of Eganville?
Then, Mr. Speaker, you gave me permission because of the urgency of the situation to raise the matter at a future time of adjournment, which happens to be this evening. Last Wednesday the bulk of the questioning during the oral question period pertained to national and social security, mainly as a result of the unfortunate happenings in Quebec. These matters of national security were of such concern that the next day, November 5, the Ottawa Journal ran a lead editorial bemoaning the fact that at that time I asked a question about the need of a new federal post office in Eganville. I quote from the editorial:
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
A Commons due to meet at 2.00 opened at 2.10 and spent until 3.02 fumbling along with the usual run of questions and motions, including a query about the need of a federal building in Eganville.
The Commons was not fumbling last Wednesday, Mr. Speaker. Why shouldn't I, as the federal representative for the village of Eganville, ask my question? There was a 40-minute open question period on that day. What was wrong with asking a question pertaining to the public service and economy of the community which I represent? I think in that part of the editorial the Ottawa Journal temporarily forgot about the importance of Ottawa valley towns, one of which is Eganville. Eganville, on the Bonnechere River, a tributary of the Ottawa River, is older than Ottawa. My records indicate that Eganville was founded in 1825. Bytown was founded in 1826, and Ottawa in 1854. Eganville, the surrounding community and Renfrew county have been supplying
November 10, 1970

Ottawa for many years with men, mines and materials. I wish to remind the Ottawa Journal of this fact. The world will not come to an end because of the happenings in the province of Quebec. Eganville and Canada will continue to march onward.
My question arises from the fact that more than two years ago the federal government purchased the old Eganville town hall from the corporation of the village with the intention of building a new post office on the site. The village corporation, reeve and council moved their offices to the old Eganville high school which was vacated some time ago by the local board of education as a result of the new Opeongo high school built by the county of Renfrew board of education.
The abandonment of the old town hall has resulted in the building going into a state of disrepair and neglect. The sooner the new post office is built, the better it will serve the needs of the community. When one stands and looks at the old building in its disarray and its broken windows, he is not encouraged when he is reminded that it is owned by the federal government. In fact, it would form part of a worth-while winter works program if the government did what it could this winter toward demolishing the old building and being ready to pour footings next spring for the new office. The reeve, council and people of the village are patiently waiting word from the government as to when construction will begin on the new post office, and I say to the minister through you, Mr. Speaker, the sooner the better.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Public Works is presently planning to build a post office of approximately 2,500 square feet at Eganville. It is hoped that the more detailed planning for this post office can be proceeded with during the spring of 1971, provided sufficients funds are available for the project.



INDUSTRY, TRADE AND COMMERCE-EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET AND CANADA'S AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS- DISCUSSION AT CONGRESS

Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, the question I wish to discuss for a few minutes is properly noted at page 954 of Hansard as "Items involved in British reservation concerning application of the EEC common tariff". It arises from a supplementary question to one raised by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) on November 5. His question arose from a statement made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) in which the minister said he had recently made a trip to Europe to establish, as he described it, optimum channels of communication with all the parties involved-United Kingdom, the members of the European community, the new applicants and all countries concerned with the process of elargissement.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley West asked the minister if he could tell the House what forest products were among 12 items which the British had identified as being sensitive in the framework of the United Kingdom
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion economy-items in respect of which they had some reservation as they entered into discussions with members of the European Economic Community. This subject matter is of great concern to the important forest products producing areas of British Columbia and, understandably, members of that province are concerned about the effect the latest British move toward close association with Europe will have upon the export position.
The minister was apparently unable to answer the question from memory and he indulged in one of those rather delightful, inverted ministerial phrases which make many of us enjoy his presence in the House. Most ministers would not willingly admit that they were trying to dodge an issue, but the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce said:
I was trying to dodge the issue because I am not sure which forest products were included.
Immediately afterward, some hon. members were shouting "Oh, oh" and I did not catch the minister's further reply. There was some amusement behind the scenes on the part of the members from British Columbia who sit on the same side of the House as the minister because the hon. member for Fraser Valley West and I were raising this question on November 5. I think they knew that some of us had had lunch with a delegation from the Council of Forest Industries which was in Ottawa. It was because I had knowledge of the presence of this delegation in Ottawa that I was surprised the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce did not, apparently, know the details concerning items which are of such great concern to a delegation which had come to Ottawa primarily to discuss this matter with the government as well as with some private members.
Therefore, I asked the minister whether, before attempting to make a statement in the House as suggested by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), he would visit our province and find out at first-hand just how important these products are to the economy of British Columbia in particular and, indeed, to Canada as a whole. I realize that the following day the minister did come into the House and state that plywood, wood pulp and newsprint are among the 12 sensitive items. I appreciate that he gave this information to the House on the next occasion we were sitting. I know, too, that he told us lumber was not included among the items which the British considered to be most sensitive, although he added there might be a possibility of rough-sawn lumber entering the European Economic Community free of duty when Britain joins it.
[DOT] (10:20p.m.)
I should also like to say that not only the members of the Council of Forest Industries but also the people of British Columbia generally have good reason for concern about the impact of the British move toward Europe. As has often been said-indeed, it is almost trite in British Columbia-something like 50 cents of every dollar in the British Columbia economy arises from the harvesting and manufacture of our forest crops.
1086

November 10, 1970
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
If I still have a minute or two I should like to say that it is particularly important that in its discussions and negotiations with European nations, the Canadian government should not lose sight of the importance of the lumber export market, even though the British do not regard it as a sensitive area.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's time has expired.


Mr. Bruce Howard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I think we are indebted to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) for raising this very important issue. It is a matter of concern to the government and certainly to the people and industry in British Columbia. Perhaps it is not surprising that the genial and very capable Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) would not have at his fingertips all 12 items about which the British are particularly concerned, when one notices that the list includes not only plywood, wood pulp and newsprint, with which the hon. member was concerned, but things like ferro-silicon, ferro-chrome and even the esoteric item of wattle extract.
British Columbia lumber products do enter the United Kingdom market tariff free at the present time. Under arrangements that are expected to be made if the United Kingdom succeeds in joining the European Economic Community, it is anticipated, as the hon. member stated, that rough-sawn lumber will continue to enter duty free. It is expected that wood pulp would carry a tariff of 3
per cent, newsprint 7 per cent and plywood 13 per cent. At the present time, countries that are members of the EEC are importing wood pulp and newsprint for their own needs on a tariff free basis.
The United Kingdom has given notice that it intends to ask for special arrangements to be made with regard to wood pulp, newsprint and plywood. The government is in very close contact with the United Kingdom and countries of the EEC in regard to these arrangements. The minister was recently in Europe developing previous contacts and the government is kept aware of these important developments.
The government is also very closely in touch with British Columbia lumber producers and marketers. Last week, as a matter of fact, the minister and I had a meeting with one of the lumber industry representatives who was in Ottawa, at which we discussed particular arrangements concerning the promotion of British Columbia plywood. It is hoped that something can be worked out which will have special reference to our need for developing and maintaining markets for British Columbia plywood in the European Economic Community, and at such time as-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Parliamentary Secretary's time has expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 2 (3), this House stands adjourned until Thursday, November 12, 1970, at two o'clock p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10:26 p.m.
..1087

Thursday. November 12, 1970