1970-11-06

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Ian Wahn (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. In an interview last night on the program "Encounter", the interviewer may have implied that certain remarks which I made from the floor at a public meeting in Convocation Hall of the University of Toronto last Monday suggested dishonourable motives or illegal conduct on the part of the person or persons named in the interview.
I wish to make it entirely clear that that was not my intent.
At that meeting I did defend, to the best of my ability, the decision of the government in proclaiming the War Measures Act. I reviewed in some detail the situation prevailing at the time that the decision was made, including the statements urging the government of Quebec to accede to the terrorists' demands which, if acceded to, might in my view have led to the breakdown of the civil authority of the elected government of the province of Quebec. I wish to make it entirely clear that I did not accuse or intend to accuse any individual or specific group, other than the FLQ, of dishonourable motives or illegal or dishonourable conduct. If anything I said at what was at that point a somewhat noisy meeting has given that impression, I sincerely regret it and I extend my sincere apologies to all those who may have been affected by my remarks.
Finally, I wish to make it entirely clear that I spoke at the meeting entirely on my own initiative and not at the request of any member of government, and my remarks were not based upon any private information but only upon reports which had been published in the press or referred to in this House.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table copies in both official languages of a report on departmental activities.



FISHERIES


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I ask the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion in a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
This matter involves the management and conservation of our marine resources on both our Atlantic and Pacific coasts. The depletion of our marine resources by foreign nationals, especially by the Soviet Union, necessitates that Canada assume its responsibility under the articles of the Law of the Sea and initiate an international conference on fish conservation and management.
With the unanimous consent of the House, I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), the following motion:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government must take the initiative in convening an international conference of the fishing nations of the world to discuss the conservation and management of marine resources in the waters adjacent to Canada's territorial seas.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: As the hon. member knows, under Standing Order 43, the unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with the motion.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity and therefore the motion cannot be put to the House at this time.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I ask the unanimous consent of the House-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: -to present a motion in a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
The Atlantic Provinces Economic Council yesterday forecast a severe economic crisis this winter in the eastern region of Canada where already the male unemployment rate this year is averaging at least 10 per cent. This

November 6, 1970
The Canadian Economy
crisis will not be prevented by the government's slight easing of its restrictive economic and fiscal policies. This government must co-operate with the Atlantic provincial governments immediately on crash programs that will be of immediate effect to diminish the force of this crisis.
With the unanimous consent of the House I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave), the following motion:
That this House expresses its concern at the effect of the government's economic and fiscal policies upon the Atlantic region where an economic crisis with drastic unemployment is imminent and urges that the government take immediate action to alleviate the effects of this crisis.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As the hon. member knows, this motion cannot be put under the terms of Standing Order 43 unless there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimity in the House and the motion cannot be put at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. Baldwin:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think it should be pointed out that two members of the government party said no before the hon. member for Hillsborough had even read his motion.
Some hen. Members: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Peace River knows that is not a point of order. That is debate. I would hope that when motions under Standing Order 43 are proposed to the House there would be no debate and that we would limit our consideration thereof to an inquiry whether or not there is unanimity.



NEW ZEALAND TRADE AGREEMENT (AMENDMENT) ACT PROVISION FOR APPROVAL AND COMING INTO FORCE

Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (for ihe Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved: the first reading of Bill S-4 (from the Senate) to implement an agreement amending the trade agreement between Canada and New Zealand. Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



LEPROSY ACT


Allan Joseph MacEachen: the first reading of Bill S-7 (from the Senate), to repeal the Leprosy Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the warning of APEC that the Atlantic provinces face crisis conditions of unemployment this winter, he proposes to adopt any new measures, or whether he considers APEC to be exaggerating inasmuch as he suggested yesterday we could have no assurance that Donald MacDonald was telling the truth?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, without agreeing with the insinuation the hon. member made about APEC not telling the truth, I might say that the government has been taking a series of measures which will have the effect of alleviating that situation. As the House remembers, in the March budget we announced that the government's cash requirements would undergo a swing of about three-quarters of a billion dollars from the previous year. This certainly is a new posture which is meant to help the unemployment situation. Last June it was announced that outlays to the provinces would increase by some $300 million to cover accelerated transfer and so on, and later it was announced that equalization payments to the provinces were to be increased by $50 million. The House knows that the student summer employment program, launched by the government, added another $73 million to current expenditures. Then, an additional $100 million was announced a month or two ago for moderate income housing. Also, in the throne speech debate the Minister of Finance announced plans for new expenditures of $60 million. All these measures, of course, add up to a serious expenditure by the government to meet these unemployment situations.
On the monetary side there has been an easing of restraints, and the money supply in private hands has increased at a seasonally adjusted annual rate averaging 12.1 per cent. I think it should be obvious to any impartial observer, Mr. Speaker, that the government is doing a great many things indeed in terms of money, money supply and fiscal measures to meet this serious unemployment situation in Canada.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I thank the right hon. gentleman for his review of what has taken place. However, any impartial observer would agree that it has not taken us very far forward. In view of what the Prime Minister stated, is it the position of the government that it is now doing all it reasonably can to reduce anticipated winter unemployment, that while the government may have made a mistake and gone much too far in slowing down the economy there is nothing further it can do to relieve this approaching crisis?


Mr. Speaker:: It appears that the question of the Leader of the Opposition is somewhat argumentative in tone,
November 6, 1970

and I wonder whether it should be accepted as a supplementary question. However, the matter is important and the Prime Minister may wish to reply.
'[Translation]



UNEMPLOYMENT-PAYMENT OF COST BY GOVERNMENT IF RATE EXCEEDS FOUR PER CENT

Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister.
Will the government implement this winter the policies outlined in the white paper on unemployment insurance, that is, will it assume the whole cost of unemployment if the latter exceeds the 4 per cent rate by 1 per cent?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is aware, this proposal as included in the white paper is before the House at the present time and the government has announced its intention to introduce legislation during the present session following consideration of the white paper.



SPECIAL WINTER WORKS PROGRAM TO LESSEN UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. David Lewis (York South):: As the Prime Minister knows, there is always a time lag between the kind of policies to which he has referred and their effect on the employment situation. Is the government giving consideration to some special works this winter in areas of particularly sharp unemployment, such as building works or other projects of that sort to lessen unemployment in those areas?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the member is correct that with some of these measures there are time lags which are fairly substantial, but in others the time lags are much shorter. They have already had substantial effect. For instance, the actions of the government in the area of housing have given the very surprising and welcome result that seasonally adjusted starts rose to an annual rate of 270,000 units in this last month. That is 70,000 units above the annual rate of 200,000 units which is the average that the government has been looking for.


David Lewis: In view of the fact that everyone is agreed that there will be a much higher rate of unemployment this winter-I appreciate the seasonally adjusted figure but that does not help those who are unemployed-particularly in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces, and in view of the fact that there will be a critical situation from various points of view, including that to which we have been giving attention in the last two or three weeks, can a program be introduced this winter to accelerate job creating work in those areas?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: All these actions I have recited, beginning with the swing of three-quarters of a billion dollars which was announced last March, are obviously going to take effect this winter and have been taking effect.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Gerald William Baldwin: Will the Prime Minister consider delegating to one of his more responsible ministers the task of making a statement on motions to explain why these measures have been such a dismal flop?



INTERIM MEASURE TO INCREASE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS

David Lewis: May I ask the Prime Minister a further supplementary since I do not think the Minister of Labour is due to be here? It follows upon the question asked by the hon. member for Shefford. I realize that the white paper on unemployment insurance is now before a committee, but in view of the heavy unemployment which is expected this winter is the government considering introducing a special measure or an interim measure to increase unemployment benefits to meet this situation, whether on a 4 per cent basis or on any other basis?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, but if the House wishes to co-operate and get this white paper considered and the legislation introduced early, we will be very happy.



ATLANTIC PROVINCES-APPLICATION OF SELECTIVE FISCAL AND MONETARY POLICIES

Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Does the government intend to announce the selective fiscal and monetary policies which the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council says are immediately required?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: The government has already announced these policies. I should also point out that this government and the previous Liberal government put some teeth into the development of the Atlantic region allocating money for regional development.


An hon. Member:: False teeth.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: One further question to avoid any misunderstanding. Is it the position of the government that it has taken all measures which could reasonably be taken with regard to unemployment this coming winter and that it does not propose to take any further new measures of substance?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not
know whether the hon. gentleman is suggesting that we should take no further measures-


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: but I recited a few moments ago a series of measures which have been taken from month to month. Of course I would not say no further measures will be taken. They will be taken if they are needed and if we have the money to implement them.

November 6, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON RECOMMENDATIONS BY COUNCIL ON RURAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Would the Prime Minister discuss with the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion the third report of the Canadian Council on Rural Development, which I gather was made available to the minister in July and which has now been made public, recommending firm measures which the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion should take to alleviate the rural poverty that stretches across this country from coast to coast? I appreciate that the Prime Minister cannot comment on it, but could the minister, who has had this report in his hands since July, come into the House early next week and tell us what he intends to do about the strong recommendations made by this independent body?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Obviously the hon. member is making a speech. If he wants to ask a question of the minister, he will have the opportunity to
do so next week.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I appreciate that the minister will be here, but because of the importance of the subject, the clear and comprehensive nature of this report, and the importance of this whole problem as it affects Canadians, both employed and unemployed, I had hoped the Prime Minister would give an undertaking to discuss this matter with his colleague so that a statement could be made by the minister concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister rose as you rose-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will agree, of course, that when the Speaker rises he has the floor.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I would be the first to agree with Your Honour, but the fact is you were looking toward the ebullient member for Cape Breton-East Richmond-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I was looking both ways, but I am recognizing the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breion-Easi Richmond):: supplementary question to the Prime Minister following the question asked by my hon. friend from Peace River in which he indicated that programs in the Atlantic provinces had flopped. Would the Prime Minister agree that this has come about because of the lack of administrative ability on the part of Mr. Blackmore in Cape Breton and Mr. Addison in New Brunswick?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order please.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. Real Caoueite (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
As several charges were laid yesterday against some suspects under the Criminal Code provisions on sedition,
could the Prime Minister tell us why the charges were not laid before since the presumed offices go back as far as January 1, 1968?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am obviously unable to answer this question. The accused are now before the courts. The reason why the charges were not laid sooner is a matter that is naturally relevant to the administration of justice which comes under provincial jurisdiction.



REPORTED REDUCTION IN RCMP PERSONNEL ENGAGED IN SEARCH FOR KIDNAPPERS AND MURDERERS

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, in order to clear up some confusion that I felt the Solicitor General left yesterday, and in view of the fact that there appears to be some new evidence with reference to Mr. Cross, could I ask the Solicitor General whether any RCMP officers have been withdrawn from Quebec of late and, if so, who made that decision?


Mr. Speaker;: Order. My understanding is that this question was asked and answered. However, perhaps the minister might like to clarify the situation further.


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad of the opportunity to confirm the answer that I gave two days ago to that question. No RCMP have been withdrawn from Quebec province or from the Cross-Laporte case.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and arises from a question I asked him on October 13 in regard to oil exploration on Banks Island and agreements between the government and the oil companies and the government and the Eskimos. On October 21 he tabled copies of the agreements between the government and the oil companies. May I ask the minister whether the fact that he tabled these agreements means that there are no agreements between the government and the Eskimos or the oil companies and the Eskimos?
November 6, 1970


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, there has been no agreement signed with the Eskimos. We discussed the conditions set forth for the company involved with the Eskimos' legal adviser who seemed to find them satisfactory. Seismographic work has begun, the Eskimos are accompanying the groups involved and all seems to be going well. At no time have the Eskimos requested the companies to interrupt their work and everything seems to be running smoothly just now, which proves that the agreement between the three parties was adequate.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Does that mean that in the minister's view the Eskimo people on Banks Island have no property rights in that area?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the lands located inside the Territories are the property of Her Majesty the Queen, and it was on behalf of the government and of the Queen that we signed an agreement with the company.



GENERAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT AND REFERENCE OF CERTAIN REPORTS TO COMMITTEE

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, as a preface to my supplementary may I compliment the minister on the speech he made in Edmonton, and I do so quite sincerely.
In light of the views the minister expressed there in regard to bringing economic, political, ecological and social development in the north into harmony, may I ask the minister whether or not he would consider making a statement on motions in regard to the government's intentions in this regard, and possibly referring to a committee the report of the Mackenzie Delta group which investigated the very serious conditions there, as well as the report of the committee which is investigating conditions in the Peace-Athabasca Delta?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the chairman of the committee will look into the hon. member's suggestion and if this matter is studied by the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, I would gladly appear before that committee and explain in detail the government's policy on the two issues raised by the hon. member.



RESERVATION OF LAND FOR ESKIMOS

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In view of the minister's answer that all the land in the north and the territories belongs to the Crown in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, and in view of the fact that development is now taking place in the north and people from
Inquiries of the Ministry
other parts of Canada are moving in, may I ask the minister whether any thought will be given to reserving a certain amount of land for the Eskimo people?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, this question is very complex. We consider that all the land in the North belongs to the Crown and, in any event, we have taken the necessary steps in order that the land required by the Eskimos and Indians will be available for their usual activities.



TAXATION


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Matane):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Finance.
I wonder whether he had time to consider the point I made a month ago about the campaign which the Quebec Association of Private Broadcasters, in co-operation w.th the provincial Chamber of Commerce, had launched against taxation of capital gains, a measure which evidently would turn out to the advantage of the underprivileged classes. Would it be possible for the latter to be allowed free broadcast periods to start their own campa.gn?


Mr. Speaker:: Apparently the hon. member is taking this opportunity to launch his own campaign. I would
suggest tnat ne allow me Minister or ruiaiiic a cnance io answer his question.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that free time public service radio broadcasts during October over various Quebec radio stations, including CKBL, did oppose a capital gains tax for Canada. While there is no regulation requiring it, there is a well established principle that a station broadcasting these messages must ensure that any person or group wishing to express differing views be given an opportunity to do so free of charge and in an equitable manner. Should the application of this principle give rise to any difficulty, the interested parties may communicate with the CRTC to clarify any misunderstanding and state their point of view.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Now that the winds of

November 6, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
change are blowing in the Atlantic provinces, would the minister contribute his share by advising the House if a successor to Dr. McClure as the federal nominee and chairman of the federal-provincial committee studying Atlantic transportation problems has been named? If so, can the minister now announce the name of the nominee?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: I am
afraid I cannot give the name because I am not sure whether the gentleman has been appointed as of today. There have been consultations with the provinces concerned to obtain their agreement, but I can assure the hon. member that the appointment will be announced within a very short time.


Charles Humbert Thomas: When the minister is pursuing this course of action, would he also use his good offices to persuade the committee to resume the study of the premiers' report and the twelfth report of the standing committee with a view to making some early recommendations for a new transportation policy for the Atlantic region?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I do not think we need to wait for the appointment of that gentleman to do that. Work has been going on steadily during the summer months and since the report was received. As the hon. member knows, portions of it have already been implemented, including recently a reduction of the full 25 per cent in truck rates in and out of the two island provinces.
[DOT] [DOT] [DOT]



PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA-PROMOTION OF CANADIAN WOOD PRODUCTS

Mr. Barry Maiher (Surrey):: I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Having in mind, on the one hand, the unemployment situation in British Columbia and, on the other hand, our improved trade relations with China, will the minister undertake to encourage his department to develop the trade potential for Canadian wood products, including plywood, in the Chinese market?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: We will do that, Mr. Speaker. We will leave no stone unturned when it comes to developing trade opportunities with China.



ITEMS INVOLVED IN BRITISH REVERV ATI ON CONCERNING APPLICATION OF EEC COMMON TARIFF

Jean-Luc Pepin: While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, may I complete the answer I gave yesterday on the subject of the 12 industrial materials for which the British feel that application of the common EEC external tariff would result in an excessive increase in costs for their domestic
industry. Nine of these items are of interest to Canada. They are: phosphorus, silicon carbide, plywood, wood pulp, newsprint, ferro-silicon, aluminum, lead and zinc. The three remaining items are: alumina, ferro-chrome and wattle extract-I have no idea what that is. Lumber is not included in the list of sensitive items, although I said yesterday it might be, since the common external tariff of the EEC is already free of duty on rough, sawn lumber.



PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA-COMPOSITION OF PERMANENT CANADIAN MISSION

Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: I would like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce whether he is sending a permanent trade mission to China and whether, when that mission is assembled, he will consider including a member of the Tobacco Producers' Marketing Board?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The Secretary of State for External Affairs announced on October 13 what the plan was with respect to our representation in the Peoples' Republic of China. I think it was said at the time that the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce would send two trade commissioners to Peking. There is no intention at this time to hire people from any one of the specialized industries in Canada for the purpose of special representation.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Is he aware that his special assistant, the former member for Champlain, who is paid $13,000 a year plus a certain amount for his expenses, is presently in the motel La Provence at Thetford Mines where he is organizing the election campaign of the Liberal candidate in Frontenac?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question is not in order.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister on a question of privilege.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It is true that Mr. Matte is working in my office. He is on leave right now and I understand very well that the Ralliement creditiste members are afraid of losing the Frontenac constituency within ten days.


Mr. Speaker:: The question of privilege is out of order as well as the question of the hon. member for Shefford.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege.

November 6. 1970


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Temiscamingue on a question of privilege also.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I must say to the minister as well as to his private secretary that they have been blundering in the Frontenac constituency.



FINANCE


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. A few days ago I asked the minister about the rights and privileges of the commercial banks in sending out gratuitous Chargex cards which create a liability on those receiving them. I wonder whether the minister is in a position to answer this question, and at the same time could he give the House any indication if, when, and at what amount he intends to repeg the Canadian dollar?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member may ask only one question at a time. He might indicate now which one he would like the minister to answer.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I did ask only one new question. The other question I asked the other day, and I felt that perhaps Your Honour might permit both.


Edgar John Benson: I looked into the question raised on October 27 and I And that the situation is as follows: First, as the banks issuing Chargex cards extend this operation into additional places in Canada, these cards will not be mailed to the public until the bank concerned has been advised that the card is wanted. Second, the banks issuing these cards have not held anyone legally responsible for the improper use of a credit card which was mailed but not received by the proper person.
My reply to the second question is no.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport to seek some information which I think would be of interest to all members of the House. In view of the new status of our relations with the Republic of China and the apparent opportunity for a tremendous expansion of our air transport to that country, can the minister state whether the necessary negotiations will be initiated and pursued by the government or whether this will be left to the air carriers subject to ratification by the government?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The
procedures for negotiations toward a bilateral air agree-
Inquiries of the Ministry
ment with any country are well laid down. These
negotiations are carried on between countries rather than between airlines, although naturally there is an input by the airlines because of their direct interest. At the moment there are no bilateral negotiations under way with the government of China, but presumably if there were to be any they would follow the establishment of proper recognition in both capitals.



INSTALLATION OF RADIOS AND HOMER BEACON DEVICES ON PRIVATE COMMERCIAL PLANES

Mr. Mark W. Rose (Fraser Valley Wesi):: My question to the Minister of Transport relates to the helicopter pilot who was lost for 30 days and miraculously found in the Baker Lake area north of Saskatchewan. In view of the fact that thousands of man-hours and thousands of dollars are spent annually by the Department of National Defence on search and rescue operations, is the minister considering the institution of regulations requiring radios and homer beacon devices to be installed on all private commercial planes?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are. I have answered this question in various forms over the last year or so. The real difficulty is in getting general agreement as to the technical standards for such equipment. If it can be shown that these are useful, the department and the government would be quite prepared to require them, certainly in those cases where there is danger of loss of an aircraft in a remote area. The difficulty is that at the moment there is no such assurance of proper standards and we would not want, for example, to require their installation and perhaps give people a false sense of security which, indeed, the equipment now available might not be able to provide.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, would the minister be kind enough to tell the House what steps are being taken by his department or other agencies to validate the usefulness of such equipment?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would think such information should be given the House by way of a statement on motions. With respect, I suggest it should not be done at this time.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Parliamentary Secretary io Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address this question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Is the minister in a position to inform the House as to government policy with respect to perpetually renewable leases in light of the Supreme Court judgment in the Walker case and, further, what action is being taken with regard to applications for assignment or renewal of such leases?

November 6, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I already have been asked this question by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and I am pleased to answer it.
In answering the question of the hon. member I would like to say that all the requests for renewal or assignment of perpetually renewable leases under consideration now are in process of settlement. 1 approve and I will continue to approve all requests for renewal or transfer unless there is clear evidence that I have to refuse in the public interest.
It is nevertheless my duty to stress that we do not have given up definitively the idea of eliminating perpetual leases gradually. Our policy regarding lease renting and other matters involving the interests of persons living or doing business in our national parks is the subject of-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must interrupt the minister and remind him that such a lengthy reply should normally be made by way of a statement on motions.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may I say that we are prepared to agree to the minister reverting to motions. When there is such an obvious rehearsed arrangement, I think that should be the proper procedure.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. What is the government prepared to do to reimburse the 750-odd leaseholders who over the past 10 to 12 years have been obliged to surrender perpetually renewable leases they held and accept 42-year leases in order to secure the minister's consent to transfers or renewals?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we have not examined this aspect of the problem, and though we cannot give an answer now, we are studying the matter.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I ask a
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I have raised this question in the House on many occasions. In light of the fact that a number of people, 700-odd or at least a great portion of them, were told they could not transfer to a second party unless they gave up their equity and rights, will the minister now consider restoring the rights that were denied these people by duress?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I should like to say to the hon. member that this policy was established in 1958 by the previous administration.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is hogwash.


Mr. Dinsdale:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the policy established in 1958 was a moratorium on any further perpetual leaseholds. There was no interference with existing perpetual leaseholds.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. Since the announcement of a reward, has the Prime Minister any information to give the House concerning the whereabouts of British Trade Commissioner, James Cross?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, I have
none, Mr. Speaker.



POST OFFICE


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio from Longueuil, based on the fascinating document he has just tabled, concerning the rediscovery of 140 mail bags which have been misplaced since Holy Thursday, March 26. Can he advise whether his department has reason to believe that other mail bags are still missing and that there is hope of reclaiming them?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, I was very upset by this report from some of my officials that 140 bags of mail had been found in two trucks that had been in storage since last March. That is why I did not wish to conceal any of the facts and that I made them known as soon as possible.
Therefore, I tabled the report this morning and I informed the press. We intend to carry out a thorough investigation and to take any action required against the persons responsible for this negligence.
I wanted to reveal all the facts as soon as possible. There is no excuse for this sort of thing, Mr. Speaker, especially when the post office is trying very hard to improve its services.



FINANCE


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance this question. Following his successful consultations with the chartered banks as the result of which they did reduce their interest rates, has he had consultations with lending institutions other than the chartered banks to see whether they might also conform with the general trend established by the chartered banks?

November 6, 1970


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker, but I have noted that in some instances there has been some reduction by other financial institutions.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the Canadian Pacific Railway maintains that it does not come under the provisions of the Pension Benefits Standards Act in so far as its pension plan is concerned, would the minister give some indication to the House of what action is being taken against the Canadian Pacific Railway in regard to its refusal to come under the requirements of the Act?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, may I take that question as notice in order to get detailed information.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Can the minister say whether any discussions have taken place between the federal government and the government of Manitoba in relation to the establishment of a national park or a provincial game preserve in the Polar Bear denning area south of Churchill in order to improve the chance of survival of these animals?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if there were discussions in that respect. I am aware that federal wildlife service officers are now looking into that situation in order to maintain this very important sanctuary for the reproduction of polar bears. I therefore take the hon. member's suggestion as notice and I shall see if there is any possibility of reaching an agreement with the Manitoba government in that connection.



PRODUCTION AND RECEIPTS POLICY-STATUS OF PAYMENTS UNDER TEMPORARY WHEAT RESERVES ACT

Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister in charge
Inquiries of the Ministry
of the Wheat Board arising out of the tabling of the proposed grains policy last week. In light of the proposal to discontinue government payments under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, can the minister say whether it is the intention of the government to redirect such funds into other areas within the grain industry or is this proposal primarily an austerity move at the expense of the western farmer?


Hon. Olio E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: It is clearly not an austerity move, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member had read the totality of the proposal he would have seen there is an indication of government support in the stabilization fund and also in the market development fund in addition to the three-year program for diverting further acreage to forage.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, there is no assurance of a corresponding amount being paid into the stabilization fund. Since $655 million has been paid in lieu of storage charges since 1956, can the minister give any indication whether a corresponding amount will be channelled into funds to promote and provide a stronger grain industry in western Canada?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the exact figure which will be involved will, of course, have to wait for the further development of the details of the program. But it certainly is envisaged that a significant contribution will be made, and if the plan had been in effect over the period of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act perhaps a little more money would have been involved than under that Act. Naturally I would hesitate to be too precise about figures while I am still urging further discussions with the producers about various aspects of the plan, including a maximum limit on grain deliveries by each producer which should be included.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance which is really supplementary to the question raised by the hon. member for Matane regarding equal time privileges. Does this same principle apply to public affairs programs on the CBC and other media, which so often spread messages of disunity and anarchy, in order to allow the rest of us to present a more healthy point of view?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I have to defer to the Secretary of State for an answer to that question.

November 6, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry



MANPOWER


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Can the minister inform the House of the progress of the discussions between the Department of Manpower of Canada and oificials of the adult education service of the Department of Education of the province of Quebec with regard to the retraining allowances which have been promised to male and female nurses who have been waiting for an answer since September?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take as notice the question of where the specific discussions referred to by the hon. member are. I should say, of course, that there are programs by both governments in this area, with the federal government not being involved in regard to certain of the nurses training programs to which I think the hon. member referred in a question some weeks ago.



HOUSING

[Stage Direction]
acceptability of mobile homes under nha regulations-continuation OF SPECIAL EXPERIMENTAL FUND
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the minister in charge of housing. Prior to rising for the summer recess we had some discussion about the acceptability of mobile homes by CMHC under the NHA regulations, and the minister indicated he was looking into this matter. Has he come to any firm conclusion yet in this regard?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, we did initiate a study of this concept in order to assess fully the potential of this technique as a cost saving project. We have one or two pilot projects under way-I believe one in London, Ontario-where we are assessing the infrastructure necessary for mobile home use, and I am optimistic about the possibility of bringing certain types of mobile homes under the banner of the National Housing Act. However, one of the requirements for this is municipal acceptance regarding the provision of the necessary sewage, water and other service components of the infrastructure that must go along with it.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's remarks and I do hope that at the earliest opportunity as soon as this study is completed he will make a statement on motions indicating to the House just what the situation is. In view of the relative success of the $200 million
special fund which he implemented, is it his intention to carry this matter through in next year's budget also, in order that we can acquire the necessary innovations and new techniques for housing?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the hon. member for his kind words about the program, and it would be my intention to ask for some reasonably similar form of program authority to carry on this excellent approach in the 1971 season.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Rod Thomson (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Post Office. When will the minister be tabling the white paper on Post Office reorganization promised by the previous Postmaster General?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the question.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: When will the minister be tabling the white paper on Post Office reorganization promised by the previous Postmaster General?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: In due time, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House in committee on Bill C-181, to provide temporary emergency powers for the Preservation of Public Order in Canada-Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carle-ton)-Mr. Honey in the Chair.
On clause-Definitions.
The Chairman:: Shall clause 2 carry?


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Could I just raise a point of order to start-


Russell Clayton Honey: Order. Would the hon. member resume his seat, please?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I was wondering-


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?

November 6, 1970


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a point of order.


Russell Clayton Honey: The hon. member for Calgary North.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that we are moving into committee of the whole House, a procedure we do not use very often, could we have some clarification and direction from the Chair? I appreciate that in the committee of the whole a member may speak for 20 minutes at a time. It would shorten our proceedings if we could reach agreement on our method of proceeding. Members of this party, and myself in particular, will lay what amendments we have in mind before the committee, so that we may set them out en bloc. I was wondering could we speak in a general way, a practice that we followed in the past, which I think would save time?


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Chairman, we agree with that. I have already received the courtesy from the hon. member for Greenwood of an indication of what amendments he intends to put. I, myself, intend to propose a clarifying amendment to clause 7. I think it would be very useful for the committee if we were to introduce the amendments at this stage and allow everybody to consider them over the lunch hour. That might be, as the hon. member for Calgary North suggested, quite an expeditious way to handle them. It is good to get back in committee of the whole, something we have not had for some time.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Chairman,
1	am sure we will all be prepared to agree to this proposal if it means that during the discussion on clause
2	members who are speaking, for themselves or for their parties, will be permitted to indicate the amendments they are going to move when we get to the other clauses.
I believe that we have to observe the rule that we do not actually move the amendments on the specific clauses until we get to those clauses. What the hon. member for Calgary North is requesting is latitude on clause 2, and particularly for that latitude to include the right to indicate amendments to be moved later. We would agree with that, but I trust it is understood that hon. members are not required at this point to indicate what their amendments might be.


Russell Clayton Honey: Is the hon. member for St. John's East rising on this point of order?


James Aloysius McGrath: No, on another point of order.


Russell Clayton Honey: As I understand hon. members who have spoken on this point of order, spokesmen for the parties in what we might call their initial speeches on clause 2 would indicate, or may indicate if they wish to do so, the amendments which their particular group wish to advance. They will read them but they will not put them in the formal sense. They will read them in the sense that they will make the House knowledgeable of the particular amendments they will be moving. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
23226-61J
Public Order Act, 1970


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise a point of order at this stage of our proceedings. It has to do with a question I directed to the Solicitor General regarding the bill that is now before the committee. On Friday, October 30, I asked the Solicitor General, in his capacity as acting Minister of Justice, as recorded at page 740 of Hansard:
Have the provincial Attorneys General been shown a draft copy of the government's proposed legislation to replace the War Measures Act? If so, can the Acting Minister of Justice tell the House when Parliament will also be granted this privilege?
The Solicitor General replied:
Mr. Speaker, the Attorneys General of the provinces have not been shown any such draft bill.
In today's issue of the Globe and Mail there is a report concerning the Attorney General of Ontario, which reads in part, and I am quoting:
[DOT] (12:00 noon)
Arthur Wishart said the provincial government made "strong representations almost immediately" after receiving the first draft of the bill, intended as a long term replacement for the War Measures Act.
In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, I might point out that the Attorney General of Newfoundland, a week ago yesterday, also made a public statement to the effect that he had received a draft copy of the bill. In the light of this statement of the Attorney General of Ontario I wonder whether the Solicitor General might want to correct the record.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I will be glad to correct the record. There was no draft bill in that sense circulated to Attorneys General across the country. There was a discussion draft of the general tenor of what the federal government had in mind. After those discussions, and indeed after discussions with the Leader of the Opposition and after receiving communications from the other two parties and after discussion with members of my own caucus, the bill was then drafted.
The only draft bill, and the only bill for which I take responsibility, is the one before the House. It is true that we indicated in general terms the options we had in mind, and those options were in the form of papers which were left with the various Attorneys General.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Chairman, if I may I will say on
thqt noinr *-v-P	*'


Russell Clayton Honey: Is the hon. member rising on the same point of order?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Referring to that same article, I notice that the Attorney General for the province of Ontario has indicated that we could follow the Criminal Code regarding matters of sedition and treason, but he questioned the propriety of this new bill before the House. I wonder if the minister could advise whether he has any other information of similar tone from other Attorneys General throughout the country?

November 6, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970


John Napier Turner: I will want to have further communication with the Attorney General for Ontario because that position really was not indicated to us. We received general approval for what we had in mind from the provinces all across the country.


Russell Clayton Honey: Is the hon. member for Calgary North rising on that same point of order?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: No.


Russell Clayton Honey: Shall clause 2 carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I will try to put our position clearly as to what amendments we will be moving.
First of all, because there seemed to be some confusion at the beginning, I should like to ask what the position of the government is as far as this bill is concerned. There seemed to be an impression left that when the Prime Minister spoke on October 16 he promised a special bill.
I just want to clarify the position of the official opposition. This impression affected the official opposition yesterday because if the record is consulted-and I may digress for a few moments-it will be seen that, outside of one short statement properly made by the hon. member for Egmont in reference to how he intended to vote, we had one speaker while the Liberals put up five or six speakers during the debate on second reading of the bill.


An hon. Member:: A government filibuster.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It seemed to me they were filibustering their own bill because we were then dealing with the principle of the bill, and they all voted for it. Maybe they were conscience stricken, Mr. Chairman, and had to explain why they were supporting the Prime Minister. So there was delay yesterday, in spite of the fact the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice had indicated there was some urgency to get this bill through and thus get rid of the War Measures Act because it was so all .encompassing. I was rather surprised to have to sit through a long debate whilst the government hurled reproaches and recriminations at the NDP because they took a different position. I will say that where everybody thinks alike there is no thinking at all, and that is apparently what the government wants.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A letter arrived on my desk this morning containing this statement: "Be thankful of the opinions of others; there are three sides to every question. Well, maybe that answers that.
Now, I want to go to where the Prime Minister stood when the War Measures Act was brought in at four o'clock in the morning. I want to emphasize again that when we met in Parliament on October 16, we met when this law was in effect. We were not debating the law, we
were debating then the question of whether or not the government should receive the confidence of Parliament or the confidence of the Canadian people through Parliament, because the law had been brought in at four o'clock in the morning. A law that was not in effect when we went to bed became effective at four o'clock in the morning. This was what the Prime Minister said:
The government recognizes that the authority contained in the act is much broader than is required in the present situation, notwithstanding the seriousness of the events. For that reason, the regulations which were adopted permit the exercise of only a limited number of the powers available under the act.
I pause there. He reminded the House that they were dealing with the administration of justice as far as the War Measures Act was concerned. At that stage they apparently did not intend to use any of the other sweeping powers which would have dealt with economic factors in Canada. I say that when the War Measures Act was proclaimed by the government, in fact the whole constitution de jacto and de jure was set aside. The Prime Minister continued:
Nevertheless, I wish to make it clear today that the government regards the use of the War Measures Act as only an interim and, in the sense mentioned above, somewhat unsatisfactory measure.
That is, in the original proclamation that set out the time limit on the operation of the War Measures Act. At no place in the debate and no place in the Prime Minister's statement-and let us get this straight-did he ever promise to bring in a bill such as the one we are debating today in committee. That is why the Leader of the Official Opposition in the debate on second reading said that this government needed some leadership on this bill. Where did that suggestion come from? The opposition gave that leadership to the government.
I should like to return to page 196 of Hansard, Mr. Chairman. I have read what the Prime Minister said. He talked about an interim measure and that meant the War Measures Act was only going to last for a short time. This is what our leader said as recorded at page 196:
I assert that, rather than coming here this morning and seeking the approval of the House for a measure for which the government must accept the responsibility for having taken, the government should have concentrated on bringing before the House a bill-
Meaning a temporary bill such as the one we have now. The leadership that this suggestion gave-and the government capitulated-came from this side of the House and, to be fair, I mean all the opposition parties took that position.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If you would only listen for a few moments. I listened very attentively to your filibuster yesterday and I wish the hon. member would give me the same privilege today.
I should now like to read from page 239 of Hansard. At that stage the Minister of Justice was in the House and I said:

November 6, 1970

This would contain the powers they felt they needed to cope with the situation. I ask the Minister of Justice whether he will stand in his place and say that the government intends to bring in a bill which will give them the powers they feel they need to deal with this crisis, and that this bill will supplant the regulations passed early this morning. Is that the government's policy?
I put that question to the Minister of Justice, Mr. Chairman, but he would not answer. Why? The Minister of Justice was concerned, if not frightened, that he might overstep the instructions given by the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is why the Minister of Justice would not answer the question at that time, so this bill was necessary, and I would like to re-emphasize this, after the government capitulated their position. Indeed, they did capitulate their position to bring in the bill in question.


An hon. Member:: Oh, go on, you are just stick handling.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, I don't know about that, Mr. Chairman, but when I hear these people talk about stick handling I must say that a lot of them are so slippery they would do very well on ice.
Now, I want to read on:
Does silence indicate it will be? Of course it does not. This Order in Council is the law, and it will be the law...
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
It will be the law unless it is changed by a bill. If the Minister of Justice, who was speaking for the government, had said that in place of the War Measures Act the government would bring in a bill such as we are considering, and said "Yes" to our inquiries in that regard, that would have shortened the debate because that was the position we took. We voted as we did on the question of the War Measures Act because we understood certain promises had been made. After the deals had been made with our house leaders we said, "In view of your undertaking, we will support you." Now, we are debating the bill in question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have outlined what our position is. And what did the Liberals do in the debate yesterday? They embarked on a filibuster in which we heard many reproaches and recriminations aimed at the NDP. It was a political debate, and not the sort of debate you would expect in a time of crisis when it is necessary to take extraordinary measures such as these.


Gerald William Baldwin: It was not even a good filibuster.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not know whether or not it was the Minister of Justice who stimulated that debate on the government side of the House. At any rate, he could not get government supporters to keep silent so that we could bring this matter before the committee.
Public Order Act, 1970


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Nobody tries to silence us on this side.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, what, therefore, is our main amendment?


An hon. Member:: Ah!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I want now to deal with a number of amendments.


An hon. Member:: Wonderful.


An hon. Member:: Let us get on with it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, our position is that we go along with the principle of the bill, but that there are certain mechanical aspects we are concerned about. One of those pertains to review. I want to deal with this for a few moments, because this bill speaks of the same kinds of regulations as were brought in under the War Measures Act. May I point out how the War Measures Act regulations were enforced during the last war. I have before me the Defence of Canada Regulations which were in force between 1939 and 1942. You will find that even in the time of emergency, when the War Measures Act was in force, there was provision for a judicial review. I wish to read briefly from page 36 of the Defence of Canada Regulations. Subsection 26(1) reads:
Any enemy alien who has been Interned under the provisions of this Part, may within thirty days of such internment, appeal against such internment to the nearest person designated by the Minister of Justice for the purpose of hearing such appeals, hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal.'
That was standard procedure. I continue:
(2) A written notice of appeal signed by the appellant, shall be filed with the Tribunal by the person having the custody of such appellant, who shall transmit a copy thereof to the Registrar General of Enemy Aliens.
It is clear that a tribunal was set up, of which the trial judge was the chairman. Since the tribunal was overburdened with work, it was empowered to set up subboards headed by county court judges. What took place at that time? The special judicial board was set up and it had so many hundreds of cases to review that it was necessary to set up subboards presided over by county court judges. According to information that I finally obtained after checking with the Public Archives History Section, the Department of Justice, and with a friend of mine who formerly was a distinguished member of the RCMP but who is now retired, there were approximately between 1,800 and 1,900 detainees who applied for release; and more than 95 per cent of these were released after their applications were heard.
What I am saying is this: this bill would preserve some of the law contained in the War Measures Act regulations. It is to provide for temporary emergency powers for the preservation of public order. But there may be abuses, as I have said previously, as other members have said, and as my leader has said. Once the law is passed it will not be the Minister of Justice who will administer it;

November 6, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
it will not be the attorneys general of the various provinces. There will be 10,000 policemen who will interpret this law as they see fit. Under those circumstances, there are bound to be abuses.


Gerald William Baldwin: Also the armed forces.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: As the hon. member for Peace River says, we ought to include the armed forces. There are bound to be some abuses. Our amendments would seek to deal with these and other problems to which I shall refer. If a proper review board could be set up, there could be safeguards. We have already seen that about 438 people have been arrested; a great many have been released. Now, a few are being charged. Those few who are being charged, after having been detained incommunicado for a long period of time without the right to counsel, are being charged with crimes under the Criminal Code. I say that is proof that what is really wrong is that this government would not act for two years; nor would the Liberal government of the province of Quebec take its responsibilities. If these governments had shouldered their full responsibilities, these extraordinary remedies being asked for today might not have been necessary. It would not be necessary for the government to implement these extraordinary powers at this time.
So, I say that the first function is to set up a review board. That is what we suggest. We are, therefore, proposing that Bill C-181 be amended by inserting therein, next after clause 14, on page 9 thereof, the following:
15. (1) The Governor-in-Council, as soon as possible alter the coming into force of this Act, shall appoint a person holding judicial office under Her Majesty in right of Canada, who shall be called the 'Administrator', and who shall inquire into and report to Parliament from time to time upon the administration of this Act and of the Public Order Regulations, 1970.
What we are suggesting is that a superior court judge in the province of Quebec be appointed as an administrator to administer these reviews. If he were to find that the board can not handle the number of cases coming before it, he could set up subboards, as was done during the war, so that people charged would be able to have their reviews heard. Then, if there were abuses under the act-we have already heard about abuses, and I will not name names because they have already been mentioned in the debate-those abuses could be corrected by way of application to these boards. Under the bill, even if people are charged they can be held for 90 days.
We also propose:
(2)	The Administrator shall have the powers of a commissioner appointed under the Inquiries Act and shall continue as Administrator for such period after the expiration of this Act, whether by effluxion of time or by proclamation, as the case may be, as is necessary for the carrying out of his duties under this Act.
Subclause (3) would be as follows:
(3)	The Administrator shall have power to review and confirm, vary or revoke a certificate filed by an Attorney General of a province under subsection (1) of section 7 or an order made by an Attorney General under subsection (2) of section 9, and to make an order for fixing a date for trial.
Surely, whatever regulations our jurisprudence may deal with, there will be abuses. There must be abuses. Already we know from those people who have been released that mistakes have been made. Perhaps many more mistakes have been made than we are aware of because people who have been detained for a long time may be afraid to speak out now in view of the powers the government has at present. Therefore, we say that in an application before the board a date for trial should be fixed, so that justice may be done. That, to me, is the essence of a just society. What I have read constitutes our main amendment in that regard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say something about clause 8. Actually, I wish to deal with several amendments. If clause 8 is to remain as it is, and if the minister takes an adamant position and refuses to accept amendments to this bill, I suggest that he is in for a lengthy debate. Let us face the facts. This is Friday. As this bill has to go through the other place, it cannot be proclaimed until next week. This is not like other occasions when bills are sent to a standing committee and, therefore, I hope the minister will take a charitable and sympathetic position. We are sincere when presenting our amendments. We feel they are for the good of Canada, the Canadian people and the administration of justice.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
I now wish to deal with clause 8 which reads as follows:
8. In any prosecution for an offence under this Act, evidence that any person, either before or after the coming into force of this Act,
(a)	participated in or was present at a number of meetings of the unlawful association or of any branch, committee or members thereof,
(b)	spoke publicly in advocacy for the unlawful association or
(c)	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 unlawful association.
I have not checked this, but I think I am correct in stating that for all crimes under the Criminal Code, with the exception of murder and possibly a few others, there are statutory limitations. These regulations create a new offence. It is illegal to belong to the FLQ or an unlawful association. I do not think it is confined to the FLQ. I will have something more to say about that. Carrying it to the extreme for purposes of argument, if I had attended a meeting or meetings of the FLQ in 1926 I could be charged with an offence because there is no statutory limitation. Once there is evidence, such as some letter or signature on a register when I walked into a hall, I then may be charged. That evidence having been presented, I must go on the stand. I know what the argument of the Minister of Justice will be. He is going to say that it is a matter of evidence only. However, there must be no

November 6, 1970

mistake that this is an offence and that provision may apply retroactively. The clause reads:
8. In any prosecution for an offence under this Act, evidence that any person, either before-
That probably refers to before four o'clock in the morning on that particular Friday or after this act came into force. The section then sets out what the offender might have done. The onus is then on the accused.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I must advise the House that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Russell Clayton Honey: Is there unanimous consent that the hon. member continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I think this will shorten the debate. I have quite a lot to say concerning our position on this bill.
Returning to clause 8, except for the Income Tax Act and a few other acts that put the onus of proof on the accused, this is the only bill that is contrary to any jurisprudence in our system of justice. If someone signs a register that such-and-such a person attended a meeting or meetings, that person must go on the stand to make a denial. Not only is this contrary to the jurisprudence of our system, but it is not a rule of evidence. Allegorically, it may be regarded as a rule of evidence, but basically it is substantive law and no one can get around that. I wish to emphasize what the clause states:
8. In any prosecution for an offence under this Act, evidence that any person, either before or after the coming into force of this Act,-
After subsections (a), (b) and (c), the clause reads:
-is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof that he is a member of the unlawful association.
That is substantive law according to the rules of evidence. If we analyse that part of the bill, it will be seen that if there is no change we will need a review board because there have been, and will be abuses. As I stated earlier, the worst cannot be remedied with an evil. I now wish to deal with another part of this bill.
The preamble is very beautiful. It lays a beautiful bed for what is to come. It reads:
Whereas the Parliament of Canada continues to affirm that men and institutions-remain free only when freedom is founded upon respect for moral and spiritual values and the rule of law;-
When you read this bill, that does not mean anything. It is straight declaration. As I stated at a meeting, it is like handing someone a sucker. After you eat the candy, all you are left with is a stick. The preamble is like the candy. The preamble continues:
And whereas the public order in Canada continues to be endangered by elements-
It then states what is happening. The next paragraph reads:
And whereas the Parliament of Canada, following approval by the House of Commons of Canada of the measures taken by
Public Order Act, 1970
His Excellency the Governor General in Council pursuant to the War Measures Act to deal with the state of apprehended insurrection in the Province of Quebec-
I am sorry that the hon. member for Calgary South is not here. Throughout the election campaign he talked about a two-nation policy. At that time I did not know what he meant, but I know now. This policy was brought in by the Grits. There is one law for Quebec and one for the rest of Canada. I ask the Minister of Justice to think about this. The minister has attended law school and has written a book about the interpretation of statutes. This means very little in this debate, but it means a lot before a court. As the minister knows, the preamble cannot be used for the interpretation of sections. It can only be used as a guide. Some cases do go that far. If the minister has any question about that I will give him the authorities, but I do not intend to cite the interpretations given by Mr. Driedger, Q.C. and Mr. Maxwell. The preamble of this bill cannot be used in interpreting the substantive law contained in the section. This is why clause 3 must be looked at very carefully.
I now wish to deal with clause 4 on page 3 of the bill which reads in part:
4. A person who
(c) communicates statements on behalf of or as a representative or professed representative of the unlawful association,-
Basically, the government is trying to say that the only association is the FLQ. I question that. Any association that recommends, promotes, advocates crime or uses violence in order to gain political advantage is an illegal association. Basically, under the Criminal Code, that is criminal conspiracy. The minister must answer our questions when dealing with the clauses. I ask, what does the bill mean when it refers to: "communicates statements on behalf of"? Does it mean that the personnel of those radio stations which carried the communiques of the FLQ with regard to the kidnappings, the tragic murder of Mr. Laporte and the still unknown whereabouts of Mr. Cross, are liable to five years imprisonment? Surely, here is a question which must be answered. There is another clause which is almost on all fours with the example I have given. Both need to be looked at carefully. The precise meaning of clause 4(c)-"communicates statements on behalf of"-must be fully explained by the minister. Does this mean that a radio station which carries a communique will be committing an offence? The same applies to similar words used on page five of the bill. I pause for a moment-
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)


Mr. Anderson:: Get your notes in order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I don't know what the hon. member means by that. I know the Minister of Justice would be sympathetic; if I were in his position, I would certainly need to have my notes written out. In my own case, I have made careful notes. I do not know why the hon. member wants to be so illiterate and so ignorant today, when we are dealing with a subject of such importance.


David Anderson: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. We listened with great interest to the hon. member's allega-

November 6, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
tions of filibuster when members on this side rose to speak yesterday.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is not a point of order or a question of privilege. Why doesn't the hon. member sit down?


Russell Clayton Honey: Would the hon. member resume his seat, please? The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich rose on a point of order. I did not have the opportunity, before the hon. member for Calgary North rose, to determine whether or not he was in order.


David Anderson: The point I wished to raise was this: all hon. members here suffered some insults in the course of the hon. member's speech but agreed to an extension of his time, despite the fact that last night he accused us of filibustering. My interjection was strictly directed to getting this debate carried forward in an orderly manner, as he himself evidently approves. So, I suggested he should get his notes in order.


Russell Clayton Honey: The hon. member for Calgary North.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not intend to listen to that kind of nonsense. As far as I am concerned, my notes are in order. The Minister of Justice will be sympathetic in this regard. I wrote them myself; I do not have a staff behind me and I probably was up this morning long before the hon. member was out of bed preparing my speech and carrying out the research needed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The hon. member can laugh and giggle. It means nothing to him. He will vote with the government no matter what they do.
Let me get back to the question of the general principle of the bill.


An hon. Member:: The debate on that is over.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I take the position that generally, with one exception, this bill does not create any new crimes. It is true that membership of the FLQ is outlawed and that the procedure in our courts is reversed in the measure before us, but I still maintain that the criminal law of Canada contains all the power the government needed. All the government had to do was to stop playing politics and be pragmatists for right rather than pragmatists for opportunism, and administer the law, because they already possessed sufficient power under the Criminal Code.
What are some of these powers? Well, there is power to deal with criminal conspiracy. Criminal conspiracy means entering into an unlawful agreement for an unlawful purpose, or even a lawful agreement for an unlawful purpose. The bill before us spells out that the FLQ is an unlawful association. The clause 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 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.
Mr. Chairman, that association, basically, whatever its motivation and purpose, is already within the scope of the Criminal Code. The persons who recommended, permitted or defended violence of any kind or, who, in fact, committed violence, could have been charged with criminal conspiracy. Then, there is the crime of sedition. We find, now, that people are being charged with sedition. When a crowd gets out of hand, provision is made for the use of the riot act from which certain consequences follows. Criminal conspiracy, sedition, counselling to commit an offence-all these offences are covered by the Code.
Let me get down to describing what the new bill really does. Apart from making certain that the FLQ is an unlawful association, it gives added powers to the police. I am not being critical of that at the moment, nor do I believe members of other opposition parties are critical in this regard, bearing in mind the emergency which prevails. It gives the police power to detain people without bringing charges, to interrogate them, to hold them incommunicado, to hold them without counsel. What is the purpose behind this? Normally, when a person is arrested, a charge is laid. Many times, before an accused gets the advice of counsel, he makes a statement to the police. He is generally warned, but a warning is really not one of the ingredients which go to determining whether or not such a statement is admissible at trial, subject to certain other rules which I shall not attempt to discuss at the moment. But the arrested person is generally warned and often he makes a statement. If, in the course of that statement, he incriminates himself and the court agrees that the statement was made voluntarily, the statement is admissible as evidence before a judge without jury or a judge with a jury.
Under the terms of this bill no charge need be laid immediately. The normal rights of an accused person are set aside. What really happens when a person, particularly someone who has never been in detention before, is held incommunicado for a number of days? The police have really got him in a sweat box. Along comes a police officer who asks: What information have you to give? If a person does not know when he is likely to get out of goal and there is no limitation on the time during which he can be held, what happens? He starts to tell stories.
I am not being critical in this regard, but that is the real power which this bill confers. Safeguards must be set up. We know that many people have been detained already under the War Measures Act which the bill now before us is to replace, interrogated and then released; their families did not know where they were. An independent body should be set up to minimize the possibility of this extraordinary measure being misused, bearing in mind the unusual powers which it entrusts to the police force. What the bill really means is that any door in Canada can be kicked open by the police and a man can be taken from his family, or, for that matter, the whole family can be taken away. This is why a review board is needed. This is why amendments to the mech-
November 6, 1970

anism of this bill are so necessary. But, I repeat, we went along with the bill in principle.
Now, I turn to a theme which has been mentioned by every member of my party who has spoken; it has been dealt with by spokesmen for the New Democratic Party and by spokesmen for the Creditistes, also. You cannot prevent revolution by a bill of this kind or by the War Measures Act. If I might be personal for a moment, I want to tell two stories. Every two or three years they sent Lenin and Stalin in chains to Siberia because they were disturbing the peace, advocating violence and so on. Then, under that particular government of the day they were released, but in another two years back to Siberia they went in chains.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
The point I want to make is that sending Lenin and Stalin and even Trotsky away did not stop the revolution. That is why I interrupted the Minister of Labour when I mentioned there was 10 per cent unemployment and he said I was a millionaire.


An hon. Member:: Do you deny that?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, I do, but I do not want to get off the track. I want to tell another story. I am sure my hon. friends in the New Democratic Party will appreciate this story because it is in their favour. Hon. members opposite may think this is funny, but it is not funny at all, because the same thing is now taking place in Quebec. In 1930, the bottom fell out of everything in western Canada. There were farmers in Saskatchewan who received 16 cents in total, after deduction of freight, for
1,000	pounds of beef shipped from Rosetown to Winnipeg. The price of wheat dropped to 19 cents a bushel. Machinery on the farms was repossessed. I went through that experience.
Then one day Mr. Coldwell, former leader of the C.C.F., spoke at a place called Valley Centre which has a population of around 100. About 5,000 people turned out to hear him, and I was there as a young boy, along with my father. He made a great speech. I had always thought that Mr. Coldwell was a near conservative socialist, but when it came to dealing with grievances at that time he spoke with that kind of responsibility that we would expect the leader of any party to speak with, whether or not we agreed with what he said.
His words excited, and even incited to violence, because either at a nomination meeting or shortly thereafter when he was running for my home town constituency of Rosetown-Biggar, a murder was committed. This murder was committed in the heat of a political argument by a man who was respected by the community. He was found guilty of manslaughter and served time. However, this did not change people's feelings. There was a Liberal government in the province of Saskatchewan at that time, what we called the Gardiner machine. We now have the Trudeau machine. In 1944 the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, to his credit, turned out the Gardiner machine and became premier of the province of Saskatchewan.
Public Order Act, 1970
The point I want to drive home is this, that until government improves the social and economic conditions of the people of the province of Quebec and other provinces in Canada, the revolution will go on. All the acts and the powers of the law will not stop that revolution. Nor will they stop change. Nor will they quiet people who suffer grievances. Having been raised in this sort of sad environment, I could use some very intemperate language today, particularly with regard to the powers contained in the bill. However, I am not unsympathetic to the fact that the government, and the Minister of Justice in particular because of the position he holds, realized that there was a crisis in the province of Quebec.
The strange thing is that outside of one case I have read about-though the government may have additional information that we should have in this regard-there have been no FLQ members charged under the act; the others have been charged under the Code. I should like to know what the Minister of Justice, the Solicitor General, who is filled with words, and the Prime Minister have been doing for the last two years when they had evidence before them. The answer is that they were procrastinating. They were doing nothing. They started the fire, and now having put wood on the fire they cannot put the fire out. This is why we are standing in our places today debating extraordinary measures.
May I end with this. Revolution will not end with this bill. There has been talk about millionaires, though I am not going to get personal here. I would say to the cabinet that some were born in riches, some had a rich education and some have lived a rich life. I make a special plea to the Minister of Justice to consider seriously some of our amendments. Because if the government fails us now, it fails not only the province of Quebec and the people of Canada, but also the role of the opposition.
Somebody has said that we are the conscience of the government. At times like this, it is our job to take what may even be unpopular positions. For example, what the hon. member for Egmont did was unpopular, but I am sure one thing he did not lack was courage to vote as he did, whether his judgment will be proven to be right or wrong. This is why I ask the minister to give us a chance to suggest to him and his officers amendments to the bill. Particularly, give people the right to a review. Do not suppress or silence them. Do not hold people without giving them the opportunity to state their grievances.
We have all read in the morning papers what happened when people who were detained came before a court of justice. They were frustrated and vehement because they had been held incommunicado without the right of expression. Without the right of expression, you have oppression. This is why we feel a review board should be established. We want to be given the chance, intelligently and to the best of our ability, to suggest the kind of law that should be passed. We for our part will support the government and show that kind of responsibility that a government should expect from the members of this party and other parties.

November 6, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970


Mr. Brewin:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take the opportunity of re-echoing the plea just made by the hon. member for extremely serious consideration on the part of the Minister of Justice and his government of the amendments that we are going to propose. I believe all members of the House are uneasy about this particular bill, but we have almost unanimously agreed that some measures are necessary to deal with the disorder created in the province of Quebec by the FLQ. Although we have acknowledged that necessity, we say that it is of the utmost importance that the steps taken to deal with disorder are not such as would unnecessarily deprive Canadian citizens of their fundamental rights and civil liberties.
The series of amendments that we have proposed is designed to remove vague and dangerous words from the bill; to remove principles that are not in accordance with the ordinary, recognized rules of justice. Our whole aim is to improve, make more workable and adequate what is done, not taking away from the effectiveness of this bill but taking away from it certain features that we think are dangerous to the liberty of Canadians. We have seven or eight amendments-not very many in number because this is not a long bill-which will be introduced by different members of my party. I will leave it to them, as they introduce these special amendments, to explain them in detail. However, it might be useful for me to make a rather brief summary of the amendments to be proposed.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
We propose an amendment to clause 6 of the bill which deals with the responsibility of an owner of a building or premises to permit meetings of the unlawful association. We say it is important to take out some of the vague words about assemblages of persons so that this clause will only deal with the owner who encourages meetings of the illegal organization, and so that it cannot be applied, owing to the vagueness of the wording employed, to, perhaps, a gathering together in classrooms or universities or other places which are not meetings of the association but at which perhaps someone in a theoretical way advocates some of the doctrines of the unlawful association.
The second amendment deals with the question of bail as it appears in clause 7 of the bill. As I think I mentioned yesterday, we propose that the granting of bail be handed back where it belongs, that is to the judiciary of this country. We do not think there is any need to distrust the judiciary. They will be advised by counsel representing the law enforcement officers of the province concerned. However, they will have a final right to say that they are not content with a mere general statement from the Attorney General that everybody should be held without bail. They will have the right to say: "We want to know why you are holding a person and depriving him of his liberty pending a hearing which may be postponed for a considerable period of time." We also think that subclause (2) of clause 7 should be amended, that holding a person for 90 days before letting him
appear to have a date fixed for trial is much too long. We propose that it be changed to 30 days.
The next amendment is to clause 8, and is of crucial importance. I particularly invite the attention of the Minister of Justice to this amendment. This is the clause that creates the retroactive application of the penal provisions of this bill. It is not itself a penal provision, it deals only with the evidence. However, by making the provision retroactive as to evidence so that acts permitted before the passing of this measure, acts which at that time were perfectly legal, can be taken as evidence upon which a conviction is made, is in effect to give retroactive effect to the bill. I will speak later with more detail on this, but I say that all across Canada, in the press and in the comments of informed people, there has been an urgent plea that this be not done. This retroactive legislation, which runs against the principles of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is offensive to those who say that a person who commits an act not defined as a crime cannot have criminal intent, and surely criminal intent is basic to criminal responsibility.


Mr. Hogarth:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question to clarify what he is saying? Let us say we took clause 8 out of the bill. Is it his view that no evidence of having attended any meeting of the FLQ or of speaking publicly in advocacy of what the FLQ stands for, none of these things that took place prior to October 16 would be admissible as evidence to show that on that date the prisoner was a member of the FLQ?


Francis Andrew Brewin: I am not saying any such thing. What I am saying is that there should not be a presumption of guilt, which is included in clause 8, by reason of something which, when it was done, was perfectly innocent. If there are acts which take place after October 16, and light can be thrown on this by previous associations, that may be perfectly all right.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: That is all that this clause does, Mr. Chairman.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. I think the hon. member for New Westminster has asked his question. I believe more progress would be made if the hon. member for Greenwood continued uninterrupted.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I will certainly deal with this question in detail when we come to this clause. All I am saying now is that this clause, which provides that evidence that a person either before or after the coming into force of this act participated in a meeting, and so on, shall be in the absence of any evidence, proof that a person is a member of the unlawful association, is an offence against basic principles and should be taken out of the act. That is our amendment to clause 8.
We then propose that clause 12 be amended by striking out the exception to the Canadian Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights provides that no person who has been arrested
[Mr. Woolliams.l
November 6, 1970

shall be deprived of the right to bail. I do not have the precise wording in front of me, but that is in the Bill of Rights. The effect of clause 12 is to incorporate the provisions of the Bill of Rights in this act-and naturally we welcome that-with the exception of paragraph (f) of clause 2 dealing with bail. The provision in paragraph (f) is that no law of Canada shall be construed or applied so as to deprive a person charged with a criminal offence of the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty, and so on, or of the right to reasonable bail without just cause. We believe that that constitutional guarantee should be maintained because it is important, and that "without just cause" is a matter that can be properly reviewed by the courts. The removal of that paragraph from clause 12, plus the operation of clause 7 to which I have already referred, will have the effect of depriving a person of the right to go to a court ultimately and say: "I am being detained without the reasonable opportunity of obtaining bail". We think that should be granted. May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Chairman?


Russell Clayton Honey: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair to resume at two o'clock this afternoon.
The Committee took recess at 1 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The Committee resumed at 2 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman:: Order. The hon. member for Greenwood on clause 2 of Bill C-181.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, before the committee adjourned for lunch, I was summarizing the amendments which different members of this party propose to move. I had reached the point of our last but one amendment which proposes that the Minister of Justice appoint a supervisory commission of three persons, not employees of the federal authority, of any provincial government or any police force, with the authority to interview persons arrested under this bill to assure they are treated according to the law, have had access to counsel, do not continue to be detained without adequate ground and have been given opportunity to be contacted by their families. It is proposed that the commission be given an opportunity to publish its findings as frequently as deemed necessary.
It would seem to me that the events of the last few days or weeks have clearly demonstrated the need for such a commission. It is all very well to say that the Bill of Rights gives certain rights, but unless there exists adequate machinery to see that these rights can be exercised then they may not be exercised. The appointment by the Minister of Justice of such a commission composed of people of the nature of special ombudsmen to deal with this particular situation which arises out of these emergency acts, and out of these perhaps necessary interferences with normal procedure, is a very important matter. I know the minister may possibly say that this can be done by voluntary organizations. Of course,
23226-62i
Public Order Act, 1970
voluntary organizations can help, but they would not have the authority of a commission appointed under the direction of this Parliament, requiring that it perform this very necessary function. I believe the hon. member for York South proposes to introduce this amendment. I have no doubt he will have more to say about it at that time.
The last amendment we have on our list at the moment is an amendment to clause 15 of the bill. This would give the right to Parliament, through a motion by 10 of its members, to pray that the operation of this act be terminated and would provide that the motion would be heard at the first convenient opportunity. This amendment is in accordance with the provision now in the War Measures Act, and introduced by the Canadian Bill or Rights in 1960. It proposes the very same power for Parliament to discuss whether the time has come to end an emergency measure. It may never have to be exercised. Under clause 15, as it is presently drawn, the government by proclamation, and both houses of Parliament by joint resolution, can call for the ending of the application of the emergency measure.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
I think it is important that Parliament itself be given the machinery to review these things. The authorities that are conferred here, affecting the rights of the subject, are matters that are particularly the concern of Parliament. I suggest this amendment would be a reassertion of the authority and responsibility of Parliament as to the duration or expiry of the emergency provisions of these measures which affect the liberties of Canadians.
I am going to conclude my remarks more or less in the same way as I spoke to the minister when opening my remarks. I believe that Parliament is very much on trial here, and that if the minister can see fit not only to consider seriously the amendments that are proposed but to indicate that he accedes to some of them, he will do a lot to vindicate the parliamentary process. I am not asking him to approve of something without merit or that, in his view, endangers some of the measures proposed in the bill. It would be ridiculous to ask him to do that. But I am asking him to lean over on the side of freedom, freedom of Canadians, when he comes to consider these proposals made by a responsible opposition. If he can do that, if he can see fit to accept some or all of the amendments proposed, he will be doing a lot not only to vindicate the processes of Parliament but to re-assure the Canadian people that Parliament is still in control of these things. It is not the fiat of government which alone must be used to deal with a crisis such as we face, but it is Parliament itself, the representatives of the people, whose voices are taken into account in this Parliament.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Chairman, clause 1 of Bill C-181 affords us an opportunity of making general remarks on the substance of the bill before proceeding to the examination of each clause.

November 6, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
Judging by the almost unanimous vote that was given last night, I believe all hon. members are aware ot the importance of this bill that provides for measures to replace the War Measures Act.
The object of this bill is to prohibit any revolutionary activity on the part of the FLQ, especially in Quebec.
I agree with the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), that this bill will not remove the remote or real causes of a revolutionary movement in Canada and particularly in Quebec.
Should this bill work out, and we hope it will, it could curb the activities of the revolutionaries by enabling us to punish them. But if Parliament does not, now or in the future, take the economic steps that would be necessary to remove the underlying causes of such activities, we shall not be able to check the revolutionaries in spite of Bill C-181 and of all the good will shown by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner).
Mr. Chairman, at the opening of each sitting, you say a prayer from which I quote the following words: Give us our daily bread. Now if the present Minister of Justice and the governments that have administered this country since Confederation had put those words into practice, we would not have to pass a bill to check the revolutionaries or outlaw revolutionary ideas in Canada.
Of course, the revolutionaries of today perhaps are not looking for their daily bread only. In fact, they have some economic or political goal to achieve. However, I believe that the majority of them have been putting up with economic conditions which, normally, should not exist in Canada and which we should seriously consider removing in the future.
I was amused on reading the speech delivered last night by the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier). He attacked those who have always supported the goverment with respect to this bill, as well as those who, as do the members of our party, realize that order and justice must be respected. I find it strange that he would not blame those who have political interests to safeguard, for we know that the disappearance of the FLQ people from Quebec might be prejudicial to some political parties which have promoted, up to now, if not revolution for the sake of democracy, at least theories which could lead to the establishment of a socialist and totalitarian state.
o (2:20p.m.)
Some right-minded and honest government members do not approve the position of the Secretary of State who is responsible for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and who has been acting quite irresponsibly in the House for a number of years. This is a very important Crown corporation: it controls the thoughts and information of Canada. When we express grievances to him in the House he acts in an irresponsible manner and answers: I shall inquire. I do not know. I shall make an investigation. I shall tell the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation about it.
We realize that for many years, the CBC information policy has revolved around infiltration and revolutionary
ideas. Indeed, terrorist activities in Canada are unfortunately highlighted every day. Furthermore, great attention is given in programs to the speeches of those who create the political atmosphere of our country.
If indeed the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) intends to complete the clean up that he has undertaken, he should first of all consider the minister responsible for the CBC.
Mr. Speaker, we must create a favourable economic climate so that this bill does not have to remain in force for too long a time. We have felt, in this House, from the day when we have been made aware of the existence of revolutionary groups in Quebec, that a democratically elected Parliament could not give in to blackmail from some minorities. As far as we, Creditistes, are concerned, we have been challenging the present system for the past 30 or 35 years. In our opinion, reforms are needed and changes are necessary. We have offered some solutions and have not become impatient. We hope that through the democratic election process the present government and the Creditiste government which will succeed it will be able to change the present system without resorting to revolutionary methods. And this is the reason why we accept the bill introduced by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), so as to safeguard the freedom of the majority.
Some might holler about the liberty of those who will be inconvenienced by the judicial process, who will be questioned and searched, who will have to spend a few days in jail, but I am convinced that the number of people so affected will be small as compared with the rest of the Canadian people who want to continue living in peace.
As a matter of fact, we cannot ask that, in the name of the freedom of the few, the legislation be insufficiently precise and severe. We must safeguard the majority. We have been elected for that purpose.
I have some recommendations to make with regard to the amendments we have submitted to the Minister of Justice. We deplore the fact, contrary to hon. members of a certain party sitting at my right, that the bill is still too lenient towards revolutionaries and anarchists.
This is why we will bring in some amendments. As for clause 4(g), we suggest that it be 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.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment tends to replace clause 4(a) of the bill now under study.
The punishment provided in the bill is "not exceeding five years". The amendment extends also the scope of the bill.
Indeed, clause 4 (a), is thus drafted:
Is guilty of an indictable offence a person who a) is or professes to be a member of the unlawful association...

November 6, 1970

We maintain that not only "being a member of the unlawful association" is indictable under the law but also "the use of force, the commission of various crimes or the recourse to the commission of crimes".
Therefore, clause 4 would be replaced by Section 4A and Section 4B would be added. It would then read as follows:
Is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to be sentenced to death or to life imprisonment a person who uses force or violence for the purpose of kidnapping, keeping in seclusion, mutilating, torturing or injuring with the intent to bring about death, one or more persons, as a means of or as an aid in establishing the same government change within Canada as that advocated by the illegal association.
Some hon. members or the Minister of Justice might answer that the Criminal Code already provides for that. It does not! This amendment makes the people responsible for kidnapping and other crimes liable to be sentenced to death. According to the Criminal Code there is no more capital punishment, except for the murder of prison guards and other persons.
This amendment calls for the return to capital punishment for political crimes. In other words, kidnapping, torture, mutilation or murder, when committed for the purpose of bringing about in Canada a change such as was advocated by the FLQ, are crimes calling for the death penalty. Kidnapping, torture or murder committed in other circumstances are not punishable by death.
If our amendment were adopted, clause 5 would become clause (5) and clause 5(b) would read as follows:
A person who, knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that another person or other persons are guilty of an offence under Section 4(a), gives that other person any assistance with intent thereby to prevent, hinder or interfere with the apprehension, trial or punishment of that person for that offence, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
Mr. Chairman, our amendments are mainly aimed at making the law more comprehensive. In fact, we all know that a five-year term of imprisonment is often reduced to 20, 24 or 25 months. These sentences are too light in view of the crimes we have enumerated and which are not mentioned in the bill. I am alluding to the crimes committed by the FLQ in the Cross-Laporte case.
In the case of political murder, capital punishment should be applied. At the moment, such criminals are liable to life imprisonment.
The Criminal Code provides for "apital punishment in the case of the murder of a prison guard, a peace officer or a policeman. In my opinion, m the case of political murder such as that of Pierre Laporte, hon. members, and particularly the Ralliement Creditiste members, are right when they want to re-establish capital punishment, since who can say today who will be the next politician to be killed? Life imprisonment is too lenient a sentence for political murder.
When reading the revolutionaries' manifestos, including that of the FLQ, it is obvious that the first two steps towards revolution have already been made and that the
Public Order Act, 1970
third one will be the selective murder of politicians. This is the reason why I find it urgent to vote for the re-establishment of capital punishment for political murders like those we unfortunately witnessed recently and which we did not expect.
Because we were warned by the revolutionaries and the anarchists, we cannot plead ignorance and say there is no danger, that we need not restore in our statutes the death penalty for political murders.
Mr. Chairman, I know we will deal again during the debate, with each of these sections, in an effort to have our amendments accepted; to my mind, the bill is still not clear nor specific enough, and especially not severe enough in the light of past events and future threats.
Let us not be so naive as to think that the danger is past, because the police forces, the army, the R.C.M.P. have performed a formidable task in the last month or so; as to think the bill need not be more severe.
I feel the government is trying to please too much certain friends who, unfortunately, I know, were former friends of the Secretary of State and whose activities were more or less questionable in the past.
Mr. Chairman, we have writings that are not new, that were published throughout Quebec, that warned us of the events we know and those that could happen. Those people will not let go for they have pledged themselves to a revolutionary ideal and if the law is too complacent towards them, all the more problems will crop up.
Even if the law were stricter, as we suggested, if the government does not take concrete steps from the economic standpoint and does not stop setting up royal commissions to delay by three, four or five years the solution of problems, all along handsomely rewarding some persons to study problems of which we are already aware, the Canadian people and unfortunately, young anarchists, will become impatient again and will arouse the population, and this will create events like those which we have recently known in Canada, particularly in the province of Quebec.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Shefford has suggested that members of this House and, certainly, the people of Canada should not be so naive as to believe that this bill will wipe out the FLQ in its entirety or terrorism in the province of Quebec and elsewhere. I suggest that he should not be so naive as to think that capital punishment will be of aid in any way because, for every one of the FLQ who is hanged, the FLQ will make sure that three or four members of this government or of the government of Quebec will be assassinated.


Robert Jardine McCleave: How does the hon. member know that? Who told him?


Douglas Aird Hogarth: I draw to his attention section 47 of the Criminal Code which provides for capital punishment for

November 6, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
certain offences. That section is not confined to the sort of homicide the hon. member mentioned.
May I speak generally about the suggested amendments brought forward by the hon. member for Calgary North, the hon. member for Greenwood and the hon. member for Shefford. I cannot see in this legislation a retroactivity provision in the true, legal sense; there is nothing that one could consider in law as retroactive legislation. That is to say, the provision in question does not create an offence that antedates the proclamation of the regulations under the War Measures Act. It appears that some hon. members have argued that if clause 8, the presumption section, were removed, we should thereby remove that element of retroactivity which is said to exist in the bill. This just does not stand up to scrutiny at all. If my hon. friends are concerned about retroactivity in its broadest sense in the bill, the only solution available to them is to attempt to bring in a clause providing that no evidence of any activity prior to October 16 can be admitted to prove membership in the FLQ.
What will happen is this, you see, if you remove clause 8 and if there are no presumptions: A man will be charged that on or about October 16, 1970, he was unlawfully a member of the FLQ. That will be the indictment. To prove that indictment, the Crown certainly cannot show any activity on the part of the accused after that date, because he would have been in jail after October 16. The Crown would naturally have to rely on the very things that are set out in clause 8; that is to say, it would have to rely on prior activity and any other evidence of that type it could obtain. It would have to show that the accused attended meetings, and that he participated in some way in FLQ activities; there would need to be shown enough evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, from which a conclusion could be drawn that the accused was, on October 16, a member of the FLQ.
All that clause 8 does is this: in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it entitles the judge to conclude that the accused was a member of the FLQ. Certainly, I doubt very much if we will ever be able to hand any judge a registered list of FLQ members. That a man was a member of the FLQ can only be inferred on the basis of circumstantial evidence, and therefore clause 8 is no more than an aid to proof. The burden of proof in this bill remains on the Crown. It must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Those of us who have participated in the criminal courts know very well that the presumptions put forward in clause 8 are not unusual. The unique part of this bill is this: under clause 4, a person who on October 16 was a member of the FLQ is guilty of an offence. Being a member on October 15 does not make him guilty of an offence; that is the unique part of it. It is his activities prior to October 16 that will prove his guilt as of that date.
I suggest that if hon. members are concerned about retroactivity, and think that the bill is bad because of that, they should never, never have supported this bill in principle. I say that, because when you take out clause 8, the alleged retroactivity will still be there.

The hon. member for Calgary North suggested that there be set up a board of review. Let us just take a look at that suggestion.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. Will the hon. member resume his seat. It is the impression of the Chair that at this stage we are getting away from clause 2. I thought there was some kind of agreement whereby we could allow representatives of the different parties to list possible amendments and speak generally on the different clauses of the bill; however, it is still my impression that if at this stage we are to let hon. members enter into a detailed discussion on these clauses or the possible amendments, we shall repeat at a later stage what has been said. I should like to hear the opinions of those hon. members who were involved in the agreement this morning, so that I can make up my own mind and decide how far the Chair can permit hon. members to go into a detailed discussion.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, may I speak on that matter, because I participated in what led up to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Calgary North. As I understood it, hon. members would be free to give notice at this stage of amendments they intended to produce, so that everything would be before the Chair and before the other parties of the House, and that we should embark on the sort of discussion we used to embark on under clause 1 in committee of the whole. In other words, we agreed that there would be a rather general discussion, with the hope-and this would be more than a hope, because we think it will be realized- that the remarks to be made in the debate on later stages of the bill would be more specifically tied down. I think those two suggestions were the basis of the general consensus of the committee when the hon. member for Calgary North proposed them this morning.
[DOT] (2:40p,m.)


John Napier Turner: I agree with that, Mr. Chairman. I know that under the new rules there is a practice of the committee to bypass clause 1, which used to be the general clause, and deal with clause 2 in order to preclude wide debate, reserving that until the last when clause 1 is called. My understanding of this morning's general consensus of the committee was to allow rather wide play for those hon. members intending to present amendments, and for those members who want to make some general statement they were unable to make on second reading, in order to allow the bill to be dealt with by the committee. That leeway having been properly given to members opposite, I think perhaps the Chair might want to look a little kindly upon members on this side of the chamber who want to address themselves in a general way.


David Lewis: I am not attempting to curtail anyone, Mr. Chairman, but I wish to point out that there is a difference between a general statement and what the hon. member for New Westminster was doing, dealing with
November 6, 1970

the amendments that have been mentioned and which will be presented again later.


John Napier Turner: That is all very well, Mr. Chairman, but in presenting an over-view of the amendments, the hon. member for Calgary North, the hon. member for Greenwood and the hon. member for Shefford, did not only give a view of the amendments, they argued them pretty widely. I think the Chair might be fair to both sides.


Mr. Deputy  Chairman@: Of course the Chair will try to be as lenient as possible, but I must caution hon. members not to go into the details of clauses or possible amendments, otherwise we might need to revert to second reading and deal with the whole bill.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: If the hon. member for York South prefers, 1 will deal with the situation on the Prairies in the 30's, as was done by the hon. member for Calgary North this morning, relating stories about the dust and depression. I prefer to stick to the suggestions made this morning regarding amendments to this bill.
A rather attractive suggestion was made that there should be a citizens' board of review to investigate the imprisonment of various people arrested under this bill. I do not see how an accused is being deprived of the right of habeas corpus. We have fixed 90 days as the longest period of time for which an accused can be imprisoned without having a date fixed for his trial. I do not understand how such a board of review would serve any cogent purpose. After all, it is a general principle of criminal law.
Why should persons who cannot raise bail or persons charged with crimes such as homicide, where bail is rarely granted, have a board of review? Why should we go out on a special limb for these people, although admittedly the Attorney General can deprive them of bail? If that is to be the case, why not have a board of review to deal with every person who is charged with a serious offence? The hon. member for Greenwood suggests that bail should be the responsibility of the judiciary. The protection under section 7(2) with respect to fixing a date for trial will resolve that. My understanding of that section is that once a date for trial has been set, there could not be an adjournment because it would be by statute.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is ridiculous.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: I beg your pardon, but the ordinary provisions in the Criminal Code, which are in the regulations under the War Measures Act, have not been included in this bill. If an accused asked for an adjournment after the trial was set, the judge would have to ask the Crown to produce.
The hon. member for Shefford suggested that instead of five years' imprisonment, the penalty should be life. With the greatest of respect, I feel that would be very tragic for a young, hot-headed, political minded person
Public Order Act, 1970
who found himself involved in the FLQ, although he had never participated to any extent in violence. Even though he had attended many meetings and, as some young students do, advocated getting involved, I think it would be rather tragic for that person to be imprisoned for the rest of his natural life.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Chairman, I think that the hon. member has not understood the amendment, for we do not want to change the five year penalty for subclauses (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f). We agree on the way to press those charges and with the penalty, to which we would like however to substitute a penalty of life imprisonment, for the considerations we have made. Therefore, as it is plain the amendment, in subclause (g)-


Douglas Aird Hogarth: I thank the hon. member for the correction. He wants life imprisonment for political kidnapping, or is that the death penalty?


Gilbert F. Rondeau: You read the amendment.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: I apologize if I misquoted the hon. member. In any event, I do not think that the drastic measures that he has suggested should be necessary under these circumstances.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, usually on Friday afternoons the exercise in which his House engages is not always enlightening or entertaining, but on this gray November day we are dealing with an exceedingly important issue. It is good to see the cabinet represented by some of its most distinguished ornaments. We are also graced with people gazing down from the heights of Olympia. I think it is a credit to Parliament that on this occasion we are able to gather in this way to discuss this particular issue.
I have a great deal of respect for the hon. member for Shefford. He is very sincere. He is from the province of Quebec where this problem is concentrated. I respect his views and judgment. He speaks from the heart. However, his proposals indicate that a great many Canadians, including some in this chamber, have not grasped the nature of the phenomena which has recently appeared in political life, not only in Canada but in the United States and other parts of the world. The solutions proposed by the hon. member for Shefford, and to some extent proposed by the government, might well have had their place in the world of yesterday, but not in the world of today. Increasingly large numbers of young people have become disillusioned with the democratic process and the opportunity to achieve those types of reform for society which are so sadly needed.
I am not going to deal with the problems that face this country which were so eloquently dealt with by the leader of my party; by the right hon. member for Prince Albert, the hon. member for Calgary North and members

November 6, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
of the New Democratic Party. They also dealt with the problems which face the province of Quebec, the absolute need to deal with causes as well as with effect. I wonder about the Prime Minister. I hope that he is not too intellectually caught up with this problem, and involved in it, in the sense that he does not see the forest for the trees. Apparently, from the answers he gave during the question period today and yesterday, a great need lies with him to change his views as to what needs to be done to remove the causes which have brought upon us much of the difficulty which has involved this House in days of discussion during the last two or three weeks. I shall not say any more about that aspect, because it has been dealt with before. e>
(2:50 p.m.)
We have seen this phenomenon over and over again in the United States and elsewhere. We have said to ourselves often that Canadian society could never have evolved in its bosom this violence, these attempts to change the processes of society and reintroduce by force social reforms which have not been brought about in other ways. When it happened here, the reaction of the Canadian people and, to some extent, of the Canadian government, was illuminating. It was a reaction of fear, of anger, of determination to stamp out these acts of violence and terrorism. I think it was an emotional outburst which took the Canadian people out of their accustomed phlegm and into a view of the situation which does not permit calm and rational judgment. This is one reason I am glad to see the subject debated here.
I give credit to the Minister of Justice and to the leader of the House for acceptance of the proposal that the matter be debated in this Committee of the Whole.


John Napier Turner: On a point of order; it was our proposal.


Gerald William Baldwin: That is what I said. I gave you credit.


John Napier Turner: For accepting your proposal.


Gerald William Baldwin: If the Minister of Justice is going to approach this legislation in the light of his interpretation of what I have said, then God help all those who try to bring amendments before the House.
This phenomenon is something which is completely new, and it involves the continued alienation of young people completely disillusioned with society as we have understood it, completely prepared to opt out of democratic processes which far too often fail to bring about the results which are needed but which are essential if any society is to work out government by consensus. It is in the rejection of this philosophy by increasing numbers of young people that we face such a grave threat today. Fortunately, at the present time most of the disillusioned young people have restricted their confrontations to reasonably peaceful means. This involves violence in words, confrontation in the streets and confrontation at meetings.

It gets hectic, it gets hot, but by far the greatest number have not yet adopted the view that terrorism, savagery and brutality, if exercised on various parts of the social anatomy of the country, will result in the changes they desire. So, when we come to deal with this phenomenon we have to make certain that we do not drive the young people, the disillusioned and the disaffected, those who can justly say they suffer deprivation under our social system, into the arms of those who advocate violence and who practice violence as a means of bringing about quickly the reforms that they demand.
If the history of the world teaches us anything, and this was made very clear by my hon. friend from Calgary North in his address this afternoon, it is that civilization is but a thin crust over the volcano of revolution and anarchy. To work out a proper balance, to contain that volcano, but not, in our effort to contain it, to pierce a hole through the crust and let through the forces of anarchy and violence within, is the task which faces the government. I give them my sympathy. It is not an easy problem; not one in which they are helped by precedents, because most governments in the past have not had to face it.
I sympathize with the government in the difficulties they have faced during the last few weeks, and realize how difficult are the decisions they have been called upon to make. I, personally, have not attempted to make matters more difficult for them by my conduct either here in the House or outside it, but I do suggest that in their approach to this problem there are two main tasks which need to be undertaken. The first is rapidly and firmly to stamp out violence, savagery and brutality as a means of government. But they must be careful not to do so in such a way as would drive more and more young people and others into becoming recruits for those who promote and practice savagery. Just a few weeks ago a group of the Weathermen in the United States, young white militants who are dedicated to savagery, brutality and violence in their way, as are many of the Black Panthers, were involved in a bank robbery in Boston, or were alleged to have been so involved, resulting in the brutal killing of a watchman and the theft of $90,000. Several of the young people concerned were brilliant university students who had recently been engaged in the advocacy of a greater measure of university reform. What is it that caused them to go over the brink? What caused them to change from being people who thought there were peaceful means of settling problems into becoming advocates of the sort of violence we saw in this country recently?
I am inclined to agree with what the Prime Minister and others have said. We have not seen the end of this situation. It might be suppressed now, but there will be outbursts all over the country in due course as more and more people become involved in this means of settling disputes. It is an object lesson for us in this House to ensure that the procedures available to us will permit greater opportunities to ventilate and solve in an honest, objective way, the problems facing society. I was encouraged to see the results of the elections in the United States. I think they were evidence, of the sound,
November 6, 1970

common sense of the American people as a whole. Here, faced with two alternatives, the American people rejected the extremism proposed on the right, an extremism which has to some extent been evident in proposals made in this House, and rejected also the views of those who thought there should be a freedom given to the extreme left to determine all problems by the use of violence. I think this was an example of an electorate showing more common sense than is suspected, sometimes, by the government or by members of this House generally.
e (3:00 D.m.)
I wish, now, to make one or two statements of our position in relation to this bill. In view of what the Minister of Justice has said, I will direct them to him. Our position, which has been consistent throughout, is this. On Friday, October 16, we as a group stated that we saw a number of things which were wrong in the way in which the War Measures Act was introduced as well as with the act itself. The day previously I had spoken in the House and said that there was another alternative, and during the course of debate we put forward that alternative. I had an opportunity to meet with the House Leader for the government and I am very happy to say that his views in this regard were the same as mine. He said, representing the views of the government, that there was an alternative so that we could approve the proclamation. It is that alternative that has brought us to the point we have arrived at today, namely, the opportunity to legislate.
When we are dealing with problems of this kind it is much better to expose and to ventilate the issue publicly in this House than to deal with it secretly by Order in Council. I know it has been argued on the government side that it was necessary to have the opportunity to make this great sweep at four or five o'clock in the morning and to pick up the suspects, but I do not think the facts bear this out. When we examine the record of the arrests, the releases, the charges laid and the names of the people who were charged, it is quite obvious that in most cases the people who were picked up and charged were not affected in one way by the proclamation made under the War Measures Act, and were picked up without any difficulty.
It was a well known fact both in Montreal and in this city that the government was toying with these two alternatives: first, invoking the War Measures Act and, second, introducing legislation. It was a very difficult decision to make, and I recognize that. I was not privy to the secrets of the Privy Council, and I am glad I was not. My suspicion is that the government was on the horns of a dilemma. Knowing the calibre of the members of the Privy Council, many members of the cabinet did not want to impose the War Measures Act but felt there were other means of achieving what was required. On the other hand, there were those who felt something should be done. There was a feeling among the people of the country that something had to be done; the people wanted some kind of action, some display of movement. There was also another, overpowering reason, which was that the authorities in Quebec obviously required addi-
Public Order Act, 1970
tional assistance and manpower for the purpose of pursuing their investigations in an attempt to solve the crimes, capture the kidnappers and obtain the release of the two people involved. I accept these as valid reasons for taking some action.
There is no doubt that at that time the receipt of the letter written by the 10 or 11 people in the province of Quebec tipped the scales in favour of imposing the War Measures Act. I know this has all been gone into to some extent, but as I see it the government of Quebec was in difficulty. The surge in public opinion, which might have been led by these 10 or 11 people, might have brought such pressure to bear on the government of Quebec that they would have found it difficult to resist, and might indeed have caused the collapse of that government. I do not subscribe to the absurd suggestion that there was a plot to overthrow the government; I think that is nonsense. But the government of Quebec might have been put in grave difficulty. So I think the first two reasons for taking some action are valid ones. The third reason is not valid.
I suspect that all future governments of Canada will have cause to rue the day when there was what appeared to be an intrusion into the affairs of a provincial government in this particular way. I am not saying that something did not need to be done; I am saying that the other method I suggested is the proper one. If a request had been made by the government for a debate of two or three hours, we would have met that request immediately. We were facing a crisis, one that could only be dealt with if the House met and acting hopefully, in unanimity agreed to invest the government with powers in excess of what it then had to meet the particular situation. Although I cannot speak for my hon. friends of the New Democratic Party, I should like to think that if a reasonable request had been made for some specific powers to meet the current problems, they also would have agreed to have a short debate so that these powers could have been given to the government.


Francis Andrew Brewin: We said that.


Gerald William Baldwin: I am glad to hear from my hon. friend that they did say that. That was where the mistake was made, a mistake that many in this country, I am afraid, will live to regret.


Gérald Laniel: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Gérald Laniel: Does the committee give the hon. member unanimous consent to complete his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I will not take advantage of the good nature of the committee and I shall conclude very shortly. I do not know how the government will

November 6, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
answer the people of Canada or what the people of Canada will have to say, but I am convinced that when the history of this period is written and the developments that will spring out of this situation are recorded, the Prime Minister and the government will have a great deal to answer for.
Finally, had this intermediate course to which I have referred been taken and the government had been given these powers, the government would still have been able to act promptly, exercising the strength it required to deal with the problem. It was not a national problem. This has been said over and over again, but let us not deceive ourselves: it was not a national problem. Anybody who reads the War Measures Act would be convinced that the basis on which the act was originally brought into the House and passed lay in issues involving war, invasion, insurrection or apprehended insurrection- conditions going to the heart of the survival of our system of government and society in Canada.
I am reinforced in that view by the European Convention on Human Rights, which is a fascinating and interesting document written by nations of Europe, whom we often affect to despise, gathered together to pass a number of motions in respect of which, I might add, there have been a number of charges. For example, just a short while ago the government of Greece was charged in respect of certain abuses that had been perpetrated on its citizens under the dictatorial government now in power in that country. I refer to article 15 of the convention, which I think indicates the sense in which the War Measures Act was intended to be used. Article 15 commences:
In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation any High Contracting Party may take measures derogating from its obligations under this convention-
I say this should have been done in this case, and I am convinced that had it been done it would have been a great deal more beneficial for the country.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
We are now prepared to support this bill. We think we can improve it. I hope that the Minister of Justice will listen to the more moderate side of his character-and he has a very reasonable and moderate side-and will accept some of the changes proposed by the hon. member for Calgary North. I do not want to go into detail and against your implied injunction, Mr. Chairman, but when we give these particular and strong powers to any government, whether it is done in this form or in the form of the right to act and govern by Order in Council, we must always retain some means of accounting. What the hon. member for Calgary North suggested is a very reasonable and moderate step by which this can be done.
I therefore hope that the Minister of Justice, when he goes to his retreat over the weekend, will take with him the amendments of the hon. member for Calgary North and those brought forward by my friends from the NDP and will not reject them all out of hand. I have a feeling that as he sits here and faces us today, he has rejected them. I hope I am wrong and that he will correct me
when I sit down and say he is not rejecting them out of hand and will, in fact, be considering some of them over the weekend.


Pierre De Bané: If I am right, Mr. Chairman, we have been asked to give a general impression of the remarks and amendments we want to propose.
As far as subclause 2 is concerned I will probably introduce an amendment to restrict the definition of peace officer because, as you know, according to the Criminal Code, a peace officer can only arrest without a warrant a person who, in his belief, has committed a crime, not an infraction.
According to the Criminal Code a peace officer is not only police, but also the mayor, the warden, the sheriff, the justice of the peace, the deputy warden, the instructor, the gaoler, the civil servant, the pilot... So, as according to the bill we are studying those people may act on mere suspicion, I believe that we should limit, the number of persons empowered to enforce the present measure to those who depend on a hierarchical authority, and exclude people who may act at their own discretion, because there is no diaim possible against them.
As to clause 3, I think it is in apparent contradiction with the statement of the government that the bill is directed against the FLQ restrictively, or to its successors. The clause goes on to say that it applies also to any association that advocates the use of force or the commission of crimes in Canada. And I think that to hold that this bill would apply only in Quebec and not in other provinces is to misread what are the same or similar goals as those of the FLQ.
The goals of the FLQ indeed are not only to achieve the independence of the province of Quebec through the use of force, but also to use force in order to deal with any social malaise, be it the rehiring of G. Lapalme Inc. employees or any other cause. Then I do not think the government is justified in stating that the bill now before us is aimed exclusively at the FLQ or its successors. It should equally be directed against any other group in Canada which has recourse to similar methods.
Concerning clause 4, I feel that the press release of the Department of Justice, to the effect that the legislation prohibits the communication of statements in favor of subversive movements, is much better than the present wording which says "communicates statements on behalf of. ." All the more since clause 8 says that if a person has communicated statements before October 16, he is presumed at the very most to be a member of the association.
Now, if there are organisations or individuals which did communicate statements "on behalf", all the information media in Canada are concerned.
Then, I think that in clause 4, the following should be added: "without legitimate grounds the onus of which lies upon the said person".

November 6, 1970

Of course, it can be argued that these words are not absolutely essential but since the bill is, in my view, an exceptional piece of legislation, we must include those words which are required to avert any ambiguity. Indeed, on October 16, we placed our confidence in the province of Quebec to uphold the rights of prisoners to legal counsel. But they procastinated for two weeks. We had to wait for the provincial bar association, the federal government and the judicial body to issue statements in this regard before the government of Quebec recognized that the regulations proclaimed under the War Measures Act did not infringe upon a right enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
I believe we should take good account of this experience and include in the bill before us the words "A person who, without legitimate grounds the onus of which lies upon the said person".
To my mind, clause 5 should be amended so as to maintain the existing privilege in favour of the spouse. You will recall that the Criminal Code says: section 5 deals with complicity after the fact. The Criminal Code makes exception for the spouse who helps her husband to escape. And I do not think we have the right to cancel this provision of the Criminal Code which is centuries old.
In clause 6 there are, I believe, two different concepts. Lines up to 20 prohibit meetings of FLQ cells, and the second part prohibits meetings by other groups for a very definite purpose and not only meetings per se.
Clause 7 as it stands now I believe is unacceptable, and I would also draw the attention of the minister to a legal error in clause 7 (2) of the bill. Under the bill, and particularly under clause 7(3) as well as under the amendment introduced today, it is impossible to issue an order to a judge of the superior court of criminal jurisdiction in the province of Quebec because in our country it is absolutely unthinkable for a judge of the appeal court, Crown side, to set the date of trial-and as I was saying, it is impossible to give orders to a judge of the court of the sessions of the peace other than by mandamus or in resorting to control power.
Section 8 requires clarification and some remarks on section 9, paragraphs (2 and (3) would be in order.
In respect to sections 10 and 11, concerning search, I wish all the rights recognized in the Criminal Code to the owner of the seized belongings were safeguarded. There is even no provision for an official entry to be made of the seized items as a matter of record.
Concerning section 12, I submit that interference of politics in the judiciary seems an unfortunate way of settling the problem. I shall have other solutions to suggest.
Finally, I would suggest to the minister that the logical order of the sections following section 6 should be as follows. After section 6 should come the basic sections 10 and 11 on search, then section 9(1), concerning arrest without warrant, and afterwards, sections 9(2) and (3), concerning appearance before the court. Following that should come section 7, dealing with detention, and section
Public Order Act, 1970
7(2) regarding directions for expediting trial, and lastly, section 8, concerning the rule of evidence.
These are roughly the remarks I intend to make. Besides, I shall suggest amendments to improve the French wording of the bill.


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Chairman, the crisis we are now going through and are trying to deal with goes beyond political considerations, and I believe we should strive to find solutions without playing politics with such a serious question.
It is in that spirit, Mr. Chairman, that I would like to make a few remarks, for it is not my intention to keep the House very long.
Mr. Chairman, when the war measures were put forward by the government, this party put all its confidence in the government and we all supported the government's efforts to strike at the root of evil.
My Quebec colleagues and I had warned our party that regardless of the position it would take in this regard, we felt duty bound to vote for the War Measures Act. We did so because we believed without question what the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had told us. We did not want to question his word and acted accordingly.
Bill C-181 is now before us. I do not wish to discuss the sections of that bill. Thank God, there are enough lawyers to do so and I do not believe I should venture in such a complex field. I shall leave it to the disciples of Themis to make the best legislation possible out of the bill now before the House.
Mr. Chairman, it is understood that this bill is imperfect. Having been conceived by human beings, the contrary would be astonishing. Still we must make every possible effort to make it more explicit so as to meet the needs which concern us at this time.
It is therefore, Mr. Chairman, in the common interest of the Canadian people and especially of the people of the province of Quebec, that the government pay special attention to the suggestions made by the members of the opposition.
I should like to insist on this: the amendments proposed by the members of the Ralliement creditiste, the New Democratic Party or the Conservative Party have but one goal-to make the act as efficient as possible.
On various occasions, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has also held the opposition responsible for applying the war measures. Time and time again he said that we had given complete support to the government and that, because of this, we had to accept our responsibilities.
If it is true, Mr. Chairman, that we have assumed some responsibility by approving the implementation of war measures, it follows that the government should go half way and show a disposition to accept amendments which, I say it again, are as generous and as well intentioned as possible.

November 6, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
In introducing those amendments, we do not seek any political aim or capital. We are seeking only the common welfare of the population. So I would like to make a special appeal to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) so he will take into serious consideration the amendments presented to him.
Knowing what those on the government side may be thinking, it is clear that they do not have-any more than we do for that matter-the monopoly on science. Now, I think that they should give appropriate consideration to the amendment presented by my colleague from Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) as well as to those introduced by other parties.
I could yet say many things in that respect. For instance, I could say that, having heard certain speeches by certain members of the government, including the hon. members for New Westminster (Mr. Hogarth), for Sherbrooke (Mr. Gervais) and for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand), according to whom the danger of revolution was hanging over the province of Quebec, I could say that if it is true that the government knew all the aspects of the situation which existed in the province of Quebec, one can only wonder why they did not act before.
It will be said, as the hon. Minister for Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) is probably going to say, that it was necessary to wait for the province of Quebec to ask the assistance of the federal government. I wonder how long the federal government, aware of the danger and of the various aspects of this situation, would have waited before taking the necessary measures.
It is the duty of any government to see that the security of its citizens is maintained in all occasions. I would ask my hon. friends opposite to stop making such statements because, by doing so, they confirm that we are right when we urge the government to reveal to the population all available and relevant facts so that we can judge their value ourselves.
Mr. Chairman, I would conclude my remarks by asking once more the Minister of Justice to accept the amendments proposed to him since they only have one purpose: facilitating the elimination of the present crisis.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Mr. Broadbent:: Mr. Chairman, like a number of other members in this House yesterday, I voted for the bill before us with a considerable degree of hesitation. The bill before us is intended to deal with a matter which is unique in the history of our country. Never before have Canadians really had to deal with terroristic politics. For the first time, in a very serious and fundamental way, we face the problem of dealing with the conflicting objectives of freedom and orderliness, that is to say, conflicting at times but conflicting certainly when there is a terroristic group in society.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
The FLQ have been active in Canada for at least eight years. They have committed murder. They have committed acts of bombing. They have caused the derailment of trains. They have committed a number of other acts highly objectionable in any civilized, democratic society. Therefore, there is no question in anyone's mind that such a group and, such politics must be dealt with in a very serious and concentrated way. This kind of activity in recent weeks culminated in two kidnappings, one murder and the intimidation of government.
During this time the federal government declared that there was an apprehended insurrection in the country. It was the judgment of at least 16 members of this House that this was not the case. It is our view that there is indeed a serious malaise in the political culture of Canada. There have, indeed, been reprehensible and serious kidnappings, but there was not an apprehended insurrection. Therefore, we voted against a measure which proclaimed that there was such an insurrection. And we found, in terms of the regulations that came with that proclamation, that there were taken away from Canadians basic liberties acquired over hundreds of years of history. We did not believe this was necessary to deal with what was admittedly a very serious situation.
I am not going to go over the whole ground as to whether or not the government was right in what it did. As I say, a number of us believed it was wrong. History will be the judge of that. But I think what we have to face today, and what this bill proposes to face, is the question: What do we do now? It is not what do we do now in terms of welfare legislation, regional development programs or providing linguistic justice, all of which remedies are indeed necessary to deal with the very seraous problems of French Canada and Quebec, but: What do we do in terms of the Criminal Code? That is really what is at issue.
What do we say is to be criminal activity? What can be done to deal with the very serious problems associated with Quebec, in terms of criminal law? In the law books of this country we have laws pertaining to sedition, conspiracy, intimidation and kidnapping. If you look at this bill with care, you will find there are no changes at all made there. The government, instead of arguing that some improvement must be made in these areas to deal with terroristic politics, has said, "Really what we need to do is, first of all, ban the FLQ." That is one central, specific part of the bill. Further, the government proposes to extend the powers of arrest, detention and search.
In the view of a number of hon. members, certainly in the view of a number of members of this party, whether or not we support this measure on third reading will be determined by the flexibility of the government and its willingness to accept reasonable amendments. It is our view that we must deal with terroristic politics and, therefore, that we must make some changes in the criminal law. But the frame of reference for us is the broad one of how we deal with criminal politics, on the one hand, and preserve freedom on the other. It is our view
[Mr. Ricard.l
November 6, 1970

that no limitation on Canadian freedom-none whatsoever-is justified beyond that which is necessary to deal with the politics of the FLQ.
Let us begin by asking what are the existing powers of arrest, detention and search. The first point that can be made is that a man in Canada can only be arrested if he has or is about to commit a criminal offence. Secondly, such a man must be taken before a justice of the peace and be charged within 24 hours. Thirdly, police in this country at present can conduct a search only with a warrant, and there must be reasonable and probable grounds for conducting such a search. What does the new legislation propose? There are a number of changes, but in my view the most important and most basic to this question are, first, an extension of the powers of arrest and detention, second, an extension of the powers of search and, third, clause 8 which is the provision of ex post facto law. These are serious changes in the fundamental rights of Canadians acquired over hundreds of years of our history, and they are not to be discussed or dismissed lightly. The question we must answer is: Should we make the changes in these three areas to deal with the FLQ?
As I mentioned earlier, one thing has been decided. In the bill we have in effect declared that the FLQ is an illegal, violent conspiracy. The bill makes its kind of politics illegal. Therefore, the other changes in basic law as they affect our Canadian rights, changes concerning arrest, detention and search, must be intended to do one of two things-on the one hand, to prevent crime by the FLQ or associated bodies or, on the other, to catch those involved in a crime that was committed in the past.
The question then is: Do we need the extension of powers in these areas to deal with this situation? I put it to the Minister of Justice, not as a rhetorical but as a genuine question: If we now assume that there is no state of insurrection, that there is no impending riot in the immediately foreseeable future, but there is a terroristic group with which we must deal in a serious way, could this not be done merely by extending the present powers of search? If we consider what is involved in the present powers of search, in my view all that is required is to extend those powers. At present, as the Minister of Justice well knows, before you can search a Canadian's home there must be a warrant and there must be reasonable and probable grounds for searching it. The bill provides for an extension of these grounds, and in my view perhaps that is all we need at this time, if the grounds could be further changed from reasonable and probable to mere suspicion.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Let us accept the time period for this bill, until the end of April. If it were declared that during this period whole areas of Montreal, some other city, another part of the province or, indeed, any other part of Canada needed to be systematically searched, this could be done under the proposal I make of extending the powers of search and
Public Order Act, 1970
no warrant would be needed. Then when a search was made, instead of arresting people and bringing them in without laying charges and keeping them in jail for long periods of time, no such arrest could be made unless there were evidence of past criminal activity or intended criminal activity. In other words, the existing provision of the Criminal Code would have to be used. If we are really interested in preserving freedom in Canada, particularly in Quebec because that is where this activity is located, this is the kind of provision-the first step, if you like; the first, minimal erosion of our freedoms- that we should be considering. It is up to the government to prove that something else is required.
I assert that there is no insurrection now, and the government has acknowledged that by the title of this bill for the preservation of public order. If it has reasonable grounds for believing that before the end of April a riot is going to take place, a kidnapping or any other kind of criminal activity by the FLQ, a successor body or a body sympathetic to the FLQ, it could move through these extended powers of search. What would be the advantages of taking this much more limited approach, Mr. Chairman? Obviously, the first is that the existing freedoms would remain unchanged, with the exception of the power of search. Secondly, a well equipped, dedicated and hardworking police force, in my view, would be able to deal quickly with FLQ actions or intended actions. Finally, and this is really an elaboration of the first point, such limited kind of change in our law would enable us to maintain a basically free society and yet deal with the kind of malaise that we all wish to exorcise.
I would like the Minister of Justice to depart from the kind of partisan politics in which he indulged the other day and address himself, at some point in the debate, to the very serious question as to whether or not there is a need to extend governmental power beyond that which I am proposing.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I want to make clear at the outset that I support the measure before us, just as I supported the invocation of the regulations under the War Measures Act, for the simple reason that had we not acted this Parliament would have fallen into utter disrepute with right-thinking Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Jardine McCleave: So, Mr. Chairman, I justify our action in that sense. We have to take critical action to meet a critical situation, one on which the public conscience demanded action. I shall never look back at myself in that respect and wonder why I voted as I did, and as I will no doubt vote in the next few days. Nonetheless, in what I say this afternoon I shall pose the question of whether the government could have taken a better course than the one it has followed. A better course would have been to follow the sensible suggestions that have been made, not only in recent weeks but for some time. Had the government taken that action, I suggest we would not now be engaged in this debate.

November 6, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
May I present a sort of philosophical postscript to all this, Mr. Chairman, before I get into the meat and potatoes of my argument. I look at the people involved, the inner-circle of the government, the people before the courts in Quebec, the people being hunted, the people whose names are in the news at the very heart of today's tragic drama in Canada, and it reminds me of Victor Hugo's "Les Miserables". In that novel, all the great characters came together in the last few chapters, arrayed on one side or other of barricades erected in the streets of Paris. Some were on one side of the barricade when they could have been expected to be on the other. Such is the kaleidoscopic way of change in which lives are moulded in our times.
Much has been made of the way in which this legislation was initiated. I think the answer is clearly to be found in statements made by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition early in this story, on October 16. The Prime Minister's position would not have led to legislation being considered here today because, as he said then as reported at page 194 of Hansard:
Following the passage of enough time to give the government the necessary experience to assess the type of statute which may be required in these circumstances, it is my firm intention to discuss with the leaders of the opposition parties the desirability of introducing legislation of a less comprehensive nature.
But there the Prime Minister is referring to what has still to be produced, the long-term measure. I think that is a fair reading of everything the right hon. gentleman had to say on that page. A few minutes later, the Leader of the Official Opposition said, as reported at page 196 of Hansard:
Nevertheless, I urge that the government instead of seeking the approval of the House for the measure it has already taken, the invoking of the War Measures Act, should heed what is said in the House today and should at the earliest possible date bring in a bill with much more restricted powers, many more safeguards with regard to review, and of a much more limited duration.
Mr. Chairman, that is the legislation we are considering today. When we talk about the conscience of Parliament, this shows that the leadership has indeed come from Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. It seems strange that we should be discussing a situation in which so far approximately nine out of every ten people arrested should not have been. In normal times, those of us familiar with the background of English common law would quote the old saying that it is better that ten guilty men should go free than that one innocent man should be punished. That is the philosophy that guides us in more sober and less dramatic times.
There are those of us on this side of the House particularly, and I imagine there are those on the other side of the House too, who are concerned that there is such a large number of arrests. Under the arbitrary provisions of the War Measures Act, people can suddenly be arrested and deprived of their liberty in the middle of the night. After several days they may be released. This is an abuse, and it is to prevent abuses that we on the opposition are suggesting certain amendments to the Minister 
of Justice. We shall be fighting for the adoption of these amendments next week when we resume consideration of this bill.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I join in the eloquent pleas made by others to the Minister of Justice. He should pay due regard to what we are trying to do. We are not trying to discombobulate him. We are not trying to embarrass him in any way. We are trying to satisfy the feelings of Canadians and make sure that, as far as possible, criminal elements shall be dealt with in a just way. There are many in this House who fought against the horror that our planet experienced only three decades ago, a horror in which the jackboot rang on cobblestoned streets in the middle of the night and in which people disappeared, some never to reappear. Some went to the gas ovens; others reappeared as impoverished refugees if they were lucky enough to escape.
We ask: Why cannot that happen here if we have arbitrary action on such a scale and when so many errors have been committed? One can only assume that our government, which is supposed to be civilized and to represent our civilization, harboured no effective forethought for dealing with this emergency. All this while these Maoists, Marxists and other extreme leftists in the province of Quebec have been preaching their doctrines. They are economic doctrines, but these people are smart enough to use the political wagon of separatism in furthering their idea. They have been around for some time.
Last night on television the Prime Minister used two words. I will not mention them now; I will merely ask: To whom do those two words the Prime Minister uttered apply? For years the members of the Conservative party have asked for a royal commission to look into the causes of crime in Canada. Our large cities, and Montreal in particular-the city which is bearing the brunt of these awful times-have been faced with the problem of the Mafia. Latterly, Montreal has been faced with the problem of terrorism. The combination of the Mafia and terrorism has been more than the police force of that city could handle without outside help. That outside help has now been provided.
This situation is not new. For seven years we have asked for this royal commission. The present Prime Minister, as well as preceding prime ministers, when asked about this matter just shrugged it off. No action was taken. How would you describe a person who makes that sort of decision? One year ago Mr. Saulnier of the city of Montreal, who knew of the terrible problem that city's police forces were facing, who knew that those men were literally being driven beyond endurance in their fight against terrorism and the war against the Mafia, requested of the government a royal commission to look into certain matters pertaining to his city. That very sensible request on the part of the most important public servant to serve outside the federal and public services of Canada was not acceded to. What was the response to that request? It was a shrug. I ask: How would one characterize a person who makes that sort of response?
November 6, 1970

Let us consider the statement made in this House on the day before it was decided to send forces into Montreal early on the morning. How would one characterize a person who makes such statements? What sort of adjectives could one apply to that sort of person? What would one call a man who proclaims himself as an apostle of instant action, yet does nothing? Good God, Mr. Chairman, this government has waited for years and years before acting; the crisis piles up and now it asks us to give our approbation and blessing for what it has done. The government will gain approval, because steps must be taken. But we will not trust the government to administer these measures efficiently, because innocent people may be dragged in. After all, that is why we are fighting as best we can, to bring safeguards into the legislation that is before the House.
Sir, I meant to leave to the end of my remarks the adjectives that the Prime Minister of this country used when speaking on television last night. He tried to suggest that the words would apply to what others would do in this situation and that they do not apply to himself. Considering the way in which he dealt with the request for the appointment of a royal commission, and the way he acted in certain matters a couple of years ago, the adjective that should apply to him, that he said should apply to others, is "wishy-washy".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. It being four o'clock, it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the House.
Progress reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being four o'clock, the House will proceed to consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, Notices of Motions.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. Warren Allmand (Noire-Dame-de-Grace) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take initiatives for United Nations reform to make that institution a more effective instrument for the prevention of military aggression, for the settlement of international disputes, and to promote co-operation, peace and prosperity in particular, to:
1. provide that the decisions of the Security Council be enforceable;
2. provide that the unused provisions of the charter be activated;
3.	provide that the International Court of Justice be empowered to interpret the United Nations charter;
4.	provide for universality of membership;
5.	provide for the establishment of global authorities related to the United Nations to deal with serious global problems
U.N.-Prevention of Military Aggression such as the environment, population, development of seabed resources, and economic and social stability;
6.	provide for a United Nations stand-by peace force.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on October 24 this year the peoples of the world commemorated the twenty-fifth anniversary of the ratification of the United Nations charter. On that occasion many of us suggested that we should not at that time merely celebrate that anniversary in the sense of commemorating the setting-up of the United Nations but, rather, that we should take steps to reform the United Nations, to correct its failings and to make it a much more effective organization.
During the previous session I had the honour to sponsor a private member's motion in this House asking for the reform of the United Nations charter. That motion was debated in the House on February 9, 1970. Since the debate on that motion several speeches have been made which have given me great encouragement. One of the those was made in New York by U Thant, Secretary General of the United Nations. The second speech was also made by U Thant, here in Ottawa during August when he was addressing the Conference of World Federalists. As a result of various remarks and the speeches of the Secretary General of the United Nations, I have brought forward the motion we are discussing. It sets out six points. These six points are the same as those put forward by the Secretary General of the United Nations.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
When I put forward my resolution last year, many people participated in the debate. They said that my proposals were unrealistic and unacceptable. The six points which I am now putting forward are the same as those put forward by the Secretary General, a man who has served the United Nations since its inception, and as Secretary General for many years. He put forward these proposals because he thinks the United Nations needs reform and that these proposals will help bring it into the seventies to do the job it must do.
These six proposals are as follows: First, the decisions of the Security Council must be enforceable; second, the unused provisions of the charter should be activated; third, the International Court of Justice must be empowered to interpret the United Nations charter; fourth, steps should be taken toward universality of membership; fifth, there should be established under the United Nations, global authorities to deal with serious world problems such as environment, population control, development of the seabed resources, and economic and social stability; sixth, the United Nations should have a standby peace force.
I refer to some of the remarks made by the Secretary General in a speech in Ottawa. He said as follows:
In a very important sense, the United Nations is in a transitional stage. Effective and sensible world approaches to world problems are urgently required. The United Nations, for the reasons mentioned, has not yet been charged with that full responsibility of adequate authority to discharge it. But the United Nations has to be the active and vital process within which world policies are made or changed, within which agreement and consensus must be reached on major issues among member states, and where agreed decisions must be carried out

November 6, 1970
U.N.-Prevention of Military Aggression
on behalf of the world community. That process is only embryonic, in comparison with the needs, but we know that it *nust be fully developed . . .
I recently said that strengthening the United Nations should be not just a desire but an obsession ... X would like to summarize very briefly the immediate steps I see as indispensable.
He then deals with the six points which read as follows:
First and foremost, the decisions of the United Nations, particularly of the Security Council, must be enforceable.
Second, unused provisions of the charter, which can add greatly to international peace and security, should be activated.
He then refers to subsidiary bodies for fact-finding and conciliation, as follows:
Third, the International Court of Justice must be empowered to interpret the United Nations charter. Our goal should be the acceptance by all member states without exception of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in all international legal disputes.
Fourth, I have mentioned earlier that I consider the idea of the universality of the United Nations the priority item of this year's agenda for world affairs.
Since U Thant delivered that speech, Canada has established diplomatic relations with China. This matter will soon come before the United Nations for a vote to determine whether the People's Republic of China should be admitted to the seat now held by Taiwan. If we are to properly act upon the request of the Secretary General which would make the United Nations a universal body, Canada should support this admission to the United Nations on a full basis. This is what our government said they would do, but we do not yet know in which way they will support it or whether they will vote in favour of the matter being a serious question.
The fifth proposal the Secretary General made to the delegates in Ottawa is as follows:
Fifth, I have urgently recommended that global authorities related to the United Nations be established to deal with serious global problems.
He then dealt with the threat to our environment and the need for an international agency to deal with world pollution and conservation problems. He said:
It is my sincere hope that the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, which is to meet in Stockholm in 1972 on the invitation of the government of Sweden, will take the first steps toward the establishment of such an agency.
As hon. members know, the Deputy Secretary General, who will head the world conference on environmental problems, is a Canadian, Mr. Maurice Strong. He is the former head of the Canadian International Development Agency. We wish him luck in his new task. I hope the Canadian government will fully support him and the conference in the work to be done.
The Secretary General, referring to resources of the seabed, said:
-I hope that steps will swiftly be taken to establish the proposed international regime to administer the resources of the seabed, generally recognized as "the common heritage of mankind".
Sixth, the United Nations urgently needs a standby force a recommendation I made to the General Assembly some years ago. Progress in the Committee of 35 may be encouraging, but 
we have a long way to go before such a force becomes an actuality. In my view, a ready, trained, standby force is a prerequisite for effective maintenance of international peace and security.
These are the six points that U Thant feels are necessary to reform the United Nations in its twenty-fifth anniversary year. Why is change needed? As I attempted to point out last year, the United Nations was formed following World War II. There was great hope that it would be the proper institution to handle problems of international conflict and to deal with the terrible problems of war such as confronted the world from 1939 to 1945. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. Although there have been no world wars since World War II, there have been 48 major and minor wars. There has hardly been an occasion since 1945 when there has not been some type of war going on somewhere in the world. Even though they have not been atomic wars, the people who die as a result of them are dying just as cruelly and with as much terror as in a war on a world scale. The only difference is that in a world war, more people die.
We should take preventive measures before there is another world war. We should not wait until we are involved in another world conflict before thinking seriously about these matters. The present situation is almost one of world anarchy. In the past week we have been discussing the need for systems of order in this country and laws to deal with terror and criminals. We see this need within our national boundaries but we have not reached the point where we have effective institutions to deal with anarchy, terror and war between nations or on a world level.
The United Nations must be elevated to a higher level so that it can properly negotiate settlements with effectiveness when world disputes arise. One of the greatest threats to world peace at the present time is the situation in the Middle East. There have been temporary ceasefires, but unless we deal with the cause of that war it could be the spark that would once again develop into a world conflict. As I say, we should not wait until these things take place but we should act now, while we have time, to strengthen our world institutions, our world court and our United Nations so these things cannot happen.
o (4:10 p.m.)
I do not suggest that the United Nations has been a failure over the last 25 years. I think that if the United Nations had not been in existence, the world would be in a much worse state. The United Nations, even as it stands, is valuable, but it is not yet adequate. However, because I do not want to leave the impression that the United Nations has failed in all areas, I would point out that it has been a very real success especially with respect to the specialized agencies, the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization and ECOSOC with respect to economic and social questions.
It has also been a very real success in the area of decolonization. Many countries in Asia and Africa have been released from colonial status and have been set up as fully independent states which are today members of
November 6, 1970

the United Nations. Great progress has been made in this field since 1945. There have also been successes in connection with peacekeeping, especially in Kashmir, Cyprus and the Congo and, for ten years, in the Middle East. I would hope that these minor successes in some areas would bring home to us the great successes we could achieve if we improved and reformed the United Nations so that in other areas it could act more effectively and with teeth.
It is for this reason I have brought this motion before the House in the twenty-fifth anniversary year of the organization, in the hope that the House will approve it. This is not a private member's bill; it is merely a resolution which I am putting to the House. It would be a set of goals to which hon. members could subscribe, goals which we in this country should try to reach. I understand that not all of these six items can be put into effect immediately if we approve this resolution. Even if all the nations of the world approve these points, these things could not be done this year. But if we start by accepting and approving these goals, it means the first step has been taken. We have to set goals for ourselves so that we can work out means of achieving them.
I earnestly ask the House and the government to accept these goals. A year ago when I made a suggestion like this, people thought it was too idealistic, but now these things are being said by the Secretary General of the United Nations and by many other people in the world. I hope we can go forward and make the twenty-fifth anniversary year of the United Nations a year when we do not merely raise flags and say a few nice words in favour of the United Nations, but one in which we look at the past, examine the shortcomings of the institution and take steps to correct them.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, the trouble with the hon. member's resolution is that it covers such a wide field that it is difficult in the hour in which we are permitted to discuss world affairs, rather than domestic affairs, to give precise consideration to any one of the six items he mentions. I say this not in any way to be critical but merely as a warning that the remarks I intend to make may not be as incisive as they should be.
James Reston, surely one of the most thoughtful commentators of our age, in an August birthday message to the United Nations which appeared in the New York Times of August 12, said the soldiers had been dominating world events for the past few years but that the diplomats were now stirring again. The diplomats have always been in the awkward position of seeking to anticipate the future, and they are now beginning to think they can at least talk about the world beyond the present wars.
Whenever I become discouraged at the futility of some of the debates which go on in the General Assembly, I console myself by thinking that at least some of the issues are being discussed and that discussion is better than violence. I propose to discuss briefly two or three of the issues in this speech in support of the hon. member's resolution. One of the issues that I think the hon.
U.N.-Prevention of Military Aggression member is right in asking us to reflect upon concerns the essential need for universality of membership in the United Nations. Usually, when discussions on this subject take place we think, quite understandably I suppose, of the substitution of the government of the People's Republic of China for the Nationalist Government of China. I, with others, believe that this is inevitable and that the sooner it takes place, the better. But there are other parts of the world which remain outside membership.
I do not intend to go into the merits, but if we are frank about this question of universality, we have to consider a formula to provide for the "split" countries, the Koreas, the Viet Nams, north and south, and the two Germanys. I also believe, though I have got into trouble at times for saying so, that there are many people, particular in Africa, particularly in countries like Rhodesia and the Republic of South Africa, Angola and Mozambique who, because of the authoritarian nature of the regimes under which they are forced to exist and the obscenity of apartheid and other measures which frustrate, to use a somewhat eloquent phrase, the flowering of their citizenship, are not in any meaningful sense represented at the United Nations. So when we talk of universality, let us be very clear that there are still a large number of people in the world who have not yet been able to enjoy the membership we seek for them.
The peace force proposal can be discussed briefly. I hope hon. members will agree, modestly. The idea of a peace force is not a new one but its usefulness has been underlined, I am sure, by the report of the subcommittee of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence which reported some months ago. I trust the report was the subject of urgent consideration by the government on this very point. In other words, we have a somewhat up-to-date and, if I may say so, thoughtful, well documented report of a subcommittee of a Standing Committee of the House of Commons which provides all the information and forward thrust that I think we will get at this stage for the usefulness of a peace force.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
The last point I want to make, since I am sure other hon. members will want to indicate their support for this resolution, relates to the large item that is covered in paragraph 5 of the resolution before the House. I refer to United Nations authority to deal with serious global problems such as the environment, population, development of seabed resources, and economic and social stability. I think so much is encompassed in this paragraph that it rather diffuses the proper emphasis that must be placed on one or two other items.
Surely the world has had all the warning it needs by now of the serious danger that man is doing to his environment and the very precious balance that it is our obligation to keep. In some parts of the world we know that this balance has been drastically upset. Indeed, in some areas there is doubt whether there is in fact remedial action that can be taken to save the dead seas,

November 6, 1970
U.N.-Prevention of Military Aggression not of biblical times but of the present day. Having said that, I welcome the proposal in regard to the Stockholm conference on pollution. My only reservation is that it takes mankind so long to get around to organizing these conferences; and this one will not meet, I think, until 1972.
The second item in paragraph 5 has to do with population. I think here we must be realistic too. While it should never be part of the policy of the government of Canada to impose birth control methods on peoples of other cultures and other countries, nevertheless we should not resist making available, hopefully under UN auspices, both funds and technology to meet the situation so that we will not be faced with another encroachment upon the quality of life, as it were-a world where there are in fact too many people. I do not suppose that I will be around in the year 2000, but I am satisfied that I do not want to be if the world does contain the 7 billion people that present population projections indicate.
When people talk of the great open spaces of the world and say that all we have to do is to fill these spaces with people, they cease to get to the central issue. If the people of the earth are put into these now empty spaces, what type of lives will they live? I think there are techniques that man in his wisdom has evolved to find answers to what could be a very terrible disaster. I hope there will be set up, I do not like the word "commissioner" but certainly somebody in the United Nations responsible for dealing with the problems that man faces because of a rapidly escalating population.
The last issue I want to speak about very briefly is the technology man now possesses to exploit the last unexploited part of the earth, the seabed. Here I hope man does not fall into the trap that he fell into during the great escapades of exploitation in the last few centuries which have culminated, I think, in the quite irresponsible exploitation of the last 100 years. This is an area where man, if he is to exploit, must exploit together. Man has to exploit, remembering that these resources do not belong to any one country but belong, surely, to all men. He has to remember that because this country, for example, has been blessed, through an accident of geography, with a large coastline-I believe the largest coastline in the world-there are other people in landlocked areas and in undeveloped parts of the world who, surely, have rights equal to those which belong to all men-those resources which are on the ocean floor, the seabed and below the seabed.
Therefore, I think it is essential that some regime be set up to deal with the techniques, with all of the "terrible engines", if I may call them that, of exploitation which could be unleashed unless all man's wisdom and generosity is used to harness them for the benefit of all men. Without this regime we shall be in for serious trouble.
I am sure all hon. members are delighted to note that some forward steps have been taken. It is peculiar that when technology demands that man find a solution that
[Mr. Fairweather.l
is apart from ideology, man is often able to do this. I for one think that the curse of this and other ages has been the ideological dogmas that influence men to take certain positions. When man can separate himself from ideology and deal with what I might call the real problems, he usually succeeds in finding an accommodation.
I cite just one or two examples of this. I am advised that one of the most useful initiatives that has been taken in this regard is the North Pacific convention on halibut. The four or five countries of various political stripes that harvest the seas have something in common: they need to be assured of a constant supply of resources from the sea. This is why such a convention is essential to them. It does not really matter whether a man is a citizen of the U.S.S.R., Japan, Canada or the United States, or whether he is a Liberal, Progressive Conservative, Republican or what have you; the resources of the sea must be conserved. This is the impetus that has made such a convention possible.
I think this sort of action to protect the seabed is essential, and I must say I look forward to debates in the UN to evolve regimes for exploitation purposes-or for harvesting, if that is a better word-for the benefit of everybody on this earth. This matter is urgent because if man exploits without regulation, he will pollute. It is urgent because it is essential to co-ordinate research and to supervise the exploitation. It is urgent because unless we have a regime under international auspices, surely we will have only licensed entrepreneurs who have only national ambitions-and this I think would be tragic. I warned the House that the very general nature and the very wide number of issues covered by the resolution that we are discussing today means that members do not have the opportunity that they might perhaps like to have to hone and sharpen their comments. Therefore, I am making this apology for being somewhat general.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson said-I am paraphrasing his words-that the United Nations was in danger of sinking on a point of order. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), in his speech to the UN General Assembly last year, warned the UN about the proliferation of reports and of paper. I think that we, too, might take warning from these words. I hope that a committee of United Nations will deal very seriously with the problems raised by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
I think it is a very happy fact that this year the distinguished President of the United Nations is a very wise and knowledgeable gentleman, Mr. Eric Hambro, who does not put up with some of the niceties of the lateness and proliferation of committees' reports and, if I may say so, of the nonsense encountered in diplomatic forms that unhappily have scarred an otherwise rather good record of the UN.
The last thing I wish to say on this subject is that when some of us think of the 25 years of the UN and are
November 6, 1970

frustrated about its thrust and its eifectiveness, we should remember, as the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) reminded us, of the tremendous work of the specialized agencies. If there had been no UN, it is doubtful that the World Health Organization, the Food and Agricultural Organization, UNESCO, the specialized agencies dealing with international development, and so on, could ever have reached their present degree of helpfulness to man.
Therefore, when we get upset about sterile debates-as we often do when we listen, for instance, to the old debate on China coming up again-we should take encouragement from the specialized agencies and their work and remember, as the hon. member said, what might have happened if the UN itself had not been established 25 years ago. Someone reminded us that our world is too small for anything but truth and too dangerous for anything but brotherhood. I suggest that this is the birthday greeting that should be very much part of our thoughts when we think of the 25 years of the United Nations.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I share the difficulty of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) in that I, too, find the subject so broad as to encompass the whole future history of mankind. It is a motion that rather lends itself to generalities. Nevertheless, I too want to say that the motion before us is both forward-looking and, in my view, realistic and it has our enthusiastic support.
I think it was the late President Kennedy who said that in the nuclear world, peace is the rational end of rational man. It sometimes seems to me that it should be our first preoccupation, although it is often our last. In the type of age in which we live, survival depends upon an orderly world, an orderly world in turn depends upon some system of world law or order and this depends upon the evolution of a world community. It is trite to say that technology has made the world into a neighbourhood, but it is a neighbourhood in which there are immense areas of poverty and immense gaps in race, where there is instability and threat of instability.
We are threatened, not only with the possibility of a nuclear war but, as the hon. member who preceded me said, by the threat of environmental pollution and population explosion. These are matters that can only be dealt with effectively on an international scale; therefore, the primary object of our policy in the international field- perhaps our total policy-should be the strengthening of the UN and its member organizations. This is at least the first and the only effort that is now available to us to create the world community of which I have spoken.
There are many people responsible for diplomacy in the day-to-day conduct of foreign affairs who are, naturally, preoccupied with these day-to-day problems and sometimes have a feeling of cynicism and despair toward the United Nations. I do not blame them. There is sometimes in the UN debates a sense of futility, as has already
U.N.-Prevention of Military Aggression
been mentioned. I suggest that in the longer term point of view there is no reason for this sense of hopelessness.
There has been a forward marching of mankind toward a more effectively organized society, and there has been evidence that within this universe the spirit of creative evolution does produce the changes that are necessary. What is the Canadian contribution to this evolution? I would mention, as the hon. member for Fundy-Royal has done, the Canadian contribution to peacekeeping and to the available permanent peacekeeping forces. Canada is in a unique position to contribute in this way. We have the expertise, we are not a great power, we have the experience and we also have a degree of security from immediate aggression because of our position on the North American continent which frees us for a major effort in peacekeeping. I hope this fact will never be forgotten or disregarded because of the difficulties inevitably inherent in the development of new international institutions.
The task of the UN has only begun after 25 years. I express my gratitude to the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) who produced this motion and set these goals before us. It is easy for us to become immersed in the regional and local problems that now face us. Part of our task, however, is to look at the picture as a whole. I therefore thank the hon. member for putting these goals before us. We must not forget them.
I join the hon. member for Fundy-Royal in stressing the importance of the universality of the UN, to which reference was made by the Secretary General of the UN when he brought forward the propositions embodied in this motion and said that these things should be done now. Canada, having recognized the Peoples' Republic of China, should now urge not only the admission of China to the UN but the admission of other nations which through wars and difficulties in the past have been excluded from this world body. I hope Canada will take a clear initiative in that field.
I noticed that in the speech made by the Secretary General of the UN, U Thant, he said that to strengthen the United Nations should not be just a desire, but an obsession. I hope that many Canadians will take his words seriously and that the strength of the UN will be the centre of their policy in international affairs, one of their main purposes. That is one reason I was disappointed in the policy statement of the government respecting international affairs, namely, that it seemed to me to overlook the centrality of the development of the world community through a strengthened UN.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, this resolution has so far been supported by spokesmen for three parties-I cannot speak for the other party in the House-who have expressed their approval of the resolution which I believe embodies suggestions put forward recently by the Secretary General of the United Nations. I wonder why, instead of the resolution being talked out-which would seem to be the

November 6, 1970
U.N.-Prevention of Military Aggression usual procedure during this hour-we could not pass it. I think this would be a healthy and useful exercise and one that would show the direction in which all members of this House, regardless of party, wish our Parliament to move.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House this afternoon, proposed by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) is most fitting because it deals with the United Nations and initiatives which the government should take in reforming that body. This motion is being debated a few days after the UN completed a quarter-century of existence. With reference to the twenty-fifth anniversary of the United Nations, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said:
Over the past 25 years disillusionment and failure has not been a stranger to the UN but there has been as well substantial progress in efforts to achieve peace, justice and progress-the theme chosen by the United Nations for its anniversary year.
He also paid tribute to Canada's efforts in these words:
I am proud of the efforts that Canada and Canadians have made in support of the United Nations in the past. We have made a substantial contribution to its peace-keeping efforts, the gains that it has made in economic and social progress, its achievements in the field of human rights.
The twenty-fifth anniversary of the UN, which was celebrated on October 24, was more of a time of stocktaking than a time for celebration. The motion of the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace suggests many areas of responsibility which could well be reformed. I believe that many of these reforms are necessary and desirable. However, when we consider the problems of governing within a single nation, we realize the difficulties of bringing together a world assembly like the UN. The wonder is that it functions at all when one considers the immense complexity of national positions represented there and the diverse objectives of its members. In many ways it has been a success. Consider its membership. Now, 126 countries are members, whereas in 1945 there were only 51 countries. This is a move toward one of the objectives of the hon. member's motion, that is, universality of membership.
In its role as peacekeeper, the UN has provided a diplomatic meeting ground for conflicting nations where their disputes can be aired under the bright lights of world public opinion. This is probably the greatest value of the UN in world peacekeeping. Because of the development of instant world communication and international interdependence, every country now is concerned with its international image. The UN provides, also, a forum for other countries to use their prestige and influence on countries in conflict with one another to "cool" the situation. Usually this involves the two super powers, the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R., using their influence on the conflicting nations. However, sometimes it works in reverse when the superpowers are in conflict. Then their positions in a dispute are held up to the scrutiny of world public opinion.
It is important to note how much emphasis the two superpowers place upon gaining world support for their actions. If this were the only value of the UN, to provide a world forum to air conflicts between nations, it would be well worth while. Consider some of the conflicts which have been handled in its 25 years' history. Nearly every one of these confrontations would have had far worse results without the influence of the United Nations.
First, the Berlin blockade was settled at an earlier stage than would have otherwise been possible. Second, the six-day war, in 1967, in the Middle East was stopped much sooner by a public airing at the UN. Third, it has hastened the transition to independence of virtually the whole of Africa south of the Sahara, and much of Asia as well. In other countries the break-up of colonial empires has resulted in far more bloodshed than in these. Only in the Congo did the transition to independence threaten to trigger great power conflict. But if there have been many successes, there has also been some decline in the authority and influence of the UN. President Nixon appointed a commission last July to propose recommendations on the course of future United States policy toward the world body. The report said that the UN is becoming increasingly incapable of dealing with issues facing the world.
The report went on to say that the failure of member nations to make the world body the paramount means for maintaining international peace and security, and its misuses into becoming an ineffective debating society and a propaganda platform, has caused the United Nations to fall short of the world's hopes. The governments of too many nations have either given lip service to the principles of the UN charter or have interpreted them for petty advantages and narrow self-interest.
The report indicated four major areas in which imaginative initiatives could revitalize the world body and make US participation more effective. First, strengthening of the UN peacekeeping machinery and improving conciliation procedures, which is particularly important in light of the Middle East situation. Second, reforming UN institutions to reduce inefficient procedures of the General Assembly, eliminate red tape, apply the rule of relevance to debate and improve the personnel selection for the secretariat. Third, developing international policies, regulations and machinery to make the United Nations capable of dealing with the worldwide effects of environmental changes brought about by accelerated scientific and technological developments. Fourth, strengthening international law and co-operation to deal with drug abuse and the hijacking of commercial airplanes, which the report described as the two current, critical problems of modern society.
Needless to say, agreement on reform of the machinery for settling international disputes will be slow and difficult, but should be pursued just the same. The right of veto by one of the permanent members of the Security Council has immobilized this body. I think this should be changed so that a single member cannot frustrate the will of the minority of representatives on the Security

November 6, 1970

Council. The overriding influence of the U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. creates a balancing-act situation in many disputes, with the free world countries lining up against the Communist world countries.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has recommended universality of membership in the United Nations. Doubtless, this would include Communist China which has 700 million people. There can be little doubt that China will eventually be seated in the United Nations. Canada has extended diplomatic recognition this year, the second country to do so in the western hemisphere. We should also support her membership in the world body. Then this government, which represents such a large percentage of the world's population, will be subject to the same responsibility as other members of the United Nations. There can be little doubt that this will further complicate the negotiation of international disputes at the United Nations. However, the Chinese influence will be direct, with the other superpowers, and will not be felt through intermediaries and through other voices outside the United Nations.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Another area of increasing concern is the method of financing the United Nations. The Secretary General, U Thant, said recently:
The UN's financial situation is worse than ever before and steadily deteriorating. Certain governments continue to withhold contributions ... The amounts owed by slow payers continue to rise. At certain times this year the United Nations did not have enough funds to meet salary payments earned by the UN staff.
It is interesting to note in passing that the world's military budget last year came to $185 billion, foreign aid throughout the world came to $8 billion, while the budget for the UN and its agencies came to less than $200 million.
I have mentioned some of the problem areas of the UN, but there are many activities which have been notable successes, and new areas of responsibility in which I think this organization can give leadership. The hon. member's motion has outlined these. The social and economic programs of the UN have been the most successful in the past. Millions of people in underdeveloped countries have benefited from these programs. Perhaps if these programs are expanded on and developed, and the disparity between the rich and the poor nations of the world decreased, there will be fewer international disputes to be settled in the Security Council.
I am optimistic that the UN can be a positive force in influencing international control over pollution and the preservation of the environment. In 1972 a conference is to be held in Sweden to deal with this very problem. Other problems of the future, like airplane hijacking, control of development of the seabed and world population control are especially appropriate for the UN to deal with because their effects cut across national boundaries. The history of this organization leads me to believe that the UN can do a great deal in coping with these problems.
U.N.-Prevention of Military Aggression
My feelings about the future of the UN, Mr. Speaker, are similar to those in a statement made by the former Prime Minister and Member of Parliament for Algoma East, Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, who recently said:
The United Nations has now survived 25 years of international tension and cold war. With all its faults, but also with its achievements, it remains the indispensible international institution.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, this is so vast a subject and we have so little time, but I of course agree that we must look toward a more effective instrument when we look upon the United Nations. The motion as set out might be realistically described as something of an overexpectation, and yet we do tend to grasp beyond our reach; and that is the inner part of wisdom down through the ages.
Speaking on the question of universality, the countries which are out are those which are divided, and their problems are not those that seem to be susceptible to United Nations resolution. Would we gain much if it should eventuate that the People's Republic of China should become a member of the United Nations, and at the same time the Nationalist Chinese be sent out into limbo? This would not be a contribution toward universality, and I hope something is being done by the Canadian government-which has been so active in working toward diplomatic recognition of Red China, something with which I do not disagree-to find a way whereby the Taiwan regime may find its place in the diplomatic community, and certainly in the United Nations. This is my comment on the question of universality.
With reference to peace forces, it is terribly important as the years go by, for instance in Cyprus, that we move away from the military or paramilitary aspect of the question and turn more to the realm of mediation and conciliation. I wonder, too, with respect to some of the organizations already activated-for example, the UNWRA meetings year after year after year, voting sums of money to the Palestine refugees but year after year after year the problem becoming more acute and painful-whether new approaches should be taken. As well as thinking of activating new areas, we must energize ourselves more in those areas which are already technically active.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, all hon. members naturally have the right to express opinions on this important notice of motion put forward but the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand).
The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) took 12 to 14 minutes to express his views. However, at the end of his speech, he said that all other members should remain silent and approve the member's resolution.
As for any initiative to be taken regarding the United Nations, it is important to remember how fragile the organization is.

November 6, 1970
U.N.-Prevention of Military Aggression
I do not share the pessimism of such as believe the United Nations headquarters to be merely a place where speeches are made. The United Nations have a role, if only that of giving politicians of the world an opportunity to meet on neutral ground. When undertaking initiatives, one should always make sure they have a chance of succeeding. If they are not welcome, they will not achieve universality, as the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) mentioned. In fact, unwelcome initiatives could result in withdrawal of some member of the organization, which would almost immediately lead to an uninterrupted chain of withdrawals. This would undermine the very basis of the United Nations principle of universality.
For initiatives to be taken, they must be welcomed. This reminds me of a latin dictum: si vis mittere, mitte grantum, which could be translated into English as follows: If you dispatch messengers, be sure they are acceptable.

If you ever send ambassadors, make sure they will be acceptable; that they will be welcome.

I suggest initiatives of that kind-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gerald William Baldwin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, no cabinet minister being in the House I have to address my question to the two parliamentary secretaries who together might make up one cabinet minister. It was originally contemplated that we might be progressing in the expectation that the government would have facilitated the passage of the bill we were debating earlier today.
This not having happened, there is now some doubt in our minds about what we will be doing on Monday. As a result of discussion which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and I had with the Minister of Justice, we in this party are assuming, unless there is notice to the contrary, that we will continue the debate on the bill which was before us prior to private members' hour. I thought I should make that as a public statement on behalf of our party.
There is no minister present. I understand the cabinet is sitting. One of the parliamentary secretaries might like to make a statement on the development which took place earlier. Barring that, I limit my comments to saying that we expect to be debating Bill C-181 next Monday.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member's assumption is correct and that is what is intended.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is our understanding, too.
At five o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, November 9, 1970