1970-10-16

WAR MEASURES ACT


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 41(2) I wish to table an Order in Council under the War Measures Act authorizing the issuing of a proclamation and a copy of the proclamation.
I also wish to table a second Order in Council under the War Measures Act authorizing certain regulations to provide emergency powers.


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: May I
ask the Prime Minister if copies of these regulations will be circulated to members immediately?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand this is being done at the present time. The document is being circulated.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43 I request the unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion. I move:
That the House approves the action of the government in invoking the powers of the War Measures Act to meet the state of apprehended insurrection in the province of Quebec as communicated to the Prime Minister by the government of Quebec and the civic authorities of Montreal and further approves the orders and regulations tabled today by the Prime Minister on the clear understanding that the proclamation invoking the powers as contained in the regulations will be revoked on or before April 30, 1971, unless a resolution authorizing their extension beyond the date specified has been approved by the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the right hon. Prime Minister have unanimous consent to proceed with the motion?
a^d the authorities of the^city of	a
of	the
Prime Minister of the province of Quebec, which was received at 3 a.m., reads as follows:

Quebec City, October 16, 1970.
Mr. Prime Minister,
During the last few days the people of Quebec have been greatly shocked by the kidnappings of Mr. James R. Cross, representative of the British Government in Montreal, and the Hon. Pierre Laporte, Minister of Labour and Manpower and Minister of Immigration of Quebec, as well as by the threats to the security of the state and individuals expressed in communiques issued by the Front de Liberation du Quebec or on its behalf, and finally all the circumstances surrounding these events.
After consultation with authorities directly responsible for the administration of justice in Quebec, the Quebec Government is convinced that the law, as it stands now, is inadequate to meet this situation satisfactorily.
Under the circumstances, on behalf of the Government of Quebec, I request that emergency powers be provided as soon as possible so that more effective steps may be taken. I request particularly that such powers encompass the authority to apprehend and keep in custody individuals who, the Attorney General of Quebec has valid reasons to believe, are determined to overthrow the government through violence and illegal means. According _to the information we have anrl whieh is available JtO you, we are racing a concerted effort to intimidate nvprthrnw ^rnmfT1| and the dfirnorratir* Inst.lintinns of this nrovinee throng^ planned and systematic illegal action. iny}uding insurrectiqp. It. is obvious that, timsp nartirinaling in this concerted effort"completely reject the principle of freedom under the rule of law.
The Quebec Government is convinced that such powers are necessary to meet the present emergency. Not only are two completely innocent men threatened with death, but we are also faced with an attempt by a minority to destroy social order through criminal action; it is for those reasons that our government is making the present request.
The government is confident that, through such powers, it will be able to put an immediate stop to intimidation and terror and to ensure peace and security for all citizens.
Please accept, Mr. Prime Minister, my very best regards.
Robert Bourassa
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)

I also received from the civic authorities of the city of Montreal a letter addressed to me which reads as follows:


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Prime Minister,
The chief of the Montreal Police has informed us that the means available to him are proving inadequate and that the assistance of higher levels of government has become essential for the protection of society against the seditious plot and the agggehende^^jjjjjjggljflj) in which the recent kidnappings were tn^TrStstep^^^^^

October 16. 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act
We are forwarding as a matter of the utmost urgency the report describing the scope of the threat and the urgent need to reinforce the machinery to cope with it.
We ask for every measure of assistance the federal government may deem useful and desirable in order to carry out the task of protecting society and the life of citizens in this difficult period.
Lucien Saulnier	Jean Drapeau
Chairman of the Executive Committee	Mayor of Montreal


Mr. MacDonald (Egmonl):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister agree to table those two letters?


An hon. Member:: They are on record now in Hansard.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, if they can be tabled; I have some copies here. I might add a longer letter which would be of interest to the House but which I shall not read at this time. It is a letter to the Mayor of Montreal and to the President of the Executive Council from the Director of the Police Department of the city of Montreal. This document might also be of interest to the House. Perhaps the three letters could be printed as an appendix to Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreeable?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(Editor's Note: For text of letters referred to above, see Appendix.)


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: attttudes. The revolutionaries then employ this pyjHpnrp QLMlegedauthoritarlanisnT^gT7!^{fir'p|-irin fnr the r|n^H to
attacks on the social struc-ture*lappe^l to all Canadians not to become so obsessed by,^wnat_^ne_govemm'enTTiS gone t6d37 m response to terrorism that they forget the opening play in this vicious game. That play was taken py^tne revolutionaries: they chose to use bombing, murder and kidnanning. ^
To those who will voice concern at the extent of the powers assumed by the government under this procedure, I can only say that I sympathize with their attitude, and applaud them for speaking out. I hasten to suggest, however, that the legislative record of this Parliament in the field of individual liberties contributes unequivocally to its credibility and good faith.
I promise that the House shall be kept fully informed if any changes in the regulations are made. Furthermore, 1 pledge that all extraordinary powers will be withdrawn as soon as it has been demonstrated that there is a cessation of the violence and the threats of violence which made necessary their introduction. I intend to repeat that assurance and offer an explanation of government activities in this matter to the Canadian people through the public media later today.
Before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, it would be inappropriate were I not to mention to the House my gratitude for the understanding which has been offered me in the last 24 hours by the leaders of the opposition parties and by certain members of the Privy Council, including the right hon. member for Prince Albert and the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson. For their wise counsel I say, thank you.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, we are discussing a most serious matter, a matter fraught with the most serious consequences for our country and one which I hope I can discuss in that sense and in the full recognition of the very grave issues that are involved in the measures that the government has taken. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) did inform me and the leaders of the other parties last night about the probability of this action being taken, and I appreciate that courtesy. There was also some discussion. I know the Prime Minister did not intend at all to indicate that the action the government proposed to take had been approved by the leaders of the opposition parties, but I wish to make it perfectly clear that while I was informed of the decision to be taken and while there was an opportunity for some discussion I was, of course, in no position to and did not give any approval.
I am certainly not contesting the legitimacy of the proclaiming of the War Measures Act, or the legal power of the government to issue this proclamation and these regulations. Myunderstandinf^^
government, thal there is real or apprehended insurrection is conclusive. The government is the only one in a position to know The pomnuneni has recelyedthe letters to which the Prime Minister referred from the government'of Quebec and the civic authorities in the city of
Invoking of War Measures Act Montreal. Therefore	the
legitimacy of the procTamS!onr''^^^^^
Jor, Sir, am^quesUoninatheneedforeovgjaBipnts, including the government ol Canada to tak-e effective
a^ioi^^enforcelawandorderatthiatimgjgjiigjilarly in view of the	have taken place, the
hoTdu^^nTies^^wonf^nTor'Tansom and the apparent failure of the methods that were being used to bring this crisis to a conclusion. I emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that I do not question the need for effective action to be taken to enforce the laws of this country. Ve|, we must rfifflgnize that the measure that has been adopted, th e invoking of the War Measi: J^^ST^^^^^^^^riou^ind^jdrastic n^asure_the_government coTHTTave"T?lren'Trlg?ves the governmenTvery broad powers, i wish to emphasize, of course, that it. is the government, that has taken this action and that it is the government, which must accent, the responsibility for invoking this Act, because we in the opposition are not_in a position to judge whether there is real or apprehended insurrection.
I say this is a very serious measure because obviously it has broad ramifications. The War Measures Act provides for the possibility of very sweeping interference with what we ordinarily consider to be the civil rights and liberties of Canadians.	tfaflt. the government,
has presented and	^ nn+
invoke all the powers of the War Measures-Art-hnt. the War Measures Act having been invoked, thcreuxettemly aremany additionalgovernment could utilize by regulation at anv-time. Furthermore. tiae_extensive powers described ia..the,regulations are to be in effect until April 30, 1971, a verv considerable" length "ol TUftS. TEggg" powers apply, of course, throughout Ihe 'country. "*'
The Prime Minister has touched upon something that is of great concern to me. I refer to the possibility that a measure such as this could lead to escalation and might perhaps increase the tendency of some people to be attracted to radical movements. Therefore, because I recognize the need for action and am very concerned about the sweeping measures the government has adopted, I think it is important that at this time we consider the need of restricting any extraordinary measures to the greatest possible extent and for the shortest period of time.
[DOT] (11:30 a.m.)
I do not want to be partisan and I do not propose to be partisan on this occasion, at least, but in due course questions will have to be asked about how the condition in which we now find ourselves in this country developed. But I think the Prime Minister must find himself in a most extraordinary position as a man who advocated fervently the entrenchment of civil rights in our constitution and, within a relatively short period thereafter, is in the position of invoking the War Measures Act and suspending in a substantial way the tradition of civil liberties of Canadians for a substantial period of time.


October 16, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act
I also believe that it is not good enough for the government, when the country finds itself in a condition such as this, simply to point the finger at certain revolutionaries who, it says, have brought the country into this condition. I am trying to be fair when I say that the government in authority when this condition was developing must also be prepared to answer for the condition in which the country finds itself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: 
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, these last few days have been days of anxiety for all the people of Canada, and particularly for the members of this House who sit on the treasury benches. We have all been appalled and disgusted by the abduction of two innocent men who are being held as hostages in an attempt to blackmail the government into releasing convicted criminals and to do certain other things which, in my opinion, are completely unreasonable.
Because this situation is so delicate we in this party have carefully refrained from making any statements or

October 16, 1970

from asking any provocative questions. Because we felt that the government should be given every opportunity to deal with what was an extremely difficult situation we have gone along with the government on at least two or three matters.
We have agreed with the government's refusal to accede to the outrageous demands of the kidnappers. I can understand the feelings of those sensitive individuals whose first reaction was that the government should deal with the kidnappers and should be prepared to accede to their demands. I would not go so far as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) as to call them weak-kneed and bleeding hearts. I think they are people with a great sensitivity and a great sense of the value of human life. But I think such people overlook two important facts.
The first fact is that compliance with the demands of the abductors would not necessarily guarantee the safe return of the two men whom they have taken as hostages. The second, and even more important, is that acceding to the demands of the kidnappers would only set in motion a whole series of similar incidents, and nobody knows where the road would end.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Once it has become established that the government of this country is prepared to negotiate with kidnappers, to break the laws of the country, to release convicted criminals, to hand out huge sums of money, to publish the names of informers, then, of course, we would in all probability have more kidnappings and more blackmail. Undoubtedly the day would then come when the government would have to call a halt. The moment it called a halt it would, of course, be subject to the criticism that it had acceded to the demands in order to secure the release of some people and was now refusing to accede to the demands to secure the release of other persons. Therefore we have supported the government because we believe that to allow any group to dictate terms to the democratic, elected government of this country is to invite anarchy and chaos in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I think that Canadians must become aware of the fact that there are revolutionary forces in the world and now, unfortunately, some in Canada who are dedicated to the use of violence to bring about social change. We in the New Democratic Party want to bring about social change, but we have always believed that the means that are used determine the ends that are attained.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Those
who attain power by violence and force always have to retain power by violence and force. A government that is founded on violence and force then begins to have problems within its own ranks, and the transfer of power and the change of leadership are also settled by violence and
Invoking of War Measures Act
force. When we start down that road, Mr. Speaker, we are inviting the man on horseback, and the experiences of history from the days of Napoleon to Stalin, to Hitler, have all proven the same thing, that social change predicated on violence, on sabotage, on kidnapping, on assassination, is bound to end up in a police state, with periodic purges. We do not accept the doctrine of the Maoists that "all power proceeds out of the mouth of a gun", because if we accept that concept what we are saying is that society will be dominated by those who have the most guns and the ruthless will to use them.
In a country that has not got the democratic process one can understand men who desire freedom resorting to force, but in a country which has the democratic process and has a form of parliamentary democracy we say that these are the means at hand to bring about social change.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The
second point on which we have supported the government is its desire to do everything possible to secure the release of Mr. Cross and Mr. Laporte. We, of course, understood that it could not possibly negotiate on the terms of the demands that had been made. But the government has a responsibility to negotiate, if possible, the safe return of these two men to their anguished families. For that reason we have done everything we could not to make a delicate situation more difficult in order that if the government could possibly reach some agreement for the release of these men, without acceding to the demands which had been made, it should be given every opportunity to do so.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we come to a point on which we cannot support the government. The government is now convinced that there is a state of civil disturbance and anticipated sabotage which requires prompt and vigorous action. The government, of course, undoubtedly has in its possession information that is not available to us. I suggest that if the government has information that civil disturbances are likely to break out on a large scale and that sabotage is anticipated in menacing proportions, then the government, of course, has the responsibility to deal with it.
I submit that, properly, the government had two options in dealing with the situation. The first was to deal with it under the powers which it now has under the laws of Canada, to utilize all the powers under the treason sections of the Criminal Code and the sections dealing with seditious intention. There are very considerable powers there. I think the government deserves some criticism because some of those sections have not been used. There have been indications of seditious intent upon which the government could have acted. There is also the offensive weapons provision, and in dealing with the matter the government could have acted under that authority. The government had the power to call in the armed forces, and did so, and there was no criticism of the government for using these extraordinary powers if they, in their opinion, on the basis of information which they and they alone had, considered the situation serious enough to warrant such action.
198

October 16, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act The second option which was open to the government was that if it came to the conclusion that the powers it now enjoys under the Criminal Code and various other statutes were not sufficient to cope with this situation, the magnitude of which the rest of us are not fully aware of, the government had the option of coming to Parliament and asking Parliament, in a democratic way, to clothe it with the authority to deal with this unusual situation.
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Certainly I can say, so far as this party is concerned, we would have been prepared to facilitate very quickly such matters coming before Parliament in order that the government might be able to indicate the areas in which it had not sufficient power and the justification for requiring greater powers and greater authority. But the government has not utilized this option. Instead, the government has taken the unusual step of invoking the War Measures Act. In my opinion the government has over-reacted to what is undoubtedly a critical situation. Does civil disturbance constitute apprehended insurrection?


An hon. Member:: Yes.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We
have had civil disturbances in Canada before.


An hon. Member:: Not like this.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Well, I recall as a boy the Winnipeg strike and the riot.


Mr. Sharp:: But there was no kidnapping then.


Mr. Howard (Skeena):: Why don't you listen, Mitch, and learn?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I recall the trek of the unemployed from Vancouver on the way to Ottawa and the riots in Regina. There have been civil disturbances before; there have been subversive organizations at work in our society before. Governments have been able to secure from Parliament the necessary power and authority to deal with these situations without invoking the War Measures Act.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This is the first time, to my knowledge, in Canadian history that the War Measures Act has been invoked in peacetime. So far as the New Democratic Party is concerned, we have been prepared and are prepared to support enlarging the police powers if the government thinks it necessary to give the police greater authority in the matter of searching for dynamite or offensive weapons. They have the power now to search for dynamite and offensive weapons but there is one exclusion-personal dwellings. If

the government required the inclusion of personal dwellings for a stated period of time, under some protection we would certainly be prepared to consider the advisability of giving those additional powers. We are prepared to support the government in taking whatever measures are necessary to safeguard life and to maintain law and order in this country. But, Mr. Speaker, we are not prepared to use the preservation of law and order as a smokescreen to destroy the liberties and the freedom of the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


An hon. Member:: There is no shame.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I
wonder if the Liberal members who are shouting "Shame" have read the regulations.


An hon. Member:: Yes.


Mr. Langlois:: The hon. member should go to Quebec and find out about the situation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The
government, I submit, is using a sledgehammer to crack a peanut.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This is over-kill on a gargantuan scale.
Why has the government invoked the War Measures Act? May I point out that the FLQ have been around for some six or seven years. For several years now it is well known that they have committed and been found guilty of acts of sabotage, the placing of bombs in mail boxes and blowing up of public buildings.


An hon. Member:: Is the hon. member condoning that?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The
Prime Minister was Minister of Justice for three years and has been Prime Minister of this country for over two years. Why have we not been asked to supply the government with the powers to deal with the growing menace which it now says is so tremendous that we must invoke the War Measures Act to deal with an apprehended insurrection? The fact is, and this is very clear, that the government has panicked and is now putting on a dramatic performance to cover up its own ineptitude.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: Not at all.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: the hon. gentlemen opposite who are making so much noise have stopped to consider that today the Prime Minister holds more power in his hands than any prime minister in the peacetime history of Canada.


An hon. Member:: Thank God.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Right now there is no constitution in this country, no Bill of Rights, no provincial constitutions. This government now has the power by Order in Council to do anything it wants-to intern any citizen, to deport any citizen, to arrest any person or to declare any organization subversive or illegal. These are tremendous powers to put into the hands of the men who sit on the treasury benches.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If my
friends will look at the regulations they will find that if the police in their judgment decide that some person is a member of a subversive organization-not just of the FLQ but of any organization that the police decide is subversive-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -or
that he contributes to such a party-


An hon. Member:: Why is the hon. member scared?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -or
that he communicates any of the ideas or doctrines of such a party-


An hon. Member:: What has changed you, Tommy?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -that person may be arrested and detained for 90 days. At the end of 90 days, he has the power to appeal to a superior court judge to set a date for his trial and that may be postponed for some time. He may be denied bail.
[DOT] (12:00 noon)
A person in Canada may be held for 90 days or more without any opportunity to prove his innocence, to prove that he does not belong to a subversive organization or to prove that the organization to which he belongs is not subversive in spite of what may be in the minds of those who ordered the arrest. The regulations give the power to seize property and hold it for 90 days. It is a resurrection of the padlock law. These are very serious powers. If the government requires those kinds of powers, surely in a democracy they should have asked the democratically elected representatives of the people to give them those powers.
Invoking of War Measures Act


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What
will be the effect of the action which the government has taken? I hope the effect will be to bring about the release of Mr. Cross and Mr. Laporte. I also hope the effect of this will be to reduce the effectiveness and activities of the FLQ, but I am not very sanguine about that because the history of our country and other countries is that revolutionary movements, when declared illegal, go underground and have an unhappy faculty of coming up from underground stronger than when they went down.
We remember when section 98 was included in the Criminal Code to deal with the communist party. It was not very effective so the Liberal party rescinded it. I was in the House at the time the Liberal party removed section 98 from the Criminal Code on the very proper Liberal ideology that you should not condemn a person for his ideas, but only for his acts of violence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The
Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) pounds his desk. That is precisely what he is doing under these regulations. It does not have to be an act of sabotage. One does not have to commit an act of violence. He just has to belong to an organization which, in the opinion of the police, is dedicated to violence.


Some hon. Members:: Tell the truth.


Mr. Woolliams:: Give him a hearing.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I suggest to the House, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Cafik:: Thank God the ship of state is not in your hands!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If the
ship of state were in my hands, the first thing I would do would be to get rid of some of the barnacles like the hon. member!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norman Augustine Cafik: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please; the hon. member rises on a point of order.


Norman Augustine Cafik: It seems odd, Mr. Speaker, that one who advocates democracy would get rid of one of the duly elected representatives if he had the power.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The
hon. member knows that being Democrats, we would get rid of him by the democratic process. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the action of the government constitutes a victory for the FLQ.
200

October 16, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This is exactly what they want. They want a confrontation between themselves and the government of Canada. They want to be recognized as a revolutionary force with which the government of Canada must deal, and because of whom the government of Canada must mobilize all its resources to declare war. They want the government and the people of Canada to consider that we are now engaged in a civil war with the FLQ. This is exactly what they want. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) very properly said this morning that these actions fall within the established pattern which is planned by revolutionaries.
What happens? If we examine what has happened in other countries we find that revolutionary movements begin by associating themselves with the disadvantaged in the community and by espousing their cause. Then, acts of violence and sabotage follow which is responded to by police repression. That gives rise to demonstrations, maybe strikes and further police repression until, bit by bit, all the freedom and democracy is pushed aside and there are two armed camps. This is the polarization and confrontation which revolutionary movements in the world have sought to bring about.
The government has fallen right into the trap. The government has done exactly what the FLQ hoped they would do. All across this country students, workers and alienated groups will be told "See what happens when we fight on your behalf? The government immediately brings in repressive measures".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I say to
the government that we cannot protect democratic freedom by restricting, limiting and destroying democratic freedom.
The government has two tasks before it. I sympathize fully with their desire to cope with civil disturbances and with any anticipated sabotage, but the government has two tasks to do before they are going to be successful in this regard. The first is that they must use the democratic process in seeking to stop sabotage, kidnapping and acts of violence. They must work within the framework of the democratic system. If we are going to tell people that we value democracy and that democracy is the way of dealing with social change, we must use the democratic procedures and not revert on our part to the very kind of violence which we are condemning on the other side.


Mitchell William Sharp: Do you not condemn it?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The
second is that stringent measures by themselves, and I agree that stringent measures are necessary, taken through the democratic process will not cure this situation. We must go back to the root cause. A revolutionary movement has to have a base. Where is the base of the FLQ? The base of the FLQ lies in the disadvantaged and unfortunate people in the province of Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Where
is the support coming from?


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member kindly resume his seat? I just wanted to assist. At the moment the hon. member who has the floor should be allowed to make his speech.
a (12:10 p.m.)


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would think that even with the War Measures Act proclaimed we ought still to have the right to express our views in this free Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am
suggesting to the government that no revolutionary movement can become a menace unless it has the support of the disadvantaged and alienated groups. Who are some of these people? The Lapalme workers who were callously and shamefully thrown out of work by a callous government without any thought of what would happen to these men-


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The
unemployed, many of whom have now been out of work for a long time and who plead in vain for some action by this government, yet none is forthcoming; the people who live in slums, the people who live under appalling conditions.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This does not excuse violence.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The
Prime Minister says this does not excuse bombings. Of course, it does not. But I would point out to the Prime Minister that the best way to stop people turning to violence is to remove the root causes which make them frustrated with the democratic process.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: And let Quebec separate? That is what
they want.


Frank Howard: That is not so, and you know it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This
government should know that police action alone will not prevent discontent, and will not remove the sense of grievance and injustice which is felt by people. It takes positive measures alongside firm administration of the law. The government will make a great mistake if it thinks that merely by resorting to wider police control powers the problem of the FLQ will go away. It will not go away until we deal with the discontent and the frustration in the hearts of five or six million Canadians who feel that this country is not giving them a fair chance.
I say that the government's action today is an action of panic. In the hysteria which people feel, the government
October 16, 1970

may, as the Prime Minister has said, get many letters and calls approving what is being done. But I predict that within six months, when the Canadian people have had time to reflect on what has happened today-the removal of all the protection and liberties presently on the statute books of Canada, a country placed under the War Measures Act, regulations introduced allowing persons to be detained for 90 days without a chance to prove their innocence-when that day comes, the Canadian people will look on this as a black Friday for civil liberties in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Real Caoueile (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, after the House gave its unanimous consent this morning, to the introduction of a legislative measure that nobody wanted and after hearing the Leaders of the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party (Messrs. Stanfield and Douglas), say that perhaps we should not have accepted these measures, I feel they are simply playing politics.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: Indeed, that is what is being done in dealing with questions that are totally irrelevant to the situation now prevailing in Quebec.
I should like to point out that as far as the people of the province of Quebec are concerned, I think I know them better than the Leader of the Official Opposition or the Leader of the New Democratic Party.
Nobody is happy, this morning, to have to introduce such measures to put an end to terrorism in the province of Quebec. Neither the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), nor the other ministers, nor any other hon. member, nor anybody for that matter, feel happy that we have been forced to take such action and if it has become imperative, then I will say that it has long been overdue.
A year ago when the Chairman of Montreal's Executive Council (Mr. Saulnier) issued a warning against terrorist activities within the Company of Young Canadians, for instance, and also within other Montreal organizations, the government refused to acknowledge the truth of those statements. At that time, Mr. Saulnier had requested a Royal Inquiry which would have turned the whole situation inside out; the government decided not to move. They had to wait, before taking any action, until two eminent personalities had been abducted. You see now why over a week ago, I was already arguing that there was no alternative but to invoke the war measures legislation in view of the seriousness of the present situation.
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that such events took place in the province of Quebec and that some of my fellow French-Canadians are responsible for them. It seems to me there would have been some other way to draw the whole world's attention than the methods used by the FLQ.
Invoking of War Measures Act
It has been pointed out earlier that the current situation had its roots somewhere. This is true. We have been saying so for long a time. We have called this government's attention to certain activities going on in Quebec for many years. In fact, when I stated in this House on repeated occasions, that separatists were employed by the CBC, nobody would believe that this government agency was being used as a platform by those who were spreading hatred and dissatisfaction throughout Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Réal Caouette: I was told that I was wrong. The Secretary of State defended the CBC when he was perfectly aware that separatists, members of the FLQ were employed by this government agency which is run with the taxpayers' money.
Mr. Speaker, there is another point on which I would like to draw your attention. When Algerian teachers were allowed into Canada for instance, these were revolutionaries who came to educate our children but there was no opposition to it. Hundreds were admitted into Canada and these people were arrested this morning, including professors at the universities of Montreal, Quebec and Laval.
Mr. Speaker, why did we fail to act in time? Now we see students on the march. Moreover, in Hull this morning at 4 a.m., three or four students-including the son of a physician-were arrested for subversive activities. Those students have been roused by others, by people who told them: "Let us get together to upset the established order." I do not share at all the remarks made earlier by the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Douglas) when he said that those responsible for the abductions or the current situation in Quebec are destitute people.
In fact, most university students were born with a silver spoon in their mouth. They are primarily responsible for the situation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: There are among them unambitious, cowardly young people who do not have the guts to work and want to take advantage of the ignorance of people to try and climb the administration ladder of the country. I might give you hundreds of other examples.
What we are witnessing in Canada has already happened in other countries.
Two years ago, in Czechoslovakia, students revolted against the loss of their freedom that they wanted to recover. The students in Prague today are the sons of those who 25 or 30 years ago made the revolution in order to establish the totalitarian system they have to put up with now, and they are no longer free. Such a situation must be avoided in Canada. Those who are fighting in the name of that "famous" freedom in the FLQ are people who want to deny it to others, once they are in power.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

October 16, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act


David Réal Caouette: It is quite untrue that the FLQ is made up of disadvantaged, poor people who live in slums. As for its members, we have seen them again on the state-owned television network. Last night I heard Robert Lemieux yelling that he would overcome, priding himself on being an FLQ supporter, with Michel Chartrand in his wake. That is the story.
Now we know that the people we have seen for many years, the rebels, really exist. Michel Chartrand does not live in a slummy district in Montreal, even though he has always tried to rouse the destitute, such as the boys from Lapalme, for instance. They were mentioned a while ago and said to be members of the FLQ. This is not true. You can find among the former employees of G. Lapalme Inc. a few members of the FLQ, but they are not all members. These workers were roused by people like Michel Chartrand who blamed the government by stating: "You did not hire again the Lapalme drivers." They did not work for the government, but for a private company, G. Lapalme Inc.
If I close down my garage in Rouyn, will the government be forced to hire my former employees?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: The government offered the employees of G. Lapalme Inc. to integrate them in the public service. However, people like Chartrand told them not to accept.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: We sympathize with these former employees of the Lapalme Company, but never with the likes of Chartrand, because these are people who have no respect for anyone or for anything. In fact, he is one of those who formally declare their intention of overthrowing the present system and of taking over. I do not want rulers such as Chartrand and I do not think that members of the New Democratic Party would want him either.
Mr. Speaker, following the unanimous adoption of war measures by the House this morning, I would once again ask the Prime Minister to be careful, because some armed forces members who are now in Quebec come from parts of the country other than Quebec. Their searches should be controlled lest they meet somebody with an FLQ card and mistake him for a member of the Front de liberation du Quebec when he might be only a member of the Federation liberate du Quebec-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I know as everybody else does, that the situation in Quebec is serious. As far as we are concerned, we do not want to deprive citizens of their rights. However, as the Prime Minister suggested earlier, those people are the ones who asked for what is happening this morning. They are those who, by their doings, have decided of their present fate. Do we have the right to let them deprive the Canadian citizens of their freedom? Indeed, they have no right to do so. Then, they will complain that we have accepted to impose dictatorial measures. The steps taken this morning have absolutely nothing in common with dictatorship. What we want, Mr. Speaker, is to save our country and saveguard its unity.
That our administration has deficiencies, there is no doubt about it. Is any administration free of them? Some countries governments have been changed and have gone through upheavals. Have they for all that attained perfection? Not at all!
The same Castro, who pulled off his coup in Cuba, in the name of freedom and the poor, today tends his resignation saying that it resulted in a fiasco. Therefore it is certainly not in Cuba that perfection is to be found.
Is there any perfection in Russia? Not at all. No more than in Czechoslovakia. We do not have it here either but at least we enjoy freedom of expression. We have never prevented Mr. Michel Chartrand of Montreal, for instance, from expressing his opinion on radio and television or from publishing in newspapers all the nonsense he wrote in them.
Mr. Speaker, we still enjoy that freedom in spite of all the faults which are found in Canada. At least we can express ourselves. And this is, Mr. Speaker, what we believe in-and I shall say it in English,-the four basic principles capable of establishing true order which the Prime Minister has called "the just society", which should avoid situations such as the one we are facing at the moment. And I quote now these four principles which can be accepted by any political party. They are not political but social and economic principles which can be accepted in order to achieve true democracy, true freedom and true security. They are the following:
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)

1.	We firmly believe that the individual is the most important factor in organized society. Because he is a divinely created being, with spiritual, mental and physical needs and potentialities, he has inalienable rights which must be respected and preserved.
Because of this belief, we are unalterably opposed to communism, fascism and all forms of totalitarian government which make the individual citizen subservient to the state.
It stands opposed to political organizations whose aims are the furtherance of the sectional interests of organized labour, business, or finance.
2.	Government must serve the individual. The major function of democratic government in organized society is to secure for the people the results they want from the management of their public affairs, as far as such results are physically possible and morally right.
3.	The individual must be free and have economic security. The individual can only attain his full stature in a society where his ability to make moral choices is restricted as little as possible. Economic security is a necessary means for attaining this freedom not as an end to be attained by restricting it.
This is the strongest one.
4.	The physically possible must be regarded as the financially possible. Whatever is physically possible, desirable, and morally right, can and should be made financially possible.

October 16, 1970

[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)

Some think that is funny. Let us not forget that enforcing the War Measures Act will cost the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars in bringing back order.
Might not a policy of prevention have kept those insurrections from happening, two, five, ten or fifteen years ago, and created a climate of confidence amongst all Canadians, regardless of tongue or creed.
Mr. Speaker, we have tolerated the existence of a system which forced us to fight amongst ourselves. That system bred hatred between French-speaking and English-speaking Canadians. The major problem in Canada is not a language problem.
We almost came to blows in this House on this matter.
In other countries, religion is the cause of strife. We see it now in Ireland, for instance.
If we can use the army, if we can find money to enforce those measures in Montreal and in the province of Quebec, in peace time, there is no reason why we cannot find the funds to achieve what is physically possible. Thus, we will contribute to better understanding amongst Canadians. We will no longer witness these sterile fights between French-speaking and English-speaking people, amongst Canadians who feel frustrated because one part of the country is better treated than their own.
We believe in those four principles. Enforcing the measures proposed this morning by the government does not appeal to us. Obviously, no one would wish to resort to those methods. But given the serious situation in Quebec and the irresponsibility of certain hotheads, we must face the music and protect the basic rights of the individual and the society in Canada. We shall then have a system enabling anyone to be himself.
Those who rebel today will be able to think the matter over, and consider the chances that Canada offers them. Then, all Canadians will take part in making Canada greater, more worthy and a striking example for the whole world.
Mr. Speaker, of course the measures we intend to approve today make poor publicity for us abroad. However, we must cope with the situation. The government can rely on our support to prevent recurrence of such acts as have been perpetrated. This does not mean that we shall support the government in all respects. I merely suggest that the government introduce economic, social and political reforms designed to guarantee true democracy and prevent a repetition of current events in the province of Quebec.


Righi Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Alberi):: Mr. Speaker, this is one of those occasions when Parliament has the opportunity of dealing with the question of freedom which, above everything else, is the mandate of Parliament and the reason that Parliament exists. I have listened to the explanations by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and knowing his past connections with civil liberties associations and his strong advocacy of the right,
Invoking of War Measures Act whether in war or in peace, to disagree with the authorities, I can understand when he said how diffident he was to bring before Parliament a resolution that what has been produced by the bureaucracy shall be voted upon by Parliament.
Many of the members in this House have not read the regulations, of that I am sure. They are asked to give approval to a series of regulations that place the freedoms of Canada in cold storage for several months to come. The request of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) was that there should be a statute. I was impressed by his arguments as he unveiled his views in this connection. Why not an amendment to the Criminal Code; why not an act of Parliament that will put teeth in the laws now in existence? Laws that will place the wrongdoers in jeopardy but will not take away the rights of Canadians in every part of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Why should we in the province of Saskatchewan have our rights and our fundamental freedoms taken away, at the request of the government of the province of Quebec, Mayor Drapeau and Mr. Saulnier of the c.ty of Montreal?
I am not going to get into arguments with those who have decided they are going to interrupt because they disagree with my views. Members of the government, with their great majority, should not try to deny those who are members of the opposition their right to speak. I have always been accorded in this House the right to speak, even from those who have strongly disagreed with me because Parliament is, to me, a cathedral of devotion to Canada, its future and its greatness.
The Prime Minister says the reason for doing this is that the situation in Quebec has gotten out of hand; there is an emergency he contends. I have been watching the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier), with his hand up to his face, looking out of one eye. As I watched him, I wondered what his reaction was. He doesn't need two eyes. He does not want to see. I wonder what his attitude is now, after two occasions on which he stood up in this House and said there was nothing in the argument of the leader of the Creditistes that in the province of Quebec there were several people in Radio Canada who were members of the FLQ. I say to him that he knew this at the very time he was denying it in this House. Why were proceedings not taken?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: Why were not proceedings taken against the wrongdoers in the Company of Young Canadians? The minister is the one responsible. I shall deal in particular with some persons, who have the accolades of the government, who actually were trying to undermine this country. What about these four men in Radio Canada in the province of Quebec? Were they not brainwashing the people of Canada; were they not from

October 16, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act day to day explaining that all was well? Yet, they were kept there. They were not interfered with. They enjoyed a peculiar protection. I wonder why the Secretary of State did not act, because I say again that he knew these individuals. Why did he not act? The Prime Minister says that this thing has come on suddenly. I am tremendously interested in the fact that he had both eyes shut, not just the one like the Secretary of State, and both ears shut, as the Prime Minister indicates. I am glad that he did so. Now, he puts his hand up to his nose which indicates that the stench is too strong.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister said today in effect "we have word from Mayor Drapeau of Montreal and from Mr. Saulnier". Well, he had that in November of 1969. I have the dossier with me. The Prime Minister had this information and the pictures of some of these individuals. He had that information and what did he do? He whitewashed it. Sir, I have made a summary of the highlights of the documents which represents a review of the evidence placed before the Committee of Parliament. This clearly establishes that there were in the Company of Young Canadians those who were advocating the end of the government by force. Let me read from this. One is entitled the "Revolutionary Strategy". Apparently, the government never read this, although it was before them. I repeat that what is happening in the province of Quebec was before the government of Canada in November and December of 1969, and the government did nothing about it.
"Revolutionary Strategy" outlines in detail the tactics, organization and methods for seizing power by force in the province of Quebec. It reads:
There are only two strategies-electoral strategy and revolutionary strategy. Real independence is inseparable from global revolution and its conquest demands always and everywhere a war to the end against imperialism, as in Viet Nam and Guatemala-
Then:
Let us profit by the lessons of history since the Russian revolution in 1917 to work for an authentic revolution, organizing a base whereby through revolutionary action itself we shall come to count only on our own power, ability and creativity.
And then:
Since 1963, the explosion of the first FLQ bombs, we are in the first phase of the revolutionary struggle, which will keep up until agitation becomes general-
What did the government do about it? Nothing, except for the Prime Minister's attitude of pinching his nose. I am surprised that he took that attitude. I ask the Prime Minister whether he ever read the recommendations that were made by the city of Montreal.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We had them examined by justice.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the answer?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He said he had them examined by justice.


John George Diefenbaker: He had somebody else do it. Surely, the Department of Justice did not conceal from the Prime Minister this evidence of revolutionary conduct.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Why didn't Montreal act?


John George Diefenbaker: I know this hurts, but I must proceed with it. I shall continue the quotation:
Second stage of the battle...If we wish to attain the objectives...we must organize the masses in local committees, or professional liberation committees .. . Committees in each quarter, each ward, each factory, school, broken into cells, regrouped in regional federations... In the factories, universities, CGEP . .. Organization of those who are exploited must be undertaken having in mind a popular insurrection, characterized by armed occupation-
The word "armed" is underlined.
-of universities, schools, public services and national territory.
The most difficult phase of the struggle: the armed conflict between the people and its enemies... inseparably a military and political struggle...
Then, it says about the government of the right hon. gentleman-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He is leaving; he can't take it.


John George Diefenbaker: He can't take it.


Mr. Hees:: Sit down and take it, Pierre.


John George Diefenbaker: When I deal with facts the Prime Minister always finds it necessary to leave the House. 1 do not mind him following his usual course.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out to the hon. member that I was very willing to listen to him but if he intends to read nonsense in this way-


John George Diefenbaker: Nonsense, Mr. Speaker! He says that if I read nonsense he will not listen. Well, this came from the very people in Montreal to whom he is now listening. Isn't it a strange thing that the Prime Minister is trying to pretend that what is happening has suddenly developed. These are the instructions. Violence and illegality are absolutely normal for revolutionaries.
Don't be afraid of being illegal.. .Violence and illegality are absolutely normal for revolutionaries... Like the Black Panthers all the revolutionary groups-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is a little difficult for the Chair to follow the words of the right hon. gentleman. Perhaps we could have order.


John George Diefenbaker: This lack of order indicates how far Liberalism has gone along the road of a dictatorship under this government. Let me quote:
Like the Black Panthers, all the revolutionary groups (and there are several) must prepare for armed revolution-
There is page after page dealing with such evil persons as Pierre Vallieres who, I think, was picked up during the night. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. 
October 16, 1970

Drury) indicates that that is correct. There is a call for a manifestation on behalf of Vallieres, a terrorist out on bail, and it reads, in part: "Vive la revolution, vive Pierre Vallieres". He has been wandering around, in recent months spreading his poison everywhere. Sedition has been committed by him over and over again. Would this government touch him?
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: No.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John George Diefenbaker: It is difficult to understand why the government did nothing. The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) knows something about some of these characters. Chartrand has been a close pal of his. I would not have brought that up if the hon. gentleman did not want to interrupt.


Mr. Marchand (Langelier):: I fired him twice.


John George Diefenbaker: Why did you not pick up Chartrand during the last several weeks when he has been issuing statements that were seditious and against the law?


Jean Marchand: Where is Chartrand now?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Where was he last night? Just discovered during the night? The government did not need these powers in order to arrest him. Did you not think that a man who was spreading this kind of falsehood-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to remind the right hon. gentleman that he should address the Chair.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, Mr. Speaker, I agree with you entirely but when the hon. gentleman seeks the limelight I want to be assured that he gets it.
The minister of Regional Expansion says that the reason they did not pick up Chartrand until four o'clock this morning was that they did not know where he was. I ask him: was there ever a warrant issued for Chartrand's arrest for sedition? He has enjoyed particularly warm feelings from some of those in the government. It was not until four o'clock this morning that like the Phoenix he rose out of his own ashes. May I remind the minister when he interrupts that, on a number of occasions, I brought before the House the danger of bringing American revolutionaries into Canada who advocated revolution from one end of the country to the other, who advocated bloodshed and revolution. For instance Rubin had advocated the killing of the parents of each of those members of his organization-kill and kill, turn out the government and spill blood. What did the hon. minister say in answer to me? He said in effect "after all, we believe in free speech".
Is the reason Chartrand was not apprehended that the government believed in free speech? No! The Prime Min-
Invoking of War Measures Act ister endeavoured to leave the impression today that, suddenly, there was a reason for action now and that he was deeply shocked. Certainly, the kidnappings were committed for the first time, but what about the 2,000 pounds of dynamite that were stolen recently? What about the bombings? What about the attempts on railroads, and what about the killing of innocent Canadians? The government, except in a very few cases where prosecutions took place, did nothing. They opened up Canada's doors, laid down the red carpet, and said in effect "come, believing, come to Canada". These revolutionaries went across Canada and they preached the most diabolical doctrines. The answer of the Prime Minister and of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion was "After all, we believe in free speech". Is that the reason the government did not pick up Chartrand? His so-called free speech was a crime against the sedition provisions of the Criminal Code. Why was action not taken?
There is an appeal in the dossier calling on all comrades to attend the trial of Charles Gagnon. Was Charles picked up yesterday?


An hon. Member:: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: What a coincidence! The government obtains the power to do something, a power which they could have exercised at any time. Charlie has been around for months and months and the government knew where he was. The minister to whom I have referred for the last few minutes knew where Gagnon was. The appeal states that adherents are urged to fill the court every Wednesday. It reads: "It seems certain that the jury is impressed by the presence of numerous supporters in the court".
I must not speak disrespectfully of Lemieux because he is in the position of being an arbitrator, a plenipotentiary. His statements in the last several months have aroused people, of the kind he endeavours to arouse, the revolution in Canada. Why was no action taken against him? The government of Canada let these people run wild. Free speech is not what two or three ministers say it is. It is a strange triumvirate in the cabinet composed of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and, above all, their conscience, the Secretary of State.
Mr. Saulnier brought all of this evidence before the committee. He pointed out that the FLQ was organizing through the instrumentality of a government agency. What happened? Nothing. A year went by. No attention whatsoever was paid to the representations of two gentlemen, the mayor of Montreal-a tremendous power in the public life of our country-and Mr. Saulnier, both of whom dared to speak out. They were pushed aside and the government walked on the other side of the street. The government is endeavouring to leave the impression that a crisis came about suddenly.
Now, sir, I will read a few quotations from what Mr. Saulnier said. He said: "I gave these facts to the Prime Minister of Canada on several occasions". When I mentioned that to the Prime Minister today, he put up his

October 16, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act hands to his nose in such a way that one can fully understand the meaning of that gesture. The Secretary of State closed his eyes.


Mr. Pelletier:: They shine too much.


John George Diefenbaker: That is the first intelligent interruption.


An hon. Member:: No one understands it.


John George Diefenbaker: I say to the minister that what he permitted in the Company of Young Canadians-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must remind the right hon. gentleman, first, that he should address the Chair and second, that it is one o'clock and I must leave the chair.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2 p.m.
John George Diefenbaker: 
George Harris Hees: He just held his nose.


John George Diefenbaker: I am amazed because Mr. Saulnier has said he told the Prime Minister about it several times. Document 10 in this dossier tells how to deal with police, tear gas and violent demonstrations. It goes on to point out that it is important to start organizations to disturb the peace in every field in which there is any possibility of creating disorder. There are detailed instructions, with diagrams, on how to construct dynamite bombs, and an explanation of guerilla fighting in the forests of Quebec in the event that it becomes necessary. A list of equipment for fighting forces is provided. It informs its readers that it is publishing a list of material for Maquis fighters which everybody organized in Maquis teams should use. These statements would have convicted these wrongdoers of the crime of sedition, but there was no action. Vallieres, one of the men arrested today, is named in the dossier. Vallieres makes this statement.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
Vallieres makes this statement:
Revolutionary strategy is the conscious organization of violence ... of the masses oppressed under capitalism.
Then he says:
We live in an era of violence created by the English and the Federalists. We must combat violence with violence.
There are these warnings, given not about events that have taken place in the last few days, but one year ago.
We will take the time to prepare-and when we strike-so powerful will be the blows that the enemy will never get up.
Sir, the dossier contains the blueprint for revolution under the FLQ. There are detailed instructions in pamphlet form as to how to grow pot. There are diagrams
xy	[DOT]
October 16, 1970

showing how one can manufacture dynamite bombs and Molotov cocktails. There are instructions on how to organize. A pamphlet also points out that it is a very good idea to obtain instruction from Cuba. The fraternal relations existing between the revolutionaries of America are given full consideration. A pamphlet says that from now on, all members of the militant Quebec Left, that is the FLQ, may be classed as "professional revolutionaries".
Well, Sir, I have read enough to indicate that the Government of Canada, the present government, was remiss in its duties. It had the Criminal Code; it could have proceeded against these people for sedition, but no action was indeed taken. Furthermore, the press fully summarized the text of Mr. Saulnier's letter, which reads in part:
The partial revelations to which I will limit myself today are but a small example of things I know and of which X have privately informed the Prime Minister of Canada a few times in the past year.
That statement is dated October 13, 1969. It was further pointed that in the ranks of the Company of Young Canadians there was one member who had previously been convicted for terrorist activities. I could keep reading to the House. In other words, when the Government of Canada was furnished this information by the City of Montreal, all ii did was close its eyes, shut its ears and do-nothing.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Thgt^is^not^right.


John George Diefenbaker: Is that not right? I_ will let the hon.
gentleman explain, because I will be very glad to' hear wWnTOTSWnTWffi; are taking place and why those people who were picked up this morning, who have been guilty of sedition over and over again, were not proceeded against.


Mitchell William Sharp: Thereare23jflgjyjyail. What about the 23 in jail?


John George Diefenbaker: Well now, so far as the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) is concerned, let me say this to him: his responsibility was for the safety of all diplomats in Canada.


Mitchell William Sharp: I hope the right hon. member supports that.


John George Diefenbaker: He knew that there was a danger of their being kidnapped-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: -and he did not act.
Invoking of War Measures Act
-the actual FLQ is the follow up of the first well structured movenTent, that oi'TPi^lW F5U1 trfe6tth)y.	" '


Mr. Drury:: Did the right hon. gentleman ever hear of Bru^ess?


John George Diefenbaker: What did the Government of Canada do? It played around. It refused to offer a reward. The offer of a reward of $50,000 in the spring brought this result: four of these criminals were picked up. In their list of conditions to the Government of Canada, the FLQ asks for the name of the person who revealed their identities. That is one of their requisites. The government contends that the name cannot be permitted to be revealed, and naturally so. The government ought to have offered a reward, as a result of its past experience with the FLQ. The fact that information was secured immediately after the reward was offered would indicate that when a person has no money in his pocket and no principle in his head, a reward always has a softening influence.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: And what did the Secretary of State for External Affairs do?


Mr. Gibson:: He did lots of hard work.


Some hon. Members:: Hoot, hoot, hoot.


John George Diefenbaker: I always like the interruptions of my hon. friend from Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Gibson). He reminds me of something that happened in the British House of Commons. There someone said, while talking about Mrs. Margot Asquith, that there is no finer political love match in all history, no greater love match, than that exemplified in the marriage between Margot and Asquith. The same applies to the hon. gentleman. There is no finer match than that between Gibson and Hamilton-Wentworth.


Some hon. Members:: Hoot, hoot, hoot.


John George Diefenbaker: I have great affection for the hon. member and love his interruptions. I hope he continues them.
What did the government do? It played around and then pretended that the burden was on the government of the province of Quebec. Premier Bourassa has acted with directness. He has spoken with authority and responsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: Why did the right hon. gentleman not help us, then?


John George Diefenbaker: He did not act.
Asselin, on October
ada by the terrorists.


John George Diefenbaker: And what did the Government of Canada do? Being responsible for the safety of diplomats, it said to the province of Quebec in effect, "This is your baby." All through the statement the Prime Minister has made runs this golden thread of uncertainty. The premier of the province of Quebec asked for action. Why did the Government of Canada abdicate to the government of the province of Quebec the responsibility for ascertaining what had happened to this unfortunate diplomat. I repeat

October 16, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act that this government has the responsibility for the preservation and safety of diplomats from other countries.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: All over the world, Canada has a black eye. And now what is the government doing? It has recognized Communist China. Well, I can just imagine the deluge of communist spies who will come in here attached to the Chinese embassy, when it opens. They will all masquerade as diplomatic representatives. With the United States alongside us, we have not yet seen anything of what will happen when this group comes to Canada and begins its active responsibility which is to destroy Canada from within and, as well, undermine the United States.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister said yesterday that what Canada has done will have great influence in the United Nations. Well, and I think this expression is to be ascribed to Mao, for anyone to suggest that communism and the western world can coexist side by side is as ridiculous as endeavouring to fry an iceberg. And that is the situation. They are coming, and what we have seen happening up to now will be as nothing.
Furthermore, what has been done concerning the degree to which these criminals in Canada have been operating after graduating abroad? Indeed, a number of FLQ terrorists graduated from the El Fatah school in Jordan. I am now referring to an article in The Canadian Jewish News which reads:
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
The "students" at that school, speaking to a Canadian reporter, admitted that they had even prepared "the names of the prospective victims", who will be their first targets when they return home.
That is, return from the El Fatah Palestinian terrorists. It goes on to say what is being done to investigate these graduates from Algeria and the Middle East who have been active in the extremist, terrorist independence movement of Quebec.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to interrupt the right hon. member to bring to his attention and the attention of the House that the time allocated to him under the rules has expired, unless he has the agreement of the House to pursue his remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: As always, I deeply appreciate that courtesy because when I speak I never wield a feather duster. That is why I have deep affection for this institution. It does not take members very long to find out if another member is sincere. If so, he can speak his mind. This is the only place in our country today, under these new regulations, where there will be freedom of speech.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
(Mr. Diefenbaker.]


John George Diefenbaker: I now want to make reference to these regulations. Over the years I have heard various Liberal speakers say that section 98 was the most terrible section in the Criminal Code. I am informed on good authority that even the Solicitor General spoke in strong condemnation of section 98. In 1936, when the Right Hon. Mackenzie King came into office, section 98 was repealed.
There have been some members today who wondered how it was that in a matter of hours those responsible for drafting these regulations were able to produce them. I had never known anything to equal the celerity with which this was done. I will read only portions of section 98 of the Criminal Code, unless some member wants it all read:
Any association, organization, society or corporation, whose professed purpose or one of whose purposes is to bring about any governmental, industrial or economic change within Canada by use of force, violence or physical injury to person or property, or by threats of such injury, or which teaches, advocates, advises or defends the use of force, violence, terrorism, or physical injury to person or property, or threats of such injury, in order to accomplish such change, or for any other purpose, or which shall by any means prosecute or pursue such purpose or professed purpose, or shall so teach, advocate, advise or defend, shall be an unlawful association.
The draftsmen copied the words. It saves a lot of time. Section 98 was repealed in 1936, right after the election of that year. I continue to quote:
In any prosecution under this section, if it be proved that the person charged has
(a)	attended meetings of an unlawful association; or
(b)	spoken publicly in advocacy of an unlawful association; or
(c)	distributed literature of an unlawful association by circulation through the Post Office mails of Canada, or otherwise;
it shall be presumed in the absence of proof to the contrary, that he is a member of such unlawful association.
The new regulations are identical except that it was decided to add a few more things. If the Prime Minister had brought in a statute, I would have done everything possible to help bring about changes in the Criminal Code to meet the changed conditions resulting from the type of illegal activities that are perpetrated against the state. If we had an opportunity to deal with this, every member of this House would do his part. It would not take very long to get it through. But no, they decided to impose an Order in Council that simply abolishes freedom in every part of this country for a period of months, if not longer.
I wish to read some of the sections. I ask hon. gentlemen opposite who are devoted libertarians whether they agree with this? I quote:
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 governmental change within Canada is declared to be an unlawful association.
Over the years I have been a strong opponent of legislation that provides for the outlawing of any organization. I want to "inlaw" organizations and to have changes made in the Criminal Code that will cover the modern
October 16, 1970

techniques that destroy nations from within. I have taken unpopular stands. I frankly state that in 1948 my own party came out in favour of outlawing communism. I was the only one to oppose it. I received a very unusual lack of welcome. The Conservative party was going to sweep Canada with that policy. I said, "You cannot do it. You cannot deny an individual the right to think as he will. The offence is not in being wrong, the offence is in doing wrong." Wherever communism has been outlawed it has operated underground. When it has come out, it has been stronger than ever.
It is interesting to note that under this regulation the communists can do what they want in Canada without being subject to the provisions of this section as it now reads.
A person who
(a)	is or professes to be a member of the unlawful association,
(b)	acts or professes to act as an officer of the unlawful association,
(c)	comunicates statements on behalf of or as a representative or professed representative of the unlawful association,
(d)	advocates or promotes the unlawful acts, aims, principles or policies of the unlawful association,
(e)	contributes anything as dues or otherwise to the unlawful association or to anyone for the benefit of the unlawful association,
(f)	solicits subscriptions or contributions for the unlawful association, or
(g)	advocates, promotes or engages in the use of force or the commission of criminal offences as a means of accomplishing a governmental change within Canada is guilty of an indictable offence...
Wrong should be punished. Why not amend the Criminal Code? Why bring in a great umbrella which will deny freedom elsewhere in Canada in trying to meet a situation in one province? It is as simple as that. One section of the regulation reads and I think somebody made a mistake here:
In any prosecution for an offence under these Regulations, evidence that any person
(a)	attended any meeting of the unlawful association,-
It does not say when. If any member of this House ever attended one of those meetings he will, prima facie, be guilty of that offence. There ought to be some amendment. I presume it was intended the next line should also apply:
(b)	spoke publicly in advocacy for the unlawful association,-
Grammatically it cannot stand up. It does not say when. All that is necessary is for someone to say, "I saw you attending a meeting of an unlawful association". You are then before the court. You can be picked up and detained without the opportunity of habeas corpus. A change should be made in that, because grammatically it is not correct. If it is read altogether, it says "attended any meeting of an unlawful association, spoke publicly in advocacy of that unlawful association." Either it does not mean what it says or it does not say what it means.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
Invoking of War Measures Act


John George Diefenbaker: Qpe can be arrested without warrant fnf committing an offence. There STfi factions ahmij. peace offkers2j>eetionsii10tnjjjn<^J^
I ask the government, even now tn-withdraw this resolution, bring in a bill and let members of this House give eifect to bringing about changes in the_Cdminal Code to cdysi* TKe situation" raTSer than take away.irorn Canadi-aris*soMgtmng Which is aearer ihan life itself-their civil rights, their r'ghrtrTiive their hve,s as they win~arTrTnot to be denied their constitutional freedoms witfrqpt which life WOUM cpacg tr. bavo any intpr-pst
I am concerned for my country. I have known during the years the degree of fear, frustration and foreboding in the hearts of Canadians in every part of our country. Where is the pride in Canadianism today? People are fearful. Permissiveness has become a way of life and Parliament has made its contribution to that concept in abortion changes and in legalizing adult homosexuality. Everywhere groups of individuals contend that, because they have numbers behind them, they are above the law. The result is that freedom is destroyed for the rest of Canadians. I make this plea to the government. I brought in the Bill of Rights. It was ridiculed for many years. It finally became law in 1960 and from 1960 until 1969 various individuals across Canada in the universities and in the lower echelons of the courts declared that the Bill of Rights was merely a pious declaration written in grandiloquent language but having no binding effect on the courts. Indeed, I was surprised that when Joe Dry-bones of Dog Lake Reserve had his case heard before the Supreme Court of Canada, the Government of Canada was represented by counsel who bitterly contended that the Bill of Rights had no legal effect and was merely a declaration. The courts held otherwise and today Canadians enjoy a freedom under law which they did not have before.
Mention was made today by the Leader of the Opposition of the Bill of Rights, to the effect that the Prime Minister had hoped he could make it into a constitutional amendment. Such is not possible. As I see it, it will not be possible in the generation of any member of this House because the provinces will not give up their jurisdiction over property and civil rights. Dare any government bring before the Parliament of Canada a measure for the repeal of that act? Habeas corpus itself is only a statute. It was enacted in the 17th Century, yet no one dares abolish it except in circumstances of grave emergency.
I would like-and hon. members may think it is only a dream-to see action taken by the Parliament of Canada which will raise the hearts of men, and raise the horizons of young men and women, to give them an understanding of the greatness of our tradition, of the meaning of freedom and its record in Canada. It was in Canada that slavery was first abolished under the British Crown, 40 years before it was abolished elsewhere. I should like to see a declaration made by a committee of this Parliament setting out national goals, a declaration of our hopes, our expectations and our ideals. It would have no probative value but it would contribute to achieving the objectives I have in mind, that is, in giving Canadians principles to

October 16, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act be proud of. Some talk about the abolition of the
I monarchy. How many of them realize that as long as we have a Queen, and the Queen remains true to her oath, there can never be a dictatorship in Canada? As one travels across the country, going to schools and colleges, one finds young men and women who say: "Why should I be interested in the past? The past means nothing to me." That question was answered, for me, when I was a young graduate, by a professor who said: "Have you ever noticed what happens to a person who loses his memory?"
I should like to see a committee of this Parliament, in a spirit of give and take, produce a declaration for Canada of objectives and ideals so that there may be new horizons for Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. MacEachen:: Sounds like the Speech from the Throne.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I understand that the leader of the Creditiste party, speaking outside the House, stated that I-and I believe the leader of the New Democratic Party was included in this, too-had reached an agreement with the Prime Minister last night but had gone back upon that agreement today.
I said in the House this morning that, while there had been an opportunity for some discussion, 1 was not in a position to give any approval. I was not aware that the leader of the New Democratic Party gave approval either. I am surprised that the leader of the Creditistes should have made such a statement as has been attributed to him.
I wish to make it perfectly clear that I made no such agreement last night with regard to supporting the position of the government. A great deal of the discussion related to the possibility of consulting our caucuses this morning to see what the position of our parties would be. I rise in my place to say I can only assume that because the discussion took place in English, for the most part out of consideration for the leader of the New Democratic Party and myself, there must have been some misunderstanding. I repeat, there was no agreement. Neither I nor the leader of the New Democratic Party have gone back on any agreement today, and I wish this to be clearly understood.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On the
question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I wish to support entirely what has been said by the Leader of the Opposition. Speaking for myself, not only did I not agree with the course the government was taking but I endeavoured to make it perfectly clear that, in my opinion, the additional powers the government wanted should be secured by resorting to this Parliament and by placing legislation before Parliament.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
Therefore I hope the leader of the Creditistes party did not make the statement that has been attributed to him.
If he did, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that it is wrong.
It may be that he was confused by the fact that we did agree we would consult our caucuses this morning, and that we did agree that we would give consent to the motion which the Prime Minister has introduced so that it could be debated today.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, we have just listened to the usual eloquent submission made by the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), and I hope he will concede that I listened to him with my usual attention. Neither the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) nor I yield to him in our devotion to civil rights in this country, despite the lifetime that he has devoted to protecting and enhancing those rights. I think he will appreciate that while his rhetoric can run a little freer in opposition, because of the responsibilities we have been given by the people of Canada, as temporary custodians of our laws we have to temper what we say within the limits of responsibility, balancing the rights of individual citizens against the rights of society as a whole. As the right hon. gentleman will appreciate, that is always a question of judgment in each individual case.
The action the government has taken is a drastic meas-nrp T have no intention, nor has tne government, of evading or attempting to minimize that fact. It "Ts a drastic measure because it has been precipitated by persons with an utter contempt for the rights of others.is a measure brought on by persons with an utter contempt for the democratic process, by persons who undoubtedly envisage themselves as totalitarian masl.ers~in Quebec and perhaps even further afield They seek to mutilate ^ and destroy our social institutions, including that, of rej^55?ntauve_jJovernment	r ~
Their chosen instrument for this purpose-and this is well indicated by the communiques to which the right hon. gentleman referred-are not instruments of persuasion. They are not the instruments of free dialogue and discussion to attempt to convince their fellow citizens. They are the instruments of hatred, violence, turmoil and chaos. This society in Canada cannot long endure if the time comes when the right of individuals to life and personal security can be rendered meaningless by criminals-not by "political prisoners" but by criminals- through acts of terror directed at the government.
The government of Quebec and the federal government have been urged bv some whose good faith I do not doubt, and in respect of whom there is no reason to believe they are sympathetic toward Le Front de Liberation du Quebec, that we should surrender to the demands of theJTLQ..rtemamk-JH terms" of bullion7 interms of exchanging criminals now in Prison for the victims of kidnapping. The House is fully aware of the full ranee and gross enormity of those demands.
lj ask this ^niise whether anybody really believes seriously that such surrender or such acquiescence to Those demands jomd'have solved anything, ft is the view both of the federal government and of the province^Y'QHgbec that suc{i surrender would have been nothing less than the first instalment in a urogram of continuing piackmaiL

October 16, 1970


Mr. Lewis:: No one has suggested otherwise.


John Napier Turner: Many people have, Mr. Speaker, but I am not going to pHi?"9fl "SFluiiiSHr'with anybody at this stage. I am merely setting the ground for the atmosphere within which the action of the government has been taken.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Napier Turner: Anyexchangg^guuld merely have invited escalation: hostage for prisoner, nos-tage-rer criminal. And 1 Sierewould have been no stop to it.
It is rather a false logic for people to suggest that if we resist these demands we are imperilling the lives of these people and would indirectly be killing the victims. What type of false logic is that? If the victims were killed, then they would have been killed by the abductors. There is no way that that responsibility can be shifted. We have a duty not only to try to save those lives but to anticipate the danger in which other lives might be placed. So we had to act, Mr. Speaker.
It is true, as some distinguished members of the House said earlier, that there had been a developing situation, and I will deal with that later. There had been a recent and rapid escalation. I believe that the climate that had been set by an attempt to negotiate, by the vocabulary which had been adopted of "political prisoners", the use of the word "execution" of those who had been kid-'napped instead of "murder", as if to imply some legitimacy, placed the government in a position of immobility whereby all the action in terms of public opinion was left to a bunch of renegades and the government was having difficulty sustaining its position.
All that has now stopped. I believe that the rules of this House ought to be waived this afternoon if this debate is not finished. I believe that the House should deal with this resolution, since it is of such importance that Parliament ought to pronounce upon it at one continuous sitting. This would let the people of Canada know the position we are taking.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Napier Turner: We have brought this resolution to Parliament to test the will of Parliament.
Invoking of War Measures Act
There is no attempt whatsoever being made to evade parliamentary scrutiny.


Mr. Fairwealher:: You had to bring it here because the law so provides.


John Napier Turner: No. Any ten members can rise and challenge a proclamation, but there is nothing within the law to force the government to bring this proclamation before Parliament. We did it because we believed the people of Canada should be involved.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe this House should rise until Parliament has pronounced upon this resolution so the people of Canada, the people of Quebec and the terrorists know exactly what Parliament says.


An hon. Member:: We will stay.


Mr. Baldwin:: You asked for it; it is agreed.


John Napier Turner: I understand we have unanimous agreement to that proposition, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Napier Turner: Perhaps in the light of the agreement I heard from all sides of the House I might invite you, Mr. Speaker, to make an order to the effect that this House shall sit until this resolution is dealt with.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not too sure what the proposition is.


An hon. Member:: Neither is he.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the hon. Minister of Justice has made a motion which at this point would require the unanimous consent of the House that the House pursue its sitting beyond the usual time of adjournment, for the purpose of continuing the debate on the motion now before the House, until obtaining a resolution of the House thereon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, we might be prepared to agree to that, but surely this is not the way to deal with a matter of this sort, in the middle of an hon. member's speech. I should like to suggest that the House Leaders get together in the next hour or so, and if there is a disposition to continue the debate certainly I, for one, will raise no objection. Surely, this is the proper way to conduct the business of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is apparent that there is no unanimous consent at this point. In any event, I

October 16, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act suggest that the Minister of Justice pursue his remarks.


John Napier Turner: I think that the House would want me now to deal with the justification for the government's action. The right hon. gentleman-


John George Diefenbaker: Possibly it is not appropriate at this moment, and I do not know whether he can give the information, but has the minister any information as to whether these two unfortunate men, the British diplomat and the minister of the Quebec cabinet, are still alive?


John Napier Turner: Under the circumstances, on behalf of the Government of Quebec, I request that emergency powers be provided as soon as possible so that more effective steps may be taken. I request particularly that such powers encompass the authority to apprehend and keep in custody individuals who, the Attorney General of Quebec has valid reasons to believe, are determined to overthrow the government through violence and illegal means. According to the information we have and which is available to you, we are facing a concerted effort to intimidate and overthrow the government and the democratic institutions of this province through planned and systematic illegal action, including insurrection. It is obvious that those participating in this concerted effort completely reject the principle of freedom under the rule of law.
In order to refresh the memory of hon. members, I shall read the relevant passage of the letter signed by both the mayor of Montreal, Mr. Jean Drapeau, and the chairman of the Executive Council of the City of Montreal, Mr. Lueien Saulnier:
The chief of the Montreal Police has informed us that the means available to him are proving inadequate and that the assistance of higher levels of government has become essential for the protection of society against the seditious plot and the apprehended insurrection in which the recent kidnappings were the first step.

__________ e m pea
singularly fortunate since Confederation and we are now dealing with an unprecedented, serious situation.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
This situation has arisen in other countries. The population resents violence but the population, taken generally, is not organized to meet it but relies upon governments to do so. Governments have to exercise and fulfil their responsibilities in meeting it. I might say, too, that the recent call for a public manifestation by men like I ;ynmiValliiprps and Ghartrand established and escalat-pdJm^vR'nTecomirig together of an infiltration of FLQ. doctrine in certain areas nf society in (Quebec-in the nniops. air|ong ainiversities and in the media.-and the grt^ingfeeling among the people of Quebec, particularly the citizens ot Montreal, that. thpV are living under a reign ~ol**terroP.' Vou do not have to ask me; ask any member trom Montreal and the people they represent just what they have been undergoing last week in the city of Montreal.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I believe we had to respond today in an urgent fashion to the call of the


October 16, 1970

provincial government and the city of Montreal to exercise our duty in a federal state, to ensure that the necessary co-onerat.ion in a lederal-provmclal aspect was maintained between the government ot the province of Quebec and the government of Cana3aT~TKe'~*^ribrnev general of the province or wuebec and the premier of the province ot Quebec advised us that the law as presently constituted and directed in a free society was not equipped at the moment to meet the serious situation they were lacing, THUl limy Ilfieded additional powers of arrest, ol search and ot detention.


Gerald William Baldwin: Why did you not come here and ask for it?


John Napier Turner: I will deal with that point in a minute. So this measure is brought before the country and the House. ^ thp Primp Minister (Mr. Trn-deauisaidj it is an interim measure: it is an emergency measure. I ^istene^jrer^carefuil^to^the^jyaeec^ the Leader "of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) this morning. The suggestion in respect ol a special statute is not necessari ly_exeiuded so far as we are concerned. ThisJm dehate^v^ju^ri|! loTffiep {p'what. the opposition has to sny*^d how they judge the situation in the country.


Mr. Forresiall:: Is somebod^workin^on^suchHegisl^ion now?


John Napier Turner: .If the hon. gentleman will listen to me, he will learn soon enough. The attorney geliyiaT'ot the province ol Queoei called in troops under the National Defence Act by a letter to my colleague the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald). The provincial attorney general said that he needed extra powers, extraordinary powers, to deal with the matter. I believe we had a duty as well to allow the provincial attorney general to fulfil his responsibilities in respect of the enforcement of the law in the province.
It is all very well for the right hon. gentleman to recite some facts from the past. He knows that the enforcement of the Criminal Code, including the section relating to sedition, at the present time rests with the provincial attorneys general. It may be in times gone by that if Mr. Saulnier thought he had sufficient evidence, he had control of his own police force under the law as it existed then and could have prosecuted. He chose not to do so. The responsibility for the administration of justice as presently defined in the Criminal Code of Canada lies with the provincial attorneys general.
If organized crime should become more prevalent-I hope this never happens, but it may in a violent society where crime is mobile and where through the communications media information can be transmitted much more quickly-it may be that we should consider in this House an amendment to the Criminal Code to broaden the powers of the federal attorney general in dealing with some of these matters like sedition or treason which now come under provincial jurisdiction.


Mr. Asselin:: Why not now?
Invoking of War Measures Act


John Napier Turner: The hon. member is responding with some favour to the suggestion I make. But this situation does not exist now. I want to deal with the extent of the power given the government and the province of Quebec under the proclamation and regulations. Although the provisions of the War Measures Act and of the Public Order Regulations, 1970, made pursuant to that proclamation-copies of which have been received by hon. members-are in force throughout Canada,	,in
ji^thoj^rovmceofQudaec. Indced1 the| Front deLiberathe
reguEHon^anTTIiaForganizatlon, or any successor group or organization to it, is declared to be an unlawful association.
The right hon. gentleman asked: Why drive them underground? They are already underground. One might ask: Why make them unlawful? I suppose in strict terms they are already unlawful. Now we have a declaratory provision that makes it quite clear to prosecuting attorneys that being a memL'erofthrs organization, or promoting or advocating Its Intent, is now a crime.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: October 16, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act
In summary, then, it can be said that the Public Order Regulations, 1970, are designed to assist the law enforcement agencies in the apprehension and conviction of those who would subvert our elected governments and destroy our way of life. The Front de Liberation du Quebec is dedicated to that end and its ultimate goal is a totalitarian state achieved not by evolution but by revolution.
These regulations, then, will have application to a very limited number of persons in this country. They are not of broad compass and they by no means apply to crimes or criminals generally. Rather, they single out the very special crimes of treason and sedition-crimes that go to the very heart of our democratic rules and procedures- for more effective law enforcement. This step was made necessary because of the unique considerations that were found to prevail within the province of Quebec.
So except as altered by these regulations, the ordinary law applies. The proclamation is merely an empowering order. In other words, the proclamation Hops not bring_in_the full scope of the War Measures Act- it does not bring into play all the other items set forth in the act The proclamation is limiter! tw the terms nf the regulations, .and, the War .Measures Act hrnufht into rorne^onl^in^o^far^gj^gg^^e^ulations^re concerned.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You brought it in last night and you can bring in a new law tonight.


John Napier Turner: I think the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) can take my assurance that if we considered it important enough to bring it before Parliament now, we would not ignore Parliament in any future instance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: 
Mr. Nielsen:: Would the minister permit a question at this time?


John Napier Turner: 
An hon. Member:: What about conspiracy?


John Napier Turner: I mentioned conspiracy. But without the additional powers necessary to irr]]-ipnhil-ize ana.to apprehend thin organization as n^ntiv con-st.itnteH the attorney general of Quebec felt that the law was at__Bresent insufficient.


An hon. Member:: Where_^stheproof ?


John Napier Turner: The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) in his statement earlier today suggested that what we are doing is in some way undemocratic.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is the essence of it.


John Napier Turner: I want to assure him and the House that, as found within the Statutes of Canada, this procedure is contemplated under the Canadian democratic process. The procedure by way of proclamation is found within the War Measures Act. This is a completely constitutional technique. Let me point out more particularly that the regulations were issued under powers granted to the Governor in Council by Parliament; so that the constitutional source of this enactment was, and is, Parliament itself.
The power vested in the Governor in Council by Parliament is also a power of which the Governor in Council can be divested by Parliament. Indeed, the very exercise of this power by the Governor in Council is recognized in part 2 of section 6 of the Bill of Rights, itself enacted by Parliament, which requires that such proclamations be laid before Parliament forthwith-as has been done-and which declares that anything done or authorized, or any order or regulation made under the authority of the War Measures Act shall be deemed not to be an infringement
October 16, 1970

of any right or freedom recognized by the Canadian Bill of Rights.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
The procedure we are adopting is recognized in the Bill of Rights. In other words, the ultimate constitutional source and the legitimacy of the proclamation by the Governor in Council under the War Measures Act is a power granted to it by Parliament to so enact. It is Parliament which confers this legitimacy, and it is Parliament which can take it away. The power of the Governor in Council flows from Parliament and it is ultimately accountable to Parliament, and thereby to the people of Canada.
I want to move on to address myself to the reason the War Measures Act was used. The question has already been asked: why was the War Measures Act resorted to ar^T'" rhv -MHOi it. hTonp-ht into force m tne eanv hours of the Tnomm'gV There flf-e two paste reasons in answer to tTTn'rstl"'|i']est.ion. The government of Quebec had come to the conclusion, and the government of Canada agreed, that'^iie existing law was InadeaUflt'fe' '16 Seal with the crisis in Quebec. This left only two possible courses of action, 'flfie' government could have sought special legislation of the type embodied in the regulations which have been brought into force under the War Measures or, alternatively, the War Measures Act could have been resorted to.
I suggest to the House that if a special piece of legislation had been resorted to, the provisions might well have been similar to the provisions now found in the regulations. But thi^eovemmen^was^a^sured^^toe^govern-rpent of Quebec, and by senior persons airecny involved wrfit STWripting to cope with tne terrorists, mat a search
af^^eFLQj_was necessary, ahdTKaT*T!me"was_of_the
^_jessgjjgg.
Our initial reaction was the reaction of several mem-hpIg-itT the House, to seek the authority of Parliament first. But faced with the seriousness of the situation and wTTTT the necessity of not Toroarjcasting what the government of Quebec and t.he government of Canada intended t.o*do. faced with the urgency of anticipating any further escalation in the situation in Montreal, tne government of C?5hgdji I'tfilOIMM to tne war Measures Act. It is rnyhope | that some day the full details oi the intelhgenc^Kbon J I whffffTBg govliFhnTOit'Ticted can be made public, because ** I until that'day comes the people of tiariacia will not~aBie | fully to appraise the course of action which has been
I t^	" -
The element of surprise was essential, and members of the House Will have to rely upon the judgment of the government. I am not saying that other value judgments cannof be brought into play. I am not saying that this debate is not the most legitimate exercise of the parliamentary function. But that was the value judgment we had to exercise and that is how we did it. Also, at this stage, when we are dealing with a situation which is*not completely clear, when we are dealing for the first time in Canada with a type of organization"'whlcK"m'>'peace-
Invoking of War Measures Act
time is dedicated to violence and the terroristic overthrow of governmentT there is advantage in'* having a certain amount of flexibility, in seeing what we need to deal with this proposition.
There is advantage in having a certain amount of flexibility, particularly in the delicate relationship in the federal system as between Ottawa and Quebec, to mobilize our joint efforts so that the proper result can be obtained. So the purpose of the action was surprise, to render immobile and inefficient, as quickly as we could, the Front de Liberation du Quebec which menaces the health and the lives not only of individual citizens but of the polity of Canada and the polity of Quebec.
I want to say that this action was taken reluctantly. Throughout his life and throughout his career as a Member of Parliament, the Prime Minister-and, if I may say so, I have so far as I have been able-has tried to advocate those measures of law reform that are needed in an age of confrontation, this age which is dominated by a conflict between freedom and authority, which puts the law in a special delicate position because on the one hand the law is the symbol of authority and on the other hand it is the guarantee of freedom. Between the two the law is caught in the crunch. The administration of the law demands a sensitive type of judgment.
We have tried to ensure that in the administration of the law, in reforming the substance of the law, the personal options open to individuals, the ambit of individual liberty available to citizens shall be made as wide as possible, consistent with public order. We have tried, in terms of public administration of the law, to widen the rights of citizens, accused before the law, particularly the right to bail, to balance the rights of citizens against the rights of the state and to open up for citizens new avenues of appeal and recourse against the government.
The bail reform bill, the criminal law reform bill and the federal court bill, together with other legislative action, are measures based on the premise that the orbit of personal freedom must be widened and guaranteed. The rule of law is the essential condition not only for the existence of the state but for the existence of individual liberty within the state. Freedom is the precondition of liberty, and restraint is the beginning of freedom. The rule of law is the source and condition of that restraint, and through it the freedom and the liberty of the individual in society are maintained.
Insurrection and violence are not only a total denial of the constituted authority of the state but are a denial of the liberty of the individual himself who depends upon the controlled organization of the state. This type of violence defies not only the total integrity of society as a people but the individual integrity of every person in that society. In this sense, then, the concept-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the minister will not mind my interrupting at this moment to bring to his attention that his time has expired, unless he has the agreement of the House to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


October 16, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act


John Napier Turner: I thank hon. gentlemen and the hon. lady from Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) for their courtesy.
In that sense, then, the concept of absolute freedom which at times is dressed up through verbal sleight of hand such as "political prisoners" and "liberation of the people"-this sleight of hand implying that there are absolute rights and absolute liberties in any particular society-is a perversion of the rule of law. It is the replacement of the rule of law by the rule of absolutism. It denies not only the existence of the state but, ultimately, the freedom and liberty of the individuals composing the state. This type of conduct mocks society at the same time that it seeks to destroy it. We have been living through a charade that mocks, a charade that seeks to destroy.
Accordingly, no democratic process can categorically license any absolute or unfettered conduct without endangering the viability of the democratic process itself. The measure of the democratic process is the history of the rule of law. There has never been anything in any constitution of any democratic society, at any time, which sanctions the concept or practice of absolute liberty and lawlessness. Indeed, if there are any absolute rights they reside in the right, both moral and legal, of the democratically constituted authorities to protect the rights and liberties of the citizens. Society itself cannot-because no government constituted in the name of the people can- through countenancing insurrection and violence oblige its members to subject themselves to the deprivation of life, liberty, property or dignity and claim to be democratic. A government which allows that sort of thing to happen cannot claim either to be democratic or to speak on behalf of the people.
If a government is to reflect and articulate community values and community expectations, it must as a fundamental constitutional norm guarantee the basic survival of that community as a collectivity, and the freedom of that community as individuals. No democratic state can be asked to negotiate the terms of its existence or negotiate away the rights of its members.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Political morality does not begin at the barrel of a gun, and the state has both a right and an obligation to protect itself and the members of the community which compose it. The proclamation of the War Measures Act and the enactment of the Public Order Regulations, 1970, should not be interpreted as indicating any departure from the government's declared intention to proceed with its law reform and civil rights program. However, it must be underlined that Jmjjjaft. rights-and-fimd^Qntal	a
society that respects those rights. We are experiencing today a direct attack on the very fabric of our society which is dedicated to the protection of those rights and freedoms.
I A society that fails to protect itself, a society that cannot manifest the will to protect itself, is a society that does not deserve to be preserved. We believe that the

'rights and freedoms that all Canadians enjoy are based upon our democratic institutions and upon the principles of representative government. We believe that these elements of our society must be preserved at all cost. While it is a result I regret very much indeed, we cannot be unduly concerned about the rights and freedoms of those who act to subvert our governments by force and intimidation.
The Public Order Regulations, 1970, should therefore be looked at as an unhappy but necessary step in the ultimate preservations of the rights and freedoms of Canadians generally. I wish to assure the House that it is the intention of the government to proceed as rapidly as possible with its announced law reform program. We also intend to bring this matter now before the House to a successful conclusion. I can only express the hope that the initiative which the government has been compelled to take today will eliminate terrorism and violence in our society, that it will be of short duration and that it will produce a new and better climate for the enjoyment of our rights and freedoms.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Since the minister's time had expired, questions can be asked of him only with the consent of the House and of the minister himself.


John Napier Turner: I shall answer.


Erik Nielsen: For the benefit of the House I wonder whether the minister could clarify the government's intentions with respect to the communist party of Canada, because under the terminology used in section 3 of the regulations it would appear that this association is an unlawful one within the definition of the regulations. If one reads the last four lines of that regulation it will be seen that any association that "advocates, promotes or engages in the use of force or the commission of criminal offences as a means of accomplishing a governmental change within Canada" is an unlawful association. Having regard to the ideology of the communist party of Canada and its adherence to the use of force if necessary to accomplish governmental change, can the minister say that the government intended making the communist party of Canada an -unlawful association?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. gentleman puts his question in all seriousness, but I would point out that the text will be interpreted by the courts and that prosecutions will be instituted by the provincial attorneys general. So long as there is the separation between the executive and the courts, and between the federal and provincial attorneys general in terms of responsibility for administering justice, that interpretation is not left to me; it is left to the prosecutors and to the courts.


Erik Nielsen: I appreciate the minister's difficulty in attempting to interpret laws that the government has passed. My question was this: Is it the intention of the government to say that the communist party of Canada shall be deemed to be an unlawful association?
October 16, 1970

[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


John Napier Turner: I think the hon.
member will have to rely upon the wording of that particular section and draw his own conclusions.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might direct a question to the Minister of Justice. I followed his argument and agree with that part of it which asserts that the administration of justice in these matters is the responsibility of the attorneys general of the provinces. The regulations set out certain offences and crimes. Does the administration of these matters not fall under the attorneys general of the provinces?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I follow the purport of the hon. member's question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I ask the question again. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) said that for crimes set out in the Criminal Code, the administration of justice falls under the jurisdiction of the provincial attorneys general. The regulations set out new crimes which are similar to those in the Code but are different from them. Will the administration of justice, so far as these crimes are concerned, come under the attorneys general of the provinces?


John Napier Turner: That is so. I hope the attorneys general of the provinces recognize the purport and the limitation of these regulations.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I ask the minister one more question, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the House will allow the hon. member to ask one additional question. We really ought to go to the next speaker.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: As I understood the minister's argument, one of the reasons the government has not brought in a special statute or amendments to the Code is that the Code is administered by the provincial attorneys general. He left the impression that this measure could be undertaken by the Minister of Justice of Canada.


John Napier Turner: If I left that impression, I am sorry.


J. Michael Forrestall: Are we to have legislation soon?


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) put forward a defence for what the government is now doing. I suggest to him that defence was as fallacious as it was eloquent.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: Just hold your horses. We have had enough of these catcalls from the Liberal backbenchers today. They should listen with some tolerance to what is said from this side of the House. This intolerance is probably reflected in the matter we are now discussing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Invoking of War Measures Act


David Lewis: I say that because I suggest to the Minister of Justice that there is not a single person in this chamber, from any part of the House, who does not feel, as he does, utter detestation for the FLQ in Quebec for abducting two innocent, unfortunate men, for the bombings which have taken place and for that organization's threats to subvert Quebec and Canadian society. There are no members in this House, indeed there are few people in this country, who do not condemn that organization and all it stands for, and the cowardly and cruel acts for which its members have been responsible. Therefore, all the minister's speech-in which he tried, by setting up a framework of panic and terror, to take unto himself and his government the condemnation of this organization-is irrelevant and surplus. We are all aware of the things he spoke about. We are all aware, moreover, that there is a very serious and critical situation in the province of Quebec. We are all anxious to assist this government and the government of Quebec in dealing with that situation in a proper and democratic way-but not in an arrogant and dictatorial way, as is now the case.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: That is the case now, Mr. Speaker. Throughout these unhappy days we in this party have not laboured the point. In fact, our members have desisted even from asking questions on this matter during the question period, because we have known of the delicacy of the situation and have felt profound sympathy for the way in which this government and the government of Quebec have been burdened with a terrible problem involving the lives of two innocent men. If we had been faced today with a request by the government for certain specific changes in the law, with evidence that those changes which this House of Commons would pass were necessary, we would have a different situation. What we are faced with at present is a thoroughly authoritarian order-which I will try to analyse in a moment-which, it seems to me, no democratic assembly such as this can possibly accept. It may be accepted by government backbenchers who are determined to support their Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the government regardless of whatever conscience they may have about democracy.


An hon. Member:: That is utter nonsense.


David Lewis: The Minister of Justice tells us that this step was taken with the aim of restoring and preserving order and that it will settle the whole matter. He also talked about other things in our society. I say to him, without attempting to suggest that either he or the Prime Minister is a dictator, that every dictator in the history of humanity has justified his dictatorial acts by declaring that he was preserving order in society. Every reactionary spokesman in the United States, Canada or any other country has justified his demand for reactionary and repressive measures by stating that it was for the purpose of restoring or preserving order. These words are no more progressive because they come out of the mouth of the Minister of Justice than if they had come out of the

October 16, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act mouth of Spiro Agnew of the United States. It was actually the same kind of statement.
Before I go any further let me say this to the Minister of Justice and, through him, to the Prime Minister. The government's excuse for taking action by Order in Council is that they have some intelligence of which we are not aware: it was required that all these steps be taken immediately, at night, in order that the government could deal with certain people and events by surprise. In all earnestness I say to the government: You have done this. I disapprove of it. I think it was wrong and unnecessary, as I will try to show, but you have done it now. You have been able to incarcerate 154, 200 or 300 people. You have been able to institute searches without warrants. If you are sincere in what you say, on Monday morning you will revoke this Order in Council. You will cancel it and you will bring before this House a bill to amend the law in order to deal with this matter.
I say this very seriously. You will have had three days, today, tomorrow and Sunday. You have already told the people in the Front de Liberation du Quebec what you intend to do. They know all about it; the surprise is over. You have done all you can by surprise. If you are sincere, and if you are guided by what you say, there is not the slightest excuse in the world why this Order in Council should not be annulled by Monday morning. There is no reason why this Parliament should not be presented with a pro jet de droit, a bill to amend the law to deal with the critical situation in Quebec.
If the government does not do that, I give it this warning now. It is the intention of my colleagues and myself to use subsection 3 of section 6 of the Bill of Rights and we will, within the ten days or the time limit specified in the bill, under the signature of ten Members of Parliament bring forward the necessary motion praying that the proclamation be revoked. There will no longer be any excuse for it. It is not necessary for the minister to continue this undemocratic, authoritarian order in force any longer than is necessary-and one minute longer than Monday morning is unnecessary, Mr. Speaker.
It should not be necessary for me or for others to declare that we detest the FLQ in Quebec and any other organization that seeks to overthrow our society by force.
If I may be permitted to make a personal reference, I have been in active politics for a great many years. During the time when some members now in this House who hold high office spoke kindly about communism, dictatorial methods and violent revolution, I fought them inside the CCF and inside the labour movement of this country. I, therefore, do not have to emphasize that fact. Other members in this House in high places have to explain their previous association with or sympathy for organizations that wanted to overthrow democratic governments by force.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: That should not be necessary. After all that the Minister of Justice has thrown at this House, what
are we being asked to approve? I say to hon. members that we are being asked to approve the complete suspension of the ordinary laws of this country, all the rights and freedoms of our people throughout the whole of Canada. That is what we are being asked to approve. The minister read only the first part of section 3. The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) was right in drawing the minister's attention to the second half of section 3. The minister only read these words:
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-
He finished there. Well, the section does not finish there; the section continues:
-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 governmental change-
Not within Quebec, but-
-within Canada is declared to be an unlawful association.
Even though it is unkind and perhaps even offensive, I say that the minister did not have the courage to answer the question of the hon. member for Yukon as to whether he intended any other organization in Canada to be covered by this law. Because he did not do that, every member, including members opposite, ought to look with the utmost suspicion at what we are being asked to approve today. We are being asked to approve placing in the hands of this government, in effect the Prime Minister, unrestricted and unlimited power. This is the first time it has been done in the peacetime history of Canada. We are discussing nothing less than this.
I am fully aware of the situation in Quebec. I am acquainted with the difficulties with the FLQ in that province. Despite all this, I believe the response of the federal government today to be excessive, hysterical and unacceptable. Furthermore, I doubt very much if it will be efficacious. Indeed, I deeply fear that in the long run this action may well do great harm to the unity in Canada and to the relations between Canada and the province of Quebec. I will have something to say about that matter later. The Prime Minister in his speech, and the Minister of Justice in his speech, in effect said, "Trust us. You know we are civil libertarians. We have made certain amendments to the Criminal Code. We propose other amendments to the Criminal Code. You know we are good democrats. Trust us. We will not do anything wrong. You know we are all in favour of civil liberty."
The Prime Minister has discarded and betrayed many progressive ideas in connection with the economic and social front which he formerly held. I am no more confident that he is not today also discarding his civil libertarian cloak, not in a temporary but in a permanent way.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


David Lewis: We cannot trust any man who takes unto himself dictatorial powers, myself, anyone in this House or anyone in this or any other country. I remind hon. members of the famous saying that power corrupts, and

October 16, 1970

absolute power corrupts absolutely. Although I may again be unkind, I say, on the basis of observation in this House for 2J years, that the Prime Minister and members of his cabinet have given ample evidence that power has in fact corrupted their sensitivity about the rights and welfare of the Canadian people. I am not prepared to give them even more power than they now have. Personalities do not really matter; we are concerned with a basic principle of deep and overriding importance.
I say to the ministers present, including the Minister of Justice, that the proclamation is based upon a law which says that the mere proclamation itself is evidence that a state of apprehended insurrection in fact exists. That is so; the law is so. The Minister of Justice did not have to belabour the point that what the government has done falls within the law. The law has been used only twice before, both times in the case of a world war. It was never used before World War I or between the two world wars. This is the first time it has been used since World War II.
I make this point as strongly as I can. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice came to Parliament for approval of their proclamation and Order in Council. I say to them that we need evidence of the necessity for such a drastic and undemocratic measure. It is not enough to say, "We have a letter from Mr. Bourassa, a letter from Mr. Drapeau and from Mr. Saulnier. That is all we can give you. On the basis of those letters you ought to say we have done the right thing."
I not only listened to the letters being read, but I read them. Mr. Bourassa did not ask for the War Measures Act to be invoked; neither did Mr. Saulnier nor Mr. Drapeau. They asked for assistance to enable them to deal with the critical situation in Quebec and the fear of insurrection which they now have in their minds. This is not sufficient evidence upon which this House should be asked to approve the action of the government in suspending all the rights and freedoms of the Canadian people. I am not committing myself ahead of time, but I am half convinced that it was necessary at this time to extend the law to give the police powers of search without a warrant, much wider powers than they now have.
I suggest to the Minister of Justice and his officials that they ought to have looked at new section 98E of the Criminal Code which deals with offensive weapons. It gives the Governor in Council authority to declare anything an offensive weapon. It gives a very wide right of search without a warrant, with the exception of private homes. For this particular purpose, in Montreal it might have been necessary to amend that section with relation to searching for dynamite. The government could have removed the exception regarding private homes and given the right to search, without warrant, private homes as well as other premises. That might have been necessary.
It is conceivable that it might have been necessary for this House to consider the possible detention of people arrested on reasonable grounds for believing they were guilty of a crime, and extending the right to detain beyond 24 hours without bringing the person before a magistrate. This period could have been extended to two,
Invoking of War Measures Act three or four days. These are the measures which I read into the letters which the government received. Of course, there may have been telephone calls and other conversations that I do not know about. There probably were. I cannot speak of those things. A measure extending the right to search and the right to detain for two or three days before bringing a person before a magistrate might be necessary in the present situation in Montreal.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I cannot see any way in which this wholesale elimination of the rights and freedoms of Canadians could be efficacious in the work which is now necessary in Montreal and the province of Quebec generally. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the proclamation of the order in council which is before us merely proves that the Department of Justice, that the Department of the Solicitor General of Canada, that the Department of the Attorney General of Quebec, that the Quebec provincial police and the Montreal police have all failed in their duty to deal with the situation which existed in Quebec for at least seven years since 1963. It proves that the FLQ has been allowed to continue its work without any of our police forces, federal, provincial or municipal, being able to carry out the kind of security job, the kind of infiltration of the organization which would have enabled those law enforcement agencies to prevent the possibility of the FLQ threatening the fabric of life in Quebec, as it now does.
It appears that the government, for some reason which I cannot understand, stood by and hoped that the FLQ would go away, instead of having the courage to persuade the Attorney General of Quebec and the police agencies concerned that they ought to deal with the situation in an efficacious manner. I am reminded that the other day, when the Prime Minister was asked whether or not he would bring-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I know the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) is leaving now, but I had some difficulty in communicating with the speaker and I hope that in future care will be taken not to stand in the line of sight between an hon. member who is speaking and the Speaker in the chair.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, you flatter me by being so anxious to see me through the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen). I was reminded, when the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice were speaking, of an exchange which took place between the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and the Prime Minister last Wednesday, October 14. The Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister whether he would assure the House that no action would be taken without approval being sought from the House of Commons. The Prime Minister said, "Whether it would be immediately before or immediately after would depend, of course" and there were some comments at that time and the Prime Minister said:
I am sorry to observe the lightness with which the opposition treats this question. It is obvious that if urgent action is needed at some time in the middle of the night we cannot ask Parliament to approve it first.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: I may not be able to make myself any clearer than my hon. friend did, and the minds of hon. members opposite are probably no brighter now than they were then, but let me try to repeat what my leader said, in somewhat different words. After criticizing my leader, the hon. member for Temiscamingue then went on to make precisely the same point himself, talking about the poverty, the unemployment and the frustration which results in the kind of thing one sees in Quebec today. This is precisely what our leader was saying.
Though minority groups may advocate violence, they have never been a threat to society unless objective
conditions in society make it possible for them to win the support or, at least, the sympathy of the people around them. The communist party has never made progress anywhere in the west except where objective conditions of injustice, poverty, deprivation and degradation made it possible for it to attract the support and sympathy of the population. In exactly the same way, though to a lesser extent, thank God, this is true in the province of Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: No.


David Lewis: It is. The economic and social policy of the government has created the atmosphere in which the FLQ feels strong enough to act as it is now acting, counting on much more support from members of the universities and those in the ranks of the unemployed. Hon. members shake their heads, but that does not alter the situation. That is the fact of life in Quebec. Every economist foretells that this winter unemployment in Quebec will climb to a rate of 15 per cent. This is very likely.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
This is why I say to the government that no matter how many Orders in Council it may pass, there will be unrest, demonstrations and violence as a result of the economic policies it has pursued and the unemployment they have created. It is the mess created by the Minister of Communications (Mr. Kierans) when he was Postmaster General, which created an environment wherein the FLQ could hope to gain sufficient sympathy from among the population as to be able to do some of the things it has done. It is the failure of the government to accomplish anything in the field of regional disparity, and the despair and frustration resulting therefrom that has created the objective conditions for disorder which no Order in Council will do away with.
The frustration of the young, the despair of the poor and the hurt of the unemployed are causing the present difficulties in Quebec, as much as anything else. The government must deal with these basic economic and social problems. Depending on this kind of Order in Council is an extremely reactionary way of settling the Quebec situation. Since when has repression solved anything? I challenge the Minister of Justice and any other spokesman for the government to give the House one single example in the history of the western world where repression has accomplished the preservation and reintroduction of order. It never has and it never will. I hope with all my heart that I am wrong, but the result of this action in Quebec will be that a good many of our young students in that province will look upon those apprehended in the middle of the night as heroes and martyrs. It will result in building a still higher and thicker wall between Ottawa and the people of Quebec.
The Minister of Justice said that this entire exercise is directed, not at all the people of Canada or all provinces of Canada but at Montreal and the province of Quebec. I say to the men in government who have just as much concern about the problem of unity in Quebec and Canada as I claim to have-and I respect their sincerity- that they have not given this matter any thought; that

October 16, 1970

they could have acted differently. They could have assisted the various law enforcement agencies in Quebec in a different way, by increasing the police forces, by amending the laws in the way I suggested, by insisting that those agencies do their job, by getting rid of any corruption there may be in some of the police forces involved- I do not refer here to the RCMP; by insisting that some of the police forces be freed of people who may have infiltrated those forces, making the work of the forces in seeking to find FLQ members difficult if not impossible.
It is not the law that has stood in the way. The Minister of Justice referred to the provisions regarding subversion, sedition and treason contained in the Criminal Code. We have referred to the section dealing with offensive weapons. There were powers in the Criminal Code that could have been used had the law enforcement agencies done their job and put their finger on the people against whom those powers could have been used. For ten years they have looked for them and have failed. No Order in Council will change that situation.
The government is able to imprison 200 or 250 or 154 people, whatever the number is. Is anyone on that side of the House sanguine enough to think that this will end that particular organization or another organization like it? Is anyone here sanguine about the possibility of this sort of thing reoccurring? I say to the members of this House that therein lies the great danger behind the kind of measure we are asked to support.
What will be the long-run effect on Canada-Quebec relations of this kind of behaviour? What will be the result on the separatists who are distinct from the FLQ? Will Mr. Levesque and the others now be able to point to Ottawa descending upon Quebec in a way that it did not descend on other parts of the country where violence has occurred, if not of the same sort as in Quebec, nevertheless violence of a sort? I am very worried about the effect of this measure on the young of Quebec, the students and the young professionals. I am worried whether this will not alienate them still further from the federal government, from federalism and from Ottawa. I am worried whether all the ills against which they have shouted for years will not now boil up in them in resentment and frustration against Ottawa and Canada as a whole.
It seems to me that every time the leader of a government or of a country takes unto himself this kind of allegedly tough line, he satisfies the ego of those in authority a great deal more than he satisfies the objectives of social needs and social conditions. That is happening in this case. I think this is a case of overreacting. It is hysteria that I think is unnecessary. Even if it were necessary to act in the middle of the night-and I do not admit that-it is not necessary beyond the next 48 hours. The government will stand tested on whether this evil and vicious measure is by Monday still on the statute books of Canada. We will then know whether the government has the sincerity, the democratic feeling and sensitivity to get rid of the measure and produce democratically laid-on-the-table legislation for this House of Commons to consider.
Invoking of War Measures Act


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to discuss proceedings for later this day. As the House knows, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) suggested that we continue to sit until we complete debate on this resolution; and that, of course, is the view of the government. The leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Douglas) suggested that the House leaders consider the matter. The best agreement we could reach was that we continue until five o'clock and resume our sitting at 7.30. At that time we will be in a better position to determine how long we shall sit this evening. I could have moved, under the rules, a motion if I had the floor in the regular way. But I am not moving that motion because I realize that if ten members want to stop me, they can. I am hopeful that by using this method we can reach agreement without a motion; I hope we can come to a mutually satisfactory arrangement.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, first may I say that undoubtedly the serious nature of this particular motion and of the action taken by the government warrants as full and exhaustive a study by the House as can be achieved, and as soon as possible. We are not unwilling to come back at 7.30. I would also confirm what the minister said, that if at that time it does appear there are a number of hon. members of the House who feel that their views on this matter should be expressed and want the opportunity to express them, obviously it would not be wise to try to sit through until the early hours of the morning or till late at night to complete the debate.


An hon. Member:: Why not?


Gerald William Baldwin: The government has done what it wanted. The procedures taken by the government in the form of the proclamation and the Orders in Council are before the House. No matter what this House does, the measures taken will continue in existence. If it is found possible, through an examination of hon. members who wish to participate, that the proceedings could be concluded and all questions taken dealt with, I would be happy to see this achieved. If it does not appear, because of the number of members who want to participate, that this can be done, under the circumstances we will have to review our position at 7.30. As the minister said, we can discuss it at that time.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, as the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) says, there were certain discussions among us as House leaders. However, the proposition he has now indicated varies slightly from what I thought was agreed to. We are willing that the House rise at five o'clock and come back at 7.30, but we thought it was on the understanding that we would finish this matter tonight.
We are not suggesting any cut-off or that it be concluded by nine, ten or what have you; but it does not seem to make sense for us to come back tonight if we are not
222

October 16, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act
going to finish this debate. If it is going to go on and on, it might as well be set over to another day. I am not by these words saying we are not prepared to agree to this, but if we do take this supper break and then come back, we would hope it would be for the purpose of finishing this debate tonight. There are a couple of other things we might look at. We could go on to 5.30 or six o'clock instead of five o'clock. We might even consider, at some point, reducing the speeches to 30 minutes instead of 40.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is some objection to that. At any rate, I felt I should make clear what it was we had agreed to. We would prefer to stand by that agreement. Nevertheless, we are not going to stand in the way of some agreement for a sitting tonight.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abilibi):: Mr. Speaker, we of the Ralliement Creditiste understand the situation the government has to face and we offer our co-operation so that if possible, the debate ends early tonight.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in all fairness to the House Leader for the NDP, it is true that he did make that more extensive agreement, and I appreciate that he is ready to agree to the further proposal that I made as a result of a conversation with the official opposition House Leader. I think at the moment the best thing we can do is come back at 7.30. I am hopeful that then it will be possible to continue and, hopefully, finish tonight; but this matter will be reviewed at that time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I suggest that we will agree to this on the understanding that at 7.30 we can assess the situation and not just diddle along not knowing where we are going.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There appears to be a measure of agreement between hon. members. Obviously, what we are agreed on is that we shall rise at five o'clock and return at 7.30. The suggestion is made that we then appraise the situation. I suggest we will at least have to start at 7.30 and recognize one of the hon. members who wishes to continue the debate. I should think there might be a discussion among the representatives of the parties on this matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps before 7.30.


Mr. Speaker:: If there were no agreement then, of course, we would require unanimous consent and any member could bring the proceedings to a halt by pointing to the fact that he had not given his consent. The agreement is that we rise at five o'clock, return at 7.30 and continue, subject to unanimous agreement at that time.


Gerald William Baldwin: Your Honour could issue a proclamation at 7.30.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I have paid much attention to

the speeches delivered in the House today. Since I am not a law expert, there are many points I will refrain from discussing and leave it to the hon. members of the Bar to bring clarification and find the best method of reaching our objectives.
Some items of the regulations submitted to the House appear odious and 1 do not intend to try and justify them. The thing is to ascertain wneiher this was the only possible action under tne circumstances. If there was no other alternative and we just had to take the action we did, should we pursue it or should we resort to other measures more appropriate to the issues involved?
Moreover the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in moving the motion this morning indicated himself that the War Measures Act provided greater powers than were necessary to settle the Montreal problem. As he was the first to admit it, a series of speeches could be made stating that those powers are excessive. We agree that the act provides more powers than we need, but we do not intend to use all of them. How can this be done while avoiding the danger that, in spite of its statements, the government might misuse such powers? That is a matter that will have to be discussed.
Suffice it for me to say at the start, Mr. Speaker, that we may very soon come up with one of the formulas that may have been suggested by some hon. members, which would enable us to restore law and order in Montreal. What is the situation exactly? Have we exaggerated it? Have we over-reacted? All that, of course, rests on an assessment of the situation and knowledge of the environment. Inquiries were made on the causes of the situation prevailing in Montreal and elsewhere in the province of Quebec. They might prove valuable. However, I could make others just as valuable whose findings will be in flagrant contradiction with those I am talking about. That could be discussed ad infinitum but it will not solve the problem now existing in Montreal.
Perhaps I should have referred first to the hostages since sentimentally, emotionally and morally that was imperative. I shall therefore talk about the two persons held at gunpoint by their kidnappers.
What is the government doing to protect them? What are we doing to weaken or destroy the Front de Liberation du Quebec?
This question was raised earlier. The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) has asked: Why did you not intervene sooner? You were aware of the situation; it was all in the book that you had in your hands. The script was there in full. What have you been waiting for? You have done nothing.
After today's debate, in spite of all our efforts to convince the hon. members opposite, in spite of the two persons whose lives depend probably on our action here and in spite of all that has happened since their abduction, we are having some difficulty in getting the House of Commons to act quickly and agree to certain measures. You can just imagine what would have happened last year if, without any request from the provincial government, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or the provincial Surete du Quebec, the authorities had said:
October 16, 1970

"We need emergency powers in order to bring this movement to heel".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Jean Marchand: Some people say we have not done anything. They insist on using global expressions to impress I don't know who. But at the present time, the kidnappers demand the release of 25 members of the FLQ now in prison following their appearance before the courts. We have been told: Mr. Vallieres is free and Mr. Gagnon who was refused bail for a long time by the Attorney General has been let out on bail under the laws of this country. This government is no doubt responsible for that. We have done what we could. The police have acted well. It is quite unfair to blame the government today for not doing what it should have done, considering the FLQ activities.
Before dealing with the situation proper, allow me for a few moments to analyse the causes. Why are there FLQ members in Montreal or in the province of Quebec? True enough, our friend from York South (Mr. Lewis) has readily found why: the stupidity of the government, the postal strike, a few other deficiencies in the economic area, and above all, unemployment. Those are the causes of this discontent and, obviously, we are blamed, we who came to Ottawa in good faith, and did our best to represent the citizens of Quebec, for not having succeeded in solving the problem, separatism having increased-and it may be true-from what it was when we took office.
On the other hand, the hon. member has not cared to prove that separatists would not have been still more numerous, hag it not been for a group of French Canadians wtio came to Ottawa and__pressea tor recognition of the French fact all across Canada^ despite antaeonTsm. not from the hon. member for fore South-I would not even want to suggest it-but despite the most tenacious opposition wJjichwE^gjjggriencgj^jTOmtljg^otJjgj^gi^e of the Haase^And we have tried to do what we could, even for Quebec. in'siMTd of the protests tnat we were acting oriTy for Quebec, because we are in tne situation we kflflpr- n-fc People sav: "You know in uueoec. it is only an economic issue. Solve the unemployment problem and the French Canadians will be satisfied!" If we take special steps to boost the Quebec economy, people say: "These people are only interested in Quebec, and they want to give Quebec privileged treatment." This is the situation in which we place ourselves-


David Lewis: This is not the opinion of the New Democratic Party-


Jean Marchand: I did not understand, Mr. Speaker.


David Lewis: This is not the situation of the New Democratic Party.


Jean Marchand: 
An hon. Member:: More.


Jean Marchand: I donotimowj^h^JJjgure
is accurate butlam aware thatJiiere are mute a few.
Anfl_I_know something else: these people have inflltrat-edj^rT^ra^mcplucein^the province of Quebec, every ecj^onsaretaken. arid without giTO??complete details lei us say mat ai the present time theyareir^ZLSSSIfln' to cause the Quebec and the
PQYP^^rnnntg .. s)g wpM as IHfi CltY Of MonErghl,
irreparable harm, with the support of outside organizations which are not, necessarily in agreement, as to the measures taken because it is well organized.
Some say: Why have you not made it illegal? That is wbat. we are doing under these regulations though it might not be the best solution. It is known that, the FLQ is made un of cells of t.wo or three persons each, cells that, do not, know each other, that do not necessarily work hand in hand and that are now in touch simply through coded messages broadcast freeof charge by__oi-UL radio sJatiaEs* What you mignt think are only speeches are in fact coded messages which are sent here and there.
We are dealing therefore with a_well-structured organization which is able-with the help of other organizations seeking the same objective to make life impossibieTin
t.fjfi^province _of Quebec, for all those _who_____cto_ not
shore the ideal of the FT,Q. whose primary aim is to destroy the country.
Had we failed to act today, and had separation taken place in a month or a year from now, I know quite well what would have been said in this House. Had Place Ville-Marie in Montreal been blown up someday, people would have said: "But what kind of government have we got? All thatinformation was available to you, you, could fee userl emergency powers and von did nnf. dn so? This is a government of incompetent men."
And when we try to do it, people say: "You over-reacted"! That's it: "You over-reacted"!
One thing is certain. Ml Speaker-I dont know anymore than the police, probably much 1fss-there is an nrpani7.at.ion which has.thousands of guns, rifles, machine guns, bombs and about. 2.000 pounds_of dynamite, more than enough to hlnw un t.he coreofdowntown Montreal.
Those are people ready for assassination, kidnapping. All that exists in the heart of our country, at. -2-time when the situation ip already difficult,, and the government rynuld .say: First, of all, we shall introduce a bill for democratic discussion in the House. During that time, the

4*l**l* -
Or*j^ClXk
culprits would get away and the police would be left in the lurch. At least this case would be treated in a democratic manner!
It is as democratic as Chamberlain's action when he went to meet Hitler in an effort to avoid the war.


An hon. Member:: Come on, come on.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, there was an emergency. We deemed it to be so. I do not say that we are gods. We deemed it was so, and we believed that was the thing to do at the time.
It has been claimed that the means resorted to might be out of proportion to the objectives. The Prime Minister told you himself this morning that he was the first to recognize that. It is not my intention to dispute the fact. It has been recognized.
If there are other means to achieve the same objectives, to protect the citizens of Quebec who are also citizens of Canada and want to remain such, we do not exclude the possibility of examining proposals submitted and it may be that within a very short time we are going to find a solution that will please everyone.
We take it for granted that no one in this House condones the current events in the province of Quebec, especially what is happening within the FLQ.
I am not making a superficial speech. I do not want to suggest that some members find this funny. No one is finding this funny, I am convinced of that.
Tonight, our problem is to determine what means we should use and, whatever they are, no doubt we will be criticized. We accept it in advance. But as a government, without pleasure and rather regretfully, wp have decided to use the only_means__ available to protect ourselves ;* uimi.t tin ' i. Mi *[DOT]mil' :.urmus harisor {hivntening me lives of flpmber of citizens.
If the House considers that the situation was not urgent, that a notice should have been given, that a debate should have been called in the House or that we should have waited for 48 hours, J think that we must fii^twon^abou^sajfljj^clsgioSSEy- democracy cannot work when the opponents do not accept to play under the rules of democracy.
The right hon. member for Prince Albert was talking about the exchange of ideas in Canada. I entirely agree with him on this point: there cannot be any restriction on the exchange of ideas, even if the right hon. member does not like them and even if there is a separatist faction in Quebec! We were never asked to declare it illegal. This faction intends to destroy the country and its members try to reach their objective through democratic means. This is normal. We do not have to intervene. But when people refuse to play the democratic game, a government anxious to safeguard democratic institutions cannot be paralysed in the name of democracy. In my opinion, democracy in this instance would be of the wrong kind.
Some people say that this action will be tantamount to building up a wall. Even if we did accept the suggestions of the hon. member for York South, even if he had
October 16, 1970

developed the only true democratic formula for preventing revolutionary activities, in a word, even if we did implement his solution, we would come at exactly the same results.
The FLQ members will be satisfied only after the country has been destroyed and anything that we undertake will amount to raising a barrier between them and us, there is no doubt about it.
Such is the challenge we have to meet. We do not ask that the Opposition assume responsibilities which are ours to assume, but at least please refrain from tripping us up while we are trying hard to drive the country out of this jam.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if hon. members opposite wish to issue a proclamation to stop me from speaking now.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) has made a fiery and impassioned speech. Speeches of this quality and character, sincere as they are, taken together with the quality of the actions of the government give us cause for concern on this side of the House and should give cause for concern to all Canadians who wish to preserve the freedoms which they prize so dearly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: The minister said there was overreaction. Let me read to the House from the Ottawa Citizen of today an account of what sort of action was taken under this proclamation, action which causes us to say that there cannot be overreaction on the part of opposition members or anybody else in Canada who worries very much about what could be the facts in the future. The article in the Citizen reads in part as follows:
A knock-then police.
The full impact of the War Measures Act was impressed upon the family of Hull doctor Georges Lebel early today as five policemen barged into his house and roused the eight members of the family out of bed.
Doctor Lebel, still shaken from the incident when interviewed hours later, said the policemen knocked at a basement door, then barged in at abou^J^a*.
They hurried upstairs, ordered everyone out of bed and told Doctor and Mrs. Lebel to gather their children in the kitchen and stay there.
Doctor Lebel's teenage daughter was sleeping behind the locked door of her room. Mrs. Lebel said a policeman asked her who was in the room and before she could answer, he kicked in the door and brusquely ordered the girl to get up and get into the kitchen.
Doctor Lebel said he was told the object of the raid was Roger Monette, an engineering student boarding in a basement room. Police went through every room in the house, emptying drawers and shelves. They even searched the Lebel's birdcage.
Invoking of War Measures Act
nnntnrLphpl'p daughter worked for the Parti Cjiuebecois dur-ir^TK^^^rT^de^tion.	n ^
Police took PQ literature from her room.	*' **[DOT]
xney also took other documents iron1! other rooms...
The police left as quickly as they had come, taking with them Monette and envelopes of literature.
They told the doctor they would be back later for another search.
Does the minister say, after listening to that, that we are not right in overreacting in regard to what could happen under the regulations which have been adopted?
How many hundreds of times is that sentiment being repeated in the country at this time?


Jean Marchand: How would you prefer the regulations to be applied, in order to avoid what you have mentioned?


Gerald William Baldwin: If the minister stays here long enough he will hear my view. I do not intend to make partisan politics out of this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: Do hon. members say that we are not right? Not only do we have the right, but we have the duty to bring before the House and before this country information on incidents of this nature.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: We do so, not when the government is bringing legislation before us but when we are being asked to give total approval to what the government has done.


An hon. Member:: What proof have you of this?


An hon. Member:: Do you know that what you have read is correct?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Be
quiet. If you want to make a speech, make it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. At the moment the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has the floor.


Gerald William Baldwin: I should have read from the same article that a gentleman named Cassavant was also taken. He phoned his wife this morning from the QPP headquarters in Hull. He is alleged to have told her that about 200 other persons from Hull alone were being held for questioning.


An hon. Member:: Don't go away, Jean.


Mr. Aiken:: The Prime Minister left a while ago.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Gerald William Baldwin: The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) asked a question which goes right to the heart of this issue. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), to give him credit, tried very bravely to answer a question that was extremely difficult for him to answer. The question put

October 16, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act by the hon. member for Yukon showed how difficult, how serious and how dangerous is the problem. It showed what could happen. It is like getting into quicksand- every step taken could plunge the country and the people further into the bog. Mr. Speaker, when the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) came here today, he did not even know how many people had been picked up for questioning. There was a blank in the text of his speech at that point, and he had to ask. This is the danger we face.
I have no hesitation in acknowledging that judging from my limited appreciation of the situation, something had to be done. But the questions we must ask ourselves are these: Was what was done the only thing that could have been done? Were there alternative steps which could have been taken, without taking the drastic and exceedingly dangerous step which the government has now undertaken and asks us to approve?
I agree with the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), and I say this quite seriously, that when the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice again read the speeches which they made today-I have not had time to assess the full import of the speech made by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand)-they will see a remarkable similarity between the views and the principles they expressed and those expressed by other people throughout the history of the world who deemed it necessary to assume great, authoritarian powers.
There is no question at all, sir, that the rationalization and the justification which have been urged upon us in the speeches we have heard from the government side come dangerously close to the same, almost perverted logic which at times we have heard from those who, against the wishes of the people they have ruled, assumed dictatorial and unnecessary powers. Mr. Speaker, in that regard there has been a suggestion concerning the letter received from the province of Quebec. I listened very carefully to that letter being read. I may have missed part of it, but it did seem to me that the question about apprehended insurrection was thrown in as an afterthought.
The requests which were contained in that letter from the province of Quebec to the government of Canada included one for certain alterations in our criminal law, for certain departures from the practices which have prevailed in the past and for certain extensions of government and police rights so far as the curtailment of certain civil liberties are concerned. But the question of apprehended insurrection was thrown in as an afterthought. I raise that matter for the reason that it has been suggested that time was of the essence and that nothing else could be done. I have grave doubts about that and I shall make this clear later.
This situation reminds me of cases that I used to handle as a young lawyer representing certain municipalities during the depression instituted by the Liberal party back in the 1930s. I was often asked for an opinion as to whether a person was an indigent and entitled to assistance from a municipality. The test in such a case was
sudden and urgent necessity. I am reminded of a woman
who came to me-she was 8f months pregnant-and claimed that it was a matter of urgency and she went to hospital within the next week.
In the eloquent speech read by the Prime Minister this morning, this passage appears at page 3:
Yet in recent years we have been forced to acknowledge the existence within Canada of a new and terrifying type of person 

one who in earlier times would have been described as an anarchist, but who is now known as a violent revolutionary. These persons allege that they are seeking social change through novel means. In fact they are seeking the destruction of the social order through clandestine and violent means.
I do not necessarily quarrel with that statement, but there is a clear admission, augmented by the evidence read into the record by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), by the hon. member for Nanai-mo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), by the hon. member for York South, and admitted by hon. members opposite who have participated in this debate, of knowledge that a situation exists and has existed for some time under which the apprehensions now felt by the government should have been known and should have been considered months ago. It is not often that a member of this House has an opportunity to quote what he said the preceding day, and I will not attempt to do it and create a precedent.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: I am not going to quote myself; I am going to paraphrase what I said. I always hope that if hon. members opposite listen to reason often enough, some day they may practise reason. So far they have not shown much indication that they know how to do that. Yesterday I said I was quite willing to accept the fact that the government must take some measures. I referred to the fact that in the United States of America the Congress of that country had just passed, and the President signed last night, a quite severe law and order measure. I referred to the War Measures Act, but I made it implicitly clear that in my view there was an onus on the government to refer to this House, for decision by it, measures of a legislative kind and that this was the way to act. I do not think the government has discharged the onus which it must accept, of indicating and proving beyond any reasonable doubt that the steps it took last night were reasonable and were the only alternative.
During the course of this grievous problem we on this side of the House have shown restraint and understanding. We have shown a willingness to co-operate within the proper definition of the discharge of our responsibilities. I am completely convinced that if yesterday, or the day before, the government had come to the leaders of the opposition parties and said to them, "Here, generally, is the information which we have. In our opinion there is a need to extend the right of the police and of the civil authorities for certain specific reasons and in certain specific ways," and if an outline of the legislation had been indicated, there would have been a willingness, certainly on the part of this party and I would like to

October 16, 1970

think I speak for all opposition parties, to accept within a reasonable period of time, within the limitation of one day, legislative changes of that kind. It is nonsense to say, as some have said, "We did not dare do that because we would have been telegraphing our intentions."


George James McIlraith: That is not nonsense.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, it was the worst-kept secret in the world. I was in the parliamentary library the day before yesterday and there saw some newspaper correspondents examining the War Measures Act. There is no question that if a reasonable suggestion along these lines had been made, had been conveyed to the leaders of the opposition parties and through them to the members who sit on this side of the House, there would have been a disposition to allow the government to put before the House, and have passed and become an act of Parliament, those changes which in its opinion were essential. I do not think there is any question about that.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I am very unhappy; I am most concerned about what is being done. The highways of history are littered with the debris of democracy's tattered constitutions, of those states where there have been encroachments in the same way as this government is now seeking to make encroachments upon the liberties of the people of Canada. Mr. Speaker, as one reads the terms of the War Measures Act one sees that it speaks of war, invasion and insurrection, real or apprehended. Surely we can take these phrases together and conclude from them that the intention of the Parliament of Canada in 1914 was not to include, as being susceptible of action under this act, the set of circumstances, grievous and serious though they are, which exist today in the province of Quebec.
I am convinced that this alternative which was available to the government, and which it could have acted on, would have succeeded in accomplishing what the government has now accomplished. The government's action may well result ultimately in driving deeper divisions between the peoples of Canada, as has been suggested by hon. members on this side of the House. Violence begets violence; hate breeds hate; confrontation leads to more violence, and the whole rotten and vicious circle starts its cycle again. This has been the history of a great many countries of the world during the past 20 or 30 years. I shudder to think of what may well happen as a result of the government's acting as it has.
It is not-I will repeat this, if necessary, ad nauseam- that there was no other alternative. If it could have been demonstrated, and it has been demonstrated today by any speaker on the government side of the House, that there was no reasonable alternative, I would most reluctantly have gone along with the government and said, "I will approve what you have done." But when there is this alternative and the government rejected the opportunity to exercise it, I must say it is most difficult for me to approve in total some of the exceedingly repugnant provisions contained in the Order in Council.
The government, through the Prime Minister, has indicated its willingness to discuss-I think it was the
Invoking of War Measures Act
term used by the Prime Minister-with the leaders of the opposition parties the introduction of legislation. It seems to me, having in mind the news item I read and the extent to which the circumstances depicted therein may have been duplicated across large portions of the province of Quebec, that at this time, as was so eloquently stated by the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. member for Prince Albert and members of the NDP, the government could say, "We have succeeded in achieving what we set out to do. We give notice that a minister of this government will stand up in the House today and say that on Monday the government will seek unanimous consent for the introduction of a bill setting out, in a much narrower fashion, those changes which in the opinion of the government are essential and have been discussed by members of the House."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken):
That the motion be amended by striking out all the words after "that" and adding the following:
"the government should forthwith introduce legislative proposals to meet the conditions referred to in the motion."


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
hon. member a question, perhaps after Your Honour has read the amendment? The hon. member hung his case on an article in the Ottawa Citizen of today. Is it not true that the report says that the action to which the hon. member expressly referred was not taken under the War Measures Act?


Gerald William Baldwin: The very first sentence reads:
The full impact of the War Measures Act was impressed upon the family of Hull doctor Georges Lebel-


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Read the end of the article. Read it all.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member is misleading the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: I wonder if an insurrection is going on on the government side.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member was misleading the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Peace River has proposed an amendment to the motion which is before the House. I have obvious reservations, from the procedural standpoint, about the amendment proposed by the hon. member. He will perhaps have considered himself that he is really proposing an entirely new question to the House. This, to my way of thinking, does not even look like an amendment. If the hon. member thinks he can argue the case, I will hear him and other hon. members who may wish to speak from the procedural standpoint on what has been proposed.

October 16, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we have not been given a copy of the amendment, and therefore cannot consider it.


Gerald William Baldwin: I am sorry. I will send a copy over.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Make sure it is the same as the copy that was sent to Mr. Speaker.


Gerald William Baldwin: I was under the impression that the hon. member could read quite well.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I make a suggestion? In view of what Your Honour has said on the matter put forward by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), could we not consider this matter during the dinner hour? We are to come back at 7.30 p.m.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members who are interested in this matter from the procedural standpoint and wish to give advice to the Chair when we resume at 7.30 p.m., will have the opportunity of doing so. After that a ruling can be given by the Chair as to whether the amendment can be put to the House.


Gerald William Baldwin: I undertake to give a copy to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) and explain it to him.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock, and pursuant to the order made earlier this day, I do now leave the chair. I remind hon. members that the House will resume its sitting at 7.30 p.m.
At five o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 7.30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. When the House rose at five o'clock a point of order had been raised in connection with the proposed amendment of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). As I indicated, I am quite prepared to give a ruling now. If, as I have said, hon. members can bring forth arguments to support the proposition that this suggested amendment is acceptable procedurally, I will of course hear them.


Gerald William Baldwin: In view of the fact that the child is mine and Your Honour appears to look upon him with some disfavour, I would like to comment very briefly. Recognizing that I am departing from precedents, I point out to Your Honour that the motion of the government is unprecedented, calling upon this House to give its approval to a certain type of action taken by the government and brought before the House in this way. This is a unique and unprecedented motion.
The motion I have sought to put before the House in the form of an amendment simply seeks to provide an alternative course that could be taken by the government. Your Honour may well say, and I recognize the

truthfulness of the statement, that we have our right to dissent by voting against the motion. However, that does not permit us to offer for the consideration and the division of the House, what we feel is the most logical and sensible alternative. That is the unprecedented amendment which I offer to the unprecedented motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Without going into the details of the situation I am sure the hon. member for Peace River, who knows so much about rules, Standing Orders and precedents, will agree that it is difficult for the Chair to accept this interesting amendment from a procedural standpoint. I indicated to hon. members before the House rose that in my view this motion brought in an entirely new proposition. I concluded that, on this basis, the amendment was not acceptable. In support of this view, I refer hon. members to Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 203, paragraph (5) which reads:
An amendment was ruled out because it raised a new question which could only be considered on a distinct motion after notice.
This is the suggestion I respectfully make to the hon. member at this time. I also refer hon. members to citation 202(12) which reads as follows:
An amendment proposing a direct negative,... is out of order.
Hon. members realize that the way to express their disapproval of a motion before the House is to vote against it rather than to propose an amendment which is, in fact, a direct negative. I will spare hon. members other citations with which I was occupied during the dinner hour.
I am not suggesting that the motion now before the House cannot be amended. I have no doubt that it can. I certainly do not want to use the rules to prevent legitimate amendments, but in the case of this suggested amendment I respectfully submit to hon. members that it cannot be put at this time.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I believe Your Honour suggested that we ought to decide our course of action as soon as possible on resuming business at 7.30. I have had consultations with the other House leaders. In order to provide a maximum opportunity for members who wish to speak, to provide a definite time for a vote, and to give certainty on that, as well as to recognize the urgency of the subject matter, the House leaders propose the following arrangements to the House.
The House will sit tonight until ten o'clock and then adjourn until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning. Tomorrow, we will rise for lunch and resume at two o'clock. There will be routine proceedings tomorrow as usual. We will continue in the afternoon until every member who wishes to speak has had an opportunity to do so. Following that, we will adjourn until Monday. The vote will be the first item of government business on Monday. There will be no further speeches at that time.
Monday will be regarded as the fifth appointed day for the Address in Reply. I believe that will give every member an opportunity to speak. There will be a certainty as to when the division will take place on this impor-
October 16, 1970

tant issue. It will assure the people of Canada that members have expressed their opinion immediately and have taken a vote on the matter at an early date.
[DOT] (7.40 p.m.)


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Privy Council has accurately summed up the views of the House leaders. That seems to be a resume of the feeling of the hon. members. I endorse fully what he says. An hon. member who feels he has a view to express on this most important subject should not be deprived from doing so.
On the question of the vote, I repeat that in the light of commitments which may well have been made for Saturday, the vote should not be taken until Monday in the circumstances which the President of the Privy Council has indicated. Tomorrow, we should have a question period to make up for the one we magnanimously gave up today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Privy Council has correctly outlined the points on which as House Leaders we reached agreement a short while ago and we are happy to support this order at this time. There is one point which might be underlined-maybe it was stated, but, if so, I did not hear it. It was understood as part of our agreement that when the debate on this motion ends tomorrow it will be deemed that a recorded vote is to be held on Monday, whether or not there are sufficient members here at the time the debate ends to ask for a recorded vote. In other words, it is part of the order to which we are agreeing now that there is to be a recorded vote on this motion as the first item of government business on Monday.


Mr. Rondeau:: Mr. Speaker, we agree with the suggestions made by the President of the Privy Council.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I just ask one question, Mr. Speaker? At what time are we sitting on Monday under these arrangements?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I expect we shall sit at eleven o'clock on Monday and deal with routine proceedings, then take the vote as the first item on government orders. Then, we shall call the debate on the address and it will be regarded as another appointed day.


Gerald William Baldwin: Would the President of the Privy Council be good enough to tell us upon what day the next vote will be taken in connection with the debate on the
address?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think it will be on Tuesday.


Mr. Speaker:: I shall not attempt to repeat the details of the proposals which appear to have been agreed upon by hon. members. I think a reading of Hansard will probably indicate what it is we have agreed upon. I shall
Invoking of War Measures Act perhaps seek authority to publish tomorrow an abbreviated Order Paper, one which would contain only government orders and routine proceedings. As hon. members know, there is a backlog of private members' motions and it would complicate the lives of many people were we to attempt to publish the usual Order Paper tomorrow. I suggest we have an abridged Order Paper for tomorrow's sitting.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Guy LeBlanc (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering what could be my role in this debate, in my capacity as member for Rimouski, especially when speaking after ministers and members both from the government and the opposition side, and I concluded it was the role of a Quebec backbencher who believes that he has been elected not to destroy Canada, but to bring about the Canadian ideal.
It is useless to insist on the fact that the situation is serious, and that some adventurers, citizens of Canada, want to destroy our country, beginning with the province of Quebec. It is clear that what is being sought is to deprive Canadian citizens of their freedom.
Free member of Parliament elected by free citizens, I shall endeavour in the next few minutes to say briefly what my fellow citizens of the riding of Rimouski and a good number of other Quebecers think and want.
Most of my electors in the riding of Rimouski are happy with the step taken by the government of Canada to enable Canada to keep its good name with regard to freedom. When I speak of the majority of my electors, I think not only of those who have voted for me, but also of numerous personal friends, even amongst the Progressive Conservatives in the riding who would have been grieved by the woolly attitude of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Stanfield) during the debate today. I could say the same about the friends I have among the Creditistes in the riding of Rimouski.
As for those we call separatists, independentists or members of the FLQ who always feel they respect freedom, they refused to take advantage of certain rights inherent in freedom by failing to exercise their right to vote.
My fellow citizens of the riding of Rimouski, like most Quebecers, are dynamic members of the Canadian society, because they are honest, responsible and efficient, not because they speak up loudly; on the contrary, they are called "the silent majority".
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)
In my opinion, dynanism is not only a matter of loud and forceful words but of results. Those serious and honest people work every day to make a success of their careers and to help Canada grow. What do they want? I can say that as a member of Parliament I have the same ambition, although it may appear more radical. We all think, however, that this is not the appropriate time to express lofty thoughts. We should not be wasting our time stating our views however inspiring they may be; the time has come to act in order to get concrete results
230

October 16, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act that the Canadian population, and particularly that o 1 Quebec, has been waiting for.
The people want a progressive Canada and, most of all, the unmasking of all subversive organizations in Quebec as well as their elimination.
In view of the great number of letters and messages that I have been receiving from my constituents for a long time now but particularly today, I must at least mention one fact with regard to the CBC. All the people who have contacted me have stated that the CBC was very partial in giving free publicity to the conspirators and revolutionaries who think they are with it. In fact, to use some of their favorite expressions, the time has come to bring the CBC into line and to put an end to its partisan system of information which shows total disregard for our society.
We must first grant as much authority as possible to our police force. Then the government of the province of Quebec and the government of Canada should shoulder their full responsibilities in order to neutralize these parallel powers.
What has been decided upon during the night and what we are now debating, that is the War Measures Act, is what the people want in order to live in peace and see the troublemakers brought to heel.
Like my fellow-citizens, if I had had any illusions left, I would have lost them today upon hearing some opposition spokesmen. Responsible citizens believed, I am sure, that, on such a day as this, hon. members, because of the very serious circumstances, should have been of one mind to ensure peace and order in Canada. One should not seek order as such but one should seek freedom. However, without order, there can be no freedom. Our aim, it may be stated, is freedom within order.
For his part, the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette), leader of the Ralliement creditiste, deserves our congratulations.
I do not want to become a flatterer but in fact he behaved as a convinced and earnest citizen of Quebec and we can say that he did us proud.


Some hon. Members:: As always.


Louis Guy LeBlanc: As far as the hon. members for the New Democratic Party are concerned, several people including myself, after reading the newspapers and listening to the news tonight, at least in eastern Canada, will certainly be disappointed and those who still had any illusions will lose them.
In my opinion, through the voice of its leader, the New Democratic Party has showed itself in an unfavourable light. The first spokesman for the New Democratic Party said, for instance, that the government overreacted to a critical situation. We know that our voters do not share this opinion at all.
At a time where we should try to keep cool, not to lose our heads in order to consider things just as they are, the spokesmen for the New Democratic Party attempted to arouse passion in a true election speech.

I was reading recently-as I said not too long ago-that statesmen-and the leader of the New Democratic Party should certainly be considered as such-should think less of the next election and more of the future of their country. If we consider the stand taken by the leader of the New Democratic Party, we find that he did not behave today as a statesman but as a politician or rather a "petty politician". He was even bold enough to talk about ownership and, in my opinion, the leader of this party and his group do not show too much respect for private ownership. He contradicted himself.
You should not condemn a man for his ideas, he said. This is a truism because a man's ideas are intangible. If somebody voices seditious ideas on television, I do not know what they are if they are not acts.
He went so far as claiming that had he been in the shoes of the FLQ leaders, and should that organization take office, he would have first gotten rid of the elected representative he referred to this afternoon.
What is his approach to freedom? The fight against air, water and land pollution are among today's topics. One of my friends talked recently about the pollution of brains and minds.
As we often forget the true sciences of man in all our activities, it would be perhaps advisable to speak here of pollution of the mind, and, from what we have noted today, if there is a nucleus of mind polluters here in Canada, I think that it is to be found among the members of the New Democratic Party which has changed its name several times since its foundation.
As far as the Leader of the Official Opposition is concerned, he too has been disappointing. His colleagues from Quebec have been somewhat saddened by his attitude, because we know that, whatever decision is taken, the Quebecers who are concerned for their freedom wish to see a statesman such as the Leader of the Official Opposition take a clear-cut position.
His speech today was vague. He has referred to several things without taking any stand.
I think that my friends from the constituency of Rimouski who had placed their confidence in the hon. leader of the opposition a couple of years ago would be disappointed to see his comportment today. Electors from the riding of Rimouski and Quebecers in general want the government to take a positive and concrete view in these painful hours. They know that some Quebecers have tried to turn to their advantage the problems of the unemployed, of other workers and of low-wage earners. We are aware of those problems and so is the government, but we all want, with the government to work honestly and actively at their solution without destroying anything. They note that some of these revolutionists, these adventurers, who have nothing to lose because they were never able to earn anything, endeavoured to corrupt our youth before they could satisfy their thirst for power only. They made false representations to our workers, making them believe that the government would give them everything, all cooked on a silver platter.
Same thing for our farmers: their leaders delude them in the same manner as union leaders delude workers and
October 16, 1970

as some leaders of the Quebec Farmers Union deceive the farmers. My friends can understand that we, on the contrary, want to give workers, farmers and small-wage earners the means to help themselves. How proud of them we are!
In order to strive for progress, my fellow citizens do not use the same means as the fomenters of sedition of the FLQ. They want to make a success of their case and to further Canada's development by working honestly, trying to teach their children to look truth and to respect the best rules of life possible. They are also in favour of freedom, but they do not want tolerance.
As I said earlier, there is no freedom without order or rules. It is said that Parliament is the forum where we can express our freedom, but without order, discipline, procedural rules, we would not be free. Thus, when the Speaker asks a member to resume his seat, does he infringe on the freedom of the latter? Not at all, he protects the rights of the majority as well as those of the minority. Long live freedom in order and discipline!
Evidently, it does not do to be fanatical about order. It should be applied kindly, and primarily sensibly.
We all know in Quebec that we are Canadian citizens. It is true that we want to retain our identity but some people waste our time when they insist so much on constitutional problems and I will even go as far as to say language problems. Proud as I may be of the language I speak, my mother-tongue which I am anxious not to lose and which no one, I hope, will cause me to lose, each value should be put in its proper place on the scale of values.
We want to retain our identity because we are aware of being part of the Canadian family and want to continue doing so.
Mr. Speaker, before I conclude my remarks I should like to indicate that I have described my fellow citizens in Quebec to the best of my knowledge. I can assure the House that they are proud of being Canadians and I shall try to state more briefly what they wish and what they think. As they do, I believe that the government though essential, is not everything. It should be noted that each individual in a democracy must belong to the elite, and my fellow citizens as well as all the Quebec members join me in support of the right honourable Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). We consider that he has done his duty. We congratulate him and we are basically happy with what he has accomplished.
Of course some distasteful things have to be done, but they are dictated by the present circumstances. We are against war. We are in favour of peace, but when we must defend ourselves, we must be prepared for war. We are all standing behind the right hon. Prime Minister and the government in order that Canada remain a country of freedom and order.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which I am required to do at the first available
23226-16i
Invoking of War Measures Act opportunity during a sitting when an issue has come up which entitles an hon. member to rise.
During the course of my speech to the House this afternoon I quoted from an article which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of today's date. At the conclusion of my speech, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) intimated that I had misquoted the article. In fact, some hon. member from the opposite side said I was misleading the House. At the time I had before me a photostatic copy of the particular article and I hesitated to impose my views because sometimes a photostatic copy does not include the entire article. The minister indicated I had not read the last part.
I have before me now the article. It is precisely as I indicated it was and the wording is the same. It indicates beyond any doubt at all that all of the operations that are referred to by the police were conducted under the present provisions of the War Measures Act which is now in force.


An hon. Member:: What is your page number?


Gerald William Baldwin: The page is number 3. What the minister was referring to was an article which appeared on the front page which indicated at the conclusion that the Ottawa police had not taken any action under this particular proclamation. I thought I should make that position clear at this time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Chair does not pretend to be a judge on such occasions as this, but because of the importance of the debate now taking place this might be an appropriate opportunity for the Chair to bring to the attention of hon. members citation No. 113 in the fourth edition of Beauchesne which reads in part as follows:
But a dispute arising between two members, as to allegation of facts, does not fulfil the conditions of parliamentary privilege.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker,
Canada is now going through difficult times and I think Quebecers should express their views on the measure now before the House.
As several members have said today, the legislation under study cannot appeal to any member since Canada has always had the reputation abroad of living in a true democracy.
When, in the light of facts, the government decides to resort to such exceptional measures, it is because the situation is most serious.
Should we repeat that the measure before us involves the granting of extraordinary powers to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his cabinet? These powers can even restrict freedom of speech, of the press and of association or assembly. But as a member of this House, am I in a position to judge of the advisability for the government to bring this legislation before us, when I realize that the government must know much more than I do on the present situation.

October 16, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act
Some speakers today took pleasure in attacking the government about certain social and economic conditions existing in Quebec which they blame for the situation now prevailing in our province. Obviously, this is choosing the easy way.
We cannot ask that those who live outside Quebec be fully aware of what is going on presently in our province, and I express the wish that our fellow members from the other provinces will never have to live through an ordeal like the one we French Canadians are experiencing in Quebec at the moment. Now, it is Quebec's turn, but maybe in a week, in a month from now, it will be the turn of Ontario or of any other province.
Obviously, the younger generation in Quebec is far from satisfied with the social security programs, or with the political system. Obviously, changes are called for in the province of Quebec as in other provinces. I have often said so. The young people want governments to do something. They no longer want to get involved in an obsolete structure, the Canadian Constitution. The majority of young Quebecers want to stay within Confederation, provided they are recognized by our Englishspeaking colleagues as equal partners in this great country of ours.
Have we, members of Parliament, done anything to reassure them in that regard? Amending or redrafting the Constitution is taking too much time. Decision-making in the fields of social security and political mechanisms is being delayed. Knowing very well the temperament of our young people, I am aware that they are restless, that they want change and progress. They protest and most of them protest objectively. In Quebec some professional agitators have no respect whatever for democracy and take the opportunity to stir up university students and organize demonstrations similar to the one we watched last night on television. 3,000 young people gathered to discuss the present situation in Quebec and unscrupulous people, one of whom was Michel Char-trand, lectured them and stirred them up to agitation.
As Canadian parliamentarians, we have our responsibility in the crisis Quebec is going through at the present time.
Our immigration regulations have not been strict enough for one thing. We have admitted from Algeria people who have come here to preach revolution. We have also admitted Cubans who have come to set up Maoist groups in Montreal, Quebec and Trois-Rivieres, because this is a democracy and we must respect freedom of speech. In so doing, we have been remiss through our failure to assume our responsibilities.
It is useless to cry. Even if we could correct our past mistakes, our task now is to build for the future and to restore in our country the respect for authority of people who wish to live under a truly democratic system.
The government has decided to adopt emergency measures and we are considering them now.
This afternoon the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) admitted quite frankly that this measure granted the government much greater

powers than were needed to control the situation in Quebec. It is true.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
It is true and as a lawyer I should think, first, that this measure which is going to be applied for six months and a half, will perhaps reduce for too long civil liberties of our fellow citizens. The danger I should like to point out to the House is that the government has that power in its hands. Who will use it, if not the police? How will they use the means put at their disposal by the government in order to control the situation?
Here is where the danger lies, Mr. Speaker. Because of that, maybe, innocent people who have nothing to do with the FLQ will pay for those who support a measure such as the one taken today by the government.
Some families will be searched, even though they have nothing to do with the FLQ in Quebec, because it is an emergency measure.
My leader was asking the government today, in an objective manner, to apply these urgency measures on a temporary basis. He also asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) to introduce as soon as possible amendments to the Criminal Code sections dealing with sedition and kidnapping. He was then merely suggesting amendments to the measure in order to give back to citizens the civil liberties that this measure tends to remove.
Mr. Speaker, such is the position that my leader took today on this important issue. Naturally, dishonest newsmen will say tonight, as they have done during the day, that the Progressive Conservative party through its leader supported the subversive movements in Quebec. I say those people are in bad faith because what the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party wanted to point out to the government is that implementation of these measures has been solicited for a period of six and a half months and that our leader, considering this to be too long, would wish to see other means taken.
The Minister of Justice could introduce in the House amendments to the Criminal Code in order to achieve the objectives the government set when deciding to adopt this emergency measure. That is what the Progressive Conservative Party is requesting of the government through this evening's amendment.
I repeat that we parlementarians should have a feeling of guilt because of the present situation in Quebec. Today, the situation which has prevailed in Quebec for close to 15 days has been clearly outlined.
Of course you cannot expect that people who live in British Columbia be aware of that situation. But, Mr. Speaker, we know that our people live in an atmosphere of terror and fear.
Some public men receive anonymous calls or blackmail threats. The terrorists will try by any means to spread panic among the people.
Unfortunately, I think that subversive forces in Quebec are better organized than we think. As a matter of fact, the Quebec Labour Minister was abducted a week ago and a British diplomat was kidnapped more than ten
October 16, 1970

days ago, and neither the provincial police nor the police force of the city of Montreal nor the RCMP, who work as a whole, have been able to find the hostages. Where have they been hidden? We do not know yet. That is evidence that the revolutionaries are well organized, which is very serious. Mr. Speaker, I think that extraordinary measures have to be taken...


Some hon. Members:: This is what we have done.


Martial Asselin: I am not giving you hell; let me finish my sentence.
I said that extraordinary measures have to be taken to reestablish order and peace in the province of Quebec and renew the people's confidence in our democratic system.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Martial Asselin: I do not wish either to congratulate Quebec's silent majority. The people remain silent. They leave it to the politicians to untangle the problems we are experiencing. Most Quebecers agree that Quebec and Canada can continue to live in a democratic system.
When do we see people taking to the streets to support those responsible to maintain order and peace in Quebec and in Canada? It is total silence.
This evening, I appeal specially to the silent majority in Quebec. It is its duty, to show massively to those who have the responsibility to order and peace, that it is with them and disapprove of the acts of subversion now being committed in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I know that many other hon. members wish to speak in this debate. Before I conclude my remarks, I express the wish that the enforcement of the measure before us will only be temporary and will be replaced by another one through an amendment to the Criminal Code. I fully support the leader of my party and my colleagues, who have called for such an amendment. If a motion along those lines is introduced, I, as a Quebecer and as someone who is seeking respect for order and authority, will vote in favour of that motion.
[DOT] (8:20 p.ra.)


Mr. Jacques Guilbeault (Saini-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I wish to congratulate as warmly as possible the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin). His words and particularly the position he has taken, clearly identify him as a member from the province of Quebec who understands the serious problems now facing Canada, and especially Quebec.
I would ask the hon. member for Charlevoix and his three Progressive Conservative colleagues from the province of Quebec to talk to the other members of then-party and bring home to them what the situation is in the province of Quebec, so that when the question is put they will not be the only ones to speak with the voice of reason, but the whole opposition along with them.
Mr. Speaker, rather than make a bombastic speech leading nowhere this morning, the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Standfield) should have immediately
Invoking of War Measures Act
given the floor to his colleagues from the province of Quebec, for they can appreciate fully what is taking place in their province and will know which way to vote when the motion is put.
Mr. Speaker, I was disgusted today when I heard the member for Peace River, (Mr. Baldwin) read from the Ottawa Citizen a melodramatic story telling of a family being awakened and a bird cage searched. I have always respected and trusted the member for Peace River. He is a serious man, steady and experienced. But, when in a debate as serious as this one is, he introduces sentimental and futile arguments like that one, I wonder what to think.
Mr. Speaker, we have had, in the ranks of the New Democratic Party, dedicated defenders of the rights of the individual, but I imagine that today's spectacle will continue later when one of its members is recognized. Still, I should like all hon. members to understand that when we come to a decision later on, we will have to decide on the suspension of individual rights. We all realize that whether or not we like it, individual rights will be suspended temporarily, and it is up to us to decide whether they will be suspended by an order of the government, or by the activity of the terrorists in Quebec. That is the choice we must make. We will suspend them through the legality of an act adopted by this House, or we will allow the terrorists in Quebec to suspend them in their own way.
We will also have to choose between the rights of the individual or collective rights. We may be violating individual rights by granting greater powers to the police forces; this doubtless will annoy some people. But, are not the collective rights of the people to live in peace, harmony, free from fear, more important than sparing a few individuals the annoyance of being awakened in the morning? That is the whole question.
To my mind-and I say this sincerely-the harmful effects of the legislation the government put before us will be very limited. Indeed, who is afraid of being disturbed by the police, if not that i per cent of the Quebec people who live outside the law and pursue the aims and objectives of the FLQ.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
As for me, I am not afraid of the police force. I am sure that my honest neighbours, the citizens of my riding who lead a normal life will not be inconvenienced by such measures. Of course, those who live in cells, who attempt to destroy our society, who are plotting, I am sure, while we are discussing, are inconvenienced and cry that their civil rights are being violated. However, common sense tells us that the majority of Canadians were expecting some action on our part, a positive action. Well, the time has come. Whether we extend the debate for two three or four days, the people expect Canadian parliamentarians to restore law and order in Canada.
Before closing, I should like to read an excerpt of the editorial published in La Presse, in this morning's edition. We can read the following, and I quote:
For the second time in one year, the army has been called out in Montreal. These two interventions of the army prove, in the

October 16, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act
last analysis, that there can be no lasting authority without force.
The purpose of any civilization is to delay the outbreak and the use of force; to replace force by words, that is to say by the law and negotiation within the law. But when words have become meaningless, through too much lies; or when they have been replaced by machine-gun and dynamite, force must be used. A disciplined and visible force is better than an invisible and lawless force.
Is authority necessary or not in a society? The answer is simple: It is necessary.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, when a democratic country faces a threat, a crisis, from any external or internal enemy it has to balance two things, the safety of the state on the one side and the rights and liberties of the individual on the other. Even in time of full scale war, worldwide war, it has been found necessary, if not popular, in countries that cherish freedom, to ensure in the process of seeking to safeguard freedom that freedom is not undermined. The real question that faces this House is, where does the balance lie?
I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that the government in proceeding to proclaim the War Measures Act has gone far beyond any reasonable balance and unwittingly has endangered the rights and the liberties of Canadians in a manner and in a degree far beyond that required to meet the present crisis. What, I ask the House, has the government in fact done? It has invoked the application of the War Measures Act. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) in his speech this afternoon sought to play down-


An hon. Member:: What did Ed Schreyer say?


Francis Andrew Brewin: I am not interested in what Ed Schreyer said. I am speaking in this House on my own responsibility. I do not know what he said. I would request members of the House during this debate, which is an important one, to listen rather than inject senseless questions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I wish to bring to the attention of hon. members that the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) has the floor.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think I can claim also to have had enough experience that I might be able to say something that is new, and impart some knowledge to some of the members of the House who have not had the same experience. I suggest that for a change they listen. I was saying that in his speech the Minister of Justice sought to play down the importance of the proclamation of the War Measures Act. What he, in fact, suggested was that all we were faced with were the regulations that were passed under the authority of the War Measures Act. I suggest that that is not the case, and that the proclamation of the Act by itself has tremendous consequences.
It confers vast, almost unlimited powers on the executive or the government of the country. It has never before been invoked except in the midst of worldwide war in which civilization as a whole was threatened. Let us consider what the proclamation of the War Measures Act enables the government to do. First of all, that
proclamation suspends the constitution of the country. We are at this moment without any fundamental law. The constitution which governs the affairs of this Parliament and country is temporarily suspended because of the proclamation of the emergency. Secondly, the proclamation enables the federal government to override provincial legislatures and provincial legislation. I am rather surprised that so many who in this House proclaim themselves to be the champions of provincial rights, and who are loud in their defence of provincial rights, should remain silent at the wholesale invasion of provincial rights which is involved in the proclamation of the War Measures Act in peacetime.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would be kind enough to permit a question.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Certainly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the minister seeking the floor for the purpose of asking the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) a question?


John Napier Turner: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I understand the hon. member had yielded the floor.


David Lewis: He has courteously agreed to answer.


John Napier Turner: Does the hon. member not agree that although the War Measures Act potentially confers a great deal of power upon the government, this power is only exercised by regulation? Should one not turn to the regulation to see what power is being exercised?


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept that argument. I have a copy of the War Measures Act in front of me and it says that the Governor General in Council-I suppose the Governor General in Council usually acts by regulation-may authorize such acts and things and make from time to time such orders and regulations, and so on.


John Napier Turner: "May."


Francis Andrew Brewin: Of course, it is only permissive. But i point out to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) that the government does not have to operate by regulation. Let me repeat what I have said. The Governor in Council, which means the cabinet or the executive, has authority under the War Measures Act to do almost anything it likes, including the setting aside of provincial legislation and invading the fields of the provincial legislatures. I am pointing out that is rather a drastic power. I am rather surprised we have not heard anything about it-


An hon. Member:: What imagination!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: When
did the hon. member wake up?


Francis Andrew Brewin: I will deal with the question of imagination later. I intend to show that these powers have actu-
[Mr. Guilbeault.l
October 16, 1970

ally been exercised by governments here. No effort of imagination is required to demonstrate what has been done under the War Measures Act by governments of this country which, incidentally, were of the same political stripe as the present government.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Hear,
hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: The third result of the proclamation of the War Measures Act is this: the Bill of Rights has been torn up. We do not have an effective Bill of Rights at present, by reason of this proclamation. Some think that the government's regulation is reasonably restrained. I do not think it is very restrained. For the time being, at any rate, the Bill of Rights is torn up by this proclamation of the act. Also, Mr. Speaker, the proclamation of the act jeopardizes freedom of speech and freedom of assembly for all Canadians from one end of Canada to the other. The effect of the proclamation of the War Measures Act is this: it authorizes internment and imprisonment without trial; it enables the wholesale confiscation of property; it even authorizes the deportation or exile of Canadian citizens.
It is claimed by some that this may be an exaggerated account of what can be done under the War Measures Act or what is enabled to be done by its proclamation. My answer is that it is precisely those powers which have been exercised in the past under the War Measures Act. Some hon. members of the House may be too young to know the facts personally, or they may not have read about them. I had the experience of representing the Japanese Canadian community at the end of the last war. By Order in Council passed under the War Measures Act, Canadian citizens of the Japanese race were ejected from their homes, deprived of their property, herded into relocation or internment camps and, finally, subjected to exile or deportation from the country. All this was done by Order in Council under the War Measures Act, without there being any suggestion that these people had been guilty of any act of sabotage or disloyalty.


John Napier Turner: But the Order in Council had to be passed to bring that regulation into force.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Indeed, it was passed. If I may make a personal comment here, I think that is one of the most shameful episodes in Canadian history. It was passed by the government. Finally, the government rescinded its own order when public opinion caught up with the iniquity of that legislation.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A Liberal government did that.


Francis Andrew Brewin: That is right. This brings me to the crucial point of my remarks. The powers of the government, once the proclamation has been carried into force, are so sweeping and so liable to abuse that they should only be called into play if necessary. I understood the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to recognize this in what he said.
In expressing his own anxiety about the matter, I think the Minister of Justice spoke about the distasteful step
Invoking of War Measures Act which had been taken. The Prime Minister recognized that such sweeping power should be invoked only in cases of clear necessity. As I recall it, the Prime Minister in his speech said that circumstances dictated the use of the War Measures Act. He said there was no alternative. Mr. Speaker, I challenge that assertion.
There would have been no difficulty in meeting the challenge of the FLQ and meeting the request of the government of Quebec and the city of Montreal by strengthening the existing law by act of Parliament. That could have been done. That was a clear alternative and was infinitely preferable to what the government has seen fit to do. The members of this party and the official opposition have made it abundantly clear that they would have facilitated amendments to the Criminal Code to authorize more widespread and effective means of search in this emergency than the present law allows. We have approved the government's unwillingness to meet the outrageous demands of the kidnappers.
I now want to say a word about the regulations which have been passed. The regulations have been passed with speed. I suggest they are overzealous and ineffective. One of the main provisions in the regulations is the banning of organizations declared to be illegal. I suggest that is a futile gesture. We have had experience of doing just that under the War Measures Act. During the last war the communist party was declared illegal. What was the result? That drove them underground. It made them seem the champions of oppressed groups and enabled them to emerge after the war stronger than they had ever been in the history of Canada. I think you have to trust people a little. We in this party are in favour of banning lawless acts, but we are not in favour of banning dangerous thought. Suppressing thought and freedom of expression and association has never been effective. The only effective way to deal with grievances is to remove their causes.
I have spoken, Mr. Speaker, of the effect of this measure on the fundamental rights and liberties of all Canadians and the extent to which they are endangered by the government's action. What worries me as much, or even more, is the direction the legislative blunderbuss that is being used in this case is pointing. It is directed at one province. I fear the result of this. It will bring about the further alienation of people of good will in that particular province.
I have always believed that one of the first duties of the members of this House is the fostering of the unity of Canada and the fostering of good will and understanding between the peoples of all Canada. I fear, Mr. Speaker, that this legislative intervention will in the long run have a counterproductive effect. I know that the government claims it is responding to the request of the government of Quebec and the city of Montreal. But did those authorities really ask for the suspension of the constitution? Did they ask for the legislative blunderbuss that is being presented to us? Did they actually mention the War Measures Act? In the long run, will the people in that province welcome this particular type of intervention? I venture to suggest that they will not.

October 16, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Parliament's chief and most glorious function is to be the watchdog of freedom. If Parliament surrenders this role, it abdicates its chief function. Freedom in security is worth fighting for. Freedom depends upon continued vigilance against encroachments on freedom, whether real or apprehended. Freedom does not depend on force, not on the severity of laws in the face of dissatisfaction, but on the ability of government to remedy the abuses that have created the dissatisfaction.
I suppose that the party system and the attitudes, particularly of government members, are such that it will be quite useless to appeal to them to change their minds and not support this particular resolution. We know this resolution will be accepted no matter how firmly the opposition does its duty to oppose what we think is an unwarranted encroachment on the rights of citizens of this country. I urge the government to demonstrate its good faith, concern for freedom and sensitivity to the supremacy of Parliament by rescinding the application of the War Measures Act and this proclamation with its wide and dangerous consequences, which I and other speakers have outlined, as soon as possible and to substitute a law to be passed by Parliament which can meet, rather than exacerbate, the crisis that Canada faces today.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Before getting to the primary remarks that I have in mind, Mr. Speaker, I wish to comment on the observations of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin). I have in front of me a copy of the War Measures Act. I do not say that the hon. member has deliberately misled the House, but I interpret this Act in a different way. The hon. member stated that these broad and far-ranging powers are in fact in force now. I quote from the act as follows:
(1) The Governor in Council may do and authorize such acts and things, and make from time to time such orders and regulations,-
The act goes on to provide:
(2) All orders and regulations made under this section shall have the force of law, and shall be enforced in such manner-
I contend that to say we have passed the War Measures Act in such a broad way as the hon. member has outlined is simply and totally false.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norman Augustine Cafik: This act can only be interpreted in a reasonable way. I suggest we have to look at the act. It clearly states that the regulations are what will go into effect. These regulations are what was tabled in this House today. I suggest that comments which go beyond the range of those regulations are irrelevant and that it is silly to present them at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norman Augustine Cafik: It has been suggested by some hon. members that some, if not all, members on this side of the House have no respect for personal rights and liberties. I think I
speak for members on both sides of this House when I say that we aU have a great and abiding concern for individual rights and freedoms.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norman Augustine Cafik: I do not subscribe to the view that the state is supreme over the individual. Quite the contrary. None the less, I feel very strongly that no man is allowed to exercise his freedom and rights in such a way as to deny those same rights to the collective group of Canadians. I further suggest that this is the situation we have before us. The FLQ traitors and bandits are threatening to take the lives, and indeed have taken the lives, of individual citizens in this country. If we do not act in a responsible, quick and efficient manner, we are not fulfilling our obligations as members of this House or members of this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norman Augustine Cafik: Every one of us can surely make a not too subtle distinction between freedom and licence. Licence gives the right to do anything without any consideration being given to its effect upon others. Freedom does not give that right. Freedom implies obligations and duties. Freedom is a sham if it does not allow other people the same freedom that we want for ourselves.
We cannot defend freedom by destroying it. There are always dangers. I agree with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in his statement that this is an act he would have preferred not to bring forward, but the situation before us demands that kind of positive action to protect the people of this country. No nation which lacks the courage to defend itself deserves to survive. In fact, in our troubled times I suggest it would not survive. We live in an age of violence. Violence exists to some extent here and abroad because we have not been careful enough to preserve these basic rights in the past. Far too often we have mollycoddled those people who have been willing to deny us our fundamental rights and have not defended ourselves against them. It is damn well time we did.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norman Augustine Cafik: I believe this proclamation is necessary, and indeed essential, to protect the civil liberties of all Canadians, not to destroy them. It is an interim measure. As soon as possible I hope we wiH take other steps in order to have permanent laws and regulations in order to safeguard ourselves at all times. I do not know how in this moment of crisis we could have acted otherwise. The element of surprise was absolutely essential. That quality could never have been fulfilled had we listened to the advice of opposition members presented here today. How could we act differently than we did when the Premier of one of our great provinces asked that we act immediately so that his province could be protected? How could we not listen to him and the mayor of Montreal when they outlined the urgency of the situation? How can we do otherwise than give them the power to protect the people they represent? We could not remain helpless in the face of this treachery. We had to act, and we did.

October 16, 1970

We must use whatever lawful means are at our disposal to crush these bandits and common criminals who would destroy our nation. I further suggest that no person in this country need fear the loss of civil liberties except those who are trying to deny the rest of us those same liberties. The kidnappings were unfortunate. God knows, we are all praying that these men will come out of this situation alive. It is unfortunate that it took this tragedy to precipitate us into action and to realize how serious and dangerous the situation has become. In my view we have no right to spend the public's hard-earned money, garnered through taxation, to support and encourage certain of the means of communication in this country to subvert our own people. I do not think it takes much imagination, when you turn on a television set or a radio set, to know what I am talking about.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norman Augustine Cafik: We see these people subsidized as they spread their voices of hate across this nation. We recently set up a Committee on Pollution to clean up our rivers, streams and air. Surely to God we can do something to clean up the filth that is being passed into the minds of those who live in this country by those who would subvert us.
I suggest that the government give serious consideration to the passage of a special act in this Parliament. For want of a special name I would entitle it the "Security of the Nation Act." It would clearly set out what lies before those who would try to destroy us, so that they would know their rights and we would know what powers we had to deal with them. Such an act ought to be introduced into the House and debated, with everyone having a chance to express his view.
I further suggest that the government give consideration to the following ideas in connection with the act to which I have referred. First, I believe capital punishment should be reintroduced and made applicable to anyone who blackmails the state, its elected officials or those who are entrusted with the enforcement of the law, such as magistrates and judges. Second, capital punishment should be the penalty for kidnapping and hijacking which endangers the lives of human beings. Third, it should apply to bombing or other acts of violence directed against the state where danger to human life is involved. Fourth, we should deport those who come to this country to encourage the commitment of any of the offences to which I have referred.
I do not think we can afford to tolerate those who advocate political violence in this country if they are not Canadian citizens. Indeed, I wonder whether such people should be tolerated even when they are Canadian citizens. Fourth, I believe that those who belong to associations which advocate the use of violence for political purposes should be regarded as having committed a criminal offence, the penalty for which is a minimum of five years in jail. Fifth, I believe that special powers should be provided in any such act to enable law enforcement officers to deal with insurrection in an effec-
Invoking of War Measures Act tive way. This would not be easy, because this section of the legislation would make permanent such things as arrest without a charge being preferred, and so on. Perhaps this section should only be implemented on the orders of the Governor in Council. Sixth, I believe we also have to make provision ensuring that those charged with sedition or treasonable activity are brought to trial more quickly.
In addition, I believe two further steps should be taken, though they have nothing to do with the act I have proposed. The government, in concert with other governments, should make arrangements with friendly nations-indeed, with all nations, as far as possible-in an effort to have the death penalty imposed for international kidnapping and hijacking offences. Efforts should be made to agree that such countries would not submit to national or international blackmail in any shape or form. If this were done, we might see an end to violence of the kind which is so prevalent today. I also suggest that in conjunction with other states we should take action against those nations which give political asylum to people who perpetrate such crimes. I support the interim measure which is now before us. Like everyone else, I am unhappy that it should be necessary. But it is necessary, and I hope the government will take action by setting up a separate act to deal with this situation in a permanent way in future.
I wish, now, to make some comments on observations made by hon. members opposite. I, too, am disappointed at the reaction of some members of the opposition. I know that were I an opposition member I would have supported this motion, outlined the potential dangers and put the government on notice that it ought to be very careful, and that if it did not exercise these great powers in a responsible way I would be on their tail. I do not think it behooves anyone in this House to oppose this drastic measure taken in order to ensure the security of our country. The leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Douglas) said earlier today that if he were the captain of this ship of state, one of his first acts would be to get rid of me, a barnacle on the ship of state.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Norman Augustine Cafik: Some of you may laugh. You are the very ones who are getting up and crying for the civil rights of the people of this country, yet attempting to deny me mine.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Norman Augustine Cafik: I am no less important in this chamber than any of the members opposite or those on this side of the House, and when I have something to say, I intend to say it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norman Augustine Cafik: I suggest that the leader of the New Democratic Party ought to be very careful before making such stupid and senseless statements. It is unfortunate that I have been so kind to him, but that is my nature. I should

October 16, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act like to close by saying that we all hope and pray that God will give this government and this chamber the courage and the wisdom to know how to act in these difficult times.


An hon. Member:: Amen.


Norman Augustine Cafik: I also hope that the two men who are now captives of these bandits will gain their freedom. I know the government will do everything in its power to try to secure this objective, and I hope to God that they are successful.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) I find myself recalling the words of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) with a good deal of discomfort. I have always had a great deal of admiration for the Minister of Justice; I believe that he will always carry out his job to the best of his ability. He said, in effect, "Don't worry, I realize we are being given too much power, but as long as I hold the job of Minister of Justice the members of this chamber and Canadians generally do not have to worry." I should like to say through you, Mr. Speaker, that if the Minister of Justice were traded for the justice minister of the province of Ontario, I would not feel quite as safe about interpreting the regulations.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
The point I want to emphasize is this. This sort of expression is often used as a Liberal trick, "Don't worry. As long as we are here, we won't do any harm". The fact is that it is the rule of law that governs, not the rule of people. I have absolute trust in the Minister of Justice, and I believe the average Canadian also has trust in the Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: But men may come and men may go. Today we have a certain minister of Justice; before these rules and regulations expire we may have another minister of justice. At the outset may I say that I do not think anyone underestimates the crisis in Quebec at the present time, one which has no doubt brought about the passing of certain Orders in Council bringing into force the War Measures Act and the regulations made thereunder. The Minister of Justice and those working in his department are to be trusted with the powers they have been handed. But, Mr. Speaker, when the members of the government walked into this chamber this morning they had already proclaimed the law. It was proclaimed last night. Therefore, we are now debating something that took place last night. This law was proclaimed before Parliament met this morning.
That is the basic premise upon which I commence my speech. This law came about by executive action and was proclaimed before Parliament met. Although this is no time for recrimination and reproach, surely the government knew for a long time the crisis that existed particularly in this one province, as so ably described by the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), and could and should have taken action. Government members talk about confidentiality, about the element of surprise. This chamber could have met in camera and passed this law. We are all aware of the problems facing the province of Quebec. We are all aware that the situation is such that not only could law and order in the province break up, but so could the unity of this country.
However, it is the method in which the situation was handled about which we are complaining. We have pressed the government to take action. We have been asking the government to establish law and order in the province of Quebec. Many members on this side of the House-though some of us stand alone on this question- wanted our immigration laws tightened up so that the revolutionaries from other places who have caused the crisis in the province of Quebec would have been unable to come to this land and infiltrate themselves into our society in order to erode the rule of law. Consequently, the government must take some responsibility for this situation.
Let me repeat: when Parliament met today, this law was already in effect. The position I want to get across, and I take it to be my leader's position, is that we are saying there must be some extraordinary law passed at this time in order to restore law and order to the province of Quebec and to Canada wherever required. But, Mr. Speaker, what tools should we use in the process? We have asked for a war against crime. We begged the government as long as two or three years ago to set up a royal commission which would document the situation, hear evidence and list all the people who have infiltrated our society. Had this been done, we would have had their names and would have known what they had been doing. However, no action was taken along this line. That is why we asked for a war against crime, against those people who are trying to disrupt society and all that it stands for in Canada today.
I repeat, what kind of tools should we use? You cannot cure one evil with a worse. The first charge I make against the Minister of Justice is that what the government has done is just that; it has tried to cure one evil with a worse. This kind of law is as bad as that which it is trying to cure.


An hon. Member:: What would you have done?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will come to that, if the hon. member would listen. If he had listened to my leader today he would not need to ask that question, so I can only conclude he must have been absent from the Chamber. What this party would have done, as we have already said, is amend the Criminal Code to give it the necessary powers to cope with the situation and the crisis at hand. I congratulate the Minister of Justice for having some sympathy for this position, as revealed in his speech.
After procrastinating for so long, the government decided it needed surprise and it has already sprung its surprise. Let the government bring in next week a law to replace these regulations, a law that would establish the rule of law in Canada and at the same time protect the civil rights of every Canadian. I have heard what the mayor of Montreal said and what the Premier of the

October 16, 1970

province of Quebec said. They asked for action, but they have been asking the government to take action for the last two years and the government has done nothing. The government has now secretly brought into force the War Measures Act.
I should like to quote the words of a man who was the kind of Liberal who used to sit as a member of the Liberal party. I shall read to the House what Mr. Power had to say, as recorded in Hansard, when in 1945 the government brought in a secret Order in Council, P.C.6444. The pertinent part of the order reads as follows:
The Acting Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice, If satisfied that with a view to preventing any particular person from communicating secret and confidential information to an agent of a foreign power or otherwise acting in any maner prejudicial to the public safety or the safety of the state it is necessary so to do, may make an order that any such person be interrogated and/or detained in such place and under such conditions as he may from time to time determine.
Those words are part of an Order in Council passed exactly like the one last evening, by surprise. Mr. Power was one of the members of the executive. I have not heard one Liberal today take a stand against the establishment in the Liberal party, and I am disappointed. I would have thought one of them would have taken a different position from that of the government, but all of them have used the same argument and given the same support. The words of Mr. Power, I suggest, should be remembered tonight while we are debating this resolution.
The government has argued that it does not want to go after the FLQ. We want to be just as tough with the FLQ as the government. In fact, two years ago we wanted to get even tougher. But as William Pitt the Younger said, you can never cure one evil with a worse. This is what Mr. Power said:
As for me, brought up In an atmosphere wherein a framed photograph of Magna Carta was on almost every wall, accompanied with a warrant for the execution of Charles I, and steeped through my reading in the traditions of the martyrs of liberty and freedom, I cannot wish to turn back the pages of history seven hundred years and repeal Magna Carta. I cannot by my silence appear to approve even tacitly what I believe to have been a great mistake on the part of the government.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Our position is that this Order in Council, put into force in this fashion, constitutes a great mistake on the part of the government and that they could have achieved the same ends just as effectively with other methods. They could have returned law and order to the province of Quebec just as effectively by coming to Parliament and bringing about an amendment to the Criminal Code giving the necessary power to police officers to clean up the mess to which the government contributed. This could have been done even if it had been done by the cabinet.
Continuing the quotation, Mr. Power said:
If this is to be the funeral of liberalism I do not desire to be even an honorary pall-bearer at the funeral, and I do not wish by not taking part in this debate to give silent approval to the procedure which has taken place.
Invoking of War Measures Act
Those are the words of a Liberal at that time a secret Order in Council was passed in order to deal with a spy case. I know the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) recalls that matter, because he referred to it in his speech. Let us consider what Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King said when speaking in the House of Commons in 1934, as recorded at page 2342 of Hansard for that period. The House was dealing with the law at that time. He said that we are behind the traditions that are the foundation of law and order. These are the traditions on which law is based.


An hon. Member:: Not to the Liberals.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It may not be to the Liberals. This is what he said:
Now let us come to another point which I wish particularly to stress. I refer to the right set out in Magna Carta that no man shall be dispossessed of his rights without the lawful judgment of his peers under the law of the land; not the law as made by the Governor in Council, not the law as made by some unnamed and as yet unexisting body, but the law of the land as known to everyone.
At six o'clock last night this law was not known to Canadians. At four o'clock this morning it was not known, but it became the law. That is what I meant when I said you are curing one ill by treating it with something worse. The law should not make its first appearance in the Canada Gazette through the power of the Governor in Council rather than that of Parliament. It should appear in the Statutes of Canada. The Minister of Justice said that we have really nothing to worry about because if they change the law through Order in Council, it will come back to Parliament for consideration. The Prime Minister this morning-this was confirmed by the Minister of Justice-left the impression that they had to act quickly. I have some sympathy for that position, but he left the impression that the government would prepare a proper bill to be brought before Parliament and put into the statute books. 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? Does silence indicate it will be? Of course it does not. This Order in Council is the law, and it will be the law for the next six or seven months.
Surely this means, if it means anything, that the Prime Minister in presenting that argument, as confirmed by the Minister of Justice, was handing soft soap to the opposition who were opposed to this kind of law, in order that it might be passed quickly. It would then be passed on to the public of Canada through the news media. I suggest if they meant what they said, they owe it to the Canadian people to keep their word. They should bring in a bill which would provide the kind of law needed to cope with the crisis which exists in Quebec. That is what this party is asking for, and I believe that is all that the opposition members who have spoken have been asking

October 16, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act for. If the government will indicate that this is what they will do, we will confirm the action they have taken to handle this crisis.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It seems to me that the powers under th War Measures Act are particularly stringent. This is so of the Order in Council. We should have a specific statute to cope with a specific situation. There is a crisis in the province of Quebec, but there certainly is not a war. The government says they had to act quickly and so they brought in this Order in Council. They should now put their law drafters to work on a bill to amend the Criminal Code and enact the law necessary to cure this crisis. We would then have a specific law for a specific purpose. If they followed this proper parliamentary procedure the new law would become a permanent part of the Criminal Code.
I am not very concerned about who might be elected a Member of Parliament and appointed Minister of Justice. Whoever it might be, I am sure he would carry out his duties with a degree of responsibility. But when you invoke a law like this, what will happen throughout the country? As the Minister of Justice said today, the administration of justice is a function of the attorneys general of the provinces. So we will have ten attorneys general administering this act. What will happen is that every police officer will have the right to act under this measure. How can the Minister of Justice know what houses are being walked into tonight? How can he tell us tomorrow in the House of Commons the number of doors that have been knocked on, the number of arrests that have been made and the number of people who have been detained without bail, without counsel and without the right of a trial within a certain number of hours or days? How can he fulfil that responsibility? That is the situation which results when you create law by Order in Council rather than by Parliament.
Many policemen are dedicated to their jobs and I am sure the majority of them will carry out their duties with the proper degree of responsibility. However, it takes only a few irresponsible police officers to create a great deal of injustice, and the responsibility for that will lie at the feet of the Minister of Justice. Let us not conclude this debate with the idea that because the Minister of Justice says we should not worry, because he will always accept the responsibility, everyone will interpret the government's intentions with responsibility and the courts will determine that what is intended is reasonable. The actions of the government in this respect have, in effect, made this country a police state. This debate is really a process of speaking and listening. This law existed when the government came into the House: today make no mistake about that. The law was in existence and this debate has given us an opportunity to express ourselves and indicate where we stand.
Through the implementation of the War Measures Act and the Orders in Council contained therein, the government has set aside the constitution and civil rights for everyone in Canada. What is going on in Alberta tonight,

that they need this kind of law? What is going on in British Columbia, that they need this kind of law? Indeed, what is going on in Manitoba, that they need this kind of law, or in Ontario or the Maritimes-


An hon. Member:: And Newfoundland.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, and even Newfoundland.


An hon. Member:: Oh, but Joey is there.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I appreciate that someone might say these criminal elements could move out of the province of Quebec into Ontario or any other province, but that is no excuse for making law by Order in Council and in secret. The law should be known by Canadians who sit in their living rooms and by Canadians who walk the streets. When the law is made by Order in Council, in secret and at night, particularly when it is made retroactive, the civil rights of Canadians leave the purview of this Parliament and go out of the window of every home in Canada. That is the point we are making.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
So, I say this. We have the question of civil rights. What are they? They are the right of the individual to life and the right of the individual to liberty. We have heard so many definitions of liberty. We appreciate the kind of liberty we talk about in respect of Canada when we all give up something for the benefit of the whole society. Then, they talk about freedom of speech. This is evidence that they knew for a long time they were going to do this. In fact, I am convinced that when the Leader of the Opposition asked the question two or three days ago this Proclamation was on the tracing board.
Last night when I was at the CBC I was told the personnel of the CBC had been advised that there was censorship so far as discussion of this problem is concerned on the air, through television or radio. I should like to ask what minister picked up the phone and called President Davidson of the CBC. Had this ever been done when the Conservatives were in office, I wonder what would have happened. I should like to know what minister gave the instruction to the president which caused the close-down of the news last night on the CBC.
We now not only have this type of law, but in addition we have a news agency set up and controlled by the executive of Canada which has become all powerful by means of an order in council implementing the War Measures Act. It does not really matter what position members of the opposition take in respect of this particular Proclamation. If they vote against it, they would be saying they are voting against the methods, although they appreciate the crisis and realize there must be some action taken. If they vote for it they would, in effect, be saying this government was caught because it procrastinated for so long. I am sure these people must have accepted the statements of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice today that a statute would be brought in to replace this secret Order in Council which was made in the middle of the night. If the minister is shak-
October 16, 1970

ing his head, may I say that I at least understood him to say that.


John Napier Turner: I think the hon.
member should read my speech.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: When the minister says I should read his speech this means that he does not intend to do it and that we are going to have a dictatorship in Canada for six months under this particular Order in Council which re-implements the War Measures Act. In fact, there are people in Canada who have believed that this government led by the distinguished right hon. gentleman has wanted this kind of dictatorship for a long time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I said there are some people who believe that. This belief has been confirmed by this type of action because the same objective could have been accomplished by Parliamentary action. There is no need for me to say anything more. I have set out very carefully the reason we have taken the position we have. We say we appreciate the crisis which exists in the province of Quebec. We appreciate the fact that extraordinary measures were necessary. We say they could have been achieved by amending the Code in Parliament through the proper democratic process. That is our position.
We say it is a very dangerous process of law to do this by order in council. This very order in council could be amended tomorrow night without any consultation with Parliament whatsoever. With that, I thank the members of the House for their kind attention.


Mr. John Roberis (York-Simcoe):: I shall not speak for long, Mr. Speaker. I doubt that I shall add to the arguments that have already been presented by members of this House. However, perhaps some of the arguments bear repeating because they do not seem to have penetrated the perception of many members of the opposition. Given the level of perception they have shown in the past, that may not be too surprising. I was essentially provoked to take a part in this debate because of the remarks of the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis). I regret that he is not in the House now. The hon. member gave us a display of rhetorical fireworks instead of the considered judgment of which he is capable. I regret to say that for the first time in the long time I have known him, he descended to the level of a bush league politician. He alluded to the government backbenchers, as I regret to say did the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) later, and said they would be forced to support this government legislation contrary to their conscience. Well, I can tell you I do not hold my conscience in fee to the hon. member for York South, nor to other members of this House. We hold our conscience in relation to our God, so I suggest the hon. member for York South take care of his own and I shall take care of mine.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Moody) Roberts: In the past I have not been afraid to speak against, and vote against, this government when I
Invoking of War Measures Act felt its action might even remotely or intangibly interfere with the area of free speech and civil liberties. I remind the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) that we two found ourselves on the same side on this matter once in the past. It is not a fear of conscience that keeps me from speaking out against this government's decision. It is because this decision has the full support of my conscience that I speak now. I think it important not only for my constituents but for the people of Canada to know that in this House the backbenchers support the government, not out of fear but out of a genuine and honest conviction that this is the only course of action now open to us.
The hon. member for York South, in some peculiar argument in contradiction of the Minister of Justice, said that the argument of the Minister of Justice was wrong because we all feel strongly about this event. Of course, we all feel strongly. But feeling is not enough. Feeling is not the test. The test is what do you do. There are those who feel strongly who are not now faced with the responsibility of action. What we must decide upon is not the feelings of the members of the House but on the action of the government. We must ask ourselves what has that action been? It is not that vague strawman that has been set up by the leader of the New Democratic Party when he spoke about deportation. It is not those lengthy descriptions of possible dangers developed by the hon. member for Greenwood and the hon. member for York South. It is not the kind of scarecrow presented to us by the hon. member for Calgary North, the master of wild accusations, when he speaks about dictatorships and a police state. Those, I suggest, are creatures of his fervid mind.
What we are talking about is this act, and I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Greenwood was less than forthright and open when he alluded to the possible provisions of the act, because he did not go on to explain that in section 3(2), it is precisely under regulations that the act is carried forward. What we should be concerned with are the exact limitations which are imposed on the civil liberties of Canadians, not vaguely and hypothetically through the act, but specifically through the regulations. That is what the government has done. It has brought in regulations and has not utilized the full power which the act provides.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
There is one thing which has concerned me more than anything else throughout this debate. This is the continuing accusations of the "sweeping" nature of the action of the government when in fact it is not sweeping but limited. There have been accusations that there is abrogation of parliamentary authority when in fact we are at this moment involved in bringing this question before the House of Commons so that it can pronounce in an authoritative way on the action the government has taken. The hon. member for Calgary North says, "Oh, they passed this law deep in the night at four o'clock and it doesn't matter what we say." I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that if the House of Commons voted against the

October 16, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act motion today, those regulations would not stay in effect. We are appealing now to the House for its decision.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak on behalf of Quebecers. The hon. member for York-South (Mr. Lewis) has dared do so. He made predictions as to the future of Quebec and acted as spokesman for that province.
I cannot speak on behalf of Quebecers, but I can speak to the French Canadians of Quebec and of Canada with the hope of getting through to them. I want to tell them that some English-speaking Canadians do recognize the situation which their province is facing. I want to tell them that the issue is not one of choosing between imperialism and independence, between isolation and membership in the Confederation, between francophones and anglophones, but of a choice between democratic and liberal institutions mellowed over centuries of tradition. The choice open to Quebecers is one between civilization and barbarism.
Mr. Speaker, I am a young man and if I were a Quebecer, I could perhaps be a separatist. However, I could never be a separatist in an independent Quebec animated by a spirit like the one which we have come to know these last couple of weeks.
The heart of the matter lies not in whether or not Quebec must stay within the Confederation, because if the terrorists come out on top, whether Quebec is in the Confederation or not, Quebec society will fall a victim of terrorism.
The hon. member for York-South has mentioned an "over-reaction" on the government's part. He fears that the population of Quebec will direct its sympathy towards FLQ members.
However, I can see the possibility of a crystalizing of opinion in the province of Quebec.
I hope this will be a true acknowledgement of the facts, for revolution is not a game played by amateurs or an abstraction concocted by intellectuals; it is the thirst for blood rampant in the minds of evil-haunted murderers.
The FLQ terrorists do not fight for the independence of Quebec; they seek violence not order, fear not freedom, distress not peace.

I would also like to say something to my fellow Canadians who are English speaking. That is to emphasize what I have already said in French, that this is not a question of one part of our country being against another, of one faction being against another faction. It is a question of a group of extreme, violent, determined, warped madmen, a tiny group who are seeking to impose
October 16, 1970

through the means of terror and violence their undemocratic will upon a society which has democratically shown that it rejects their pattern for the future of Quebec. The men who have violently conducted their tasks within the past two weeks are no more typical of the Quebec society of today than the Doukhobors with their violence are typical of western Canada.
The greatest error that we could make, a tragic error, would be to let the events of the past seduce us into believing that there is divergence among the views of the English or French speaking Canadians on how those criminals should be treated. I am confident that the people of Quebec will react with hostility and with anger to the desperate actions with which we have been faced.
Liberty must grow out of order. It cannot grow from anarchy and it cannot exist in a society where the government has renounced its responsibility for the preservation of the authority of the law.
We have heard from some members of the opposition today counsel for delay, for drift, for reflection, for compromise, for irresolution, for continued delay in legislation. I say we are face to face with those who believe that power grows out of the barrels of guns, who will fight for power with guns and who will maintain a violent society with bloodshed and guns. It is time for a determination to maintain the principles of civilized conduct and law and order so that we do not relinquish ourselves to that black night of despair of a society which has succumbed to the strength of brute, violent and unprincipled power.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would think that no one on either side of this House could feel the debate we are having here today is not one of great import for the nation. Regardless of what views have been stated here in this debate today, it would be a very foolish person indeed who did not feel we were in effect dealing with the very vitals of the nation itself.
I cannot help but think as well, as I stand here as a member of this House, that there is a very unusual situation in this country tonight in that I am one of the 264 people left in the Dominion of Canada who still have the right to say what they feel and believe. Tragically, none of my fellow citizens has that kind of freedom in this land tonight.


Mr. Olson:: Nonsense; read the regulations.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I am going to deal with the regulations very shortly, but I think it must be a person either with lack of eyesight or ability to read who has looked at these regulations even quickly and not realized the kind of sweeping power that has been given to less than 30 men in terms of the freedoms, rights and privileges exercised in a free society. And while some may not be thinking it tonight, I believe that many of our fellow citizens will look back on this day, this black Friday in Canadian history and say, "This is the end of what has been termed a just society." The just society has come to mean, and will come to mean, the suspension
Invoking oj War Measures Act of freedoms and privileges for the citizens of this country.
We have been concerned over the last week or two weeks with the kidnapping of two eminent men in our society, one a citizen of this country, the other a diplomat. We have been concerned about the fate of these two men, the possible securing of their freedom, and the questionable ransom involved. Now, we are not just concerned with the ransom of two men, we are concerned about the possible ransom of 21 million people in this country. I, for one, engage in this debate not with any great sense of wellbeing as to the outcome of this action by the government of the country.
What has been done? There has been some suggestion here today that we have spent too much time looking at the War Measures Act because, as speaker after speaker on the government side has said, from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on down, "We have been asked to take this action and proclaim the War Measures Act. We have of necessity proclaimed it as an act in effect, but we have confined ourselves to these regulations." And while I think it would be quite possible, as it has indeed been possible for many members of the House, to make the case that at two o'clock, three o'clock or four o'clock tomorrow morning, or any morning, the government might want to expand and broaden these powers, I am quite prepared for the purpose of this debate to confine myself to what the regulations have to say. I think that any person concerned with the basic functioning of a free society, giving only a modest amount of thought to these regulations, would be disturbed to the greatest possible degree.
I invite members of the House to look at the regulations with me and to examine, first of all, the interpretation of particularly important words used in the regulations. Perhaps I should even raise a question at this stage upon which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) could advise us, although I am not sure that a legal opinion given by him in this House would be binding in any future legal action. The first definition of which I speak, concerning a peace officer, reads;
-a peace officer as defined in the Criminal Code and includes a member of the Canadian Armed Forces;
We are not told by this definition whether that means active or reserve, duty or off-duty. One could well wonder at the kind of implications this might have for men who might suddenly be faced with a situation which would lead them to take the law into their own hands. Certainly, there is no definition along those lines in this particular interpretation.
But that is not the most serious of the interpretative aspects of these regulations because in the very next paragraph, in the definition of statements, we find this:
"statements" includes words spoken or written or recorded electronically or electromagnetically or otherwise, and gestures, signs or other visible representations;
I ask members of the House what kind of sweeping power does this give to any police officer or any court when the reference is to gestures, signs or other visible representations, which could be part and parcel of man's indictment? We have a Prime Minister who is very well

October 16, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act known for the kind of gestures, the kind of signs and other visible representations that he makes from time to time. Some of them he demonstrated for us here in this House today. Are we to be told that if a man makes a certain sign with his hand, with his head, with a shrug, with a wink, or with a nod that this will be regarded as incriminating evidence? There is no reason not to believe that if the situation is treated as desperately as some people are prepared to treat it, this could well be used as an argument for a man's arrest, indictment and conviction.
Those are the kinds of regulations that we are being asked to approve, quite aside from other major provisions in the War Measures Act itself. We are being asked to believe that membership in a particular organization is to be considered a crime. Earlier, when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) spoke, he indicated that to him this was one of the most objectionable parts because, for the first time in the history of this nation, it expresses a willingness to believe people guilty of a crime because of
the ideas they hold, or the thoughts they might profess. This strikes at the very heart of the freedom of speech and expression in this country, or in any other country that seeks to be free.
We are told that if a person advocates the use of force or the commission of crime as a means of accomplishing governmental change, this is also to be regarded as being a criminal act. I do not have to remind members of this House, because we are continually altering and changing the Criminal Code, that from time to time the Criminal Code itself becomes obsolete and incapable of enforcement.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: It being ten o'clock, pursuant to the order made earlier this day, this House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.
At ten o'clock the House adjourned pursuant to special order.
October 16, 1970



APPENDIX


[Stage Direction]
Quebec City, October 16, 1970.
Mr. Prime Minister,
During the last few days the people of Quebec have been greatly shocked by the kidnapping of Mr. James R. Cross, representative of the British Government in Montreal, and the Hon. Pierre Laporte, Minister of Labour and Manpower and Minister of Immigration of Quebec, as well as by the threats to the security of the state and individuals expressed in communiques issued by the Front de Liberation du Quebec or on its behalf, and finally by all the circumstances surrounding these events.
After consultation with authorities directly responsible fpr th£ adminijtr'ation of justice in Quebec, the Quebec Government is convinced that the law, as it stands now, is inadequate to meet this situation"satisfactorily. JT
Under the circumstances, on behalf of the Government of Quebec, I request that emergency powers be provided as soon as possmTe" so that more 'effective steps may be taTEemT request particularly that such powers encompass the authority to ~ apprehend and keep m cusiory individuals w'ho, the ' Attorney ueneral ot Quenec has valid reasons to believe, are determined to overthrow thg* governmen!""tlirough violence anti illegal means. According to the information we have and which is available to you, we are facing a concerted effort to intimidate and overthrow tne government aha the democratic institutions of this province tnrough planned and T svdprmjpf- illegal action, including insurrection. lF~ls obvious that those participating in this concerted effort completely reject the principle of freedom under the rule of law.
The Quebec Government is convinced that such powers are necessary to meet the present emergency. Not only\£ are two completely innocent men threatened with death, but we are also faced with an attempt, by a minority, to destroy social order through criminal action; it is for those reasons that our government is making the present request.
The government is confident that, through such powers, it will be able to put an immediate stop to intimidation and terror and to ensure peace and security for all citizens.
Please accept, Mr. Prime Minister, my very best regards.
Robert Bourassa
The Right Honourable Pierre Elliott Trudeau,
Prime Minister of Canada,
House of Commons,
Ottawa

[Stage Direction]
Office of the Chairman of the Excutive Committee 15 October 1970
City Hall
The Right Honourable Pierre Elliott Trudeau, P.C., Q.C., Prime Minister of Canada,
Parliament Buildings,
Ottawa, Canada
Mr. Prime Minister,
The chief nf the Montreal Police Service has informed us that the means available to him are proving inade- ^ q3&t£ 5M that the assistance of higher levels of govern-rrifiWT. fifls bScAthe essential for the protection of society a'MffWT. T.fifi flEfUtlfiUs plot and the apprehended insurrec-tiBTnir^lylnch the recent kidnappings were the first gtep.
as a matter of the utmost Urgency tlger^port de^cribin^ the scope of the threat and the urgentneeTToremforce the machinery to cope with it.
We ask for every measure of assistance the federal government may deem useful and desirable in order to carry out the task of protecting society and the life of citizens in this difficult period.
Lucien Saulnier	Jean Drapeau
Chairman of	Mayor of Montreal
the Executive Committee
Police Department	City of Montreal
Office of the Director	City Hall Annex
October 15, 1970
His Lordship Mayor Jean Drapeau
Mr. Lucien Saulnier
Chairman of the Executive Committee
Gentlemen:
An extremely dangerous subversive organization has gradti&Ily developed in Quebec over the last several years wlTH. a"vlfew to preparing the overthrow of the legitimate government by seditious means and eventually armed
The recent kidnappings of a foreign diplomat and of a minister of the Crown of the province of Quebec by this organization are the first stage of its seditious plan and of activities leading directly to insurrection and the overthrow of the State.
Under the circumstances..the investigation which must be carried out by police authorities must necessarily include all the activities of the various cells of this seditious organization and should not be restricted, ifrt is
[Stage Direction]
October 16, 1970
not to be doomed to failure to a mere search for the
iljlfi'Yiiilials whn Khvp ncrpplratpH ()]p 'fifjfonns kidnapping
dUJie-two (2) persons who _ac£_ still being held.
The threat to our society from this seditious conspiracy thaf'has sw'unp intd~aot.inn in the la'gt'ffipwh p days. the investigation problems created hv the internal ture oi this organization divided into many small autonomous cells..and the incredible amount of decking"and se^mngumBQSfid^MiQaJisJiaszEJaxed-and are taxing to the	utmost the -aasnurces available to our Police Department.
The extreme urgency of obtaining concrete results in tmcovering all the ramifications of this organization and its seditious activities, the volume and complexity of evidence to be gathered 1Z7A filer^ fjpallv the enormous taste that we must carry out without resorting to
unhealthy and undesirable repression, make it essential for~hiiJner 1hvHlij~Of~Muyermnelllij' 10 G71file*~T5^ur'*'a^sistance if we are to succeed.
The slow pace of procedures and the restrictions resulting from the legal machinery and means at our disposal do not allow us to meet the situation.
Consequently, ^recommend to the Executive Committee of the City to ask the higher levels of government to give us the means'which in their estimation are £ Intable and useful to enable us to gather and submit the"'evidence necessary t.o protect society against the seditions and insurrectionary activities triggered by the kidnappings.
Very truly yours,
M. St-Pierre, Director.
[Stage Direction]
Saturday. October 17, 1970