1970-11-25

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege in connection with a statement made yesterday evening by the hon. member for Port-neuf (Mr. Godin).
As recorded in Hansard at page 1441, the hon. member stated, and I quote:
Hon. members know how sensitive I am and incapable of expressing malevolent views of making charges.
This might be the only time he said anything true since the rest of his speech is made up of slanderous and inexcusable charges directed against the bar association and myself.
At the end of his speech, the hon. member for Portneuf made a reference to a speeding charge laid against him and mentioning the member for Lapointe he stated the following:
At the same time, the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Marceau) a Liberal member, went through a 30 mile an hour zone at 100 miles an hour. He simply had to pay $50 fine. Well if politics do not come into play in cases like that, I certainly would like to know.
I should like to say to the hon. member for Portneuf and to other members of this House that our private lives have nothing to do with our proceedings and that hon. members are in no way interested in learning about them.
The charge laid by the hon. member for Portneuf is entirely inaccurate and the circumstances under which he was fined $250 are entirely different from those in my case. I wish to say to the hon. member that such charges made in the absence of the person concerned indicate a narrow-mindedness about which I will say no more.
I do not associate all Ralliement creditiste members with such statements, because I have the pleasure of knowing several of them who are honest and charming people. I must say, none the less, that the hon. member for Portneuf disappoints me greatly when he refers to such things. I hope he will withdraw his remarks in due time if he wants us to remain friends.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs-Mr. Tolmie.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table in English and French copies of the communique issued by the Joint Canada-United States Committee on Trade and Economic Affairs which concluded its meetings yesterday afternoon.


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the past it has been customary for a minister or several ministers of the Crown to report to Parliament on motions following discussions with their counterparts in the United States government. It is not sufficient to fob off the House with a communique which has already been given to the press.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The
minister has the responsibility on motions not only to table the communique but to make a statement to the House as to the items that were discussed and the conclusions that were reached.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: I can assure the hon. member that if he will read the communique he will find that all those points are covered.

[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)



AUDITOR GENERAL


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43 I ask for unanimous consent to make a motion without notice being given.
The urgent circumstances are as follows: The almost universal opposition in the media and from individuals to the provisions of Bill C-190 makes it clear that Canadians take the strongest objection to any attempt to restrict the authority of the Auditor General. Nevertheless, the continuance of the bill on the order paper in its present form constitutes an attempt to intimidate and harass the Auditor General in the discharge of his duties and to inhibit his examination of such government spending as the substantial increase in costs alleged in respect of the destroyer construction program.

November 25, 1970
Motor Vehicle Safety Act
I therefore ask leave to put the following motion:
That in the view of this House the government should forthwith withdraw Bill C-190 and bring in a new bill along the lines of the draft bill which the Public Accounts Committee requested the Auditor General to submit to the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure, of course, that the motion is in order because it anticipates an order of the day, but obviously I do not think I should be called upon to rule on this point. What I should ascertain is whether there is unanimous consent to put the motion at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As the hon. member will recognize, there is no unanimity and obviously the motion cannot be put.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!



CANADIAN BOOK PUBLISHING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Introduction of Bills:
November 16, 1970-Mr. Howard (Skeena)-Bill intituled: "An Act to establish the Canadian Book Publishing Development Corporation".
Mr. Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, since Your Honour drew attention the other day, after a quick glance, to some of the provisions of the bill covered by this notice I have taken your advice, looked at it very closely and have concluded that perhaps it does not meet the test of the rules of the House. Accordingly, I should like to withdraw the notice.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has foreseen the ruling I would have to make on this point. I did look at the bill closely and noticed one clause entitled "financial". I also noticed a striking though, I am sure, accidental similarity to another bill called an Act to amend the Canadian Film Development Corporation Act, and I am sure that if the hon. member will consult the Journals for June 20, 1966 he will note that this bill had been preceded by a resolution. In the circumstances I believe the hon. member is wise to ask the unanimous consent of the House to withdraw the bill. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and bill withdrawn.



MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY ACT


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-198, to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (seat belts).

He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to require that as an additional Canadian motor vehicle safety standard buses and trucks travelling on interprovincial highways be equipped with safety belts and that the use of these safety belts by the drivers of the equipment be mandatory. This is in line with recent legislation in the United States.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Nyslrom: 1.	How much federal money is allocated for the Fashion Design Assistance Program (the program in co-operation with major industries) ?
2.	How many people are employed?
3.	How many years has the program been in operation?


Mr. Bruce Howard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. In 1970/71, total federal allocation for the Fashion Design Assistance Program is:
Program administration and operation, including salaries	$27,400
Grants, bursaries and awards to promote design	32,000
Total	$59,400
2.	One officer, full-time, plus one secretary, half-time.
3.	This program is in its first year of operation.


OIL EXPLORATION PERMITS-BANKS ISLAND, N.W.T.
Mr. Orlikow: 1 Did the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development issue permits recently for oil exploration on Banks Island in the Northwest Territories and, if so, which companies received these permits?
2.	Was there any consultation with the native people of Banks Island prior to the issuance of these permits?
3.	Were any representations received by the Government of Canada from the native people on Banks Island urging that no further exploration take place until consultations be made with the Eskimo people and, if so, what has been the response of the Government of Canada?


Mr. Judd Buchanan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. No,
the permits involved in the agreement between the Department and Deminex and Elf Oil Exploration Company Limited regarding the methods of conducting exploration on Banks Island were issued in December, 1964, May, 1965 and July, 1968.
2.	No.
November 25, 1970

3.	Yes, representations were received and the Department consulted with the Eskimo people on Banks Island after the abovementioned Oil Companies indicated their intentions to commence geophysical operations. After meetings with representatives of the native people and oil companies, the oil companies were required to sign agreements containing stringent conditions governing the conduct of their explorations. These conditions were aimed at protecting the wildlife and safeguarding the traplines. A copy of the agreement signed by the companies was tabled in the House of Commons on October 21, 1970.


CONSIDERATION OF INCLUDING IN COMPUTATION OF GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT VALUE OF HOUSEWIFE AND HOUSEHOLD DOMESTIC SERVICES
Mr. Broadbenl: 1.	Is the Government of Canada and the Dominion fiureau of Statistics giving consideration to including the computation of the Gross National Product the value of the housewife and of household domestic services?
2.	Has any department or agency undertaken estimates of household domestic services made on the basis of equivalent values for paid domestic services at market rates and, if so, what percentage of the Gross National Product do these estimates represent?


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: 1. In following the standard national accounting conventions used to define production, the Dominion Bureau of Statistics has excluded the value of the housewife and household domestic services from the measurement of the Gross National Product. At the present time no consideration is being given to include this item in the computation of the Gross National Product.
2. No.
Questions


DARTMOUTH, N.S.-FEDERAL BUILDING
Mr. Forresiall: 1.	How long has it been since the clock in the Dartmouth federal building ceased to work?
2.	What is wrong with it and how much would it cost to have it repaired?
3.	Will it be repaired and, if so, when?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: 1. 1965.
2.	The mechanism of the clock is worn out and requires extensive repairs. Estimated cost of repairs is $3,000. and if such repairs were carried out, no guarantee could be given that the clock would remain in operating condition for any period of time.
3.	No.


DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS-LEASED SPACE- OTTAWA AND HULL
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	How many square feet of office space is now rented in Ottawa and Hull by the Department of Public Works?
2.	What is the annual cost?
3.	How much of the leased space is now empty?
4.	What is the location of such space?
5.	What are the plans of the government concerning the above-mentioned?


Arthur Laing: 1. As of
October 15, 1970: Ottawa, 4,599, 144 square feet of leased office space. Hull, 24,765 square feet of leased office space.
2.	Annual rental of office space given in Part 1: Ottawa, $18,532,288. Hull, $85,163. Note: The figures quoted are annual rental costs only.
3,	4 and 5. See list following:
Leased Office Space Now Vacant
Building	Address	Floor	Vacant Area in Square Feet	RemarksBerger	. ... 100 Metcalfe Street	4	3,812	Space requested by Department of CommunicationsBourque	. ... Rideau Street	2	4,312	Alterations to accommodate computer facilities for Manpower and Immigration DepartmentConcord	.... 280 Albert Street	3	1,742	Space assigned to Supply and Services Department for computer expansionCopeland	[DOT] ... 294 Albert Street	B.1.2.3.4.6.	8,624	6th floor area requested by S. of S. Translation Balance for interim External Affairs Department expansionKenson	
225 Metcalfe Street	6	4,170	Being prepared for Department of Public Works office planning demonstration areaKent-Albert	.... 150 Kent Street	4	2,859	Space assigned to Travel BureauLaurier	7	10,400	For Department of Labour expansionMcDougall	.... 529 Sussex Street	4	1,267	Space assigned to Department of National Revenue, Customs and ExciseTower "A"	... Albert Street	4	7,500	Space assigned to Department of Industry, Trade and CommerceTrebla	... 467 Albert Street	4	3,050	Space assigned to Department of Transport (H.Q.)
November 25, 1970
Questions


DARTMOUTH, N.S.-FEDERAL BUILDING
Mr. Forresiall: Have plans been made for a new federal building in the City of Dartmouth and, if so, when will such plans be proceeded with?


Arthur Laing: Not at
the present time.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE-PART-TIME WORKERS-BEAUCE CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Rodrigue: Does the government have any part-time employees in rural ridings for the purpose of assisting workers in preparing their unemployment insurance applications and, if so (a) what are the names and addresses of these people in the constituency of Beauce (b) what is their annual salary?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: (a) and (b)
There are no part-time employees in rural ridings. Workers may apply to a regular employee of the UIC itinerant office in Ville St-Georges, Beauce County, to obtain whatever information they need.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE-PART-TIME WORKERS KAMOURASKA CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Dionne: 1.	Does the government have any part-time employees in rural ridings to assist workers in preparing their unemployment insurance applications and, if so, what are the names and addresses of the persons in the constituency of Kamouraska?
2.	What is their annual salary?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: 1. and 2.
The workers in the constituency of Kamouraska are directly assisted by the UIC office of Riviere-du-Loup to obtain whatever information they need.


CANADIAN TV-CUTTING OF FILMS
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many films shown on Canadian TV in the years 1969 and 1970 were cut in length from the original film?
2.	What was the average amount of time the films were cut when shown on Canadian television?
3.	Has CRTC done any research into the cutting of the films shown on television and, if so, what research has been done and is the cutting of the film considered to be an unfair or deceptive practice to the public?


Hon. Gerard Pelleiier (Secreiary of Stale):: 1. I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that the CBC keeps no record of the films or other programs cut in length for presentation on television. Complete film or tape programs may be cut in length for one or more of the following reasons: (a) In the case of a television series produced in North America, the program length may have to be cut very slightly in order to accommodate commercial messages, institutional announcements, or program promotional items, (b) Film programs produced in Europe that are not specifically tailored to
North American requirements may have to be shortened slightly because the television projection rate in North America is 4% slower than in Europe, (c) Feature films produced for theatrical release rarely accord with the required program length. Usually features have to be edited to fit the program time slot available, although occasionally they are short enough to be presented in their original form, (d) Film or tape programs that contain unredeemed violence, illegal visual or sound content, or in which there is extreme exploitation of the emotions, are cut by the minimum amount necessary, where these programs are otherwise desirable.
In the case of television series, wherever possible the cuts are made where there is no dialogue, and in every case a conscientious attempt is made to respect the integrity of the original production or story line. In the editing of features, the original concept and balance are preserved as much as possible. Films regarded as "classics", or those produced by acknowledged masters of the cinema, are invariably either presented intact or not at all. In the preparation of a magazine type program a short segment illustrating a particular topic is sometimes taken from a longer film.
2.	I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: (a) On North American television series where cutting is necessary, approximately 40 seconds in a half-hour program and approximately 50 seconds in programs lasting an hour or longer, (b) Feature films scheduled at the end of the broadcast day are usually allowed to run out without any cuts. Those scheduled earlier, when the timing is more inflexible, are edited by the amount of time necessary to enable them to fit the time period available. Typically, this could run between five and twenty-five minutes.
3.	I am informed by the Canadian Radio Television Commission that the CRTC has not conducted any special research on this matter. Through its monitoring activities, the study of station logs, and its general surveillance of program practice, the Broadcast Programs Branch of the CRTC is familiar with the fact that episodes of television series produced outside Canada are sometimes cut by small amounts to accommodate advertising material. Feature length films, not made originally for television, frequently are cut to fit the more rigid time schedule of television. The manner in which the editing is done is extremely important so that the deletions do not distort or destroy the dramatic sequence of events in the original. But unfortunately the Commission has been unable to do any research on the subject.


OIL INDUSTRY IN CANADA
Mr. Harding: 1.	What were Canada's estimated oil reserves for the years 1965 to 1969 inclusive in terms of (a) barrels (b) number of years supply?
2.	For the same years, how many barrels of oil were (a) produced in Canada (b) imported (c) consumed in Canada (d) exported?
3 For the same years, what percentage of possible maximum capacity was produced by Canada's oil industry?

November 25, 1970


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: The Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports:
1.	Canadian Estimated Crude Oil Reserves, 1965-69*
Proven	No. of Probable No. of
Year	Reserves Years Reserves Years
(thousands	(thousands
of barrels)	of barrels)
1965	
6,711,237	23.0	8,800,512	30.2I960	
7,791,751	24.4	9,798,958	30.61967	
14,518,924	*	41.4	16,588,805	*	47.31968	
14,731,613*	38.9	16,806,786*	44.41969	
14,969,805*	36.5	16,832,714*	41.0
'Includes Synthetic Crude.
'Proven and probable reserves include synthetic crude oil which could be recovered by the existing oil sands plant. These estimates in no way detract from published estimates of approximately 300 billion barrels which are estimated to be recoverable from the Athabasca type oil sands by mining and thermal processes.
2.	Crude Oil-Net Production, Imports,
Consumed in Canada and Exports' 1965-69
(in thousands of barrels)
Net	Consumed in
Withdrawals	Canada
Crude Oil and	(Refinery
Year	Equivalent Imported Receipts) Exported
1965	
319,608	144,204	352,582	107,6971966	
349,140	158,544	378,743	126,7991967	
381,168	162,095	387,488	151,3561968	
411,827	178,415	414,299	169,2301969	
448,715	190,507	432,514	202,718
'Includes Synthetic Crude. * 1 2
3. The percentage of possible maximum capacity produced by Canada's oil industry is as follows:
1965	34.9	per	cent (Estimated)1966	37.8	per	cent1967	39.6	per	cent1968	36.8	per	cent1969	42.0	per	cent


PRESCRIPTION INDEX OF THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX
Mr. Sallsman: 1.	At the time Royal Assent was given to Bill C-102, of the 1st Session of this Parliament what was the prescription index of the consumer price index for Canada in the major cities of Canada according to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics?
2.	For the latest available month, what is the prescription index of the consumer price index for Canada in the major cities of Canada according to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics?


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: The Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports that: 1 and 2. Royal Assent
Questions
was given to Bill C-102, June 27, 1969. The prescription indexes of the consumer price indexes for regional cities of Canada in June, 1969, and September, 1970, the latest available month, were as follows:
Prescription Indexes (1961 = 100)
City	June 1969	September 1970St. John's	113.3	112.0Halifax	102.9	102.9Saint John	106.3	106.6Montreal	94.8	97.3Ottawa	90.1	88.5Toronto	92.0	90.9Winnipeg	92.3	93.9Saskatoon	103.8	104.2Regina	96.6	97.4Edmonton	108.0	107.1Calgary	98.9	96.5Vancouver	93.5	94.4


DISTRIBUTION OF SPEECHES FROM THE THRONE
Mr. Mazankowski: 1 How many copies of the Speech from the Throne opening the Third Session of the Twenty-Eighth Parliament, October 8, 1970 were printed?
2.	What was the distribution of same?
3.	How many copies of the Speech from the Throne closing the Second Session of the Twenty-Eighth Parliament, October 7. 1970, were printed?
4.	What was the distribution of same?
Mr. Barney Danson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister): 1. 1,500.
3. 825.
2 and 4.
Opening	Closing
Third	Second
Session	Session
To House of Commons Distribution Office and to officials of the
House and Senate	420	320To Press Gallery	150	100Initial distribution to government departments and agencies	400	200
No distribution records were maintained for the balance which were made available on a limited request basis from members of parliament, the press and government departments and agencies and to public organizations and universities and individuals thereof until the supply was exhausted.


CRTC-AWARDING OF CABLE SYSTEM CONTRACTS
Mr. McCleave: 1.	(a) What cable system contracts have been awarded in
Nova Scotia by the Canadian Radio-Television Commission (b) what are the names of the successful companies (c) what areas will they serve (d) upon what terms were the licences granted?
2 Who are the officers and their postal addresses, of the successful companies, and if not officers, who will manage the systems on their behalf, and what are the postal addresses of such persons?
3.	What reasons governed the decision in each case?
1460

November 25, 1970
Questions


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Canadian Radio Television Commission as follows: 1. (a) Four, (b) 1. Eastern Cablevision Ltd.- Truro and Bible Hill. 2. Coratel Services Ltd.-Services Coratel Ltee-Truro. 3. A company being presently incorporated as Halifax Cablevision Limited. (4) A company presently being incorporated as Dartmouth Cable Television Limited, (c) 1. Truro-Bible Hill. 2. Colchester Hospital, Truro, N.S. 3. Halifax. 4. Dartmouth, (d) In July 1970, the two companies Eastern Cablevision Limited and Coratel Services Ltd. were granted a renewal of their licences for a three year period. The two companies to be incorporated were granted licences for a period of three years. The approval of these two applications is conditional upon the CATV licensees having effective ownership and control of the local head-end, amplifier and associated equipment and upon both systems carrying the programming of the French language TV service of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
2.	1. Officers: E. Goguen, President (98%); D. Goguen, Vice-President (1%); B. Goguen, Sec.-Treasurer (1%). Address: Eastern Cablevision Limited, 69 Walker Street, Truro, N.S. 2. Directors: G. H. Day (20%); D. O'C. Doheny (20%); T. G. Grivakes (13.3%); J. E. Lawrence (13%); D. B. S. MacKenzie (13.3%). Address: Suite 1203, 5 Place Ville-Marie, Montreal, Que. 3. Directors: A Irvine Barrow (47.5%); A. Garnet Brown (47.48%); J. Keith Lawton (5%); Donald D. Anderson (.02%). Address: Royal Bank Building, Portland Street, Dartmouth, N.S. 4. Directors: Frank M. Leaman (49.96%); Charles Keating (50%); Frank C. Leaman (.02%); Helen V. Lea-man (.02%). Address: 12 Dunolly Street, Dartmouth, N.S.
3.	1-2. These two cable systems have been in operation for a number of years and prior to April 1, 1968, they were licensed under the Radio Act. The approvals
granted by the Canadian Radio-Television Commission licensed the continuance of these two systems. 3-4. Approval of these two applications is conditional upon the CATV licensees having effective ownership and control of the local head-end, amplifier and associated equipment and upon both systems carrying the programming of the French language TV service of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The Commission noted that the two systems propose carrying programs from the same broadcasting stations and it expects this arrangement to be continued. The Commission proposes to discuss ownership and control of the distant head-end with each party. In the opinion of the Commission, there should be only one CATV system licensed to serve Halifax and only one to serve Dartmouth.


CANADIAN BALANCE OF INTERNATIONAL PAYMENTS, GNP. ETC.
Mr. Saltsman: 1.	For each year 1955 to 1969, what are the total interest and dividend (a) receipts (b) payments (c) net balance in Canada's Balance of International Payments?
2.	For the same years, what is the net balance in Canadian interests and dividends, as a percentage of Canada's gross National Product?
3.	For the same years, what are the total (a) receipts (b) payments (c) net balance of current transactions, other than interest and dividends, in the Canadian Balance of International Payments?
4.	For the same years, what is the net balance of current transactions other than interests and dividends, as a percentage of Canada's gross National Product?


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: The Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports that: 1., 2., 3., and 4., are answered in the following table.
Canadian Balance of International Payments
Interest and Dividend Year Receipts1	Interest and Dividend Payments1	Net Balance	Net Balance as Percent of G.N.P.	Total Current Receipts, less Interest and Dividend	Total Current Payments, less Interest and Dividend	Balance	Net Balance as Percent of G.N.P.Question No.-	la	lb	lc	2	3a	3b	3c	4(millions of dollars)	%	(millions of dollars)	%1955	161	473	-312	1.1	5,698	6,873	-375	1.31956...	142	524	-382	1.2	6,333	7,323	-990	3.21957	153	594	-441	1.3	6,376	7,386	-1,010	3.11958	167	614	-447	1.3	6,285	6,975	-690	2.01959.	180	671	-491	1.4	6,633	7,629	-996	2.7I960	171	656	-485	1.3	6,965	7,713	-748	2.01961	213	764	-551	1.4	7,575	7,952	-377	1.01962...	202	783	-581	1.4	8,221	8,470	-249	0.61963 ..	230	860	-630	1.4	9,059	8,950	109	0.21964 .	332	1,010	-678	1.4	10,415	10,161	254	0.51965	322	1,086	-764	1.4	11,159	11,525	-366	0.71966 	318	1,140	-822	1.3	13,078	13,418	-340	0.61967 	295	1,211	-916	1.4	14,790	14,373	417	0.61968 .	353	1,259	-906	1.3	16,831	16,032	799	1.11969	414	1,345	-931	1.2	18,508	18,368	140	0.2
*Includes interest on long-term bonds and debentures and intergovernmental debt, earnings on international reserves, dividends and profits of unincorporated branches.
[Mr. McCleave.l
November 25, 1970


RESTRICTION OF EXPANSION DUE TO GOVERNMENT'S AUSTERITY AND ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM
Mr. Robinson: How many companies and businesses have restricted their expansion of operation as a result of the government's austerity and anti-inflation programme?


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Investment decisions by companies are normally made in the light of anticipated growth in market demand and rate or return on the investment. One purpose of the government's anti-inflationary program is to hold down costs thus enabling producers to become internationally competitive with resulting benefits in terms of sales growth and improved returns on investment.
No information is available on the number of companies that would have had a slower or more rapid rate of expansion had there been no government anti-inflationary program.


DEBT OWED BY TANZANIA TO CANADA
Mr. Robinson: What debt, if any, is owed by Tanzania to Canada and what are the terms of repayment?


Mitchell William Sharp: The answer, in so far as CIDA is concerned, is $3,450,000 comprised of three development loans. All three loans have a 50 year maturity, ten year grace period and 0 per cent interest.


INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION TO FACILITATE LABOUR AND MANAGEMENT SETTLING LABOUR CONTRACT DISPUTES
Mr. Southam: Is it the intention of the government to introduce legislation in this session to better facilitate labour and management setting their labour contract disputes?


James Alexander Jerome: Yes. Attention is directed to page 2 of Hansard dated October 8, 1970.


MEDICARE ACT-CONSIDERATION OF OPTOMETRIC SERVICES
Mr. Southam: 1.	Is the government giving consideration to including opto-metric services in the shared-cost benefits under the Medicare Act on a Canadian-wide basis?
2.	If not, is due consideration being given to compensating British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario on a shared-cost basis who are already providing these opto-metric services to their Medicare patients under their respective health plans?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. The question of including optometric services as shared-cost benefits under the Medical Care Act is under consideration and will be discussed at the forth-23568-22J
Questions
coming Federal-Provincial Conference of ministers of health.
2. Not applicable.


VALUE OF EXPORTS AND IMPORTS IN LAST TEN YEARS
Mr. Laprise: 1.	For each of the past ten years, what was the (a) aggregate (b) per capital value of our exports?
2.	For each of the past ten years, what was the (a) aggregate (b) per capita value of our imports?


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: The Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports that:
1.	Per capita and total exports for the past ten years are shown on the following table.
2.	Per capita and total imports for the past ten years are shown on the following table.
Table showing per capita and total Exports and Imports
Year	Domestic Exports	Domestic Exports per capita	Imports	Imports per capita(S'000)	(*)	($'000)	c$)1960	... 5,255,575	326.25	5,482,695	345.051961	... 5,754,986	334.91	5,768,578	340.281962	... 6,178,523	335.16	6,257,776	344.861963	... 6,798,529	358.75	6,558,209	351.191964	... 8,094,219	426.92	7,487,707	399.761965	... 8,525,078	434.01	8,633,148	445.201966	... 10,070,627	499.03	9,866,439	508.121967	... 11,120,674	540.41	11,075,199	537.421968	... 13,250,960	633.15	12,357,982	601.721969	... 14,486,988	687.86	14,130,353	670.91


OTTAWA-ANIMAL DISEASES RESEARCH BUILDING
Mr. Foster: Does the Government of Canada plan to proceed with the construction of a new Animals Diseases Research Institute during the next fiscal year and, if so (a) what will be the cost of the new building (b) how many square feet of space will be included (c) what will be its location?


Arthur Laing: So far
as the Department of Public Works is concerned: It is planned to proceed with the construction of the Main Pathology Office-Laboratory, for the Animal Diseases Research Institute during the next fiscal year, subject to the approval of funds by Parliament, (a) It is not the practice to reveal estimated costs of projects prior to the awarding of a contract, (b) The Office-Laboratory building will provide approximately 245,000 gross square feet of space, (c) The building will be located on the Greenbelt Farm,. Ottawa.

November 25, 1970
Questions


WHITEHORSE, Y.T.-FEDERAL BUILDING
Mr. Nielsen: 1.	How many tenders were received for a contract to provide lighting improvements to the Federal Building in Whitehorse?
2.	What were the names of the contractors who submitted bids and the amount of each such bid?
3.	Has the contract been completed and, if not, what is the anticipated completion date?


Arthur Laing: 1. Five.
Contractor	Amount
S. Montgomery Contractors Ltd.	$123,412.
Houle Electric Ltd.	128,400.
Knight and Waring Co. Ltd.	148,795.
Huber Electric Ltd.	153,188.
Northwest Electric Ltd.	164,258.
3. No. The anticipated completion date is before the end of the calendar year.


LOTBINIERE CONSTITUENCY-ADULT TRAINING PROGRAM
Mr. Fortin: 1.	How many residents of the constituency of Lotbiniere follow courses under the Adult Training Program at the following levels (a) Grade VII (b) Grade VIII (c) Grade IX (d) Grade X?
2.	How many follow upgrading courses in each discipline?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. (a) Grade VII-Nil; (b) Grade VIII-116; (c) Grade IX-17; (d) Grade X-59.
2. Agricultural Training: 79; Motor Vehicle Mechanics -Upgrading: 15; 2-4 cycle Motor Mechanics: 13; Sewing-Machine Operator:	15; Upholsterer (Furniture):	14;
Bilingual Stenographers and typists: 15; Clerk, Office, Sale: 17. In addition to the above, there are 51 residents of Lotbiniere who follow courses outside the constituency -for a grand total of 411.


LOTBINIERE CONSTITUENCY-OLD AGE PENSION AND GUARANTEED INCOME SUPPLEMENT
Mr. Fortin: How many people in the constituency of Lotbiniere receive the Old Age Pension and, of these, how many receive the Guaranteed Income Supplement?

Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): Old Age Security statistics are not maintained in such a way as to make it possible to state the number of recipients in any given constituency.


RESEARCH INTO NUTRITIONAL VALUE OF ENRICHED BREAD
Mr. Hales: 1. Has any research been undertaken in Canada to investigate the nutritional value of enriched bread and, if so, what are the results of such research?

2. (a) Is the government considering legislation that would require bakers to list on bread wrappers the mineral and vitamin content of enriched bread (b) is the government considering legislation that would establish minimum nutritional standards for enriched bread?


John Carr Munro: 1. The nutritional value of enriched bread has been investigated by the Food and Drug Directorate. It has been found that the nutrient levels specified in the Food and Drug Regulations are being maintained. Consideration has been given recently to the possible need for the incorporation of additional nutrients into flour and bread.
2. (a) The government is presently considering legislation that would require statements on the label of the vitamin and mineral content of enriched bread; (b) Minimum nutritional standards for enriched bread have been in force since the standard was promulgated approximately 20 years ago. These standards require that enriched bread contains the following amounts of nutrients in each pound:
Minimum Maximum
1.1	2.4	milligrams of thiamine0.8	1.8	milligrams of riboflavin10.0	15.0	milligrams of niacin or niacinimide,and8.0	12.5	milligrams of iron.


CANADIAN COMPANIES OPERATING VESSELS UNDER FLAGS OF CONVENIENCE
Mr. Skoberg: 1.	What steps are being taken to remove the loopholes by which Canadian companies are operating vessels under flags of convenience for the purpose of evading Canadian Income Tax regulations?
2.	What steps are being taken to secure Income Tax from both the corporations and ship crews which are made up of a crew that do not in the main retain a domicile in Canada?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minisfer of National Revenue):: 1. The
White Paper on tax reform indicates that it is proposed to introduce provisions patterned generally on those in effect in the United States to counter this type of tax-haven abuse.
2. If they are subject to tax the same steps are taken to collect it as are followed in the case of any other taxpayers. Usually, however, they are not taxable under the present provisions of the law.


OUTSTANDING 3 PER CENT PERPETUAL BONDS
Mr. Rynard: 1.	What amount of 3% Perpetual Bonds are outstanding as of September. 1970?
2.	What amount of 3% Perpetual Bonds was outstanding as of December, 1966 and what was the quotation?
3.	What percentage of 3% Perpetual Bonds are held by speculators?
4 What consideration has been, or is being, given to a due date for the 3% Perpetual Bonds?
5.	What has been the increase in the rate of inflation since the 3% Perpetual Bonds were first issued?
November 25, 1970


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: 1. $55,000,000.
2.	$55,000,000. The quotation on December 28, 1966, was $53J bid-$55 offered.
3.	Not known.
4.	This was considered extensively when redemption first became possible in 1966 and the policy is subject to continuing review in the light of developments.
5.	The consumer price index, 1961=100, was 47.7 in October 1936 and was 130.3 in October 1970,


QUEBEC-CANADIAN FORCES PERSONNEL EMPLOYED DURING RECENT CRISIS
Mr. Coates: 1.	What has been the total number of Armed Services personnel employed in the Province of Quebec at the request of the Province of Quebec under the National Defence Act?
2.	Of this number (a) how many were stationed in the Province of Quebec (b) how many were from other provinces of Canada (c) what is the break-down by province, of those who were transported to the Province of Quebec from other provinces?
3.	What arrangements were made for the housing and feeding of the Armed Forces personnel who were transferred for specific duties under the National Defence Act?
4.	What has been the total cost to date to the federal government for the use of Armed Forces personnel under the National Defence Act and, of this amount (a) what portion will be borne by the federal government (b) what portion will be borne by the Government of the Province of Quebec and the Government of the City of Montreal?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: 1 and 2. It is not considered to be in the best interests of national security to release at this time the exact numbers of Canadian Forces' personnel employed in the Province of Quebec at the request of the Quebec Government during the recent crisis.
3.	Canadian Forces' Bases were used to support the influx of troops and a number of armouries were opened or temporarily taken over to house Regular Force personnel. In a few instances temporary duty was authorized for lodging and meals in areas where no service facilities were available.
4.	Costs of these operations, over and above normal pay and allowances, have not yet been assessed, and no decision has been reached yet regarding the sharing of the extra costs involved.


WHITE PAPER ON POST OFFICE ORGANIZATION
Mr. Orlikow: Does the government intend to Table In Parliament a White Paper on Post Office organization and, if so, on what date?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Minister without Portfolio):: As
mentioned by the Prime Minister in the House on November 9, I have been asked to study the feasibility of the Post Office being operated as a Crown Corporation. This study is now under way. When completed it will be possible to consider the question of tabling a White Paper on the subject.
Order for Return


MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION-MAN-HOURS SAVED DUE TO UTILIZATION OF COMPUTERS
Mr. Robinson: How many man-hours have been saved as a result of the utilization of computers by the Department of Manpower and Immigration during each year since computers have been used?


Otto Emil Lang: Computers are used in the Department of Manpower and Immigration primarily for research and analysis and in support of operations rather than in the more traditional manner of automating large scale clerical functions. Estimates of man-hour savings in terms of the time that would be required to provide the equivalent information manually cannot be made from records presently maintained by the Department.


MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION-NUMBER OF PERSONNEL LAID OFF AND HIRED DUE TO UTILIZATION OF COMPUTERS
Mr. Robinson: As a result of the use of computers by the Department of Manpower and Immigration how many employees have been fa>
laid off (b) hired?


Otto Emil Lang: (a) No employees have been laid off as a direct result of the use of computers, (b) Records are not maintained in a manner which would permit the identification of employees hired specifically because the Department is using computers with the exception of those personnel classified as Computer Systems Analysts or computer operating personnel. There are 67 employees so classified in this Department.


RAPESEED
Mr. Gleave: 1.	Is the Department of Agriculture changing its recommendation that the acreage seeded to rapeseed should be dominated by erucic acid-free varieties by 1972 and, if so, what are the reasons for this change?
2.	What was the expected cost of providing seed stocks of the new varieties to replace varieties presently in use?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. No.
2. The estimated cost of the current winter seed multiplication program is $1.2 million dollars, all or most of which will be recovered through seed sales.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Robinson: How many (a) doctors (b) dentists (c) accountants (d) chemists (e) engineers (f) architects (g) university professors and/or lecturers (h) other professionals immigrated to Canada from the United States each year 1950 to 1970 inclusive?
Return tabled.

November 25, 1970
Motions for Papers


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, Notices of Motions for Production of Papers Nos. 25, 53, 92 and 155 are acceptable to the government.


CABLE TELEVISION INSTALLATION CHARGES BY BELL CANADA
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 25-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence, etc., between Bell Canada and the Department of Communications regarding cable television installation charges by Bell Canada.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 53-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence between the Prime Minister of Canada and representatives of twenty-one Eskimo communities in the Northwest Territories and out of Quebec regarding Aboriginal Rights in the Canadian Arctic and Oil Exploration in the North.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 92-Mr. Mather:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all representations made to the Department of Transport regarding the proposed new federal Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations, including regulations for snowmobiles.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 155-Mr. Mather:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all reports, memoranda, speeches, etc., presented or circulated at a meeting in St. Jovite, Quebec, undertaken by Information Canada in October, 1970.
Motion agreed to.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Notices of Motions Nos. 26, 47, 58, 61, 69, 96, 97, 105, 107, 108 and 112.


FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MANPOWER RETRAINING PROGRAMS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 26-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the report by the task force in the Department of Manpower and Immigration which recommended a 52-week limit for all federal government manpower retraining programs.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I am advised by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration that the papers called for in this motion are internal working documents developed by departmental officers during a meeting in October, 1968, and as such are considered to be confidential. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of this question and its effect on manpower training programs I cannot, of course, agree with that contention and would ask that the vote be called.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.
TELECOMMISSION STUDIES Motion No. 47-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do Issue for copies of all representations, briefs, submissions etc., received by the Department of Communications regarding its Telecommission studies?


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Communications, I wish to accept motion for production of papers No. 47 with the following reservations. The telecommission study reports are now being edited and printed and should be available early in 1971. At that time, any representations which are in the form of briefs or submissions to the telecommission will be tabled in response to this motion, except in those cases where the originator or source of information has requested that the information be treated as confidential.


David Orlikow: That is acceptable, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations or conditions expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that motion No. 47 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 58-Mrs. Maclnnis:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the Interim Report made in March, 1968, by Dr. A. Vennema, Director of Canadian Medical Aid in Vietnam in 1967-68 and for copies of any subsequent correspondence between him and the Department of External Affairs.
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I move this motion on behalf of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway.


Mr. Andre Ouellel (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, all
November 25, 1970

experts of Dr. Vennema's or Mrs. Culhane's calibre who render special services under contract with the Canadian International Development Agency generally have to submit a routine report on the work accomplished. Such report is part of the terms and conditions set and is submitted under previous agreement that it will be treated confidentially. Often such documents include personal information and assessments...


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret I have to interrupt the hon. member, but I must remind him that he is not allowed to make a speech at this time. He must merely indicate to the House whether he is agreeable to the submission of the document.


André Ouellet: As such information is confidential, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member to kindly withdraw the motion.
[Englishl


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, she does not withdraw her motion. Question!


George James McIlraith: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.
LIST OF PHOSPHATE CONTENTS OF DETERGENTS Motion No. 61-Mrs. Maclnnis:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the list prepared by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources regarding phosphate contents of detergents.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I move this motion on behalf of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, since enactment of the phosphorous content control regulations effective August 1, 1970, by Order in Council P.C. 1970-1341, dated July 29, 1970, the various laundry detergent manufacturers have reconstituted their products to conform with these regulations which limit the concentration of phosphorous-
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the Parliamentary Secretary and remind him-would the hon. member kindly resume his seat-that he cannot make a speech but should indicate as quickly and as briefly as possible whether or not the motion is acceptable.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, no specific list of these reconstituted products now on the market has been prepared since the regulations went into effect. I would therefore ask the hon. member whether he would consider withdrawing the motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
Motions for Papers


REPORTS FROM MRS. CLAIR CULHANE AND DR. ALJE VENEMMA ON CANADA'S INVOLVEMENT IN VIETNAM
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 69-Mr. MacDonald (Egmonl):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence with and reports to the Prime Minister, Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Canadian International Development Agency from Mrs. Clair Culhane and Dr. Alje Ven-emma with respect to their observations concerning Canada's involvement in foreign aid to Vietnam, possible misuse of Canadian aid and reported atrocities.
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, that also is a confidential document requested by the Agency. As such information is likely to assist and improve the program of Canadian aid to underdeveloped countries, 1 would ask that it be kept confidential and that the hon. member withdraw his request.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmonl):: Mr. Speaker, since the government seems unwilling to provide any information in respect of this important question I ask that it be put to a vote.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question? Mr. Mcllraith: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


AGREEMENTS RESPECTING COMPONENT PARTS FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS SATELLITES
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 96-Mr. Macquarrie:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the agreements between Hughes Aircraft Co. on the one hand and Northern Electric Co. of Montreal and Spar Aerospace Ltd., Malton, Ont. respecting component parts for telecommunications satellites.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Communications I wish to report the following. Telesat Canada is an independently operating corporation and is required under the Telesat Canada Act to provide its services on a commercial basis. Therefore it would not be in the best interests of Telesat to make public its private commercial agreements with other members of the industry. Under the circumstances I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his question.


Mr. Macquarrie:: I do not accept the explanation.


George James McIlraith: Transfer for dabate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


CONTRACT BETWEEN TELESAT CANADA AND HUGHES AIRCRAFT CO.-CONSTRUCTION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS SATELLITES
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 97-Mr. Macquarrie:
That an Order of the House do Issue for a copy of the contract signed between Telesat Canada and Hughes Aircraft Co. for the construction of telecommunications satellites.
[Stage Direction]
November 25, 1970
Motions for Papers
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, the reply to this notice of motion is the same as the one given for notice of motion No. 96, and for the same reason I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion. I assume that for the same reason he will refuse.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I do not accept the explanation, Mr. Speaker.


George James McIlraith: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


STUDIES UNDER NATIONAL HEALTH GRANT PROJECT 605-7-510 OF 1969
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 105-Mr. Harding:
That an Order of the House do issue for a ^ copy of all studies prepared under National Health Grant Project 605-7-510 of 1969.
Mr. Gaslon Isabelle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, there is an agreement in scientific circles to the effect that details of special research projects are to be considered as confidential by researchers and the sponsoring agency. For this reason, the Department of National Health and Welfare does not release the findings of researchers to the public. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Nonsense!


Mr. Harding:: Mr. Speaker, I feel this information should be made available to members and I ask that the motion be transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


STUDIES RELATING TO FOREIGN OWNERSHIP OF CANADIAN MINING AND MINERAL PROCESSING INDUSTRIES
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 107-Mr. Sallsman:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the studies undertaken in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources on the degree of foreign ownership and control of the Canadian mining and mineral processing industries as indicated at page 33 of the 1968-69 Annual Report of the Department.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, the report on the study of corporate disclosure requirements as they pertain to mining communities, referred to on page 33 of the 1968-69 annual report of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, is in the process of publication. It is anticipated that the printed report will be available for distribution within seven or eight weeks, at which time copies of the report will be tabled. In view of these

circumstances the hon. member is requested to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Saltsman:: Agreed, Mr. Speaker.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


STUDIES BY DEPARTMENT OF SECRETARY OF STATE REGARDING NATIONAL YOUTH HOSTELS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 108-Mr. Nystrom:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all studies and reports undertaken by the Department of the Secretary of State regarding National Youth Hostels.
Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, no report has been issued by the Department of the Secretary of State regarding national youth hostels. I would therefore request that the hon. member be good enough to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Nystrom:: In that case I will withdraw it.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


INFORMATION PREPARED BY DRUG ABUSE EDUCATION UNIT
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 112-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all literature and other information prepared by the drug abuse education unit of the Food and Drug Directorate.
Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Mr. Speaker, the drug abuse education unit of the Food and Drug Directorate is now distributing material and literature published by various agencies while its own publications on this matter are being prepared.
I would then ask the hon. member to be so kind as to withdraw his motion.


Frank Howard: Perhaps I got the translation incorrectly, Mr. Speaker. Did I understand the Parliamentary Secretary to say that the drug abuse unit has not published any material? I consider that a preposterous kind of anemic war on drug abuse if they have not got anything prepared.


George James McIlraith: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining
Notices of Motions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
November 25, 1970


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order similar to others I have raised in preceding sessions. On the order paper now there are 35 or 40 Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers, nearly all of which have been transferred for debate at the request of the government. If this course of action is continued we will be in the same position we were at the end of the last session. The government is using this procedure under the rules to sweep these motions under the rug and deny any opportunity for debate on many of the items transferred. I submit that this is an abuse of the rules and an attempt by the government to escape its responsibilities.


Mr. Speaker;: Order. It is not for the Chair to determine whether there is an abuse of the rules. The hon. member has pointed to a difficulty which was brought to the attention of the House before.
It was my understanding that the rules committee was to take a look at the application of this rule. The committee should be sitting very soon, and it is my hope, along with all hon. members, that this matter will be looked into by that committee.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether he can give us up to date figures concerning the number of arrests and releases under the War Measures Act regulations and also whether he can tell the House if any discussions have been held with the Quebec authorities with regard to clearing the names of those who have been released in so far as the implications of any such arrests are concerned?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the latest figures as of ten o'clock this morning are the same as yesterday. The number arrested is 453, the number rearrested is one, the number released is 402, the number of those detained is 51 and of those, two have already been sentenced.
I have had conversations with the Attorney General of Quebec on matters involving protection not only for those who are currently detained but for those who have been released, and I expect that in due course the Attorney General of Quebec will be making an announcement.



WAR MEASURES ACT-ALLEGATION OF BRUTALITY-INDEPENDENT INQUIRY

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, it has been indicated by the Prime Minister of Quebec that no independent review board is to be established there because he would regard that as coninquiries of the Ministry
stituting an insult to the police. But the police in the province of Quebec have now been charged in court with brutality in one instance at least. I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether, in fairness to the police and to the country, some method will be established to conduct an impartial, independent inquiry into a charge such as this or whether it will be left in the air and in doubt to cast a shadow on the police and indeed upon the administration of justice in the whole country?


John Napier Turner: That question is framed in such a way I cannot deal with it definitively here, but I think that any announcement will be forthcoming either from the Premier or from the Attorney General of Quebec.



WAR MEASURES ACT-NUMBER DETAINED BUT NOT CHARGED

Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask
the Minister of Justice whether any of the 51 or 49_I am
not sure of the number, but since two have already been sentenced the number now is probably 49-who are still in jail have not yet been charged.


John Napier Turner: I cannot be categorical about that. It may be.



WAR MEASURES ACT-SUGGESTED VISIT BY HOUSE COMMITTEE TO JAILS WHERE PERSONS DETAINED

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether he would be prepared to agree to contact, if necessary, the Minister of Justice of Quebec or the Prime Minister of Quebec with the idea of permitting the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to visit the jails where men and women are detained under the War Measures Act, with or without charges, and report to the House?


John Napier Turner: If that sort of exercise were undertaken, it might properly be done by a committee of the National Assembly of Quebec.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In view of the fact that the Minister of Justice has some responsibility, would he make the suggestion that he has made in the House to the Minister of Justice or the Prime Minister of Quebec and ask that a committee be set up made up of members of the National Assembly if he is not prepared to do anything so far as this Parliament is concerned?


John Napier Turner: I will transmit the representation of the hon. member to the Attorney General of Quebec.



SUGGESTED JOINT COMMISSION TO EXAMINE EVENTS LEADING TO INVOCATION OF WAR MEASURES ACT AND ADMINISTRATION THEREOF

Robert Lorne Stanfield: would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he would consider consulting with the province of Quebec with a

November 25, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
view to establishing a commission to inquire into the general background of the terrorism and the events leading up to the invocation of the War Measures Act as well as the administration of the Act. I ask this particularly in view of the rather extraordinary statement attributed to the Minister of Justice suggesting that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion has been guilty of exaggeration and that there have been too many conflicting comments and opinions coming out of Ottawa during the crisis. Could we have such a joint inquiry with a view to deepening our understanding of the development of terrorism in the province of Quebec?


John Napier Turner: On a point of order-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I beg your pardon. I did not refer to our fair-haired Minister of Justice but the Minister of Justice of the province of Quebec.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Minister of Justice rising on a point of order?


John Napier Turner: It has been clarified, thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: 1 think the Prime Minister would like to respond to my question.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: It is a
rather intricate question and I must say an intriguing suggestion. If the Leader of the Opposition would either make a clear proposal or perhaps write to me in that respect and indicate-


Mr. Bell:: And do away with the question period?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -what kind of joint commission he would like to see set up between the Quebec government and the federal government, I will certainly consider it. But I would appreciate a clearer explanation of the proposal. I must say it does not strike me as a very practical one or one that is customary.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I would really prefer the Prime Minister to set up such a commission himself but I thought he might be happier in consulting the province of Quebec about it.


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the question put by the Leader of the Opposition to the Minister of Justice.
The Minister of Justice knows that his counterpart in Quebec will announce today a formula for compensating the people who were arrested unjustly under the War Measures Act. I should like to know if the federal government will contribute to that compensation fund. If so, to what extent?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, last July, the whole matter of compensating victims of crime was discussed in a general way. But no firm agreement was reached in this regard in Halifax, last July, except that all the provinces agreed that an effort should be made to achieve uniformity in that kind of legislation. To date, there has been no agreement between the province of Quebec and the federal government with regard to compensation in the present situation.


Mr. Fortin:: Mr. Speaker,-


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


André-Gilles Fortin: No, Mr. Speaker.



WAR MEASURES ACT-JOBS LOST BY PEOPLE DETAINED AND RELEASED WITHOUT CHARGE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. Gordon L. Fair weather (Fundy-Royal): Perhaps this would be a good point at which to ask about those who have been arrested, detained and released without charge. I asked this question the other day. How many of them have lost their jobs as a result of their incarceration? Perhaps the Solicitor General could answer this question.
George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not able to answer it.


Mr. Fairweather:: Perhaps he would find out the
answer.



DISCUSSION OF CONTINENTAL POLICY AT CANADA-UNITED STATES MINISTERIAL MEETING-REQUEST FOR POLICY STATEMENT

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs arising out of the meetings held in the last two days between representatives of the Canadian and United States governments. Were there any discussions on a continental energy policy and has the Canadian government made any commitment with respect to the sale of Canadian gas or other energy resources in return for a promise of free access for Canadian oil to the U.S. market?
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of Stale for External
Affairs): The answer to both questions is no.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I
ask the minister a question arising out of the statement by Mr. Walter Hickel, United States Secretary of the Interior, who said to the press and also on television last night: "We are still trying to work out how we can have a continental energy policy". Assuming that the Secretary of State for External Affairs and Mr. Hickel were at the same meeting, may I ask the Secretary of State for
[Mr. Stanfield.)
November 25, 1970

External Affairs if he is now saying that Mr. Hickel's statement is inaccurate?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. I would point out to the hon. member that the pronoun "we" is somewhat ambiguous in this context. I can assure him there were no discussions-


Gerald William Baldwin: Only the Prime Minister can use that pronoun.


Mitchell William Sharp: -at our meetings about a continental energy policy. Mr. Hickel, of course, and his friends may have an idea along this line, but I cannot answer for him.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I
then direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that discussions have been held in Washington last week with respect to oil and we have already made commitments with respect to 6.3 trillion cubic feet of gas, would the Prime Minister undertake to have the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources make a statement to the House tomorrow outlining Canada's energy policy before we fritter away our resources bit by bit without any over-all program?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am sure the minister will be anxious to satisfy any question the opposition may have on this or other subjects, and if the hon. member properly addresses a question to him when he is in the House he will do his best to answer.



OIL-REMOVAL OF UNITED STATES IMPORT RESTRICTIONS

Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the report from this meeting that the United States has agreed in principle to do away with the restrictions on imports of Canadian oil into that country, has any specific date been set or agreed to by the United States ministers for putting that policy into effect?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am sure the hon. gentleman will want to correct Hansard. He talked about ending imports into the United States. I am sure he meant restrictions on imports into the United States. May I read a sentence from the communique that I think is the answer.


David Lewis: You should have made a statement on motions.


Mitchell William Sharp: I thought that hon. members would like a statement that has been agreed to by both sides.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



URANIUM-OPENING OF UNITED STATES MARKET TO INCREASED IMPORTS FROM CANADA

Mr. Maurice Fosier (Algoma):: I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the agreement between Canada and the
Inquiries of the Ministry
United States to open the U.S. market to increased shipments of Canadian crude oil, can the minister say if any progress was made in the recent talks concerning the opening of the U.S. market to increased sales of Canadian uranium?


Mitchell William Sharp: We did make exceptional progress in opening the market for oil. We did not make much progress on uranium.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Is it the policy of the government of Canada to work toward an open quota system with regard to the U.S. market for Canadian uranium?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We made the strongest representations to the United States and we reminded them of their obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. I believe that in due course the United States will honour their obligations.



OIL-REMOVAL OF UNITED STATES IMPORT RESTRICTIONS

Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister might now be permitted to complete the answer which he started to give me with regard to the specific state of import quotas on oil shipments into the United States?


Mitchell William Sharp: I would be happy to do so if there is no objection from other hon. members. The communique, which is of course the record of the meeting that I think I ought to quote on this occasion, says:
For 1971, it is expected that pipeline capacity would need to be fully used and it was agreed that arrangements should be worked out quickly to permit in subsequent years-
Subsequent to 1971.
-full and unimpeded access to United States markets of Canadian crude oil and petroleum products, surplus to Canadian commercial and security requirements.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question. In light of the statement made by the minister-of course we thank him for not making an initial statement in the House and for keeping it all to himself-how can the minister be satisfied that these arrangements can be made unless he has received an assurance that the Trade Act which has been passed by the House of Representatives will not become law, since by its terms it would prohibit the President of the United States from relaxing any oil import quotas?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Edmonton West will agree, I am sure, that this is debate rather than a question.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, I asked whether an assurance was received.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of this issue and so that it may

November 25, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
be fully debated, would the government not agree to set aside a day for debate on a motion by the government to agree to the terms of the communique?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, if the opposition would like to oppose the arrangements we have made for full and unimpeded access into U.S. markets for Canadian oil, I think they should use an opposition day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the hon. member for Calgary North has a supplementary. The Chair will recognize him, and after that go to the hon. member for Lotbiniere who has been waiting for a while.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask this question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Have the actual quotas been lifted or are Canadian exports still under restriction? If they are under restriction what was the amount agreed upon, if there was agreement, between this country and the United States with respect to the export of Canadian crude petroleum to that country?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know, or at least certainly those who were members of the previous Conservative administration should know, that these meetings are held between ministers and secretaries. We deal generally with the principles and on this occasion we got the U.S. secretaries, who are very responsible people and who could not speak if they were prevented by legislation, to agree that we should in years subsequent to 1971 get full and unimpeded access. We did not deal specifically with the amount for 1971, except that we would probably utilize the full capacity of the pipelines. I hope that will satisfy the hon. member.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is just words.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Henry Laiulippe (Compion):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
In view of the fact that the Canadian economy will not offer in 1970-1971 adequate prospects for the increasing number of university graduates who will not be spared by the heavy unemployment, according to a report of the federal Department of Manpower and Immigration to be released shortly, would the minister indicate what his department intends to do in order to solve this problem?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the minister intends to answer the question, may I suggest that he be brief. It seems to me that the hon. member for Compton is asking the minister to make a statement which should normally be made on motions.



UNITED NATIONS


Righi Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It has to do with the United Nations General Assembly resolution which called for the unconditional resumption of the Middle East talks and which was passed with the United States voting against the resolution. Having regard to the amount of criticism that is taking place across the country concerning the fact that Canada abstained from voting on this resolution, having only a few days earlier been so outspoken in favour of the Israeli stand during the visit of the Prime Minister of Israel, what was the reason for the abstention?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the right hon. member will know if he followed the debate very closely, that we voted with Israel on a motion proposed by the Latin American countries which was satisfactory to Israel. We voted with them and that motion was defeated. Then came the motion that had been proposed by the Afro-Asian bloc which we had been trying, not with too much success but with some success, to have modified in such a form that it might have been acceptable to us. We did not succeed and therefore we abstained.


John George Diefenbaker: What was the nature of the qualification the minister desired to have in the resolution in order to make it acceptable to Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think that is quite clear. We wanted that motion to be fully consonant with resolution 242 of the Security Council. Since it was not, we abstained.


John George Diefenbaker: Has the minister since received criticism from various Jewish organizations across Canada for having maintained a position of neutrality at a time when Israel needed Canada's help?


Mitchell William Sharp: We had commendation from them for supporting the motion supported by Israel. They would have preferred, I think, to have us vote against the subsequent motion, but I do not think they were unhappy that we abstained. We certainly did not support it. We protested very strongly against the inopportuneness of the debate itself which we felt, and which I still feel did not advance very much the cause of peace in the Middle East.


John George Diefenbaker: Has the minister read The Canadian Jewish News and its editorial about Canada taking a position of neutrality detrimental to the Jewish people and to Jewish Canadians as a whole? Has he read that?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

November 25, 1970



CITIZENSHIP


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, last week I put a question to the Minister without Portfolio dealing with citizenship matters, and I gather it is possible that he is now in a position to answer it. Inasmuch as the question and answer should appear on the same page, perhaps I might state the question again. I ask the Minister without Portfolio who deals with citizenship matters why, as of last week, there had been no response to the letter written to the minister under date of August 24 by the Native Cultural and Communications Society of Ontario?


Hon. Robert Sianbury (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of an actual organization by that name, but letters from a lady interested in forming such a society have been responded to in personal discussions with her.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What society is that?


Mr. Stanbury:: The society referred to by the hon. member. They have been responded to by discussions with her over a long period on the part of departmental officers. Consultations with provincial authorities and interested organizations have also been carried on, and as a result a decision can and will now be conveyed promptly.


Frank Howard: I commend the minister for taking the opportunity of speaking personally to the young lady. It means there is hope yet within the Liberal party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Frank Howard: Inasmuch as the letter of August 24 directed to the minister contained a request for a grant, similar to a request made to the provincial government of Ontario, to cover the cost of some organizational meetings, would the minister state what decision has been made with respect to that request?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: The decision that is being conveyed is the same as that of the province of Ontario-in the negative.



AIR TRANSPORT


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who, according to the roster, was to be here today. It relates to the Department of Transport and perhaps the Acting Minister can deal with it. In view of the action of Air Canada, Canada Pacific Airlines and BOAC in artificially raising the cost of international air
Inquiries of the Ministry
travel to Canadians by basing fares on the Canadian dollar pegged at 92 cents, what action is the government taking to remove this discriminatory practice?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to take that question as notice on behalf of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: In view of the critical importance of air travel to the Canadian community, I wonder if the Acting Minister could request the minister to make a statement on motions at the earliest possible opportunity?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I will draw that matter to his attention for his consideration.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In light of the severe hardship that may be caused by the inclusion of hospital workers, who are in a low wage bracket, in the unemployment insurance plan, which action would increase hospital costs by approximately 2 per cent, and in light of the government's call to hold hospital costs, can the minister inform the House whether this added hospital cost will be met by the federal government in future cost-sharing programs?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the premise of the question. I think such coverage will be very beneficial for the hospital workers involved. We know that they wish to be covered, and I have been approached about this matter personally. As far as costs are concerned, of course the employers' portion would be part of the administration of the hospital and would be shared.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Does the minister not recall or does he not know that a previous minister of health did not include these workers because of the rising costs?


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


John Carr Munro: The interests of the workers are being upheld.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Defence, I would like to put my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Can he say if the Canadian troops stationed in Cyprus will remain there after December 15 and for how long?

November 25, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we are making a decision in the next few days to extend the duration of our peacekeeping forces there by another six months.


INVESTIGATION OF HAZARDS FROM USE OF LEADED GASOLINE
Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Have any surveys been completed or are any under way to check into the health hazards arising from the use of leaded gasoline?


An hon. Member:: That is a leaded question.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I shall take that question as notice.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Did the minister give leave to his special assistant, Mr. Jean-Paul Matte, to campaign in favour of the Liberal party for the by-election in the constituency of Frontenac?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I should remind the hon. member that this question has already been asked. I do not remember the minister answering, but in any case, if he did not, I think this question could easily be put on the order paper.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS QUEBEC-TRANSFER OF MANPOWER AND HEALTH INSURANCE SERVICES TO PROVINCE
Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that Premier Bourassa of Quebec stated yesterday in the National Assembly that decisions will soon be made jointly with the Ottawa government, in order to put the manpower and medicare services under the control of Quebec authorities, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he can confirm that statement?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would respectfully point out that the quotation is not accurate, Mr. Speaker. I believe Premier Bourassa said that such matters were under discussion. He did not indicate that

those discussions would bring about the results the hon. member mentioned.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
Will a decision be taken soon as a result of the present discussions between the federal government and the province of Quebec?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It depends on the province's request, Mr. Speaker. If it asks that Ottawa renounces part of its jurisdiction, the reply will evidently be no. If attempts are made for an agreement that the reciprocal jurisdictions of the two governments operate more efficiently the reply will certainly be yes.


FINANCE
Mr. Georges Valade (Sainle-Marie):: Mr. Speaker,
would the right hon. Prime Minister say whether the next federal-provincial conference is expected to deal with refunding of the $250 million levied as a so-called social development tax and which Premier Bourassa asked for again recently?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking questions which were answered a long time ago. This question was put several months ago and I no longer see its relevance since the last September conference.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will allow the hon. member for Sainte Marie another supplementary question. However, we are running out of time and I ask the co-operation of hon. members in trying to move on a little more quickly.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I wish the right hon. Prime Minister would clarify his statement. In view of the fact that a request in this regard has been repeatedly made by the Quebec premier since he took office, and that the question of a repayment was therefore brought up at the last federal-provincial conference, is the Prime Minister ready to reconsider this matter or does he consider the question as closed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will recall that this question was first raised because the Union Nationale government in Quebec had been far too long in accepting the federal medicare plan. Fortunately, the present Liberal government has been able to implement this excellent health insurance plan and the question is thus closed.
November 25, 1970


DISCUSSION OF UNEMPLOYMENT PROBLEM AT MEETING OF MINISTERS
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance concerning the meeting of finance ministers that is to take place in Ottawa on December 7 and 8. Does the minister intend to set aside a period during those meetings in which to discuss the very serious unemployment problem that will be facing Canadians this coming winter?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, one of the prime purposes of having the meeting in December with the provincial treasurers and Ministers of Finance is to discuss the economic situation as foreseen for the coming year.


EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION OF UNITED STATES EXPORT CONTROLS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct to the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question relating to the communique issued following the joint Canada-United States ministerial meetings. I direct his attention to the bottom of page 2 and ask him whether it is proper to conclude from this that the United States participants at the conference refused to give any assurance to the Canadian ministers with regard to the extraterritorial application of controls in the United States?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The secretaries, since they were bound by the laws of the Congress, could not give an undertaking to change them. They are not members of a legislature, as the Leader of the Opposition is and as I am. Therefore they were not able to commit the Congress. However, we did impress upon them the desirability of using their influence to have these laws changed so that the extraterritorial application of such laws, which we believe to be provocative and ineffective, should be ended.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I apologize for taking the time, but I think this is a question of the greatest importance. Was any assurance given that the United States administration would press for the policy that the Canadian ministers were pressing upon the American ministers?


Mitchell William Sharp: The secretaries with whom we were discussing these matters said that they understood the point better than ever before, and they were influenced, I believe, by what we said. That is the best we could hope for.
Inquiries of the Ministry AIDE-MEMOIRES ON POSSIBLE UNITED STATES RESTRICTIVE POLICY


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is in connection with a meeting of ministers in Washington. It is reported that the Canadian government has delivered two aide-memoires to the American government regarding the possibility of a restrictive trade policy. I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he has tabled these aide-memoires in the papers he placed before the House today and, if not, whether he intends to do so?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, no, I did not table them today. The notes were presented some time ago. They were not part of the papers before this conference. I should like to take as notice the request of the hon. member to have them tabled. I believe that they may have been of such a character that they could be tabled. I will examine that question.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr.   Jean-R. Roy@Timmins: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Justice and concerns the illegal abortion presented on last Sunday's CBC "Weekend" program. Was the minister's department consulted for an opinion on whether an offence was committed under the Criminal Code by this advocacy of an illegal act on our national network? Also, does the minister intend to take any action with regard to the subtle urging of organized abortion clinics in defiance of the law on this subject?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is no. To the best of my knowledge the Department of Justice was not consulted. The answer to the second part of the question is that I do not believe it is an offence to advocate a reform of the law.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would the minister inform the House whether the government intends to grant landing rights at Toronto for the five European airlines that have requested these rights, namely Alitalia, KLM, SAS, TAP and Lufthansa?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, that question ought to be
addressed to the Minister of Transport. I think the general answer is that the matter is still under consideration.

November 25, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry INDUSTRY


ELECTRONICS-HARDSHIP CREATED BY ALLEGED DUMPING OF FOREIGN TELEVISION SETS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the charge by the Canadian Electrical Manufacturers Association that unfair competition has brought about high unemployment and could mean the extinction of the Canadian electronics industry, has the government made any move to investigate charges that Japan and Taiwan are dumping television sets in this country? If so, will the anti-dumping tribunal be taking any action on this matter?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, an investigation has been initiated by the Department of National Revenue. Notice of this investigation was published in the Canada Gazette on November 14, 1970. The investigation is now in progress. If in fact dumping is established, provisional duties are then applicable. At that time the question of material injury will be referred to the anti-dumping tribunal for decision. If the tribunal finds that material injury exists, anti-dumping duties will apply to any dumped television sets.


COMMISSION ON MEMBERS' AMENITIES-INQUIRY AS TO REPORT
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has informed the House that the Beaupre report has not been tabled because the translation is not yet complete. In view of the fact it has been in the hands of the government for three months and in view of the fact that the Canadian dollar is completely bilingual and speaks equally well in either language, will the Prime Minister consider tabling the report in English only?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The information conveyed by the hon. member is not quite correct, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the translation is finished and that the report is now being printed. When it has been delivered to the government we will then see what steps can be taken, with the assistance of the opposition, to implement it or otherwise.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board, who has been neglected for some days. Can the minister indicate whether members of the Canadian Armed Forces will receive a pay raise before the end of this year?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: As the House knows, Mr. Speaker, changes in pay are made on the recommendation of the Minister of National Defence. I can assure the hon. member that appropriate consideration will be given to all his recommendations.
* *


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Ian Watson (Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. It relates to the CBC national television news broadcast at 11 p.m. on November 18 which devoted two or three minutes to a mineral discovery by a company which describes itself as a speculative mining adventure. The result was that the next day the price of the shares of the company increased by 60 per cent and well over one million shares were traded. I am informed-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member kindly ask his question; we are running short of time.


Ian Watson: Will the minister entertain the suggestion that the Quebec or Ontario Securities Commission or another appropriate body be asked to investigate whether this kind of encouragement to speculation should be permitted on the national television network?


Gérard Pelletier: The matter has already been brought to my attention, Mr. Speaker, and I had the opportunity to discuss it with the C.B.C. authorities. The hon. member's suggestion is new to me. It sounds interesting and I will consider it.


PENSIONS
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the government yet determined, under the formula set out in the regulations, the actual amount in dollars and cents that will be added to old age pensions in January under the 2 per cent provision? If so, when will this amount be announced?


John Carr Munro: As indicated yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I think the government will be in a position very shortly to announce its intentions to the House on this matter and the over-all income security field.
November 25, 1970


FISHERIES
[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry.

Is it the policy of the Canadian Saltfish Corporation, with respect to which legislation was passed in this House last year, to prevent individual firms buying saltfish from Newfoundland fishermen at a price greater than that paid by the corporation?


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he will answer today the question I asked yesterday concerning CIDA's arrangements for the effective distribution of Canada's $2 million emergency relief supplies to the East Pakistan cyclone survivors. Also, will he comment on the accuracy of CIDA's press release of November 20 stating that Canada's shipment of medical supplies contained, among other things, only 500 capsules of tetracycline, which I would point out to the minister is barely enough to treat 12 patients and costs only $5.82?


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I will check the accuracy of the hon. member's statement and I will try to answer tomorrow.


REQUEST FOR WITHHOLDING OF BILL ON CIGARETTE ADVERTISING UNTIL TOBACCO CROP SOLD
Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that Ontario tobacco farmers are now selling their 1970 crop by auction, and that in past years pronouncements by the minister's department have adversely affected prices paid to farmers, will the minister consider withholding the introduction of his bill on cigarette advertising until this year's crop has been sold?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have sent eight National Defence aircraft from Trenton carrying approximately 125 tons of priority relief supplies. Another four flights are scheduled to depart by Saturday. They will contain very large quantities of medical supplies. If I could pronounce the names, I would give them to the House. However, I think Your Honour would stop me in any event.
On the specific point regarding cholera and typhoid vaccines, the fact is that these diseases are rare in Canada. They are so rare that the stocks we have of these vaccines are adequate for little more than our own requirements. These vaccines perish. After discussing this matter with the World Health Organization, they stated they could get the supplies more effectively from nearby sources rather than waiting for Canada to supply them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question period expired a few minutes ago. A supplementary might be allowed if there is consent, but I would also like the support of hon. members to recognize the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate who has shown commendable patience in trying to get the floor for a few days.


NATIONAL MARKETING POLICY-RIGHT OF PROVINCES TO REGULATE TRADE WITHIN THEIR OWN BOUNDARIES
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, I will address my question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the announced policy of the National Energy Board to the effect that the Canadian market west of the Ottawa valley is open only to Canadian oil products, can the right hon. Prime Minister tell us whether this does not, in his opinion, represent a violation of the right of provinces to control commerce within their boundaries?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will recognize that he is inviting the right hon. Prime Minister to express an opinion in the field of constitutional interpretation. The question is therefore out of order.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingaie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question which has serious implications in respect of economic development and regional disparity on the east coast of Canada. Will the Minister of Supply and Services refer to the Privy Council for reconsideration the sale through Crown Assets Disposal Corporation of "One Crown-owned building formerly used as an outhouse, wood frame, approximately 10 feet by 7 feet"?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Orders of the day.

November 25, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970


GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, November 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) that Bill C-181, to provide temporary emergency powers for the preservation of public order in Canada, be read the third time and do pass.
And the amendment thereto of Mr. Lewis.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
Mr. Ross Whicher (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, last night I had just begun giving my reasons for believing that the amendment proposed to Bill C-181 should be defeated.
It is true that this bill may adversely affect the civil liberties of many people in the province of Quebec. This is unfortunate; it has always been the case when such things take place. Only a few days ago the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Douglas) spoke very eloquently on this theme. He gave as an example the situation of Japanese Canadians during the war and what had taken place on the west coast. He reminded us that these people had been interned and that after the war it was found that not one case could be shown of a Japanese Canadian being guilty of an offence against the war effort. We all agree with this and know it to be true. What the leader of the NDP neglected to point out, however, was that when this action took place, Canada was in danger-and when the country itself is in danger civil liberties must be forgotten to some extent.
What was done was most unfortunate. Certainly it was a dark day in the pages of Canadian history when these most loyal Canadian Japanese were interned. But I would impress upon you, Mr. Speaker, and upon all members of the House that we cannot gamble with the safety of 22 million Canadians at the present time by thinking about civil liberties when they effect only relatively few people. Of course, as I say, it is unfortunate. I know this Parliament and the provincial legislatures will do everything possible to see that civil liberties are not unduly interfered with. But Canada is too great a nation to allow the safety and the future of 22 million people to be endangered because of arguments based on the fact that up to the moment some 400 people have been jailed and not charged.
I would remind my friends to the left of this chamber who have opposed this legislation at every opportunity, that members of the FLQ are not a bunch of Sunday school teachers; they do not go to church every Sunday. They are people who have condoned bombing and murder. This, of course, is not in accordance with the way we live here in Canada. I point out too, that the vast majority of the people of Canada agree with what the government has done, and they agree with what the government is attempting to do now in replacing the War Measures Act by legislation which is at least not quite so trying.
All hon. members have to do is read their mail to find out that when the War Measures Act was passed in the first place, there were probably a thousand Communists in Canada opposed to it, a thousand supporters of the FLQ, 16 members of the New Democratic Party and one Tory. And 22 million Canadians were in favour of it. We cannot afford in any circumstances to gamble with the freedom of those 22 million Canadians. It is, of course, unfortunate that some people who may not be as guilty as the police have suggested they are, should be put in jail. It may take a few days or it may take a month before they come to trial, but eventually they will have their day in court.
In closing, I express the hope that hon. members to my left will stop this nonsense of bringing in amendments every hour and calling for a vote every day. We have important things to do in this Parliament. There are senior citizens who deserve a little better treatment in the form of increased pensions. Our veterans need higher pensions and allowances. There are many other tasks which remain to be done. Today the government is attempting to remove some of the hardship of the War Measures Act, and I ask hon. members to my left to show the dignity which their constituents expect them to use in this hallowed chamber and let us get on with the business of making Canada a better place for its citizens to live in.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, 1 just
would like to state briefly that I agree with this amendment which, in my opinion, should be examined seriously because of its contents.
It is quite inadmissible that a so-called democratic society could tolerate a system where culprits who have been members of an organization like the FLQ could be tracked down without time limit. We should think about this, because that is a precedent which may have disastrous consequences.
By approving the amendment under consideration we would be able to study more closely the implications of clause 8. At a time when we are in a certain state of panic due to the tragic events to which we have not yet found a solution and when minds are still overheated, we should not take steps that we would sorely regret later.
We should not give ground to future charges that Parliament has acted too quickly and too stringently, without thoughtfulness nor sense of responsibility. In any case, whether this emergency legislation is or is not implemented quickly, it will not give an ounce more of competence to those who normally should already have settled the problem which cropped up in October last. Adopting legislation bound to make the inalienable rights of the citizens very insecure will not speed up the discovery of Mr. Cross's kidnappers or of Mr. Laporte's murderers. We must therefore think coolly and most of all prove beyond doubt to those who precisely doubt Canadian democracy that we have a real democratic sense and that we do not wish to abuse our powers.
Hence, considering these few basic principles, it would be altogether reasonable and logical to send this clause
[Mr. Speaker.)
November 25, 1970	COMMONS	DEBATES	
			Division
back to the committee	of the whole House for revision	Messrs:and closer alignment with the democratic traditions of	Peters	Southamthis country.	Ricard	StanfieldRitchie	Stewart* (3:20 p.m.)	Rodrigue	(Marquette)Rose	Thomas'English]	Rowland	(Moncton)The Acting Speaker	(Mr. Laniel): Is the House ready	Ryan Rynard	Thompson (Red Deer)for the question?	Saltsman	ThomsonSchumacher	(Battleford-


Some hon. Members:: Question.	Scott Simpson	Kindersley) ValadeThe Acting Speaker	(Mr. Laniel): The question is on	Skoberg Skoreyko	Woolliams-89.the amendment to the	main motion. All those in favour	of the amendment will	please say yea.	NAYSSome hon. Members	: Yea.	Anderson	Messrs.LangloisThe Acting Speaker will please say nay.	(Mr. Laniel): All those opposed	Andras Badanai Barrett	Laniel Leblanc (Laurier) LeBlanc (Rimouski)


Some hon. Members:: Nay.	Blouin	Legault
The Acting Speaker		Borrie	
(Mr. Laniel): In my opinion the	Boulanger	Lessardnays have it.	Breau	(Lac-Saint-Jean)And more than five	members having risen:	Cafik Chappell	Lind Loiselle


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Call in the members.	Chretien Clermont	Macdonald (Rosedale)The House divided	on the amendment (Mr. Lewis)	Cobbe Comtois Corbin	Mackaseywhich was negatived on the following division:	Mcllraith[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)	C6t6 (Longueuil)	MahoneyCrossman	MajorYEAS	Cullen	MarceauMessrs.	Cyr	MarchandAiken	Danson	(Langelier)Knowles (Norfolk-	Deachman	MarchandAlexander	Haldimand)	De Bane	(Kamloops-Alkenbrack	Korchinski	Douglas	Cariboo)Asselin	Lambert	(Assiniboia)	MongrainBaldwin	(Bellechasse)	Drury	MorisonBarnett	La Salle	Dube	Mim.roBeaudoin	Latulippe	Duquet	NoelBen	Lewis	Emard	OlsonBenjamin	Lundrigan	Ethier	OrangeBurton	MacDonald	Faulkner	OsierCadieu	(Egmont)	Forest	OttoComeau	MacEwan	Forget	OuelletCrouse	Maclnnis (Cape	Foster	PelletierDanforth	Breton-East Richmond)	Francis	PennerDiefenbaker	MacLean	Gendron	PepinDinsdale	Macquarrie	Gervais	PerraultDianne	MacRae	Gibson	PortelanceDouglas (Nanaimo-	McCleave	Gillespie	Prud'hommeCo wi chan-The	McCutcheon	Goode	RichardIslands)	McGrath	Goyer	RichardsonDowney	McIntosh	Gray	RobertsFairweather	McKinley	Guay (St. Boniface)	RobinsonFlemming	McQuaid	Guay (Levis)	RochonForrestall	Marshall	Guilbault	RockFortin	Mather	Haidasz	Roy (Timmins)Gauthier	Matte	Harries	Roy (Laval)Gilbert	Mazankowski	Hogarth	SharpGodin	Monteith	Howard (Okanagan	SmerchanskiGrills	Moore	Boundary)	StaffordGundlock	Nesbitt	Isabelle	StanburyHarding	Nielsen	Jerome	StewartHarkness	Noble	Kierans	(Cochrane)Homer	Nowlan	Lachance	StewartHoward (Skeena)	Ny strom	Laing (Vancouver	(Okanagan-Howe	Orlikow	South)	Kootenay)Knowles (Winnipeg	Paproski	Lang (Saskatoon-	St. PierreNorth Centre)	Peddle	Humboldt)	Sulatycky
i

November 25, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970 Messrs:
Thomas	Turner
(Maisonneuve-Rosemont)	(Ottawa-Carleton)
Tolmie	Walker
Trudeau	Watson
Trudel	Whicher
Turner	Whiting
(London East)	Yanakis-115.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but there is really too much noise in the House-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Roberval has the floor.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, there were exclamations on the government side when I rose. However, I wish to point out that I have certainly not taken too much of the time of the House during this debate, since this is the first time that I speak to the subject. I listened patiently to the other hon. members and I hope that my colleagues will show me the same consideration.
We have things to say on this bill. Indeed, we shall introduce an amendment, if not several. We have not been able to do so until now because the procedure allows the other opposition parties to introduce as many amendments as they wish. As a consequence, the Rallie-ment creditiste could not participate in the debate to the same extent as the official opposition party or the New Democratic Party with their numerous amendments.
Mr. Speaker, we have now reached third reading of Bill C-181, which aims at replacing the War Measures Act invoked after the October events.
We supported the government then because we had no alternative in the circumstances. The government had promised to introduce in the House, as soon as possible, legislation to maintain public order in the event of circumstances similar to those we have just experienced.
We were therefore expecting permanent legislation which would have applied to the whole nation from Halifax to Vancouver.
We wanted a legislation with clear definitions and precise enforcement clauses. We are obliged to confess that, unfortunately, this is not the case and that our hopes did not materialize.
After the first reading of the bill, we carefully considered the government proposals because we hoped to use the study in committee of the whole as a means to oblige the government to rectify some of the monstrosities contained in its bill. However, this did not happen because the government group, behind its absolute majority, seemed to take a cunning delight in defeating with complacency all the amendments which could have improved certain parts of the bill.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel) .1
Everything was turned down flat, except for a few insignificant words. I listened and watched these developments and I did not see any reason even to vote because of the uselessness of these arguments since the government was determined to accept no change.
If I rise to speak today, it is not because I feel that I could make the government more congenial in view of the fact that the word was passed and orders will be fully and blindly obeyed as usual.
My only purpose is to reveal to the people the tactics used by the government to make us vote for Bill C-181, which we opposed in its present form, because it is not national in scope; it is only temporary and applies only to Quebec. Furthermore, it is not clear and it could undermine the very foundation of our legal system.
As members of the Canadian Parliament, the legislation we pass must be national in scope. We notice that this bill deals only with the FLQ movement in Quebec as if difficulties could erupt and FLQ demonstrations could take place only in Quebec.
However, we already have evidence to the contrary. Certainly all the provinces are not immune from the FLQ ideology since some people have already been arrested even in Ontario on parliament hill, in front of the peace tower.
I have seen with my own eyes signs bearing the words FLQ. We have seen them in British Colombia and even in England where one FLQ member just committed suicide.
Mr. Speaker, that one at least did not agree with the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on capital punishment.
In order to reach the Front de Liberation du Quebec, would it not have been more logical and particularly more realistic to propose measures to protect public order in Canada in general? Is it to be acknowledged that the word "Canada" excludes the province of Quebec? Those who drafted the measure probably had something against Quebec. They wanted all Canada to see that province explicitely named in a law.
Is this not simply discrimination? I cannot really find the spirit which moved the government to use such a procedure. On certain days, we would very much like to know what goes on in the mind of the right hon. Prime Minister. Besides, many on the government side ask themselves the same question. He appears to us as an elusive man with a thousand contradictions. At times, he frightens us.
Indeed, now he appears as the untiring protector of the laws of Quebec, now he multiplies opportunities and reasons to further interfere with jurisdictions previously reserved exclusively to the provinces.
I realized that when I heard him answer the hon. Leader of the Oppositon (Mr. Stanfield) in connection with the bill before us. The Leader of the Opposition, as recorded on page 1359 of Hansard, was asking whether the Prime Minister was prepared to support a provision for an independent review in the public order bill.
November 25, 1970

The Prime Minister then answered, and I quote:
I submit that the amendment proposed by the opposition along the lines of establishing such a commission would precisely be doing that, seeking confrontation with the province of Quebec in a matter of its jurisdiction-
What does the Prime Minister do with the jurisdiction of Quebec-which he has just cherished-in the areas of health, education and culture?
Assistance given by the federal government will be used as an excuse, but Quebeckers know that through taxes levied by the federal government they pay this so-called assistance ten times over.
I mention this because I consider that the causes which force the government to present this bill do not originate only in reprehensible acts by some members of the FLQ. It is therefore our duty, in our capacity as elected representatives of the people, to scrutinize this matter more exhaustively. I will add that it is up to this government to make a serious examination of its conscience, in order to determine whether its attitude towards the province of Quebec is not the main reason behind the dissatisfaction which is evident in that province.
Since the last general election, the Liberal government is giving the impression that it is doing its gest to provoke Quebeckers and keep them in line through fear.
Under the former Prime Minister, there had been a glimpse of hope for Quebec to recover its autonomy. In fact, the former Prime Minister had promised to eliminate all joint programs and to transfer back to the Quebec government all the taxation fields which had been temporarily granted to the federal government during the last war.
The Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson then recognized that Quebec was not a province like the others and this never prevented it from being one of the best partners in Confederation. But this dream was too good for Quebeckers, too expensive for Ottawa and too dangerous for high finance. This is why Mr. Pearson was obliged to leave his place to another not so diplomatic Prime Minister.
Unfortunately, once more it had to be a French Canadian who would take care of the dirty job of restraining Quebec's noble aspirations.
And of all contradictions, this Prime Minister is still pretending that Quebec is and must be a province like the others, like all English-speaking provinces.
In my opinion, the roots of the evil are this inflexible obstination. If you add to this an unbearable economic situation at all levels because of the double taxation, you know why there are so many rebels in Quebec.
We are against this bill because its application is only temporary. In fact, it will expire in April 1971 as if the government were sure that at that date all the FLQ members will have been eliminated or will have become Liberal supporters.
The War Measures Act was temporary. Now, we replace it with another temporary legislation. When shall we have a permanent legislation? Finally, we are against
Public Order Act, 1970
this bill because there is nothing clear, no accurate definition in it.
We still have to ask the government what they mean by "unlawful association" and that is why, seconded by the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne), I move the following amendment:
That Bill C-181 be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole House for the purpose of reconsidering clause 3 as amended concerning the definition of the unlawful association.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
We fear that this measure will be a blow to the basic principles of our legal system. So far, in the province of Quebec, the accused was deemed to be innocent as long as the Crown had not demonstrated that he was guilty. If Bill C-181 is passed, the accused in Quebec-and in Quebec only-will be deemed to be guilty as long as he has not demonstrated himself that he is innocent.
I consider this "overthrow" of our jurisprudence to be just as frightening as the overthrow of our system of government by an association of reactionary citizens. The whole thing is carried out in a very hush-hush fashion and this will make it even more harmful to Quebecers. It is just another gimmick designed to pump some more money into lawyers' pockets and to starve to death those indicted by the state.
Let us stop asking ourselves why there are so many rebels in Quebec. Oh, they may not all be revolutionaries ready to take up arms, but revolt lies deep in their hearts, and that is even worse.
Mr. Speaker, are those people solely responsible? I say no, because too often they have been betrayed by the members they elected. The Quebec people are a peaceful people; all they want is the right to lead their own life in Canada, not the kind of life dictated to them by the central government.
We know public order demands that the law be respected, and I am all for it. But, in return, the government must respect the rights of every individual. To live its own life fully Quebec needs all its financial resources. You may rest assured that with those resources and the return of the taxing powers the federal government sneaked away from it, Quebec will no longer come begging to Ottawa: it can then live happily, just like Ontario and the other Western provinces.
All this to say that Bill C-181 will not solve the case of the FLQ or bring peace back to Quebec.
The law will make it possible to put a few in jail, but most will go free. More than anybody else, I hope that the people will regain confidence in our institutions. It is the only way to restore peace.
I urge the government to give up the idea of resorting to repression and to act more sensibly. We are no longer living in the age of caves and ghettos, but in the age of dialogue and negotiation.
The reign of dictators is over and it is useless to try to return to those historical times. We must go back to the true democracy of government by the people and for the people.

November 25, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
Finance must be at man's service. Man must not be the slave of our rotten and outmoded financial system. We have been earnestly fighting here for years in the hope of bringing to reason government members who have always been the docile servants of big finance.
Once more, we urge them to help all workers, farmers, fathers, young people who are expecting from government members the opportunity to live a full life in their country, Canada.


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


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I rise merely for the purpose of saying that the amendment asks that Bill C-181 be not read a third time but be referred back to Committee of the Whole for the purpose of considering the definition of "unlawful association" contained in clause 3 thereof. We have serious reservations about the terms of clause 3. Our reservations are not those expressed by the hon. member who has just spoken. He is under the impression that this clause applies only to the province of Quebec. We take it to mean that it applies throughout Canada. The latter part of clause 3, as amended, beginning at line 9, reads as follows:
-or substantially the same governmental change within Canada with respect to the province of Quebec or its relationship to Canada as that advocated by the said le Front de Liberation du Quebec, is declared to be an unlawful association.
While we do not follow the logic of the member of the Ralliement Creditiste who has just spoken, nevertheless we think changes ought to be made to clause 3. We have taken particular objection, as we have said on other occasions, to the word "advocates". Clause 3 speaks of any group of persons or association that advocates the use of force. The term "advocates" is so broad that it could even cover an abstract, theoretical discussion of the necessity of using force in order to bring about separation of the province of Quebec from our confederation. We have felt all along that a term such as "incites" would be more specific and more restrictive.
For this reason we are inclined to support this amendment to send the bill back to the committee, because we think that clause 3 ought to be reviewed. Nevertheless, our reasons for so doing are not similar to those expressed by the previous speaker.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, without repeating the arguments I put before the House yesterday afternoon with regard to the whole process of making an association unlawful under the terms of the bill, while not agreeing with all the reasons put forward by the hon. member I believe that this clause is the nub of the legislation and is what makes it so reprehensible. Neither the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) nor the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has yet clearly indicated to the House or the country what the FL.Q stands for or how, in aE justice, this kind of legislation will work effectively in

the province of Quebec or anywhere else. Because of that, I am led to support this amendment.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, even if I have examined the amendment to clause 3, there is stiU enough doubt in my mind for me to support the amendment that the bill be referred back to the committee of the whole.
I understand, as stated by the previous speaker, that the bill is applicable, according to its first draft, throughout Canada. However, the amendment, passed in the committee of the whole concerning page 3, fine 8, after the word "Canada" where the following words are added: "with respect to the Province of Quebec or its relationship to Canada,", shall necessarily be included in clause 3. We should therefore logically refer the bill, as provided in the amendment, to the committee of the whole for thorough consideration and to enable it to give a more detailed definition of the terms "any association of Quebec."
I think it might be advisable to take a closer look at the possibility of widening the scope of this clause to provide for a similar situation eventually arising in another province of Canada.
The older among us well remember the famous Cha-loult trial which took place during World War II. This good man, a member of the Quebec legislative assembly, had had the courage to express strong nationalistic opinions at a political meeting during the war. And under legislation which was not clear enough he was charged, brought to court, forced to defend himself, to secure the services of top notch lawyers, although he himself was a very famous one, in order to estabhsh beyond doubt in court that he was not a revolutionary, that he had not intended inacting the population to say no to the requests of the government concerning the defence of freedom outside Canada.
He had simply wanted, as a good Canadian, to speak a language that had been heard quite often during the electoral campaigns of 1924, 1925, 1930, 1935 and 1939, to the effect that not a single French Canadian would ever be mobilized. He had simply repeated remarks which had been used quite often to invite the people of Quebec to place their confidence in a certain party.
I remember that I followed this trial with the greatest interest and this memory has burnt into my mind.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I am just wondering how this legislation will be interpreted when it will have to be enforced. Will it be possible, in some cases, to accuse a person who has good intentions, but may be more of a nationalist than others, and therefore may use more direct and more violent words? Would it then be possible, under clause 3 of the bill, under some pretext, to charge that person of inciting others to use force or commit a crime to reach some goals?
I feel that in the interest of the whole of Canada and also in the interest of justice itself, we should take the
November 25, 1970

trouble, as parliamentarians and responsible people, to reconsider this clause, taking into account the amendment that has just been moved.
When the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) rose a few minutes ago, I was very upset to note that some members were distressed. Yet, we are in parliament. If we take a close look at the word parliament, we find that it means a place where one can speak. If in our democratic parliamentary system, we have reached the point where it is a negative gesture aimed at extending the debate and at embarrassing the government when somebody rises to express his view-thus to speak-I wonder where we are heading for.
Being fully aware of the dignity and the ability of the member for Roberval, I am convinced that, like all other members, he does not wish to extend the debate deliberately.
As I was among responsible people, I have been accustomed, from a very early age, to assuming my responsibilities. I consider that one should play when it is time to play and work when it is time to work. Indeed, one should take things seriously when it is time to do so.
It is therefore our duty to review the clause thoughtfully, in an effort to improve it, to bring it more into line with our traditions and to give more protection to the freedom of those, still in a very great majority in Canada and particularly in Quebec, who are imbued with the principle of respect for the freedom of others.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I wish to emphasize, at the beginning of my speech, the realism, the clarity and the lucidity of the remarks made by my colleague, the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier), when the amendment before us was introduced. In my opinion, he made the most remarkable speech that we have heard since we started discussing the War Measures Act, for he pointed out that it was essential to proceed methodically and without too much haste in passing legislation which can rightly be applied not only today, but also in the month of April, or later if necessary.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
The urgency of this emergency measure should not overly alarm us because if, in fact, with all the strengh and force of the war measures, the police are not bright enough to look in closets to find the kidnappers, it is not the passage of this emergency act that will ensure greater success. There is therefore no urgency to pass this emergency act.
However we can take this opportunity to adopt a measure which might be quite useful to the government when it decides to introduce permanent legislation on the matter.
In today's Le Devoir may be found an article by Karl Lewitt, associate professor of economics at McGill University, which I would like to quote:
Should I remind you that invoking the War Measures Act has neither saved the life of Pierre Laporte nor obtained the release of James Cross nor hastened the arrest of the abductors and
Public Order Act, 1970
murderers; this Act was not needed to move the RCMP and the army into Montreal, nor to deliver all the warrants required under the Criminal Code, nor to search everywhere and question all suspects. Still we are entitled to know exactly why the War Measures Act was invoked. Whatever the Prime Minister may say, those reasons remain inconspicuous.
Of all the more serious arguments handed out by government leaders when the country became panic-stricken, there was this "apprehended insurrection" and "wearing away of the people's will in Quebec". No evidence has yet been given to support either of these allegations; therefore, we have to take their word for it. And this brings us back to question the reliability, the integrity and the motivations of the politicians concerned.
Therefore, this is only a matter of opinion; the authorities did not leave us much choice.
When we, during the most tragical events of October, were called upon to pass the War Measures Act, we then took the word of the government and its leader, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who said he had every reason to believe that the War Measures Act was necessary.
More than one month has gone by and we are now inclined to believe that his reasons were not justified.
This is why, now that we are going to pass a legislation which aims at putting an end to violence, we must not give any chance to those responsible for violence or those who would be tempted to use it.
With the situation prevailing in Canada, and especially in Quebec, we cannot afford to insult Quebecers, and this is what will happen if clause 3, as amended Monday, is left in the act.
Clause 3, which defines the illegal association, may be interpreted in numerous ways, as I mentioned last Monday. My colleague the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) just mentioned, with concrete examples to support it, that the government could even go as far as jailing all those who would fail to please them, if they were to abuse their power.
This is what we want to prevent. We must avoid by all means giving to those who are ready to resort to violence-but who have not yet done so-new motives to use violent means. This is why we must quietly and reasonably attempt to embody in equitable legislation ways and means to put an end to violent confrontations.
Mr. Speaker, we are being told that violence is not the prerogative of the province of Quebec but the government went as far as to accept, Monday last, an amendment designed to pinpoint the type of offence covered by the bill, namely "Canada with respect to the province of Quebec or its relationship to Canada". In my view, it is quite clear that this provision is only designed to establish whether the FLQ acted in Canada or not. If the FLQ acted in Canada, then let us pass an act that applies to Canada. To my mind, the argument is very simple.
By making that distinction, making that reservation in Clause 3 of the bill, and the preamble, it is implicitly recognized that the act applies only to Quebec. One of the objectives of the FLQ is recognized in part. I think we must pass an act that applies throughout Canada, because by saying that the FLQ exists not in Canada, but in Quebec, we recognize the separation of Quebec. Let us
1482	__________COMMONS DEBATES_____________________November 25, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
admit one of two things: that the possibility of the secession of Quebec is imminent, or that the FLQ is acting in Canada. That is the alternative facing the government when it persists in stating specifically that it is meant for Quebec.
The more so as Clause 3 is vague in many regards, namely where it stipulates, and I quote:
-in accomplishing the same or substantially the same governmental change-
Well, Mr. Speaker, this point has to be cleared up.
In Quebec, on April 29, 700,000 people voted PQ. If we were to convict people because of their aims, we would have quite an extraordinary case of abuse which could lead the government to take away all possibilities of constitutional emancipation for Quebec.
We must therefore take that into consideration, weigh each word and evaluate properly the scope of the clauses of this act to provide emergency powers.
Mr. Speaker, in Quebec, not so long ago, the leader of a party nearly still-born, the Christian Nationalist Party, was stealing paintings or had them stolen on the ground that christianism must be saveguarded in Quebec. It is quite laudable to want the expansion of christianism, the protection of religion and confessionality in schools, but if we resort to stealing and to violence to attain such a purpose, this is inadmissible, no matter how good the purpose can be.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
This is why, when we say that the movement or the association become unlawful, provided they seek the same ends as the FLQ, we allow abuse of power. And when we know that our government at the present time is very close to dictatorship, we do fear that this insignificant emergency legislation might be used in order to control Quebec once and for all and to prevent its true emancipation and development.
Therefore there are truly several reasons for requesting a more complete and more responsible study of clause 3. It is not because we have to put an immediate end to terrorist activities in Canada that we should pass meaningless legislation.
As I said at the outset of my remarks, the War Measures Act is still in effect and it is a lot more efficient than the bill under consideration. If we do not succeed in arresting the offenders under the War Measures Act, what would be the use of a much less efficient legislation. All the more so, Mr. Speaker, since trouble is not restricted to Quebec. My colleague, the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert), has just told us about what happened in the House last year when a group of young ladies or women tied down to their seats came here to disrupt order. As far as I know, they were not from Quebec. On the contrary, most of them came from the other end of the country, which shows that trouble can erupt anywhere. I do not want to impute motives to anyone but I wonder what would happen had these ladies been from Quebec.

Others besides Quebeckers have also been the source of trouble. As an example I will mention what happened at Sir George Williams University in Montreal where damages amounted to several million dollars. Once again, those involved were not necessarily Quebeckers, members of the FLQ.
Therefore, this emergency act should enable to determine which organizations it is essential to treat rigorously in order to check any violence, regardless of its goals. Clause 3 implies, as I said Monday, that if an association uses force and violence to strengthen Canadian federalism, it would pursue a commendable goal, since clause 3 specifies that it is necessary that the goal of the indicted association be identical with that of the FLQ. There is clearly something irrational in that clause. That is why I strongly and whole-heartedly support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Roberval.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief and precise in my remarks, I hope, concerning the object of the amendment moved by my friends of the Ralliement Creditiste. They suggest in the wording of their amendment that clause 3 restricts the application of this act to the province of Quebec. They refer to words which were added a few days ago, in committee, to clause 3, namely those concerning the province of Quebec or its relationship to Canada. Those words appeared and still appear in the second paragraph of the preamble. They do not restrict geographically the implementation of the act, but they specify the definition of the FLQ with regard to its aims and objectives.
As a further precision, this legislation will apply throughout Canada. Its application will not be geographically restricted to Quebec. The law will be applicable by the Attorney general of Ontario, by the Quebec Minister of Justice or by the Attorney general of British Columbia, against the FLQ or any other association with the same objectives as the FLQ, namely the overthrowing by force or by crime of the Quebec government in relation to the rest of Canada.
The field of application of this legislation is not limited to Quebec but is aimed at the FLQ. This is a most specific legislation. As the member for Champlain (M. Matte) said, the government will have to look more fully into the problem of violence or of the use of force in our society.
I am trying to prove to the satisfaction of my friends opposite that the amendment recently adopted has brought about no essential change. I explained that point to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan The Islands (Mr. Douglas), to the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) and to the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). They were under the impression that clause 3 was not clear enough as concerns the aims and objectives of the FLQ.
Therefore, to clear up the matter, I thought advisable to add the words in the preambule. I believe that was unnecessary, since under the Interpretation Act, the preamble is included in the interpretation of other parts of the statute.
November 25, 1970

I should like to refer the house to section 12 of the Interpretation Act, contained in the 1967-68 Statutes of Canada. It reads as follows:
The preamble of an enactment shall be read as a part thereof Intended to assist in explaining its purport and object.
Therefore, the act is clear, even without the amendment made at the suggestion of the hon. member for York South. The legislation had to be clarified. To satisfy the claims of the hon. member, I proposed the addition of those words, and I want to give the mover of this amendment the assurance that I have in no way changed the essence of his proposal. It is simply a question of clarification.
To make myself clear about the advice I get from the legal advisers in the Department of Justice, I say again that, of course, this legislation will apply all over Canada. It is aimed at the FLQ, and this, throughout Canada.
I recognize that the hon. members on the other side may have experienced some interpretation problems, but I want them to be sure of the good faith of the government as regards this amendment.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, may I on behalf of the official opposition, make it very clear at the outset that we reject the amendment that has been proposed. I should like to explain why we reject it. Clause 3, as amended, deals primarily with the organization known as le Front de Liberation du Quebec. It is obvious from any of the facts about this organization that have come to our attention that it fits all the elements of what has become the twentieth century classic terrorist organization. For one thing, it does not hold public meetings; its work is clandestine. As far as anybody is aware, there are no doves in this organization and no philosophers advocating peaceful means. Its arguments are conducted at the point of a gun used against people whose hands are tied behind their backs. It uses terror tactics purely and simply. It steals dynamite to use the same. It steals guns to use the same. It preaches force.
All these things are known about this organization. Anybody who wants to loiter and become part of one of its cells or part of its whole philosophy is, therefore, motivated by one reason alone-the notion of terror appeals to that person. It is as simple as that. Why doubts are expressed-and doubts that are pretty far off target and illogical-is beyond me. You could ask Jasper Cross-when he moved from Halifax to Montreal they came to call him James Cross-just what the FLQ is, and he would tell you. You could also have asked Mr. Laporte before he was murdered by the FLQ. I reject absolutely and out of hand any suggestion that clause 3 does not, in as specific a way as possible, represent what we in this Parliament are after, which is to come to grips with this terrorist organization. It is not a terrorist organization that was at work in czarist Russia or in the miserable thirties and forties in some European countries; it is one that is alive, very much alive, and at work in Canada today.
Public Order Act, 1970
I say that the definition contained in the bill is as reasonable an approach as a legal draftsman could make to identify the group that we are after. It must be effective, because several people have already pleaded guilty to being members of the FLQ and have been sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment. They must have known what they were about when they made that decision. I think there are safeguards. If somebody is picked up and wrongfully accused of association with the group, in due course a trial will be held and that person will be found not guilty.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
There may be a little oversensitivity because it does appear there is maladministration of the regulations under the War Measures Act. There is some question whether the rights of people are being respected by the police. But those things can be straightened out in time. Above all, what we have to consider now is that there is a problem to be met in Canada. That problem involves the rooting and stamping out of a terrorist organization. For those reasons, on behalf of the official opposition-I want to make that very clear, particularly to the people of the press-let me say we reject the amendment that is now proffered.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, the line taken today by the Creditiste members on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Roberval (M. Gauthier) is a symbolic gesture aimed at making the voice of the province of Quebec heard in the House on the problem now facing our country.
We wish our hon. colleagues and the Minister of Justice (M. Turner) to realize that the problem which has recently plagued a part of our province will probably go down in history as the "October events". This was not only a Quebec problem but a full-fledged Canadian national issue.
With patience and very often with impatience, I listened to the speeches of my colleagues of other parties. At times, I felt like rising to energetically protest against the insidious way of exaggerating the importance of problems in Quebec. In short, the intent was to present Quebecers as trouble makers, which is absolutely untrue.
My fellow citizens in Quebec want peace. They are against violence and the excessive use of force and that is why the mouthpiece of Quebec, the Ralliement Creditiste, sincerely supported the proclamation of the War Measures Act when the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) moved it at the height of the crisis. We gave our support in good faith because we were aware of the major problems facing Quebec.
Today, we are proud of having held out against anarchists and terrorists and those who want to overthrow the government by undemocratic methods.
Today, one month after the passage of the War Measures Act, one month after the death of a renowned Quebec statesman and the kidnapping of an equally

November 25, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
renowned British diplomat, we ask ourselves it the Prime Minister has not taken advantage of the tragic events in Quebec to make it look to other Canadians as a province not like the others which is difficult to control and which one day will have to be subdued, muzzled and put in its place once and for all, in order to restore peace.
It is a serene spirit that in the course of this debate today we wish to submit the following argument in connection with clause 3.
The hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) said earlier that it was to please our colleagues of the New Democratic and Progressive Conservative parties that he had repeated in clause 3, by means of an amendment, what was stated in the preamble.
In doing so, he has displeased us much as he has repealed in clause 3 the provisions of the bill that we did not like.
The preamble stated that it was intended to declare illegal the association known as Le Front de Liberation du Quebec because it was a threat to public order. That is quite clear, Mr. Speaker, it means Quebec.
Besides, one can read, and I quote:
-who advocate the use of force or the commission of crime as a means of accomplishing governmental change within Canada with respect to the province of Quebec-
It does not concern the province of Ontario, British Columbia nor New Brunswick. It is clearly stated here twice that it is "with respect to the province of Quebec".
I go on quoting:
-or its relationship to Canada-
The War Measures Act was applied when the trouble started in order to settle once for all the problems in Quebec and to restore public order there.
The Creditistes unreservedly supported this act because these were major problems, because it was necessary to regain control of the situation, because we lacked information and because the right hon. Prime Minister could only say that there existed in Quebec a state of "apprehended insurrection".
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Today-as pointed out by my colleague from Champlain (Mr. Matte)-we are still wondering what that state of insurrection was? What were the motives, the reasons, the evidence, the assumptions on which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) could rely to say to the government of Quebec, to the city of Montreal, that there really was a state of insurrection in Quebec? I do not say there was not, but we are entitled to know the real reasons that made the application of the War Measures Act necessary, to maintain order in Quebec.
A month has gone by since that act was invoked, but we have neither saved the life of Pierre Laporte nor found James Richard Cross.
Does the state of insurrection still exist in Quebec?
Mr. Speaker, the game has been lost, as far as the War Measures Act is concerned, because the government did

not take the proper action. They panicked, created tension in Quebec and raised a national storm to show all Canada that they were justified in subduing Quebec once and for all. We are hurt, as Quebecers, to find the name of our province continuously coming up in the bill and to see that once more the problem is confined solely to Quebec.
A month has gone by since the War Measures Act was brought into force. However, at the time it was passed, it was fully agreed that it would remain in force only temporarily and that it would be replaced by permanent legislation in the near future. Instead of permanent legislation, the government is introducing another temporary measure to replace the first, on the grounds that there had not been time to draft a permanent one.
In all fairness, I must say that the Prime Minister sent a letter to all party leaders asking them for suggestions for the drafting of a permanent legislation. None of the suggestions made by the Creditists was accepted. Our leader made suggestions for the drafting of a permanent law, but they were disregarded.
The suggestions made by other party leaders were also brushed aside. In order to conceal its inaction, its incompetence, and to justify the dictatorial means used to subdue Quebec, the government told that province: We are applying the War Measures Act, we are bringing in the Army and we will do even better and act more sensibly once a permanent law is adopted. This legislation has not been introduced yet. It is quite possible that it will not be during this session. Since we have no guarantee that it will be introduced, we must be content with an inadequate and unfair legislation that repeat the mistake of the War Measures Act and applies only to Quebec.
This is what I find revolting as a Quebec federalist: an attempt to condemn an unlawful association in Quebec because it questions the status of the province of Quebec with regard to its relationship to Canada, implicitly means that the Canadian government uses the law to impose on Quebecers, regardless of their political party, the constitutional framework in which they must live. Under such a law, they are told: You are going to live under this set-up or you will be subject to convictions under the War Measures Act for the preservation of public order. And this, under the pretext that they are not using democratic means to achieve their purpose.
Agitation is not confined to Quebec and Quebec is not the only place where people are asking questions about the constitution. It is not only in Quebec that people resort to violence in desperation because of unemployment, misery and lack of welfare.
This bill deals with none of these problems but only calls the attention of Canadians to the problems of Quebec instead of striking at the root of terrorism in Quebec, which we deeply regret.
Instead of bearing down on the underlying causes of this evil, the government says: "We shall subdue you, break you, muzzle you! We shall even go as far as
November 25, 1970

making this legislation retroactive so as to reach all the trouble-makers who may have disturbed public order."
Mr. Speaker, we are saying that the government, in this respect, lacks good faith. And I wish to tell the hon. Minister of Justice and my colleagues that we from Quebec, while we strongly oppose violence, also oppose this government's misuse of power. We stand against violence and force. We supported the War Measures Act but we disapprove of this kind of provocation on the part of a government which, because of its inability to act is spreading poverty, hardship and despair among our people, to such an extent that this is unfortunately but the beginning of terrorism.
Mr. Speaker, there are twice as many university graduates as there are jobs available. What shall we do tomorrow with those young people? God knows.
Public Order Act, 1970
"frame" Quebec and refuses to admit that difficulties can exist elsewhere in Canada, not only does he fail to solve the problem, but he risks to bring about a revival of terrorism, violence and force.
When the first bombs exploded, the government was much alarmed. When they kept on exploding, the government did nothing. When the Company of Young Canadians started to pay its expenses out of the public funds the government did nothing. When Mr. Saulnier from Montreal came here and said to the government: It is time you acted in Quebec, that you came to the assistance of the City of Montreal to restore order, and that you stop financing the revolution in Quebec. The government answered: No, that is untrue, that is nonsense Saulnier is wrong.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, those young people are desperate, and the government, instead of coping with real problems, beguiles the people with supposedly severe crises, with war measures acts, or with the use of excessive powers, so that tomorrow, if the troubles go on, we will be told again that Quebec is the trouble-maker in confederation.
Mr. Speaker, this attitude is quite unjust and provoking to my fellow citizens of Quebec, who are not violent, who do not want to use force, but who want to have valid and reasonable motives for remaining within the Canadian confederation. As a Quebec federalist, it is difficult for me to make my fellow Quebecers understand that confederation is viable and that life within its framework is pleasant, when one sees a government provoke these people and take advantage of a crisis, no matter how minor, to show off its strength and give orders to its Quebec servant.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to conclude my remarks. We approve the strong measures to condemn revolutionaries and put some order in Quebec. We are prepared to support the government in its efforts to restore public order in Canada. However, we disagree when it wants to confine the problem to Quebec, and say very clearly in its bill that the problem of terrorism only exists in Quebec, for this is untrue.
When the government wants to make us believe through its bill that revolutionaries exist only in Quebec, this is also untrue, even though the minister states that this bill applies to the whole of Canada. But, if this is true, Mr. Speaker, as he is now suggesting by shaking his head, that he only deletes the expression "Province of Quebec", and that he no longer names the province of Quebec in this bill, then he will have our full support, as he had on the proclamation of the War Measures Act. But as long as he wants to confine the terrorists, the revolutionaries, the bearded ones and the trouble-makers to Quebec, we will not agree, because this is provoking for us, and unjust for the Quebecers. There are problems not only in Quebec, but throughout Canada, from time to time.
Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Justice does not want to reconsider his position, if he absolutely wants to
23568-23*
But today we realize that the government did not act in time, so that the cause of unrest in Quebec, including terrorism, is not necessarily the constitutional framework but indeed the economic problem, which the government has made worse, brought about, so that at a given time it led people to resort to violence.
Mr. Speaker, terrorism in Quebec is a national disgrace, just as the CBC is also a national disgrace. It is unfortunate that the government should be trying to make us believe the issue is confined to Quebec. Therefore today, in this debate which we purport to be symbolic, we want the voice of Quebec, the voice of reason to be heard in order that our colleagues here who represent all Canada may think and realize that the problem facing Quebec is not confined to Quebec, but is a national problem. It should be understood that when there is a problem in British Columbia, Quebec feels its impact and sometimes suffer from it.
We would like to ask the government to show the same broadmmdness, the same understanding towards Quebec s problems, and especially, we would like to call its attention to these problems. For example, a 14 per cent rate of unemployment is forecast for the Maritime Provinces and Quebec, while it will be only 7 per cent in Ontario. Why, Mr. Speaker? For the last 15 years, in Quebec, the unemployment rate has been over 4 per cent it has always been 20 or 40 per cent higher...
. The,,Ac,ilng Speaker (Mr- Laniel): Order. The chair feels the hon. member is getting further away from the subject matter of the amendment before us, which in short, proposes that the bill be referred back to the Committee of the Whole, in order that the definition of unlawfui association" be considered. During his speech the hon. member has been allowed to digress so that he may prove some particular points but it seems that at present he is discussing the whole problem of Canada which is contrary to the rules.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to prove in a few seconds that the economic problem of Quebec is the

November 25, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
underlying cause of the evil which has befallen us, that this problem does not exist only in Quebec but also in the other provinces. So long as the government will not tackle seriously the real issue, superficial problems will keep worsening which might endanger law and order.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Guay (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member continues the government will never be able to tackle them.


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


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, the members opposite interrupt me. I would like to end my remarks by saying that Quebec is a "province like the others" which wants to get its just share and which wants to make efforts to this end. Quebec is fed up with being treated as a "province not like the others", as the province of agitators. Quebec has no monopoly on disorder.
This is why we regret that this bill is aimed only at the FLQ or at Quebec terrorism because terrorism is not a phenomenon peculiar to Quebec. Indeed, it did not grow there like a mushroom but it was brought by foreign people, on account of the Immigration Act which comes under the federal government and which is bad. Moreover, terrorism exists for all sorts of economical, political and social reasons.
Mr. Speaker, we ask our colleagues from the other provinces to show for our problems the same broadness of mind we showed for theirs.
Once again I ask the minister whether this legislation actually applies to the whole of Canada as he says. If such is the case, he should delete the word "Quebec" and stop naming that province because this induces all Canadians to think that if we were not there, everything would go smoothly in the country. This is too bad, but Quebec will continue living within Canada and Canada will still have to put up with Quebec.
If we really want Quebec's status in relation to Canada to remain unchanged, let us act as true Canadians and not as bigots, and let us not make distinctions because we do not speak the same language. French-speaking and English-speaking Canadians want to build Canada, not pull it apart. Let us open our minds and stop provoking people.
I intend to vote against this bill because, all in all, it amounts to about the same as the War Measures Act, because it has approximately the same provisional character because it is based on false pretences and, above all, because it merely repeats the error made with the War Measures Act, i.e. apparently confining the problem to Quebec.
That is why we are asking for a new definition of the terms "unlawful association", "terrorist" and "terrorist association" in order that the problem be no longer limited to Quebec only and that it may be extended to all of Canada. Each and every Canadian must try and find a solution to the problem now facing Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the debate in Committee of the Whole and the debate on the amendments moved during the third reading stage of this bill. I listened with particular interest to the last speaker. He discussed one of the amendments in terms of the relationship of this bill to the province of Quebec. Most members have had to consider in the last few weeks the reluctance by members from the province of Quebec to make a decision or indicate to this House problems with which they are familiar; they were willing to shout across the floor of the chamber indicating that other members were not familiar with the problems.
I feel sorry for the people of Quebec. They have found their government wanting. The government of that province cannot conduct its ordinary affairs. The Quebec provincial police are wanting. There is no cohesion in the metropolitan police force of Montreal. There is no unity among those police forces. There are in this House approximately 75 representatives from the province of Quebec. I am sure in the last six weeks they have been very concerned about the problems in their province. However, many of those members have not done anything in the House other than to vote or speak from their seats. The people of Quebec must have been shocked when their government, which was elected only a short time ago, had to ask for federal police to deal with a police strike situation. I am sure they were not proud of the fact that federal troops had to be called in to deal with the problem of strike action. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) is willing to give great power to the Quebec system of justice. However, it has not operated in the normal sense that the citizens of the province expect.
I sympathize with the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin). He stated that as a member from Quebec it was his impression that this bill is directed entirely against his province. While the minister will say that is not correct, and I agree with him, it does indicate the feeling of most of the citizens of Quebec, namely, that this matter has been treated as a political problem. In the first place there was considered to be an insurrection. This legislation indicates that there was an apprehended insurrection in the province of Quebec. Everyone in the country now knows this is not true. The "minister of regional disparity" indicated that 3,000 or more persons m high places and elsewhere were involved in this insurrection. The Minister of Justice has had the full powers of our national police force and the police forces in the province of Quebec, as well as 6,000 or 7,000 troops. Thousands of raids were made which resulted in hundreds of arrests. The minister has now indicated that not more than 150 people are involved. Probably a lot less people than that are involved.
Most people feel that when the two Rose brothers, Simard and four or five other people are apprehended, the insurrection in Quebec will cease. If that is true, why are the members from Quebec not demanding that the

November 25, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
federal government help the province of Quebec to eliminate these problems? Obviously, Scotland Yard, Interpol, the United States police and international police forces are at the beck and call of the federal police in Canada. Not too long ago they received assistance from these police forces to help strengthen security in this country.
The members from Quebec should make this type of request to the federal government, rather than just participating in votes. They should do something positive and constructive. I have talked with a number of people from Quebec who are not interested in politics. They do not care about the political structure of Quebec or, for that matter, of Canada. Nevertheless, they are very proud of being citizens of Quebec, they are very proud of being citizens of Montreal and they are very ashamed that their police forces do not seem to be able to do the normal job of police operations which is expected in other places.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
It is all very well for the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) to say that when 22 million Canadians are in danger of something, perhaps loss of liberty, it is time some people gave up a portion of their liberty so that the rest of the people could enjoy it. Mr. Speaker, every dictator in the world has always said: Give me power; I will only need it for a short time and I will clear up the mess and make it safe for you to walk in the streets. Dictators are always promising to make their countries safe by taking away the liberties of the people. This is not what Canad ans want. This, surely, is not what the people of Quebec want. I am shocked that the Quebec members should sit in their seats and, worse still, vote for anything the government presents to them.
There have not been many really strong people from the province of Quebec in the federal field, at least since I have been in this House. They come here to vote, not to put forward ideas. I was pleased to hear the hon. member for Lotbiniere say this afternoon that as a Member of Parliament and as a citizen of Quebec he did not want Quebec to be treated differently from the other provinces. I am sure most of the people of Quebec are not looking for different treatment.
The legislation before us is repugnant to everyone who thinks about it. Some members are inclined to take the view: We are not in Quebec and this law will apply especially to Quebec. It will not hurt me or the people I represent, so we shall not do a damned thing about it; let us not worry about whether anyone else gets hurt. The people of Quebec will revolt eventually against the treatment they have received over the years. It is all very well for the "minister of regional disparity" to say that FRAP is a terrible organization, that it is part of the insurrection. This was one of the reasons for the implementation of the War Measures Act in the first place.
I was surprised when I first came to this House, because I was new and did not know much about these things, to note that the last time we used the War Measures Act we allowed Camillien Houde to get out of gaol and he was elected in Montreal with a huge majority.

Other Canadians were also surprised. But I was not surprised a few weeks ago when not one person was elected to the Montreal council in opposition to Mayor Drapeau.
Let us suppose the "minister of regional disparity" was right in assuming that some of the FRAP candidates were people who should not have been elected; I do not know. Can he tell me that there is not one person among those who stood for election from that party who would not have been suitable for office, who would not have had the good of the city at heart? Was it only the people who supported Mr. Drapeau who should have stood? After all, many of the things which have been done, or neglected, by the present administration of Montreal have not been especially advantageous to the people of that city. There are the slums, for example. There are many other social problems. But they could have Expo, which cost us $300 million, a sum we gladly donated to that cause. And Mayor Drapeau is now working to get the Olympics for Montreal. I said in this House that this would cost us $50 million, but one of my friends who knows something about sports said $50 million would not cover the expenses of the last two countries in which the games were held, so the cost to the Canadian people will probably be considerably more.


An hon. Member:: Could the hon. member speak to the motion?


William Arnold Peters: The hon. member who interrupted me has not been here very long and his knowledge of the rules is about as wide as his knowledge of most of the other topics I have heard him discuss. But even he will understand that Quebec is faced with the task of cleaning-up the terrorism experienced in the province, particularly in Montreal, for many years. I do not want to be unfair to Montreal.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Arnold Peters: As usual, all members opposite do is make a noise. Most Canadians find Montreal an amusing city to visit, a city where things are a little different. It is also Canada's largest city; this is a fact which many of us do not realize. A city of two million inhabitants is not easily policed, no matter how good the police force may be. It is not unusual in a city of this size that there should be 60 or 70 murders a year.
In passing this legislation we are not doing a service to the people of Quebec. We may be doing a service to the government of Quebec or to the Mayor of Montreal. But the citizens of Montreal want to clean-up their city. They want to build a police force sufficiently trained to handle the terrorism which has been practiced by half a dozen young political terrorists bent on destroying the political institutions of the province. There are economic problems in Quebec which the representatives of that province have not brought to the attention of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) rising on a point of order?
November 25, 1970


John Napier Turner: I wonder whether there would be any disposition, if there were a possibility of concluding this debate within an hour, to sit for that length of time.


Thomas Miller Bell: As always in these debates, we have been willing to sit late in order to make progress and we would certainly be willing to do so tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Public Order Act, 1970


Mr. Speaker:: If we are to sit beyond six o'clock it would require the unanimous agreement of the House. Is there such agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimity. This House stands adjourned until tomorrow afternoon at two o'clock.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, November 26, 1970