1970-11-05

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-183, to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Hubert Badanai: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is the granting of citizenship to persons to whom citizenship has been denied because of membership in organizations considered subversive but who have not been involved in any subversive activities and have no criminal record against them, and provided they can qualify for citizenship in every other respect.


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


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister, now that the President of the Canadian Labour Congress has joined the Chairman of the Economic Council of Canada in painting the most dismal unemployment picture this winter for many years, whether he can tell the House what action the government proposes to take to alleviate unemployment during the coming winter?
Righf Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, first, the government has already adopted a number of measures aimed at stimulating economic expansion and reducing unemployment following progress in slowing price increases, as outlined by the Minister of Finance in the throne speech debate. Second, the March budget acknowledged that higher unemployment was a probable consequence of restraint measures adopted to deal with the inflation problem, which the Economic Council recently acknowledged represented a most serious shortfall from national goals. Both the OECD and the IMF have recently indicated that inflation is the most critical national and international economic problem, as well.


An hon. Member:: What chapter is that?


An hon. Member:: Read the new edition.


Mr. Trudeau:: Third, the CLC also told the government in its March brief that it could expect a slowdown in the rate of wage and salary increases as a result of the restraint program, of which there is still no evidence. Organized labour's unrestrained efforts to obtain higher wages and salaries intensified the need for federal policy restraints-


An hon. Member:: You are a good reader.


An hon. Member:: Get a new speech writer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the right hon. Prime Minister but I would think the statement he is making now is of a general nature. Of course, I appreciate that the question was also of a general nature but I believe this is the kind of statement that ought normally to be made on motions.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, am I right to assume from the answer given by the Prime Minister that he is resting upon the measures already taken, which it has been estimated will result in extraordinarily severe unemployment this winter? Can the Prime Minister say whether he intends to announce any additional measures? I ask this question with great emphasis at this time, Mr. Speaker, because it will obviously take some time to translate new measures into action that would have any effect. Is the Prime Minister prepared to announce new measures at this time or is he prepared to have the people suffer the degree of unemployment now predicted for this coming winter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether this is a question. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will appreciate with me that the latter part of the question makes it an argument. The first part, of course, is a legitimate question, and perhaps the right hon. Prime Minister would like to reply.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Any such announcement will be made in due course by the government, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister in all sincerity whether the fine words, uttered by the Minister of Justice yesterday were simply words that are to be taken as such and to be followed by no action?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I would direct my supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the considerable trouble the Prime
904

November 5, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
Minister has taken to prepare the statement he was reading from, I wonder whether he might wish to continue reading in case he might have something to say farther on about the interest rates of banks and the exorbitant profits they are making?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would gladly read farther on-


Mr. MacEwan:: He has his money in a sock so he wouldn't know.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



DISTRIBUTION OF NATIONAL DIVIDEND

Mr. Real Caoueite (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
In view of the government's intention to give fresh impetus to the Canadian economy, would the Prime Minister consider distributing a national dividend which would increase the purchasing power of Canadians?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the House would unanimously agree to the national dividend theory, the government would be glad to adopt it.



QUEBEC-ACTION TO ALLEVIATE UNEMPLOYMENT

Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Considering the high rate of unemployment in the province of Quebec, is the Prime Minister, in co-operation with the premier of Quebec, contemplating special action to provide jobs for the unemployed in Quebec, in order to counteract any further terrorist activities in that province?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will appreciate that his question is somewhat along the same lines as the one asked by the Leader of the Opposition. Thus, I do not think it is in order.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I most respectfully suggest that my question applies more specifically to the province of Quebec and that the Prime Minister was preparing to make a reply which I would be happy to hear.


Mr. Speaker:: That is exactly what I was afraid of. [EnpZish]



UNEMPLOYMENT-PROVISION OF WINTER WORKS PROGRAMS

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg Norih):: I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of the estimate of the president of the Canadian Labour Congress that unemployment will reach 11 per cent of the total working force this winter, is the government giving consideration to co-operating with provinces such as Manitoba which have already announced substantial winter employment programs, in order to promote winter works programs to take up some of the slack?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North is asking a question much the same as that asked by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe. I was afraid that the question might be asked for all the provinces of Canada and that is why I thought I ought to intervene when the first one was asked. I do not want to be unfair to hon. members. The Prime Minister may wish to reply to both questions, the question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North-

-and the question put by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Ricard).


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker-

-with regard to the latter question, it is based on false premises. I cannot blame the hon. member because he is basing himself on Mr. Macdonald's statements. But that, of course, is no assurance of veracity.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am talking of Donald Macdonald of the Canadian Labour Congress.
That Mr. Macdonald appears to be confusing actual and seasonally adjusted unemployed figures. The seasonally adjusted rate for September was 6.9 per cent; the actual rate was 4.7 per cent. No responsible source, of course, which does not include Mr. Macdonald, has predicted a seasonally adjusted rate of 11 per cent or even 9 per cent this winter.


David Orlikow: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister whether the government is giving consideration to a winter works program, supplemental to the regional development programs, in order to help to alleviate some of the very substantial unemployment we have and will have this coming winter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as I have pointed out before, the winter works program totalled something less than $50 million. We have replaced it by manpower retraining and mobility programs to the tune of several hundreds of millions of dollars. It is typical of the NDP that they would want to go back to solutions which were discarded and discredited some time ago.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is also typical of the government to do nothing.



SUGGESTED REPEGGING OF CANADIAN DOLLAR

Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Is the government giving consideration to immediately repegging the Canadian dollar at approximately 95 cents? Otherwise, there will be really massive unemployment during the coming winter.

November 5, 1970



ACTION TO ALLEVIATE UNEMPLOYMENT IN CORNWALL

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In light of the fact that an additional 300 people have been laid off in the city of Cornwall by Courtaulds (Canada) Limited, this action adding to the already excessive rate of unemployment in this area-I ask Your Honour to be indulgent with me, especially for this question-and particularly since these lay-offs are a direct consequence of the unpegging of the dollar, may I ask the minister what steps the government intends to take to alleviate this very serious situation in the Cornwall area?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, this is something we are looking into right now.


Mr. Baldwin:: How about putting up a provisional program?


Mr. Woolliams:: The government has been looking for
3,000	FLQ members, and we have not seen them yet.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice. How many of the 65 persons who are still detained under the War Measures Act are to be charged today? Can the minister tell us how many will be charged under the War Measures Act and how many will be charged under the Criminal Code?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps by way of preliminary I can bring the hon. member up to date on the figures. As of 12.05 p.m. today, 429 people had been arrested, 372 have been released, 57 are still detained and one has been rearrested. My information is that at 2.30 this afternoon 28 persons will be arraigned and charged-27 in Montreal and one in Granby. There will be charges under the regulations and charges under the Criminal Code.



WAR MEASURES ACT-ABILITY OF RELATIVES TO VISIT PRISONERS-REPORTED MISTREATMENT OF THOSE DETAINED

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the Minister of Justice if his attention has been drawn to the report of Mr. Jacques Hebert, the president of the civil liberties group in Montreal which has been investigating the conditions among the detainees and his complaint that few relatives have been advised that they can now visit the prisoners despite the assurance to the contrary of Mr. Choquette? He reports that there have been victims of psychological and sometimes physical methods that are absolutely unacceptable. Has the minister had an opportunity to look into this
Inquiries of the Ministry
matter? If not, does he intend to look into it in order to see that the rights of persons who have been detained have been properly safeguarded?


John Napier Turner: I am aware of the report to which the hon. member referred. The primary responsibility, of course, lies with the Attorney General of Quebec. I will be discussing that report with him.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Since the minister has the primary responsibility for drafting the regulations under which these people have been detained and the government has the sole responsibility for passing them, following his discussions with the Attorney General of Quebec will the minister make a report to the House on the alleged treatment of those who have been detained by the police authorities?


John Napier Turner: I will consider that suggestion, Mr. Speaker.


Gerald William Baldwin: When the minister is making inquiries of the Minister of Justice of Quebec, will he ascertain whether a man named Manolesco, who is alleged to have been caught in the great sweep made under the War Measures Act, is being charged under that Act or is he simply being charged under the Criminal Code for practising witchcraft without a licence?



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Could he tell the House if a public servant may, in the course of his duties state openly and officially that he is for a political party-during a campaign prior to a general election or a by-election?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking the Prime Minister for an opinion. He is asking him if a federal public servant may take part in an election campaign.
Obviously, he is asking him to express an opinion or to interpret an act. The question, in that sense, is out of order.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
I apologize for having expressed myself badly, but I would like to know if there are regulations prohibiting a public servant from taking part officially or openly in the campaign of a political party during an election.


Mr. Speaker:: Here again, I doubt that the question is in order. The hon. member is asking for a legal opinion. I do not want to be unfair to him, but if he is interested in a particular case and wishes to consider it at the time of adjournment, he can give the Chair notice to that effect.

November 5, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry



NATIONAL SECURITY


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. As the figures change rapidly from day to day I do not have the exact figures, but it has been stated there are 43 persons who cannot be found and at least those who committed the murder and kidnappings have not been found. Have there been any restrictions placed on the ports of departure in the province of Quebec to prevent these people leaving that province to go to another country where charges cannot be laid against them and from where Canada would be unable to extradite them?


John Napier Turner: I cannot provide any details of that at the moment, Mr. Speaker.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: This matter is very important with reference to the competent administration of the law. In view of the fact the minister does not have those details, will he take my question as notice and make a statement later in that regard?


John Napier Turner: I did not say that I do not have the details, Mr. Speaker, but I suggest it might not be in the interests of trying to apprehend the people involved if I were to reveal them.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Possibly I can narrow the question so that it does not involve the matter of security. Have any restrictions been placed on the ports with regard to people leaving the province of Quebec? Surely that would not affect security and it might even assist the police.


John Napier Turner: I can assure the hon. member that precautions were taken, Mr. Speaker.



EFFECT OF PROPOSED NEW BRITISH TARIFFS ON CANADIAN EXPORTS-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON GOVERNMENT ACTION

Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the announced intention of the British government to create new tariff rates to protect British farmers, a course which even precedes Britain's entry into the European Common Market, will the minister consider making an early statement to the House dealing especially with the effect such action may have on Canadian food exports both to Britain and to the ECM countries and, in addition, outline possible government action to protect Canadian interests?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minisier of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: The British have, indeed, announced such an intention, but it is understood by every country involved
that discussions will take place within the context of the five-power agreement which provided for wheat imports by the United Kingdom. These discussions will now take place.


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: I should like to apply the preamble of the question which has just been asked to the particular subject of British Columbia lumber. Will the discussions the minister has mentioned cover exports of B.C. lumber to the United Kingdom market?


Jean-Luc Pepin: One of the purposes of my recent trip to Europe was to establish optimum channels of communication with all the parties involved-the United Kingdom, the members of the European community, the new applicants and all countries concerned with the process of elargissement. This has been done. One thing which is of particular interest is that the British have identified 12 sensitive items; in their own view it would be damaging to the British economy if these were put under the exterior tariffs of the community. It so happens that eight or nine of these sensitive items are of great importance to Canada. We are already at work attempting to develop a sense of community of interest between Canada, the United Kingdom and the E.E.C. itself, trying to convince the community that maximum access, on the lowest possible tariff or, hopefully, no external tariff at all, would be in the interest of everyone involved.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: wonder when the minister will make the statement on the European Common Market and Canada's relations with it that I understood him to promise in reply to a question I asked him some weeks ago. I should like to know when the minister proposes to make a full statement instead of these spasmodic comments on partial aspects of the question.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I have already told the Leader of the Opposition personally that I had some difficulty in bringing my report to the attention of my colleagues because of recent events. This has now been done and I shall be working in the coming days on a speech on this subject. I shall use the first opportunity to deliver it, either in the House or outside.


Mark Willson Rose: Since the minister did not tell us, may I ask him directly whether the 12 sensitive items he mentioned include lumber, plywood and pulp?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I was trying to dodge the issue, Mr. Speaker, because I am not sure of which items in the forest product area are included.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: Speaking from memory, I believe these items are included. Most of the items on the list have to do with basic products, the sort of thing the British economy needs to acquire at the best possible terms for transformation and conversion into its own exports.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Can I have an assurance from the minister that his statement will be made in the House, where,

November 5, 1970

I understand, he promised to make his statement in the first place, so that there may be some discussion in response to what he has to say?


Jean-Luc Pepin: One of the possibilities open to the opposition is to provoke such a debate-I have in mind an occasion when the opposition might wish to chastise me, or the department, or the government with regard to an export situation which is now such that Canada expects a $2 billion surplus this year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this is exactly the abuse of ministerial position and the rules of the House to which I am objecting.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Whether or not the minister thinks that we are attacking him or wishing to have a discussion on the difficulties confronting this country is not for him to decide. I should like him to give the assurance for which we asked.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the minister rising on a point of order?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to know which article in the rules forces me to make a speech on any subject.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Your own words do.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Annapolis Valley has a supplementary.



EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET AND CANADA'S AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS-DISCUSSION AT CONGRESS

Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Is the question of the European Common Market and the position of Canada's agricultural products going to be a specific item for discussion when the agricultural congress meets at the end of the month? As a supplement to the question, may I ask when hon. members are going to receive their invitations to the congress which is only two weeks away?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the first part of the conference, which is the outlook conference to be held on November 23 and 24, will deal with the outlook for all agricultural products, taking into account such specific items as the hon. member mentioned. The second two days of the congress are specifically designed to deal with the recommendations contained in the task force report, and members of the agricultural committee will receive within the next day or two, if they have not received already, an invitation to attend that portion of the congress.


Mr. Thomas S. Barneit (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I should like to ask the
Inquiries of the Ministry
minister whether before this debate takes place, either on his own volition or otherwise, he will pay a visit to the province of British Columbia in order to discover that in fact lumber, plywood and pulp are important export commodities in the Canadian economy?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



CASH POSITION OF FARMERS AT END OF 1970-71 CROP YEAR

Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. Would the minister agree with the statement made by Mr. Runciman, president of United Grain Growers, that the cash position of the prairie grain farmer will not be any better at the end of the 1970-71 crop year than it was at the end of the present year?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows that a question asked in those terms is not in order.



THE LATE PIERRE LAPORTE


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Prime Minister. Is the government giving any consideration to presenting to the House of Commons a special vote to provide funds to give financial assistance to the Laporte family in view of the tremendous sacrifice that they have made for all Canadians?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the question of the need of Mr. Laporte's family has been discussed privately between the government of Quebec and the federal government. At this time there is nothing more I can add. I hope that the suggestion made by the hon. member will not prove to be necessary.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister received a telegram from Liberal provincial member Timothy Reid, of Toronto, demanding that the federal government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that this sort of question is not in order. I would not think that a question asking whether the Prime Minister had received a telegram from a member of a provincial House could be asked at this time.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: There cannot be a supplementary to a question that is out of order.
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE

November 5, 1970



REACTIVATING OF DISBANDED INFANTRY BATTALIONS TO MAINTAIN INTERNAL SECURITY

Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the necessity, as demonstrated during the past three weeks, of maintaining adequate numbers and suitable types of troops, particularly infantry, in order to maintain internal security and to render aid to the civil power in Canada, is consideration being given to reactivating the infantry battalions which have been disbanded during the past year?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, we are going to study very closely the outcome of the current activation of the forces in connection with their support of civil order. We will see to what extent the response has been adequate-I feel it has been fully adequate-and if any changes are indicated they will be announced in due course.



INDUSTRY


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Does he intend to make a statement in the House concerning the establishment of the Textile Review Board and the inquiry into the importation of cotton and polyester yarns?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Mr. Speaker. All this is in agreement with the policy which I announced on May 14. Today I have issued a release giving the names of the three appointed commissioners who are: Messrs. Annis, St-Lau-rent and Campbell. One of the first tasks of the board will be to look into the cotton and polyester yarn situation.



TEXTILES-POSSIBILITY OF INCREASED COMPETITION FROM PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: At present Canadian textile producers are facing serious difficulties due to foreign competition. My question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is: Will Communist China be taking over Taiwan's quota on textiles, and will Canadian manufacturers be faced with increasing competition from imports from both countries?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Mr. Speaker. The government of the People's Republic of China has its own voluntary restraint agreement with us with respect to some textile items and this will continue; no change is being made. There is no thought of transferring the Taiwan so-called quota to the Republic of China.



PLAN TO CONSOLIDATE PRAIRIE FARM UNITS-SUBMISSION TO AGRICULTURAL CONGRESS AND HOUSE

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: May I direct a question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. Can the minister indicate to the House whether his general plan on the consolidation of farm units in the Prairie region, mentioned in his statement tabled in the House last week, will be ready for presentation to the coming agricultural congress which will meet in Ottawa?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: I expect not, Mr. Speaker.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Given the basic importance of such a farm consolidation plan, as mentioned in the report, can the minister indicate when it will be ready for presentation to the House?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker.



INFORMATION CANADA


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the minister responsible for Information Canada. It is based on an answer tabled in the House on Monday of this week wherein the minister stated that the sum of $24,000 had been disbursed by his department to Communication Arts Centre Incorporated of Montreal for the design of the special emblem that departments are to use. Did the minister give consideration to soliciting the very valuable help that is available in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce in the designing of this new emblem?


Hon. Robert Sianbury (Minister without Portfolio):: There were consultations, Mr. Speaker, with that department as well as others.



WHEAT-FINAL PAYMENT UNDER ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM

['Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.\nCould he tell the House whether he intends to set up a fast and efficient communication system between Ottawa and New York, so that the Canadian delegation at the UN will no longer find itself in ridiculous situations such as the one that occurred yesterday at the time of an important vote?']
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Agriculture but he has apparently slipped into oblivion or gone somewhere. Perhaps the Minister of Manpower and Immigration might be able to answer it. Could he indicate when the final payment under the "lower income for tomorrow" program will be made?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think I can provide some information in that regard. I was informed last weekend that approximately 2,600 cheques had gone out and that the office was expecting to be mailing cheques at the rate of 2,500 a day starting last Monday, with the hope of having 80 per cent of the final cheques in the hands of the farmers by December 18.

November 5, 1970



Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Could he tell the House whether he intends to set up a fast and efficient communication system between Ottawa and New York, so that the Canadian delegation at the UN will no longer find itself in ridiculous situations such as the one that occurred yesterday at the time of an important vote?



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. What steps does his department propose to take to prevent the takeover of Ryerson press by a United States company?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am wondering whether this question was not asked before, though it may have been in other terms. If it was not, perhaps the minister might want to reply.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I pointed out in the House the other day that the only law in my department that might have any application at all is the Combines Investigation Act. I pointed out to the House that there was no evidence which indicated to me or my officials that the sale of Ryerson Press was made under circumstances which contravene any provision of the Combines Investigation Act. It may well be that we should have a new Combines Investigation Act with different provisions. That is why this subject was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne.


Mr. J. Edward Broadbeni (Oshawa-Whilby):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister could inform the House if the government is contemplating the introduction of legislation which will protect other publishing firms in Canada from suffering the same fate in the future?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that question should be addressed to me. If the government has any such intention it will be announced in due course in the proper way.


James Aloysius McGrath: By that time there will be no companies left.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



SOUTHEAST ASIA-REPORTED REQUEST BY MALAYSIA THAT CANADA APPROACH CHINA ON GUARANTEE OF NEUTRALITY

Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. How has Canada responded to Malaysia's request that Canada should sound out China about joining other big powers in guaranteeing the neutrality of Southeast Asia, and does the government support such a solution to the difficulties in that part of the world?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think this question is based upon a misleading news report about an interview given by the Foreign Minister of Malaysia in which it was suggested he had made such a suggestion to me. He has since corrected that statement. We did talk about the situation in Southeast Asia but all the minister said was that he hoped that when Canada established relations with China we could discuss the problems of Malaysia with that country.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister directly whether or not he looks at the suggestion favourably?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I was not asked to express any view and I do not do so now.



APPOINTMENT OF PAUL GERIN-LAJOIE AS HEAD OF INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY

John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs when the appointment of the new head of CIDA will be announced, and whether it will be Mr. Gerin-Lajoie?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding that the announcement had been made. Certainly the appointment has been made and the new head of CIDA is Mr. Paul Gerin-Lajoie.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. In view of the recent reports that labour unions representing some 85,000 railway and transport workers are demanding wage increases ranging up to 40 per cent, what steps is the minister or the government taking to prevent these demands from escalating into work stoppages and excessive increases in transportation costs, to the serious detriment of our national economy and especially of the farming industry?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that the railway unions

Inquiries of the Ministry
in Canada are among the most responsible in the country, and I have no fear at all that their demands will lead to any wildcat strikes.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darlmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Is he in a position to indicate what the future is for the DDH-280's, and can he assure the House that the program will be completed as near as possible to the original capability or role determined for these ships?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give a full indication at the moment about the program, but I can respond to the hon. member's earlier question by indicating that work is continuing on all four ships.


Mr. David Anderson (Esquimall-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we all remember the Bonaventure and I am wondering whether the minister can indicate what the cost over-run of this program will be?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am wondering whether that question is in order. If members wish, perhaps I should allow the minister to respond, but it seems to me this is the kind of information that normally should be sought by a written question.


J. Michael Forrestall: Because this is important, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister could indicate that the defence budget will not be impaired as a result of an increase in the cost of this program?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: My understanding is that it will not be, Mr. Speaker.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of a recent report printed in the Ottawa Journal on October 31, 1970, to the effect that the agricultural department's pesticide unit is vastly understaffed to meet the sharp increase in research needed on pesticides-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will allow the hon. member's question in a moment but I wonder whether it would not be more procedurally correct to ask the question directly rather than basing it on a newspaper item. I know this has been done before but I should like to encourage hon. members to ask questions directly rather than by quoting from newspaper reports. The hon. member may proceed with his question.

November 5, 1970


Randolph Harding: I just have one more line.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Randolph Harding: In view of the sharp increase in research needed on pesticides and their effects on our environment, has the minister's department any plans to increase the professional and support staff required to do this essential research?


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Parliamenfary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that progress is being made in locating and hiring additional staff. Plans are also being developed that could affect the organization as well as the number and composition of staff assigned to the administration of the Pest Control Products Act. It is easy to speculate on what changes might be made in an area of work that is expanding and very much in the news.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Labour.
Since the Professional Employment Council indicates that the number of jobs affecting directors, accountants, engineers and other professionals has declined by 29 per cent in the last 12 months and that the number of professionals looking for a new job has increased by 14 per cent during the same period, could the minister tell the House what he intends to do to reduce the number of educated unemployed people and to create stable jobs for the youth who wants-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member will admit that his question is essentially the same that was asked today by the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe and others. I believe this question should not be asked again at this stage.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether he is aware of the interference in the civil liberties of the medical profession by Quebec Bill CF-41, and does the Bill of Rights protect the individual liberties of doctors in that province?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Obviously the hon. member's question seeks a legal opinion from the Minister of Justice and I would not think it is in order.
November 5, 1970



REVISED STATUTES OF CANADA, 1970 AVAILABILITY BEFORE END OF YEAR

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that in a number of bills before us this session there is a precise reference to the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, can the minister say whether these Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, will be before us in this calendar year?


John Napier Turner: I am optimistic that they will be, Mr. Speaker.



MANPOWER


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (Southwestern Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and is supplementary to an answer given by the Prime Minister a little while ago. Can he make a statement to the House explaining whether the training and retraining program carried out by the department has been successful in providing jobs after these people have been retrained?


Mr. Speaker:: I assume the hon. member is asking whether such a statement can be made on motions. It cannot be made now but the minister might want to reply in those terms.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am sure I could make a very effective speech, following the example of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the minister should not do that now. Orders of the day.
[DOT] * *



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to rise on a point of order to ask the President of the Privy Council about the business of the House for the rest of this week and for next week.


Mr. MacEachen:: The business for the remainder of today and until its completion will be the emergency powers bill, followed by the statutory instruments bill, the statistics bill, the packaging and labelling bill and the Buffalo-Fort Erie bridge bill. On Tuesday, November 10, the business of supply will be called for an opposition day under the auspices of the NDP. As the hon. member knows, Wednesday November 11, is Remembrance Day and the House will not sit on that day.
Public Order Act, 1970


Gerald William Baldwin: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister able to elaborate on his answer to my question yesterday about the government's intention with regard to the bill now before the House and the times of sittings with respect to that bill?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it would be the intention of the government to suggest, after consultation, that today's sitting be extended if there were a real possibility of the bill being completed. However, it is difficult at this moment to anticipate what progress will be made this afternoon and it might be better if we reviewed the question informally shortly after eight o'clock this evening.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, November 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carle-ton) that Bill C-181, to provide temporary emergency powers for the preservation of public order in Canada, be read the second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Warren Allmand (Noire-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, it is frustrating and discouraging to note that there are still some persons and I emphasize "some persons" because the majority are with us inside and outside of this House who have not yet grasped the seriousness of the Quebec situation and who continue to doubt the need for this bill as well as for the emergency measures adopted on October 16. They continue to discuss the situation as if it were an academic exercise, an opportunity for political rhetoric, or a chance to score political points.
Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) started off by triumphantly stating that "the government has now in effect accepted our leadership in this matter". What does that kind of statement add to a matter as serious as this? If the Leader of the Opposition has truly shown leadership, the Canadian people will recognize it, but I submit that leadership is shown by action and not by words. While the Leader of the Opposition accepted the bill in principle, he repeatedly attempted to pick at the government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). One minute he seemed to favour the bill and the next minute he did not. The Canadian people, and in particular the beleaguered people in the province of Quebec, are not concerned at this time with the winning of political or debating points. They expect us here, in Parliament, to take the situation seriously and to work together to find a just and peaceful solution to this problem.
I said there are those who are not convinced of the need for this bill and the emergency measures that were taken. They continue to demand evidence of the apprehended insurrection. For those of us who live in

November 5, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
Quebec the evidence is obvious. I should point out that my home is in Montreal and my wife and children are still living there. We, in Montreal, have lived with the evidence and have known it intimately. We have heard the bombs blasting in the mail boxes, we have walked the streets where the blasts took place.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you do something about it?


William Warren Allmand: We have worked and lived in the buildings which were partially blown apart. Some of us from Montreal knew Mr. Cross, and many of us knew Mr. Laporte. We did not know him as an image on television or as a name in the newspapers, but as one of our colleagues. We have also lived with, listened to and looked at those who call themselves the FLQ. We have heard their hate; we have felt their hostility, and not from a distance, as if we were watching a drama on cinema. We felt it at the St. Jean Baptiste parade riot in 1969, at the McGill Frangais march and at the riots at St. Leonard.


An hon. Member:: Why did you not do something then?


William Warren Allmand: The opposition members are asking why we did not do something about it. We have been doing something about it. I wonder what they would have done if they had had the responsibility.


David Orlikow: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member who has the floor should be allowed to continue his speech.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, many of us-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand the hon. member for Winnipeg North seeks permission of the hon. member to ask a question.


William Warren Allmand: Yes, Mr. Speaker, let him ask the question.


David Orlikow: I wonder if the hon. member has any information for members on this side of the House as to what was the increase in the number of personnel in the RCMP assigned to the province of Quebec to look into this matter in the last three or four years since the bombings began.


William Warren Allmand: I am not sure of the answer to that question but I do know that this government has been concerned and has tried to act within its powers. There is a very thin line on either side of the question as to whether one goes too far or whether one does too little, but of course that is the problem with which we are dealing. Many people have said we have over reacted, while others have said we have not gone far enough. I say we have been concerned.
I am trying to impress on the House that those of us who live in Montreal and Quebec know at first hand what it is like to live with terror. The Leader of the NDP (Mr. Douglas) has repeatedly stated that the people of
Canada are still waiting for the evidence that the War Measures Act and this bill were necessary. He asked whether we have read the remarks made by Pauline Jewett and Miss LaMarsh and articles which appeared in the Toronto Star as well as those published by the Civil Liberties Union of Canada. He gave us a list of names of people from Toronto, Ottawa and other places, but he mentioned none from Quebec when he spoke yesterday. I should like to ask him whether he has listened to the remarks of Frank Scott, for example, one of the most eminent civil liberties lawyers in Canada or of the "Ligue des Droits d'Hommes" which is the Montreal group concerned with civil liberties, or any Quebec newspapers. Many of these groups and people are not our political partisans. I am not a member of the cabinet and the government might have evidence that I do not have or that I am not aware of, but the evidence that I do have, which is public to all who wish to examine it, is sufficient to my mind to support what the government has done and what the government is doing.
I will repeat this evidence. First of all, we have the expressed intention by the FLQ to engage in terrorist activities including assassination. We have this in their printed literature, which includes instructions on how to create revolution, how to make Molotov cocktails and many other things that are related to violent terrorism. We have also heard these intentions expressed in their speeches. Second, we have information that the FLQ had adequate fire power and personnel to proceed seriously towards its stated goals. Third, we have actual cases where terrorist activities were carried out through bombings, kidnappings, and murders. So, we have their expressed intention in writing and words; we have information that they have the means, and we have cases, in which these intentions have actually been carried out. To me, this is adequate justification for what the government has done.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
Nevertheless, some keep asking, where is the revolution? Where is the attempt to overthrow the government? They keep on expecting some type of spectacular uprising, some coup d'etat, some kind of open revolution or civil war. It may be that there is such a plan, but I do not know. It is not what I would expect at this stage. If the FLQ came out in the open to stage that type of uprising or a coup d'etat, they would be easily dealt with; our superior police and armed forces would easily rout and capture them, and the revolution would be finished.
This is not their method. It is not their method even as they describe it in their manual for urban guerilla warfare, or their method as it is carried out in other countries. No, Mr. Speaker, these new revolutionaries hide in their holes and hovels, coming out occasionally to bomb, to kidnap, and to murder at times which best suit their purposes. Their goal is to disrupt society persistently, to keep it off balance, to break its will to continue. This type of urban guerilla warfare is not aimed at the immediate overthrow of the government but at the will of the people to maintain their institutions, their way of life.

November 5, 1970

This type of terrorism is aimed at the will of people to serve in public office. It is aimed at the will of the people to speak out as they would like to speak out. It is aimed at the will of the people to write what they would like to write, at their will to serve as a judge or on a jury, their will to invest in Quebec, their will to plant their roots in Quebec and to continue to live there. That is what the terrorism is directed at but, Mr. Speaker, these terrorists have miscalculated the will of the Quebec people, the Quebec government and the Canadian government.
We are not ready to let our institutions deteriorate. We are not ready to let terrorists take away those liberties that our ancestors fought so hard to win. It is true that this bill and the regulations introduced on October 16 do limit some civil liberties, but I suggest to you that many others more expert in these matters than I am say this limitation is not very wide.
I attended a teach-in on the present measures with Frank Scott who, as I have already said, is known to be a great civil liberties lawyer, and he stated that the measures that have been introduced are very mild and very limited. As the Prime Minister has said, as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) has said, nobody really wanted this type of legislation or this type of measure. But, Mr. Speaker, it was the lesser of evils in the situation in which we found ourselves.
We must remember that in democratic societies there is no such thing as unlimited rights. In Quebec, we have the doctrine of "abus de droit", abuse of rights, where one's rights are limited when they come into conflict with the rights of others. In our legal system we have the doctrine of the balance of convenience, through which we allow courts to grant an injunction against the rights of others where we feel there may be a conflict of rights. We insist that the rights of individuals must be limited with respect to the rights of the collectivity, the rights of society.
But let us examine who interfered with civil liberties in what I consider to be a major way. In my opinion, the terror and the violence have been the real cause of restricted liberties in Montreal. Since the commencement of the violence there has been a limit on the liberty of movement enjoyed by the people of Montreal simply because of fear. There has been a serious drop in consumer sales. There has been a cancellation of public social events. Children's events have been cancelled. The children of Montreal no longer may enjoy a Santa Claus parade like children in other Canadian cities. Political meetings in Montreal have been cancelled. There have been many instances where people living in this situation of terror and violence have not been free to do the things that they ordinarily would do if they were not living under such threats.
The new bill before us continues many of the things that were in the regulations, but it removes those parts which were most abhorrent, and it introduces greater protection for those who are accused. The principle object of the bill is to make the FLQ an unlawful association, and those who are members or supporters of it guilty of an offence. Those who are accused under the
Public Order Act, 1970
law will still not have bail unless it is agreed to by the Attorney General, and they still may remain in jail for 90 days before a trial date is set. On the other hand, the period during which they can be held before being charged is reduced from 21 days to seven days.
The measures in the bill are restricted to the FLQ and its successor organizations, which means they cannot be used to weed out and prosecute other types of people who may not be considered desirable by provincial governments, especially governments outside Quebec. The bill provides the right to counsel. It specifically refers to that right, although it is the opinion of the government that that right was not interfered with under the emergency regulations.
Another important provision, with respect to the evidence which can be used to prosecute people under this bill, is the clause which states that a person must have attended several meetings or many meetings of the FLQ, instead of one, before being considered a member of the organization. A serious defect in the regulations under the War Measures Act was the provision that if a person attended even one meeting of the FLQ that fact could be used as evidence against him. The provisions in the regulations dealing with arrest and search without warrant are also continued. To a great extent, the bill is an enactment of the regulations which were made under the War Measures Act.
There has been some discussion about the retroactivity of offences under this bill. Mr. Speaker, I submit that there is no retroactivity of offence under the bill. The offence set out in the bill is that of being a member, or a supporter in various ways, of the FLQ, and that means being a member or supporter after the bill is declared to be in force.
It is true that in the bill there is reference to events, which can be used as evidence, before the bill has come into effect, but these things, of themselves, are not offences. It is not an offence to have attended a meeting or meetings of the FLQ within the past month. Under the bill, it is not an offence to have done things on behalf of the FLQ prior to its introduction and the enactment of the regulations on October 16.
These things raise presumptions against an accused that, as of the day the bill is proclaimed, he is a member of the FLQ. But according to our laws of evidence and legal procedures that presumption can be overturned by casting doubts on it. If a person shows he has taken steps to disassociate himself from the FLQ after the meetings that have been referred to and the evidence brought before the court, then the presumption is rebutted and then the Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the person was a member of the FLQ when the bill was proclaimed. So, the offence is not a retroactive offence. The offence is that of being a member or supporter once the bill comes into effect.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
Some people, Mr. Speaker, have stated that this bill cannot deal with the deep causes which lie behind the

November 5, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
terrorism and unrest and, therefore, it is not the proper measure to deal with such problems. We all realize that this bill is meant merely to deal with terrorist activities and I do not think anyone would suggest that it is meant to deal with the causes which lie behind terrorism and unrest. It is interesting to note, however, that during the crisis which arose in Quebec the principal occupation of the Quebec government at that time was to put into effect the medicare program and that they were fighting against stiff political opposition to do this. At that time the Quebec government was fighting for a measure to benefit the people who were supposed to be oppressed. This was not a measure to benefit the establishment but one that favoured the less fortunate citizens.
In this House yesterday a question was asked what the governments of Quebec and Ottawa were doing to alleviate the situation for this group of people. There are many examples, Mr. Speaker, but a good one is what was taking place during the month of September and all through the summer months. I refer to the medicare issue. The government was trying to deal with something that would help the people of Quebec and that would relieve a severe economic and social condition. Whilst these discussions on medicare were taking place, other officials of the Quebec government were outside the province trying to encourage investment in the province and negotiating with people who were prepared to invest in order to provide more jobs.
There are many examples, both in the program of this government and the Quebec government, of efforts which were aimed at the problems which are the cause of unrest. But the real cause of the terrorism, Mr. Speaker, is not the social and economic conditions of the people. I submit the real cause of this terrorism is something which is based on hatred and hostility. A psychiatrist of the St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary, who has dealt with some of these convicted terrorists, has stated, as a result of his examination of them, that they did not have any social or economic goals as a result of their terrorist activities and that they did not really understand the problems of Quebec.
We will continue to work for the economic and social betterment of the people of Quebec but we will do it through the democratic system. If we fail to do the right thing, the people will vote against us in general elections and put us out. We will accept the verdict just as the governments of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have done in the past months. There have been general elections in those provinces and when it was obvious what the people wanted, immediately the leaders said to Lieutenant Governors, "We are prepared to give up the government to those who have been elected by the people." We believe that governments should be changed through democratic elections in this country, and that is the way that will persist.


Gerald William Baldwin: Did you hear that?


William Warren Allmand: When the Leader of the NDP was giving his speech yesterday, he suggested that members of this
party did not vote on October 18 according to their conscience.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


William Warren Allmand: Many times the Leader of the NDP has
made this insinuation against members of this party. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that there are examples of members of all parties of this House, both in committee and in the House, voting against their party. I know several members of the government caucus have, and indeed on one or two occasions I have done so myself. I do not think that voting according to conscience is something that only applies to members of the NDP. When legislation has been presented in Manitoba, there have not been too many mavericks voting against the NDP majority in that particular legislature. I want to assure the House that we in this party will all vote according to our conscience on this measure and I, for one, will support it with a very clear conscience. Montreal is my city, Quebec is my province and Canada is my country. No group of terrorists will take them away from me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: Nor will any fuzzy-headed procrastinating politicians, more concerned with partisan politics whittle away our ability to defend these things.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand the hon. member would like to ask a question of the member who has just resumed his seat. Does the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) agree?


William Warren Allmand: Certainly.


Mr. Gilbert:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the hon. member knows where the 1,000 to 3,000 FLQ members referred to by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) are, and if he can indicate the names of the institutions into which these people have infiltrated?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of question which has been asked continually and with which I attempted to deal. I do not know whether there are 100, 200 or 3,000 members of the FLQ, but I submit that is not important. I want to make it clear to this House that the new type of urban guerilla warfare is not aimed at immediately overthrowing a government but to break the will of the government to continue to support its institutions, to break the will of the people to serve, and the right to speak. To do this all you need is 50 or 100 terrorists who are well organized. If they continue to assassinate and kidnap periodically they hope to upset the balance in society by throwing into confusion all those who serve in positions of authority. If they can really break the will of people to serve in Parliament, to serve as judges, to serve as jurors, to write, to speak, then they have gone a long way toward accomplishing their goals.

November 5, 1970

These are the things they are trying to do. They do not come into the open. Three thousand or 5,000 people could not act openly to overthrow the government, but with a very small number of guerillas they can accomplish something far more important, and that is break the will of the people to defend their democratic institutions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is of some historical interest that today is the 365th anniversary of the Gunpowder Plot whereby Parliament was to be blown up.


An hon. Member:: Were you there, John?


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman heard of this for the first time when I mentioned it just now. It is a coincidence, too, that in those days and for a period thereafter, Members of Parliament in Westminster were accompanied by armed men to protect and preserve them against a group of unknown conspirators, other than Guy Fawkes and four or five others who were immediately arrested.
We meet in this House to deal with a bill that is the outgrowth of action taken by the government several weeks ago. I knew Mr. Laporte. The suggestion was made that since he became, by his death, a national martyr, some fund might be set up. I give that my unqualified support.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: I believe that all of us, as Canadians, lost something by his death. Hearts were deeply touched when word of his death was brought to this House around midnight on the seventeenth of last month. It is well, as we approach the matter before us today, that we should think of James Cross and the terrible period of the last few weeks through which his wife and family have passed. I know that the hearts of all Canadians are with her and the family and we all hope that, providentially, James Cross may still be alive.
I listened to the last speaker with interest, as I always do. He came into the House with a message that was obviously from the heart. This House listens to those who display that attitude of mind. I want to add that, however much I may disagree with the views that are expressed by some hon. members in this House on this question, I resent to the limit the kinds of attacks being made upon hon. members, and the suggestion that they are political hacks bent on securing political benefits. This is Parliament and there must be, in the nature of things, disagreement. There must be the give and take and thrust of debate; because only in debate can this institution bring about those changes which the composite viewpoint of the House wishes to achieve. I repeat: there is no reason or justification for the kinds of attacks that are being made on a political party to which at no time have I been other than an opponent. It is of interest that some of those who themselves have attacked the
Public Order Act, 1970
NDP the most viciously saw the light only a few years ago and left that party for the seats of mighty across the floor.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Yesterday I, unfortunately, was unable to be in the House to listen to the remarks of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner, Ottawa-Carleton). However, I have read them. Even reading them indicates to me that they were eloquently delivered. But, Sir, there is nothing more difficult for a lawyer of distinction than having a case that is difficult to argue, if not almost impossible to justify.


An hon. Member:: Be careful.


John George Diefenbaker: Everyone of us in the courts has faced that. I wish I could have heard the minister yesterday as he endeavoured to explain the unexplainable and to explain why information has not been given to this House. Nevertheless, I thank the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace for clearing up doubts. We now have it from one who knows.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: We have it from one who has lived in Montreal amid the dangers and perils of the last couple of years. He says the reason the government had not done anything was that it was so busy with medicare and so anxious to bring foreign investment into Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I wish to make it clear to the House that at no time did I suggest that during the last three years the government was working on the matter of medicare. I mentioned that it was so engaged during the period of the crisis of the last few weeks, and during the summer. One of the most important measures it was trying to bring forward was medicare, for the benefit of the lower income people of Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: If that is an explanation, I accept it. I understand the feelings of the hon. member. In grappling with that problem, that terrible thing, that instrument of social change known as medicare, it was almost impossible for the law officers of the Crown and for the police forces to act. They must have known the extent of the danger since the hon. member knew. He has been able to tell the House all about the dangers of bombings, threats and plans. On the fifteenth of last month I placed before this House the indictment made by Mr. Saulnier on behalf of Montreal. In its 45 or 50 pages that were placed before a committee of this House, there was set forth the peril to freedom that the FLC constituted-*


An hon. Member:: That's a new one.


John George Diefenbaker: They want to be the FLC for all
Canada, but they will not be. The government did not act

November 5, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
and now we know why. With their heads full of medicare and their hearts filled with the desire to improve investments to the tune of millions of dollars, they had not had time to think of a matter such as the FLQ. I am glad the hon. member has cleared the air in such an effective, terse and interesting manner.


Mr. Goyer:: Mr. Speaker-


John George Diefenbaker: If any hon. member who wishes to interrupt will rise, I will be happy to answer him.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order or on a question of privilege?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, it is simply to repeat to the right hon. member what I said, that-


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I can say to the hon. member and to those who have recently been elevated to the exalted position of Parliamentary Secretary, that if the hon. member makes a few more interruptions like that he will yet take the place of one of the other ministers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, we, in our party, through our leader placed our views clearly and definitely before this House and country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: During the debate on the sixteenth and seventeenth of October we took a strong stand, pointing out that the action being taken under the War Measures Act was something that had never been contemplated. Indeed, if one were to go back to 1960 and read the contribution of the Prime Minister of Canada at that time, the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, it is clear that the War Measures Act could not be considered for use for any purpose except war, or in that period which is, as it were, a twilight before the actual beginning of war. During the period when Mr. Bennett was prime minister there were many hon. members who disagreed with him when he said the War Measures Act should be abolished. But that is all in the past. We took our stand. We pointed out what we saw wrong in what was being done. We suggested amendments and improvements. The Liberal press across this country generally supported the need of the War Measures Act regulations being kept in effect for only the immediate period of time. The Winnipeg Free Press used the expression "No longer than necessary". The editorial concluded as follows:
[DOT] (3:30 D.m.)
Its powers must not be used more than is needed; and it must not be kept alive a moment longer than necessary.
This morning the Globe and Mail set out its views in an editorial. The heading covers the viewpoint of that
paper: "No case to continue rights suspension". I am not in agreement with that viewpoint.
We in this party stated our views very clearly. We said that there should be a statute limited in its application to a certain period and that, when passed, the War Measures Act should cease to be used as the instrument for prosecuting these individuals.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: That was the view of the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and that was the view I expressed when I spoke. I suggested there should be a reward offered. I have great respect for the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith) as a parliamentarian. He loves Parliament. The other day I watched him squirm, twist and turn mental somersaults. After having stated no reward had as yet been determined, a few minutes later a reward was announced in Quebec and he suddenly stated in this House in effect, "Yes, we decided two weeks ago". I will come back to that matter with quotations because the minister was not his usual, effective self. I felt sorry for him.


Mr. Mcllraith:: Maybe he will come back to it and it will be someone else again.


John George Diefenbaker: I must not miss any of those pearls.


George James McIlraith: Maybe you will come back to it and it will be someone else again.


John George Diefenbaker: I still do not know what the observation is, but I will read it in Hansard.
I suggested that a committee should be established to ensure that unnecessary injustice is not committed against any Canadian. A committee has now been established, apparently as the result of the initiative of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Montreal, two or three days after he advocated it was needed. As an example, what about Bernard Lortie who was arrested when he gave himself up because he had the same name as an individual that was being sought? When he gave himself up the police looked over his record. They stated they were 80 per cent sure he was the dangerous criminal. They were 100 per cent wrong, and they must have known it. He gave his complete record. At the end of 24 hours the police must have known that he was not the man for whom they were looking, yet they incarcerated him for several more days. This is what happens when absolute power is placed in the hands of any man or group of men. We placed our views before this House and the country. Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, if it discharges its responsibility, must always be the conscience of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I repeat, an opposition that discharges its responsibility is the conscience of the government. The hon. member who preceded me said that members of the government can vote according to conscience. I am not going to argue that. However, there was a look

November 5, 1970

of dubiety on the faces of the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) when I mentioned the dangers a moment ago.
I am now going to quote an authority that no member opposite can challenge. I do not know how many hon. members have read this "Appeal for Realism in politics". This document was produced by various individuals, including the present Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau). The manifesto was translated into English by Mr. Pitfield so there will be doubt as to the correctness of it. After all, Mr. Pitfield has fallen into no pits lately.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: I quote:
Democratic progress requires the ready availability of true and complete information. In this way people can objectively evaluate their government's policies. To act otherwise is to give way to despotic secrecy.
Who can describe in more effective terms what has happened in this House during the past several weeks? We have not been able to pry out any information. Two or three cabinet ministers, in their perambulations have given information outside the House that turned out to be misinformation.
I have great respect for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand). I do not think I have heard a better speech in the last two or three years than the speech the minister gave when he spoke on this debate. It was a remarkable effort. Then, apparently carried away by his press notices, he opened up his heart. He told the Canadian people of the dangers of a group of
3,000	to 5,000 individuals in the FLQ in Quebec with a population close to 7 million. He also spoke of FRAP. There is something signally wrong in the fact that after all these weeks of investigation the law officers and investigators have not come up with any cases. They have taken 400 people into custody and released 340. We have not found out whether the CBC gentry and Radio Canada have yet returned to the protection of their positions. I endeavoured to find that out, but as the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) pointed out, in effect, "Do you think I know about things like that? All I do is report."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I now ask the Minister of Justice to find out if there has been any communication regarding these men? According to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, there is an inference that these three or four individuals engaged in subterannean communication by code. By interspersing code words in the news items, these thugs and murderers were given the information they needed. Are these gentry and Radio Canada still in there? They were guests of Her Majesty for a short time. Now that they have been released, are they again in their positions in the CBC? The Minister of Regional Economic Development stated that this philosophy of the FLQ had found its way into all levels of society. One wonders, did it find its way into the provincial police of the Province of Quebec? Did it find its way
Public Order Act, 1970
into the city police of Montreal? Certainly, the government knows whether this be so. How can the government explain, with the multitude of police officers who are searching for the kidnappers, what has happened? It is a frightening condemnation of Canadian investigation into crime that nothing effective has been done up to this moment.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Why would not the government let the Canadian people know the position concerning Mr. Cross? Is there any hope he is still alive? Surely, information like this should be made available to the Canadian people. I repeat what Mr. Pierre Trudeau, as he then was, said, along with Marc Lalonde, Maurice Pinard, Ivon Gauthier, Claude Bruneau, Raymond Breton and Albert Breton- the committee for political realism-that the opposition is the conscience of the government. I would suggest this for reading by the cabinet. I do not intend to deal with the various recommendations contained therein but they are interesting. They banish nationalism for all time. I presume this is the reason the Armed Forces have been reduced today to a trickle of the needed requirement. It says that Canadians are not to be nationalistic any more. This may be the reason NATO finds itself in danger of Canadians being withdrawn. Then it deals with political leadership. This is in 1964. Here is a striking phrase- "We deplore the absence of leadership in public affairs". What an indictment of the preceding Liberal administration. Then it says: "What is needed is a realistic policy." Today, the government speaks of the dangers of foreign investment, and intends to set up all kinds of arrangements to ensure that Canadians invest in Canada. But listen to this:
We are not any more impressed by the cries in some English circles when American financiers buy Canadian enterprises than we are by the adoption in the Province of Quebec of economic policies based upon the slogan "maitres chez nous".
So I could go on. It says that what we need above everything else is realism. The constitution? It says it is worthless to monkey with that; it is only an excuse.
The derangement resulting from nationalism is particularly revealed today by the exaggerated importance given by our leading citizens to constitutional problems. Constitutional problems in Canada are far from being so serious as some would have us believe.
I could read on, but I shall not. I suggest to members of the cabinet that from now on this should be their primer, because it represents thoughts from above.
I again speak of the stands we have taken on the War Measures Act. We were opposed in our stand; we were misinterpreted. I have noticed a tremendous change in Liberal members during the past few days. They have been droopy for the last year, but they have found something now in the tragic events of recent days. And are they happy!


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh no, not because of what is happening, but by reason of the fact that people have for the

November 5, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
moment forgotten about unemployment; the problems of agriculture have passed into desuetude and labour problems are out of the way. Suddenly, we hear whispers that we might have an election.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I haven't heard that one, thank God.


John George Diefenbaker: Ah well. Is that the minister himself speaking? The minister doesn't say that over television or over an open line. He will be in difficulty if he does.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: You are scaring Tommy Douglas.


John George Diefenbaker: I have never been one of his followers. I have never been as closely associated with him as was the Prime Minister. But I know one thing about him. I have never found him to scare too easily.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: We placed our views before the House on the Friday and the Saturday, the 16th and 17th of October. The Prime Minister, through his House Deader, agreed to our suggestions, which were ridiculed at the time we made them. When the government did agree to changes regarding the regulations we thought were necessary, every member of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition voted in favour of the resolution. Let me underline this once and for all. I say to the Minister of Justice that he has a greater regard for Parliament than some of his colleagues have shown. In bringing in this abridged form of the War Measures Act Provisions and in fixing a term and placing this bill before Parliament, we of this party are united in its support. At the same time, we are placing ourselves clearly on record that in committee we will advocate that one or two of the terms in the new measure should be materially altered, and, above all, that each of us want to assure that no injustice such as was done to the young man I mentioned shall be repeated in other cases.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I turn, now, to the next matter I wish to discuss. This is something I cannot understand. Why did the government refuse to provide a reward? They have not been able to explain their failure to do so because there is no excuse which can be given. I remember the days when to be a member of the communist party was an offence. I prosecuted one or two of these cases; it was one of the reasons I changed my views concerning the outlawing of a thought, or of thinking. When rewards were offered evidence was forthcoming. I am interested in one change that the minister made in the regulations. Originally the provision, which is still in effect, was made that if one attended one meeting of the FLQ, one was thereby guilty of an offence, or at least there was a presumption of being a member of the FLQ against each person. I do not know who found himself in danger, but I now see they have changed the wording to "several meetings".
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
After four weeks the government finally decided on November 2 to announce a reward. No one can relive those dark and fearful days of the incarceration of Mr. Laporte, terminating in his death. I think on the night we heard of his death the hearts of Canadians everywhere beat in unison. That night Canada was a cathedral. Why was no reward offered? During the days when I prosecuted I found rewards always-and I say always-brought forth information. An individual who is a conspirator, with no money in his pocket and no principle in his head, is always willing to talk. No one but the government can tell us why a reward was not offered, but the government does not enlighten us.
I raised the matter the day after the kidnapping took place. It was also raised several times thereafter. But strangely enough nothing was done. Then, on October 6, as reported in Hansard at page 8801, I raised the matter by asking whether the government was giving consideration to offering a substantial reward. The Prime Minister replied:
I intend to answer the question whether any consideration has been given; the answer is yes.
Finally, some businessmen in the Toronto area decided that if the government was not going to offer a reward, they would. The businessman who communicated with the government on behalf of some fine person did not want his name used, or those associated with him in Toronto, and for obvious reasons. However, he has now agreed to have his name used. I raised the matter in the House, and I will be frank and say that when I asked the question the telegram that was sent confirmed that the Prime Minister had not yet received it. The making the offer wire was sent on October 7. It was clear, it was definite, it was final.
What was the reaction to this telegram? It was addressed to the Right Honourable Pierre Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, and read as follows:
I, Andrew Davidson,-
Then, his firm name appears.
-represent a group who is prepared to put up $50,000.00, on a strictly confidential basis-
I mentioned what that meant at the time.
-to anyone for information that will lead to the release of Mr. James Cross.
The telegram was signed by Andrew Davidson.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: This was the offer of a man who was uttering the thoughts of Canadians everywhere, yet the government still did not offer a reward. In the last few days there have been other offers. I know of one from a Mr. Jack McDowell, a former member of the Manitoba legislature, who offered $1,000. I do not know whether he had an acknowledgement.
I should like to read the acknowledgement to this act of patriotism by Mr. Davidson and those associated with

November 5, 1970

him. On October 8 a communication was sent to Mr. Andrew Davidson at his address at 1125 Dundas Street East, Cooksville, Ontario which read as follows:
On behalf of the Prime Minister I acknowledge receipt of your October 7 telegram. Kindly be advised that your message will be brought to Mr. Trudeau's personal attention.
That was signed by Henry Alan Lawless, secretary. Not even a letter of acknowledgement was sent to this man who was prepared to put up this money, which to me shows a disregard for the proprieties that cannot be justified. It is like telling him to go to the hot place without compliments. Not a word of appreciation has been sent to him since.
I am not going to put the Minister of Justice in an invidious position by asking him whether this matter was ever brought to his attention. I am sure it came to the attention of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion because he had knowledge that no one else had, as did the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien), who also spoke out of turn. The minister of regional affairs was not in the House when I referred to him a moment ago, but I see he has just come in.


Jean Marchand: What did you say about me?


John George Diefenbaker: What I said was a most warm-hearted congratulatory wish.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: This is why I felt so sorry for him when he was publicly spanked by the Prime Minister.
I now come to one other matter, and I am watching my time, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have been doing the same thing. The right hon. gentleman has just about reached the time allotted to him by the rules. He may continue with the agreement of the House. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank the members of the House. I will not burden them with quotations from the "minister of economic reconstruction", but I would suggest to him in all seriousness that from now on he stay out of the field of reciting events which the Prime Minister does not want the country to worry about. This is a course that he ought not to take.


Jean Marchand: You know me very well.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad to hear the minister say that. There is nothing to take the place of experience.
I conclude with one other matter. Mention has been made today by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace of the awfulness of the experience that was his and the people of Montreal's in recent weeks. Yet no prosecutions were taken; nothing was done. For a year the government of Canada had the
Public Order Act, 1970
Saulnier report. According to Mr. Saulnier, there were two ministers of the cabinet who were opposed to a royal commission being set up to investigate the tyranny that was being perpetrated and the callous rebellious conduct that was taking place. There were two members of the cabinet, one originating in Montreal and the other is now in Ottawa. He said these two members were against the investigation.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
On March 17, 1970, I think it was, the Prime Minister had a letter from Mr. Saulnier setting out the situation but nothing was ever done about it. Now what is this government doing? As if we had not had enough experience with revolutionaries, we are still continuing to let individuals from the United States come into Canada to disrupt and defy Canadian law and ridicule the police force, and to preach terror, murder and bloodshed.
A question was asked today, I think by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), as to what was being done on the frontier to keep these individuals of the FLQ from going abroad. I am interested in finding out what is being done to keep these people out.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Dollard on a point of order.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order merely to correct the right hon. member on certain facts-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I should like to point out to the hon. member that he may not rise on a point of order merely to correct the statement of another member. He may, however, do so in the course of his own speech. I feel this is not really a point of order.


John George Diefenbaker: That's no point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, would the right hon. member allow me a question?


John George Diefenbaker: Not from a person showing such ignorance to the House as displayed by the hon. member up to the present time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: Disrespect for Parliament.


John George Diefenbaker: I am always willing to answer
questions from responsible members.


An hon. Member:: Name them.

November 5, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970


Gerald William Baldwin: That is difficult to do.


An hon. Member:: There are very few over there.


John George Diefenbaker: Why are these revolutionaries from the United States allowed to come into Canada to advocate revolution and having the benefit of the national CBC to spread their poison across this country at the expense of the Canadian people?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I am told that they are paid, but if I ask the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) he cannot give that information because that might cause competitors to take advantage. What about Hewitt who comes to Winnipeg tomorrow, the minister of education of the Black Panthers, one of the most threatening-


An hon. Member:: You can think of the words.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, I can think of a lot of words to describe him and they all begin with "b". He is coming in, and when I ask these ministers over and over again why let these revolutionaries in, what do they say? They knew what was happening in Montreal and in the province of Quebec. The answer to objections being taken to keep out these people is, in effect: After all, if they speak to selected groups we should not keep them out. Freedom of speech must be upheld. Freedom of speech does not include the right to incite revolution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: These people should not be let in to Canada. In the United Kingdom, with generations of experience of liberty and freedom, one of these revolutionaries was kept out. They said, in effect: You cannot come in here. It is time this government acted to protect Canadians from the insidious influence of these people who openly advocate destruction of the government of Canada by force. I hope, and I have hoped, that the experience of the last few weeks would have caused a change of view on the part of the government. The other day the answer given respecting Hewitt was that he is going to Winnipeg to speak to a responsible group. That is no justification whatsoever for permitting United States thugs to come into Canada and act in a way that constitutes an offence against the Criminal Code of this country. They should be prosecuted. That is the welcome they should receive if they do come.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. Minister of Regional Economic Expansion rising on a question of privilege?


Jean Marchand: Yes. Mr. Speaker.
Since yesterday, a good number of hon. members, especially the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), have spoken about the alleged
number of FLQ members. They repeat what I am supposed to have said in the House but their figures are wrong. They do not quote the right figures.
I will simply quote the words of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. minister, but there is no question of privilege here. The hon. minister should-


An hon. Member:: He doesn't know the difference either.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

I would like to suggest to the hon. minister that he could rise to speak when his turn comes and in due time, if only for a few minutes, in order to set the record straight. The hon. Secretary of State. (Mr. Pelletier).


Mr. Peters:: This speech will shed a lot of darkness on the subject.


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I have just heard the remark of the hon. member and I am afraid I shall never be able to enlighten him or see through the darkness of his mind.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gérard Pelletier: Having given up on that utopic objective, I should like to comment on the bill generally, on its timeliness and on some speeches heard in the House since the legislation has been before it.
I have nothing to add to what has been said until now on the substance of the proposal which, in the circumstances-I repeat, in the circumstances-is readily acceptable by those willing to face reality.
As concerns the procedure for implementing the legislation, I know that time has not yet come to deal with it and that remarks concerning one clause or an other will be in order during the committee stage only.
I also believe that by and large most objections from the leaders of the Progressive Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party have been well disproved.
I shall make only one exception. I can hardly understand that the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) would state: "We hear whispers" about a forthcoming election. Mr. Speaker, I submit that if he hears such rumours at the present time, the case has to do not with parliamentary debates but with a medical branch that I shall not name.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

November 5, 1970


Mr. Pellelier:: It might also be remembered that in the remote past someone heard similar voices, and though he said in this House that he holds me for a nonentity,
I would be most aggrieved to see the hon. member being burnt on the Prince Albert market place.
But my purpose, Mr. Speaker, is mainly to deal with a certain number-
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Mackenzie King had monopoly rights on that.


Gérard Pelletier: I too, Mr. Speaker, listen only to the remarks of responsible members. The right hon. gentleman can therefore go on making his own; he does not bother me at all.
Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to say that at times a government can be more upset by the arguments put forward in favour of a piece of legislation it has introduced then by the arguments against it. This will lead me, as you have no doubt guessed it, to talk about many interventions of the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) and, in particular, about the speech which he delivered yesterday afternoon. I regret that he is not in his seat-I was not here either when he made against me some rather virulent accusations, which I have just picked up in Hansard. Besides, I often find it somewhat difficult to get in touch with the hon. member for Temiscamingue. For instance, I remember waiting seven weeks to reply to a question he had asked me, so that if I were to postpone my remarks today until he were here, this could take long.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Abitibi on a question of privilege.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Secretary of State, if he wants to be honest, to tell the House whether, during the seven weeks he mentioned, he was here himself?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I am not sure whether this is a question of privilege. I would however suggest that it is contrary to our rules to allude to the presence or absence of hon. members and I do not think this is contributing to our proceedings.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gérard Pelletier: Very well Mr. Speaker. I assure you I will comply with this advice most diligently.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Nor his personal attacks.


Mr. Duquet:: That is what you do all the time.
Public Order Act, 1970


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I was about to say that I find quite upsetting the arguments used yesterday by the member for Temiscamingue to support this measure.
I wish to add that, for some time now, the leader of the Ralliement creditiste has expressed similar views to support the War Measures Act being invoked. I congratulate him for having seen the danger that was threatening the province of Quebec and Canada because of the present crisis; unfortunately my congratulations must stop here. I must also tell him, through you, Mr. Speaker, that I am not the only one who has been deeply troubled about some of the stands he took. When, for example, he suggested that, without trial, presumed members of the FLQ, already detained, should be placed before a firing squad and that ten of them should be executed for each one of the hostages held by the FLQ,
I do not think that he was speaking in a responsible manner, nor in a manner worthy of a civilized nation.
If we followed the advice of the hon. member for Temiscamingue in that matter, we would be using the same monstrous methods of which we are the victims at the hands of the FLQ, we would lower ourselves to the level of the terrorists whom we are fighting.
At best I can only ascribe to thoughtlessness the remarks of the hon. member for Temiscamingue. But I am astonished that thoughtlessness could last so long, as it is well known that he has repeated this suggestion several times, apparently without realizing that it pertains not only to a police state, which in the same breath he meant to condem, but also to the Nazi and Fascist states of the thirties. On reading these suggestions I could not help but recall, Mr. Speaker, an admission made by the hon. member for Temiscamingue several years ago to the effect that in his youth he had greatly admired Hitler and Mussolini.
At that time I was a newspaperman and I remember having stood up for him against certain Toronto papers which had taken his statement seriously and because of it, thought the member for Temiscamingue was a Nazi who would not shy away from assassination. I stood up for him at the time; I must admit that in the last few days I have been wondering whether I did the right thing.
I should also like to point out that the member for Temiscamingue has twisted the truth, when he stated many times, without any evidence or foundation, and I quote:
The government knows who are the FLQ leaders.
This statement not only flies in the face of facts, but I dare say that it is utterly ridiculous. In times such as those we are now going through, the ridiculous easily takes a tragical turn.
Just yesterday, speaking to the House, the leader of the Ralliement Creditiste made the following assertion, which was echoed-not at all to my surprise-by the rt. hon. representative for Prince-Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) who, by chance, is leaving the House as I say these words.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Would the minister permit a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Will the hon.
minister allow the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) to ask him a question?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was very interested in the remarks of the minister. I should like to know if the minister could tell the House whether he was one of the ministers, presumably along with the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), who reviewed the evidence given to the committee to which he referred in his speech, and referred to in the Broadcasting Committee report? I draw particular attention to the last sentence in that report, which was tabled in this House on December 5, 1969, which specifically recommended that Mr. Saul-nier's evidence be submitted to the appropriate ministers for consideration and review. Before the Solicitor

November 5, 1970

General speaks to the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier), may I ask the Secretary of State, was there any formal review of that by a cabinet committee or by any individual minister, and was there a formal reply sent to Mr. Saulnier outlining what the appropriate ministers of the government thought about that evidence at that time?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that the allegations have been submitted to the minister in charge. Not being the minister in charge, I cannot say what transpired by way of reports and exchanges of correspondence between a cabinet member and the Chairman of the Executive Council of the City of Montreal.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to begin my remarks this afternoon with two fairly short quotations from a well known Canadian author. They are in French, and are as follows:

As a consequence, when a man is unjustly treated by a given form of authority, all other men are guilty, because they have led the authority to such abuse by their silence and their consent. If they ceased to approve, the authority would fall down.

The second short quotation, particularly for the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), is:

Democracy acknowledges that one person may be right and 89 wrong. And this is why in a democracy freedom of speech is deemed sacred: that lone person must always have the right to proclaim his truth in the hope that he can get the 99 others to change their minds.

As hon. members may have guessed if they did not know, these two quotations are from the writings of Pierre Elliott Trudeau and are contained in articles in a weekly called Vrai-True-Published in 1958. They were relevant and right then; they are relevant and right now. It is the man who has changed, and the views of that man have changed. Those of us who stand by the views which he then expressed ought to have at least the ear of people who may disagree instead of the loud, shrill tongue which the Minister of Justice used yesterday. I want to remind hon. members of the House right at the outset that there have already been abuses in the application of the War Measures Act and the regulations under it, great abuses.
e (4:30 p.m.)
The Prime Minister, who was a teacher and citizen, wrote that when one man is unjustly treated all other men are guilty. This was the kind of consideration we had in mind when we wanted to be convinced with much more than the government then gave us, that there ought not to be a situation permitted where men could be unjustly treated
Public Order Act, 1970
As the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) informed us, Mr. Speaker, as of today 372 Canadians have been incarcerated, swept into jail, kept there incommunicado from six to 16, to 18 days and then released. In most cases they have been unable to speak with their wives. After the first few days of their incarceration, they were allowed to write a note which the police or some jail guard read to their wives over the telephone. I am not guessing when I say this because I have spoken with quite a few men who were in jail and who came out. According to my information, all of them have been finger printed, photographed and now have a police file. I understand some have lost their jobs. All of them find it difficult to explain to their neighbours and their children why they were incarcerated for days and not interrogated for any more than ten or 15 minutes. Yesterday when I asked the Minister of Justice a question along this line he looked sort of disdainful-I hope he looked as disdainful about the fact that it was done. Those I have spoken to inform me that they were asked questions, the most stupid and irrelevant questions imaginable, that had nothing to do with the situation for which they were arrested and taken out of circulation.
These 372 men and women have no remedy, Mr. Speaker. One of them is a famous singer who has already suffered loss of contracts. There were authors, as well as ordinary workers, but none of these 372 Canadians who suffered this abuse of the law has any recourse or remedy because of the immense and unnecessary power the government insisted on taking on October 16, 1970.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that among those arrested were people whose job was that of community worker. There were people who organized the poor to protest against their condition, people who, as a matter of fact, were in the pay of the provincial government of Quebec to do just that and who did nothing other than that, because they were released without charge after a ten minute irrelevant interrogation. It is important to note that these leaders of the poor, of the unemployed and of welfare people in the communities, were among those arrested.
Why were they taken out of circulation if it was not for the purpose of making it impossible for those organizations to continue to serve the poor people of Quebec?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Lewis: The minister shakes his head but facts are facts. They were jailed; they were released, and there were no charges. They were hardly interrogated, so there could have been no reason in the minds of the police for arresting them. I am not saying that the Minister of Justice or even the Attorney General of Quebec is responsible. One of the great disadvantages of these excessive powers is that they come eventually into the hands of the police. Day to day and hour to hour, it is the police who administer these powers, not the Minister of Justice or the Attorney General of Quebec. I am not saying that the police are not as good citizens as anyone

November 5, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
else, but they are a group of men mainly concerned with criminals and crime. They ought to be concerned with the members of the FLQ, and I will come back to that in a moment, but they are not people who can appreciate the work done by the leader of a group of poor people. The moment these leaders say something against the government, which no doubt they do and I hope they continue to say such things but for good social reasons, they are hauled into jail.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: Members opposite can groan as much as they like. If they have the courage to see things as they are they will recognize that there was abuse, instead of groaning at what I say.


An hon. Member:: Phony.


David Lewis: I say, Mr. Speaker, that as these facts of the unnecessary and unjust treatment of 372 Canadians today-by tomorrow it may easily be 380, 390 or closer to 400-become clear, then I am confident that the sense of decency and justice of all the people in Canada will overcome the panic and hysteria which the Prime Minister of this country deliberately created by some of his speeches made over television to the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Let the people of Canada decide.


David Lewis: When they look at the situation more closely they will want to know, as we do, all the facts, if indeed the government ever had any more facts. I will come to that in a moment, too, but they will want to know all the facts that led to the proclamation of the War Measures Act.
I ask hon. members, and if I may through the galleries I ask the people of Canada, to look at what the results have been of the imposition of these extraordinarily repressive powers.


An hon. Member:: No more terrorism.


David Lewis: Three hundred and seventy-two people have suffered, but what have the police accomplished? In my speech on the first day, October 16, I said that I doubted whether this step would be efficacious for the purpose intended and, unfortunately, I proved to be right. I will come to the reason I said that in just a moment. One did not have to be a genius to see that it would not be efficacious. The fact is that what we have had over many years is a total failure of all the police forces involved to do a job that should have been done before the crisis landed on the people of Canada and the people of Quebec. I said that on October 16 and I repeat it. The federal police, the provincial police and the Montreal police knew of the FLQ for eight or ten years. I have read a report which states that they even know how many cells there are in the FLQ. The report says 22.


An hon. Member:: You know more than the rest of us.


David Lewis: it received the report on security wherein the dangers in Quebec were emphasized. But again, nothing was done to deal with this situation.
I am raising this subject, Mr. Speaker, not only because it is important for the people of Canada to know what was done to get rid of the terrorists and criminals in Quebec before October 16, 1970, but because the government is responsible for its omissions as well as for all it has done, and because the failure shown by all police forces with regard to this particular situation is frightening. Anyone who has no illusions about this situation will admit, if not to me then to himself, that the present action will not necessarily rid us of the kind of activity the FLQ has carried on in Quebec. Whether or not the government is successful in putting the FLQ members behind bars,-and it has not been so yet-the situation in that province and in other disadvantaged areas of Canada is such that one cannot be certain this sort of activity and criminality may not recur. The failure of all our police forces to deal with the situation before October, 1970, makes one concerned about the future. That is why I have risen to speak this afternoon.
The Minister of Justice in his speech yesterday began by saying to us, "Let us not rake the past; let us deal with this bill." Then, having salved his conscience on that point, he went on to spend most of his time raking the past and attacking the NDP, particularly my leader and myself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, why did he do that? I sat and listened to him, and wondered. There were 16 of us in this House who voted against that measure. And I want to say, Mr. Speaker, without raising my voice that I am proud we had the depth of conviction to make a stand for the principle we believed in, even in a moment of panic and hysteria. I make no apologies for that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: But we were 16 members of this House who voted against the measure, and the minister said that the vast majority of the people in Canada supported what the government did.


An hon. Member:: True.


David Lewis: Somebody says, true. One hundred and ninety Members of Parliament voted for the measure. What was it really that needled the minister's conscience and that required some 30 minutes in which to attack those 16 people who voted against his bill, when he had the support of all the people in Canada? I will suggest why that was, Mr. Speaker: first, because the minister himself was uncomfortable about what had happened. I give him credit for that kind of conscience.


Mr. Greene:: Now, the hon. member is being a psychologist.


David Lewis: Second, he knew that questions were being asked across this country by many people who had origi-
Public Order Act, 1970
nally supported the government's step, and third, he had seen a large number of newspaper comments which questioned the necessity even of the bill now before us.


An hon. Member:: Which way will the hon. member's party vote?


David Lewis: So, he did the usual thing that I suppose we all do in politics. Instead of dealing with the matter he ought to have dealt with, namely, the bill and what he had said, he set out on a shrill attack. I am not complaining about that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Lewis: I was rather flattered that the minister took the time. But I want to underline that he would not have had a reason for so doing if he were not, in his conscience, concerned about what had been passed by his government and by him-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: -and if he were not aware of the fact that increasingly more people in Canada are questioning the rightness of that action.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: I wish to ask the minister a question. I shall ask some of the other ministers questions, too. It is about a matter he ought to have dealt with yesterday. He said on October 16:
It is my hope that some day the full details of the intelligence upon which the government acted can be made public, because until that day comes the people of Canada will not be able fully to appraise the course of action which has been taken by the government.
I ask the Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker; was he telling the truth when he said that?


An hon. Member:: Sure, he was.


David Lewis: When he said that, were his words based on information or was he deliberately writing a scenario to justify an action which could not be justified until then?


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


David Lewis: That is what I ask the minister directly. Did he have information for that very important statement? I repeat: what the minister said was that until the people of Canada have the information which is in his possession we will not be able to appraise the real reasons for the action. Let me tell him that we are still not able to appraise it-not the members of this House and not the people of Canada. If he had information, he had a duty to give it to us. He has not repeated that kind of statement since the Prime Minister set the line by saying that all the information is now public and nothing else counts.


An hon. Member:: Pipe down.
926


David Lewis: The minister shut up, as every member of the cabinet does, when the Prime Minister nodded his head. He has not repeated this very important statement. When he made that statement, either it was a statement of fact, or it was a statement of fiction. If it was fact, the minister ought to tell us what he was talking about; if it was fiction, then the Canadian people were taken in, in a way that is dishonourable in politics and in this Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: I ask the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand, Langelier) this question.


An hon. Member:: It is his turn now.


David Lewis: When he said to the House that there were between 1,000 and 3,000 FLQ members who had infiltrated the highest places in Quebec, was he talking fact or was he talking fiction?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. Does the minister wish to ask a question of privilege?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, this is
exactly the sentence that was quoted by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas). I have never in this House stated what is purported to have been said.


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


Jean Marchand: Here are the words which-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. It is the duty of the Chair to point out once again to the minister that he cannot disprove what has been said by an hon. member unless he takes part in the debate. Otherwise, questions of privilege would be too numerous, which would delay the business of the House.


David Lewis: Strictly speaking, Mr. Speaker, the minister is right about what he said.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: Don't yell "hurray" so fast. Strictly speaking, the minister is right about what he said in this House, although I was not far off even at that. I will read that in a moment. Over the air he said, from 1,000 to 3,000 members. I have seen that in reports.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Lewis: If the minister says he did not say that in this House, he did say it outside the House. What the Minister did say in the House is recorded at page 224 of Hansard and reads as follows:
But, from the moment when threats are caried out, then the danger increases. And by whom are they carried out? By two
V. o'
or three men with guns who have kidnapped one or two people? No, Mr. Speaker!
The situation is much more serious than that. Any person having knowledge of the FLQ organization in the province of Quebec at the present time cannot but be aware that the state of Quebec and the federal state are truly in danger in Canada.
Why? The most pessimist say that the FLQ has some 3,000 members.


Jean Marchand: "Most pessimist".


David Lewis: The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion was a trade union leader. I say to him that in my long experience I have not heard any lawyer be quite as tortuous as the minister is now being about what he said on another occasion.


John James Greene: Of course, you were not much of a lawyer.


David Lewis: Why should the minister have said, "The most pessimist"?


An hon. Member:: You are the accuser.


David Lewis: That's right, and if you will keep quiet I will prove it.
Why did the minister refer to what most pessimists say if not to frighten the people of Canada? Why did he not refer to what most optimists say?


John James Greene: Why did you misquote his statement?


David Lewis: Why did he refer outside the House to 1,000 to 3,000 members? The next part is equally or even more important:
I do not know if that figure is accurate, but I am aware that there are quite a few.
And I know something else; these people have infiltrated every strategic place in the province of Quebec, every place where important decisions are taken, and without giving complete details let us say that at the present time they are in a position to cause the Quebec and the federal governments, as well as the city of Montreal, irreparable harm, with the support of outside organizations which are not necessarily in agreement as to the measures taken because it is well organized.
Was the minister telling us something that he knew was fact, that there were FLQ members who infiltrated every strategic place in the province of Quebec, every place where important decisions are taken, and that they are at the present time in a position to cause Quebec and Canada irreparable harm? If it is fact, the minister has a duty to tell this House and the people of Canada those facts. If it is fiction to frighten the Canadian people, as I suspect in fact it is, then I say that is as reprehensible as the former.
When the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) says there are facts which the people of Canada may never know, I say to him and to this government if what he said is true we are entitled to know. The minister has no right to hide behind it. If what the minister said is not true, he is misleading the people of Canada in a way which is too serious in a situation like the present.
I ask the Minister of Justice what he meant by the phrase "erosion of will"? To what was the minister referring? What did the Prime Minister mean by, "confusion

November 5, 1970

in the province of Quebec"? Where they talking about the fact that some people in Quebec believed there should be negotiations with the terrorists? If that is the extent of the erosion of will, I ask the Minister of Justice whether that justifies bringing the War Measures Act into operation?
I wish to make clear, Mr. Speaker, that I do not fault the government for refusing to negotiate with the kidnappers. No one in our party raised any such question during the first week that Mr. Laporte, and Mr. Cross were in jeopardy, because they were in jeopardy. I agree that it was impossible for the federal government or the government of Quebec to start on a course which meant giving in to a terrorist organization. Let me make that clear. However, if they were not merely referring to a number of men who, in their judgment, felt that two lives should be saved by negotiating or to the confusion in the cabinet of Mr. Bourassa, and it is well known there was division, what was it? Since when does confusion and erosion, whatever in heaven's name those words mean, provide reasons for proclaiming a statute such as the War Measures Act? I wish to state that all the statements to which I have referred were not made by members of the opposition. We did not make accusations against FRAP. It was the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.


John Napier Turner: May I ask the hon. member a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Chair feels that if the minister wishes to direct a question to the hon. member for York South, he should direct it to the Chair so that the Chair can decide whether the question is in order. At the same time, the Chair might also know the answer.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, you are always in my mind. I was directing the question through Your Honour to see if the hon. member for York South would accept it. The hon. member just said that no members of the opposition have made statements. I wonder whether he did say to the students at Carleton University that there was:
-probable infiltration by the FLQ into the Quebec police forces-
-for which he blamed the failure to recover kidnap victims James Cross and Pierre Laporte.
That was reported in the October 24 issue of the Ottawa Journal.


David Lewis: As a matter of fact, and I did not speak from notes, I do not recollect that those were the words I used.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Misquoted again.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The hon. member will have an opportunity to pursue the answer after the supper adjournment.
Message from Senate MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bills to which the concurrence of this House is desired:
Bill S-4, an act to implement an agreement amending the Trade Agreement between Canada and New Zealand.
Bill S-7, an act to repeal the Leprosy Act.

It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, Private Bills, Notices of Motions (Papers), Public Bills.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe that if we were to proceed with the private members' hour, one of our motions would be called. We are quite prepared for this hour to be given to the debate now in progress.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am quite ready, in the normal course, to co-operate with the hon. member. It was not possible to negotiate such an arrangement earlier. We are prepared to go ahead with the private members' hour or to continue with this debate. I suggest that in future the hon. member consult through the normal channels in order that we on this side may be prepared.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The minister's memory must be failing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. At this time the Chair can only ask if there is unanimous consent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a question of privilege. I ask the minister to check his memory. Earlier today I discussed with him the possibility of giving up the hour between five o'clock and six o'clock. I am only suggesting now what has already been discussed and agreed to.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Allan Joseph MacEachen: All I can say is that I have totally forgotten that conversation, but I accept the hon. member's word. If he said those things, I must have forgotten. I do not remember that at all, but I accept the hon. member's suggestion that he did. I know he talked about what we might do later tonight. But it is not very important in view of what has been said.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The House has heard the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Is there agreement that we dispense with Private Members' Hour and pursue the study and debate of Bill C-181?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

Public Order Act, 1970



PUBLIC ORDER (TEMPORARY MEASURES) ACT. 1970

[Stage Direction]
November 5. 1970

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed 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 second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole.
David Lewis: The Minister of Justice questioned me and I told him, as far as my memory went, these are not the words I used. However, I did suggest, as I did in this House on October 16, that there had been such infiltration and this was one of the difficulties the police faced. I was talking about what the ministers have said, and I was questioning the reason for the statement made by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) about FRAP, a statement which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) immediately rejected, saying he did not approve of it. This statement smeared a lot of innocent people, and could not but have been designed to hurt FRAP in the municipal elections. The minister said at the time he did not want to enter into the municipal elections, and having said that he entered them with both feet. Not only he, but his friend the Mayor of Montreal, Jean Drapeau did so. According to members opposite, this Mayor of Montreal, who does not have the reputation of being the most progressive man in Canada, is now a great hero. He followed the minister in making the same kind of statement against FRAP.


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


David Lewis: What is wrong with it? It happens to be untrue; the minister knew it and he retracted it as did the Prime Minister. That is what was wrong with the statement. It happens to be untrue. It happens to be true that there were many people in FRAP, most of them having nothing to do with the FLQ, who believed in the democratic process and who entered into the municipal election in Montreal democratically for the purpose of breaking the one party state which now governs Montreal. Anyone who set out to smear this organization, anyone who set out to smear all the people in this organization, has a great deal to account for in terms of proper democratic procedure.
Then, we heard rumours about a plot to upset the government of Quebec. The Prime Minister kept on saying they were rumours. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that I know from completely reliable sources that at least two members of the government spoke to other people and told them about this plot before I saw stories in the press. If the Prime Minister does not know this, he can easily find out. It is not for me to name the ministers, but I say on my responsibility as a member of this House that I know from the most reliable sources, the people directly concerned, that at least two ministers spread this rumour long before I saw it in the press.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel).]
Why was this rumour spread? Why did the Prime Minister not deny it when he knew it was not true, that there was no such plot, that there was only a lot of
chit-chat in the editorial of Le Devoir and a lot of chit-chat between Mr. Ryan, Mr. Saulnier and Mr. Bou-rassa? When this matter was raised in the House, the first day, I telephoned Mr. Ryan, Mr. Laberge and Mr. Pepin. I spoke to Mr. Ryan; I could not get the other two gentlemen. He told me what happened, exactly as it appeared in his editorial in Le Devoir last Friday. The Prime Minister knew of these facts. The members of the cabinet knew of these facts. They knew perfectly well that as long as these rumours were allowed to continue, two things would happen. One was that Mr. Ryan and the group of men with him would, in the minds of the rest of Canada, be discredited and seem like traitors. They also knew that if the people in Canada from coast to coast read that there was "a plot to take over the government of Quebec" the only thing they would think about would be the FLQ using force to take over Quebec.
This is what I said over the air. This is what the Minister of Justice took exception to yesterday. I will say it again in this House in his presence, that I believe from the facts that the reason no one in the government denied these rumours about a provisional government was that the government liked the idea that these false rumours were going about because they hoped it would underpin their War Measures Act in the eyes of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


David Lewis: This is the only possib'e reason why honourable men, men honourable in all other respects, would want to see other honourable men smeared and regarded as traitors. There can be no other reason why they would not deny those rumours, because they knew the facts, except that they liked a rumour which helped them to fool the people about the kind of thing which is taking place. The fact of the matter is that those of us who opposed the imposition of the War Measures Act are now proved to be entirely right by the bill which is before the House today.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


David Lewis: This bill merely recites the reason for the War Measures Act having come into force as having been apprehended insurrection, but no longer are we dealing with apprehended insurrection as far as this bill is concerned; we are dealing with public disorder, and the facts I have already recited show that the powers which the government took were far too wide even in the regulations under the War Measures Act. It may be very well for the Minister of Justice to say that when we emphasized that the War Measures Act gave the government total power we were not being intellectually honest, or something like that. Well, when I have to take lessons in that line from the hon. gentleman or from any other member of the Liberal party, I shall quit politics.


An hon. Member:: Quit now.
November 5. 1970

[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


David Lewis: I am tempted to say to the minister that a Liberal preaching intellectual honesty is like a streetwalker preaching virtue. When we said the government was given power under the War Measures Act I always added, and my leader always added, that we knew it was implemented by regulation and that there had been only one regulation. Although I hope the War Measures Act will be withdrawn within a few days, the point I made as long ago as October 16 was that no man should be given the kind of power that the War Measures Act gives. If the act had remained in force, as was the intention of the government, until April 30 next, I shudder to think what other orders in council we might have had, had the situation in certain parts of Canada, in the mind of the government, so required.
My leader explained yesterday the reasons we felt we should vote for this bill on second reading. I agree with the reasons he gave, as do, so far as I know, all my colleagues. But I want to make it clear that, as far as I personally am concerned, I am not entirely convinced that these extended, extraordinary powers are in their totality needed. However, it is the only way we know to get the War Measures Act revoked immediately; certainly, this is what we wish as quickly as possible. It is the only way we know whereby we can bring this bill to committee of the whole and there try to improve it.
I understand that not only members of the opposition but members in the government ranks have some amendments to propose. If the government is going to be adamant in this regard, its action will be entirely inexcusable. If the government insists on retaining the retroactivity provisions in clause 8 of the bill, if it refuses to accept an amendment that seeks to set up what I call a supervisory commission, if it refuses to include in the bill an amendment that I expect a member of the official opposition to present in regard to an independent committee, if it refuses to take away some of these unnecessary powers now contained in the bill, then I will have reason to wonder what it is the government wants, merely power or power for a purpose.
I will suggest in debate in committee of the whole that the bill need not be weakened in the slightest; that it can be improved by interfering less with the civil liberties of people yet be entirely sufficient for the task the bill intends to tackle. We do not weaken the bill when making suggestions from the point of view of its purpose; we seek to improve it from the point of view of the rights and liberties of people. This is why I expect the government to pay attention to what we say.
Since my time is almost up, may I conclude by repeating what I and my leader said on October 16. My reading of history leads me to the conclusion that no group of people consisting of perhaps 30, 50 or 100 men and women only-certainly this is what police work indicates is the size of the group in Quebec-no group of terrorists, can possibly threaten democracy unless social and economic conditions are such that it feels strengthened by the frustration of the young, the despair of the old and
Public Order Act, 1970
the resentment of the many. It is this kind of condition in society that strengthens subversive, terrorist elements. Without this condition these elements would not even attempt the things they did. And if they did attempt them, they would be easily caught.
As far as I am concerned, naming the FLQ as an illegal organization in the bill does not worry me because, in my opinion as a lawyer, they are not a political organization. They are a criminal conspiracy, a seditious conspiracy. They are in fact an organization against the law. Therefore, if you want to call them illegal in an act, I do not get upset about it because obviously they are an unlawful, criminal, seditious conspiracy, and they have been for eight years.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: And they are contravening the Criminal Code of Canada.


David Lewis: They are contravening the Criminal Code and have been for eight years. But this little group could not have constituted a threat in Montreal and Quebec in the way they did were not the conditions of the people in the province so dire and regrettable.
Let me repeat what I said on October 16. The government that was supposed to unite Canada has created a situation where separatism in the province of Quebec is stronger today than it ever was in my knowledge of the province, and I have known it well for many years.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I realize the hon. member indicated that he was moving to the conclusion of his speech, but I must advise the House that his time has expired. Is there consent among the members of the House that the hon. member conclude his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Lewis: I will not be long, Mr. Speaker.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We want a strong and eloquent conclusion.


David Lewis: You have had it already; don't ask for too much. If I get started again, I shall have something to say to the house leader as well. However, I will not take the time. I was speaking of certain conditions but I did not say they produced the FLQ. I am not saying, as the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Mar-chand) thought I was saying two weeks ago last Friday, that these social and economic conditions produced the FLQ. They do that, too, because terrorists grow in that kind of soil. Criminals and terrorists are produced in a wide variety of psychological ways that I am not competent enough even to try to understand. What I am saying is that they would be no danger to Montreal, to Quebec or to Canada were not the government, indeed all of us together, responsible for social and economic conditions that in many parts of Canada, including the constituencies of the house leader and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), which are unforgiveable.
November 5, 1970

Public Order Act, 1970
These conditions are particularly bad in the province of Quebec.
May I emphasize what I said. This bill will not guarantee, any more than would the War Measures Act, that there will not be terrorism in the future. It is not going to guarantee that terrorists may not receive sympathy from some people, as was the case with the FLQ. It is not going to guarantee that there will not be serious disorders in the future. The only thing that can make this less likely-though nothing is certain in this life-is a program that is directly aimed at the province of Quebec.
As a member of the House I would not raise any objection to such a program, assuming that it was sensibly planned for the people of the province rather than for foreign corporations, as has been the case until now. If it were sensibly planned for the people of the province of Quebec, as a member of the House, I would feel the future unity of Canada deserves special sorts of measures as the NDP suggested three or four years ago, special arrangements to meet a dangerous situation in that province. Some little time ago I may have hoped that the government would take a positive, constructive attitude and produce some really progressive plans. Mr. Speaker, I regret to say that the more I watch our Prime Minister and the rest of his cabinet in action, the less faith I have in their grasp or even in their understanding of the real problems.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Mr. T. Lefebvre (Poniiac):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to the speech delivered by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) on Bill C-181, entitled "An Act to provide temporary emergency powers for the preservation of public order in Canada," and I will come back to it later on.
On October 16 last, we were informed of the government's decision to invoke the War Measures Act for the first time in peacetime. On that occasion, the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) asked the unanimous consent of the House to introduce his motion. He told us that such powers were absolutely necessary to deal with a state of apprehended insurrection in the province of Quebec, following a message received from the Quebec government and the Montreal civic authorities, as reported on page 193 of Hansard.
There was unanimous consent, and the Prime Minister stated precisely the reasons why the government had decided to enforce the War Measures Act. Furthermore, he made it clear that he was truly sorry and deeply worried that the situation called for such action.
Mr. Speaker, I also supported that measure reluctantly, but being convinced it was the only logical step to take in the circumstances, I voted for the enforcement of that act. I am still convinced that this was the only adequate solution left to the government.
The Prime Minister promised the same day, as reported on page 194 of Hansard, and I quote:
Following the passage of enough time to give the government the necessary experience to assess the type of statute which may
be required in these circumstances, it is my firm intention to discuss with the leaders of the opposition parties the desirability of introducing legislation of a less comprehensive nature.
Later on, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) made the same promise. He stated specifically that a new act would be introduced in the House within thirty days.
Mr. Speaker, the minister kept his word and, on November 2, he introduced, to replace the War Measures Act, an act whose short title is Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act, 1970.
I wish to congratulate the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice for having kept their word, and I am more proud than ever for being a government member.
The present situation in Canada and more particularly in Quebec is very serious. Let us hope that we shall soon be able to forget that period of our history and pursue together the unification of this country so that it may be the most peaceful in the world.
Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to support the government and to vote for that new legislation, for I am still convinced it is not yet time to give ground. We must give the police forces the necessary powers to perform their most important duty, namely to destroy the FLQ once and for all, bring back to Quebec and the whole of Canada peace and quietness and dispell the fear spread by bandits whose aim is to destroy our society.
I am not afraid at all to support that new piece of legislation because I am convinced that should the police arrest innocent people by mistake, they will still be far better in the hands of the police than in- those of the FLQ bandits.
[English}
How does a member of this House feel, Mr. Speaker, when he is confronted with a law such as we were confronted with a short time ago, giving wide powers to our police forces for the first time in Canada's history in peacetime? Like our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and most other members of the House, I abhor violence in all its forms, and dread removing liberties from any citizen, unless it is proven to me that the situation is such that no other way is open to us. That proof was given, Mr. Speaker, and the citizens of Canada by a wide majority supported the government in its decision. Every person in my constituency who either wrote to me on this subject, or spoke to me by telephone or in person, supported the Prime Minister and our government.
No one in my constituency, Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, has lost his or her liberty by our actions, except possibly their own Member of Parliament. Like many other members of this House my residence in the Ottawa area and at Davidson in Pontiac county are under guard by the army, or watched over by the RCMP. As a result, my movements have been restricted and I cannot move about as freely as I have been accustomed to doing. I am quite sure that no one in my family likes the atmosphere created by armed forces personnel standing guard over us. However, Mr. Speaker, I must say that we have found

November 5, 1970

these guards to be perfect gentlemen and very impressive in carrying out their duties. They are a credit to the Armed Forces and to the RCMP. Let us hope that the present situation will soon change and that our family life will return once again to its normal state.
I believe that the new law introduced by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) will give the necessary powers to our police forces in order that they can carry out their duties and, at the same time, protect those persons arrested. Under this bill, persons arrested must be charged within a maximum of seven days rather than the 21 days stipulated in the regulations under the War Measures Act. They will have a right to counsel and jury trial, rights which are not mentioned in the present regulations. Some innocent persons may be picked up and this would be very regrettable, but we must think of our society as a whole, and this new law is the only means by which we can protect the individual as well as our total population in these troubled times.
In supporting this legislation, Mr. Speaker, I would also like to emphasize to my colleagues the importance we must attach to removing the causes for dissatisfaction among some segments of our population. We cannot convert the members of the FLQ because I think they have embarked on a road of no return, but we should show the average citizen in poorer circumstances, who may harbour some sympathy for the FLQ manifesto, that we are taking steps to remedy his situation.
It is an enormous task, but I am convinced that this government can do it with the co-operation of all hon. members in the House, and that all the citizens of our country will reap the benefits. The Minister of Justice, who made a brilliant speech yesterday on this bill, explained why new measures are needed to combat new problems as they arise in our ever-changing society. We must meet this challenge, Mr. Speaker, and meet it now. Canada has perhaps lost her innocence, as the Minister of Justice said. I am convinced, however, that she has not lost her wisdom and her determination to bring about the just society. The legally elected government of Quebec and the municipal government of Montreal concurred in a request that special measures be taken. The federal government accepted their request and proclaimed the War Measures Act.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
This new act will replace it and will liquidate itself on April 30. Let us hope that the situation will change before this date. Let us hope that even this new act will never be proclaimed again; but let us forever be ready to invoke it if the need arises. The Canadian people have the right to expect and demand this of us, and our duty is to accept it and fulfil our mandate for Canada.

Before concluding my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a suggestion to the cabinet. I wish that more funds be appropriated for the economic development of underdeveloped areas. We will thus contribute greatly to improve the living conditions and to decrease
Public Order Act, 1970
the feelings of frustration among many young Canadians and fathers.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, all members know that it seldom takes me long to express my opinion.
After hearing the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) flinging abuse at the member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) and at the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), perhaps I am entitled to take at least a few minutes and reply to such nonsense.
I do not intend to stoop down to his level but I quite regret that, after attacking the members for Temiscamingue and Prince Albert, he forgot to say what he thought about Bill C-181, whether he is for or against it.
He could also have told us briefly his opinion, if he has one, on the necessity of this measure. I am afraid that the Secretary of State did not dare express his opinion about it because he is feeling himself somewhat guilty about the situation now prevailing in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada.
The Secretary of State blamed the member for Temiscamingue for wanting to bring before the firing squad the FLQ leaders who apparently remain unknown only to the government.
If an attempt by some individuals to overthrow a government by the means we know is not what is commonly called treason, I do not know what it is. Canada may be the only country or one of the few countries in the world to consider acts of treason almost as news items. I myself sometimes wonder if the present government is not satisfied with the situation and if in a sense it did not bring about the present conditions in Canada.
As for me, Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member for Temiscamingue and leader of the Ralliement credi-tiste was right in demanding that those who are officially known as leaders of the FLQ in Quebec be brought before the firing squad. Following the statement by the Creditiste leader, we received a great number of messages expressing satisfaction, not only from people in Quebec but from all over Canada.
The hon. Secretary of State also took pleasure in recalling the constant accusations levelled against the Creditiste leader because of his alleged admiration for Hitler and Mussolini in the past. However, the Secretary of State was careful not to tell the House exactly what the same leader had stated, in 1962 or 1963 I believe. But a man like the Secretary of State is always wont to recall such things.
The Secretary of State has been repeatedly accused of irresponsibility in the House, because whenever he was asked to do something about the CBC, he answered that he was not responsible for it.
Several hon. members, including myself, the mayor of Montreal, Mr. Saulnier and many others have asked the Secretary of State and the government to bring some order to what has been called the "pink babies", that is the Company of Young Canadians, following acts of

November 5, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
violence in Montreal on or about October 7, 1969. Once again, the Secretary of State answered that he was not responsible, that he was "irresponsible" one might say.
Mr. Speaker, if the evidence produced by Mr. Saulnier was not enough to prompt the government to take some action in order to prevent the present situation, I wonder what could have then.
Mr. Saulnier made the following statement that I quoted on December 15, 1969, as reported on page 1992 of Hansard:
We now know that in Canada, individuals and groups are working actively to implement a plan which will carry the destruction of freedom of our form of democratic government and, in this plan, the people's will, as expressed in the ballot box, is excluded-
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
These individuals and groups are inspired and financed, in many,cases, by foreign political powers related to an "International that does not share our notion of man's fundamental liberties.
And Mr. Saulnier states further:
In other cases, the same ideas and the same plan of action are supported by the government of Canada through the Company of Young Canadians.
It is not me who says that, but Mr. Lucien Saulnier, chairman of the Executive Committee of Montreal. I go on with my quotation:
For many months now, we have seized a substantial quantity of documents which justify me to put forward the previous assertions, and with the greatest certainty. It is enough today, and it is my duty to do so, to raise publicly a comer of the veil.
The partial disclosure to which I will limit myself today are but a small example of the things I know and of which I have privately informed the Prime Minister of Canada a few times.
This government could not plead that it was not aware of the facts, since it knew exactly everything the Company of Young Canadians was teaching in its clubs or organizations, namely, how to prepare Molotov cocktails, how to grow marijuana, how to organize a defence against the police forces. The government knew all that.
And Mr. Saulnier added that if the government wanted other evidence than what he had offered, on behalf of the city of Montreal, he could fill the committee room with witnesses.
This was not enough evidence for the government to undertake any action against terrorists and revolutionaries in Canada, who were often financed through public funds.
Mr. Speaker, we have before the House Bill C-181 entitled "an Act to provide temporary emergency powers for the preservation of public order in Canada."
Mr. Speaker, never would I have believed that in a country like Canada, abounding in possibilities of all kinds, we would have to vote such legislation to protect our security and our liberties. Even so, this is presented to us as provisional legislation. First we had the War Measures Act. Now we have an interim piece of legislation, to be replaced by another, probably a permanent
[Mr. Laprise.l
one, for the preservation of order. I wonder a little to what extent this act to provide temporary emergency powers will be observed.
Previously, we had other legislation in our country, Mr. Speaker. The Criminal Code included provisions for the preservation of public order in Canada.
The death penalty existed for treason and capital murder and, in 1967, the present Prime Minister who was then Minister of Justice had that penalty abolished. In cases of treason and kidnapping without assassination, maximum penalties of 14 years of penitentiary were then imposed. Under the new proposed legislation, these penalties will be reduced to five years.
Thus the bandits, the revolutionaries, the scoundrels of all kinds can get away with almost anything under Canadian law.
If the legislation for the preservation of public order in Canada is not better enforced, I wonder what will happen.
There is an act dealing with seditious words. We have not used it often. A book was published by the RCMP in 1952. So, it dates back some time. It states with respect to sedition that if we had always applied that act, we would have avoided many things. Here is what we read on page 129:
-Thus, persons waging an open war on the Crown are guilty of treason, whereas those who commit less violent offences, but promote resort to force as a means to overthrow the established institutions are guilty of sedition.
Mr. Speaker, several persons in Canada have been guilty of sedition these past years, and I am thinking in particular of Michel Chartrand who on several occasions has committed such indictable offence.
And there are many others like Pierre Vallieres, Charles Gagnon who have been engaged in seditious activities in Canada in recent years. And what has been done about it? No hing. Let me quote a little further in this same section:
It is also the responsibility of all citizens to help prevent crime because disorder could easily lead the state into confusion.
Is this not the present situation, Mr. Speaker? Because no action was taken against those persons who voiced seditious statements, the government and many ci izens of Quebec and in the rest of Canada are now in the midst of confusion. This section reads on as follows:
-However, where sedition is concerned, the responsibility of each individual is still more involved because seditious action seeks to overthrow by illegal means established order and government. Because of the tremendous effects of sedition on the state, it cannot be repressed merely by the efforts of public servants employed as peace officers, attorneys, etc.
Each citizen must realize that his country requires him to do everything in his power to avoid committing acts of sedition and to reveal to the appropriate authorities all information he may have regarding acts of this nature.
This, Mr. Speaker, is an appeal to the citizens to co-operate with our police forces so that those who are a cause of disorder in Canada may somehow be arrested.
November 5, 1970

But strangely enough, the Canadian people do not seem as anxious to help the police forces put an end to such disorder in Canada as one would like them to be. There must be some reason for that-


An hon. Member:: Why?


Gérard Laprise: Why? There must be some reason, Mr. Speaker, and I believe that if the Canadian people were satisfied with their government, with the system under which they live, they would be anxious to help the police forces by giving away those who violate law and order. I will come back to that later on, because such is not the case.
Many people may have reasons for not co-operating and for not being satisfied with the system under which they live.
There are precedents with regard to sedition. In 1918, one Mr. Russell, informally recognized as a Communist, because there was no Communist party at that time, made seditious remarks during public meetings. I will quote one which he made at the Walker theatre on December 22, 1918, as reported in the book from which I quoted a moment ago:
Blood is shed in Russia and it will be shed also in Canada, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, or else we will get our rights. We will not hesitate to walk in blood in order to obtain what we believe are our rights.
Mr. Speaker, Russell was found guilty of sedition after that statement.
For years, and mainly in the province of Quebec, statements have been made at least as seditious as Russell's in 1918. Nevertheless, nothing has been done about it. I wonder why we always wait until the last minute to do something.
The bill now under study is designed to replace the War Measures Act which it has been necessary to proclaim because of the October events in Quebec. In fact, it was necessary to put this act into force because of Mr. Cross's and Laporte's kidnappings and because of the sadistic murder of the latter on October 16.
The theft of arms in huge quantities and of thousands of sticks of dynamite, some sixty bombings which caused the loss of several lives and thousands of dollars of damages, that was not enough to wake up the government. The death of families or fathers of families as a result of acts of violence, does not seem so bad to the government. The matter is discussed for two or three days, and that is the end of that. I am thinking of what occurred not very far away from here, on June 24 last, near Parliament Hill, when a woman was killed by a bomb that exploded at the National Defence building. People talked about it for two or three days, then no more was heard about it.
Apparently, everything was forgotten as if it were nothing but a commonplace incident, a collision between two cars.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that we should now enact legislation to restore order. However, much more is needed. Force will not be the answer for some 200,000 unemployed
Public Order Act, 1970
workers in Quebec, nor for hundreds of thousands of families living with crumbs granted with all kinds of humiliating formalities, by social welfare. Force will not be the answer for the blind and the disabled who have to put up with an income of $55 and sometimes of even $45 a month. Force will not be the answer for thousands of young people without jobs, most of them well-educated, having a profession or a trade, but insecure as regards their future. Force will not satisfy workers of all categories who see a substantial part of their pay cheque being forfeited to the state.
Mr. Speaker, force may succeed in subduing criminals, political or otherwise, provided it is used with intelligence and, in the present case, this has not been obvious. However, peace and order in Canada can only be brought back when all members of society in this country will have been given the right to economic freedom that industry, agriculture and our various services can provide them with.
The leader of the Ralliement Creditiste has been claiming for a long time that our economic system shall be either reformed by the men of order or destroyed by the others.
Times have not changed. This is not the first crisis we experience. There were many others, including that of 1919, which was characterized by uprisings that strongly worried the authorities at that time.
One also remembers the no less famous crisis of the thirties, in which a very large number of our best men were forced to hitchhike from Halifax to Vancouver looking for a job that would enable them to live decently.
Mr. Speaker, during a debate on January 18, 1937, as reported on that day in Hansard, Lionel Chevrier, who was then Liberal member for Stormont, shortly after the Liberal party was put back in office, said:
Today the working masses are suffering; in nearly every country in the world they are the victims of individualism with its doctrine, its utilitarianism and its unrestricted competition which has degenerated in economic dictatorship, the people are ready to believe that the only remedy to their evils lies in a complete overthrow of the social order.
Do we realize that it is about the same thing today? I go on with the quotation:
It is necessary to prove to those who suffer and are embittered against society that the remedy does not reside in the destruction of the existing order, but in its reform, for otherwise it will be impossible effectively to defend society against the assault of revolutionary forces.
If Mr. Chevrier were still a member of the House today, he would repeat the same words because we are in a situation much similar to the one that prevailed in 1937.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair to resume same at eight o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
Public Order Act, 1970 AFTER RECESS

November 5, 1970
The House resumed at 8 p.m.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, when I called it six o'clock, I had just quoted what the member for Stormont said in 1937, in order to prove to what extent the present situation resembles one we have already witnessed.
Still, each time, the effects are more and more harmful, and the dangers of disorder much greater, to the extent where we wonder whether it is not already too late, whether the administrative structure of our country is not in the process of crumbling.
The same conditions prevailed in Russia, China, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, Cuba and elsewhere. The same methods were used there, that are now being used in Canada to stir up the people: subversion, sedition, uprisings, contestations, terrorism, kidnappings and murder. There were even times when government institutions were used to achieve those ends.
For instance, I feel that the CBC was used as a stepping-stone by all the leftists and revolutionaries in Canada, Europe and Asia. An FLQist revolutionary was so well situated at the CBC that employees and announcers, paid by public funds, were passing messages between FLQ leaders and cells.
Never have so many misleading news later been denied by the same announcers! Never have we seen so many false rumours broadcast over the waves as between October 5 and 16! And the Secretary of State was not aware of this? Come on!
Because of the bad turn of events, steps had to be taken. The police intervened and several personalities disappeared from the CBC. No one seems to feel the worst for it, since October 16. On the other hand, those who were removed from the CBC as a result of their subsersive activity are now bawling.
Recently we heard a union leader of CBC speakers and employees ask for an inquiry into his dismissal.
The Montreal newspaper La Presse issued an article on the facts I just mentioned, namely that the FLQ had infiltrated the CBC. A senior CBC executive wrote to La Presse management to complain about their accusations. On November 3, 1970, Jacques Tremblay replied in his editorial, and I quote:
Don't you think that during the two weeks before the proclaiming of the emergency measures some individuals, well-known for their verbal violence and their advocacy of all kinds of hatred, have had the first place in your so-called information features?
Why were all their declarations unfailingly treated as of national importance? And if those people known for their hatred-filled statements and their advocacy of violence have been so often seen on your screens, is it not normal to say that your network has been a forum for them? At least this is our impression.
This was the impression of La Presse and several others too who have been able to see that on television.
And I, for one, on the Thursday night before the
proclamation of the War Measures Act, on the eleven o'clock CBC news, I saw one Jean-Claude Devirieux, cut abruptly a bulletin he was reading to tell us he had heard a rumour which he had no time to control, but was giving as such. And then he resumed his reading of the bulletin.
Mr. Speaker, I believe it is not proper for an announcer, whether from the CBC, Tele-Metropole or any other television or radio news service, to take it upon himself to cut a news bulletin to broadcast rumours from all quarters. Mr. Speaker, if this was not a message sent to some FLQ cells or leaders, I wonder what it was.
Thus, it is not surprising to hear people complain of the low quality of the services offered by the CBC and of the too great independence given to the corporation with the complic.ty not only of the present Secretary of State, but also of his predecessors.
Bill C-181 has some deficiencies which will need to be corrected when it is considered in the committee of the whole. We are facing murders and murderers. However, I do not want you, Mr. Speaker, to think that I am aiming at those at your right. No. I simply say that we are confronted with events which have happened in the province of Quebec.
No provision in the bill tends to punish murder carried out following k'dnappings or bomb explosions. The bill is retroactive, but it does not state to what extent. That will have to be determined.
A person may be found guilty for having participated in or having been present at a number of meetings. Here again, I think this is too vague. Two meetings may be enough to convict a certain person while for another one, several meetings, perhaps even eight or ten, will be necessary. Those, Mr. Speaker, are a few points that will have to be spelled out during our discussion of Bill C-181 in the committee of the whole.
As for me, Mr. Speaker, 1 do not like to have to discuss such a bill at the present time, when there would be so many other things to do to improve the standard of living of the citizens we represent. I hope this bill will enable us to work efficiently and that the government will pass the measures required to ensure the distribution of consumer goods among all Canadians and to improve the standard of living of the Canadian people, so that they may live in peace and freedom.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


Mr. Hyl Chappell (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Thomas (Moncton):: Filibuster!


Hyliard G. Chappell: I have been around this House long enough to know that personal attack does not improve debate.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Why don't you sit down and let us get on with the debate?


Hyliard G. Chappell: I have been in the courts long enough, I am sure for as long as the hon. member who has

November 5, 1970

interrupted from the other side, to know that it does not improve an argument. But there are times when things that are said are so off course that they must be corrected.
When the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) was describing the interrogation of those arrested and later freed, he pictured the interrogation as incompetent. He thus attacked the police and the Attorney General of Quebec. Although it is possible he may be right, I ask whether it is fair for the police force of Quebec and the Attorney General of Quebec to be attacked in this House on the basis of something allegedly said by one or two of these people, when they have no opportunity to answer those allegations.
The hon. member spoke at length about the number arrested and eventually freed without charges being laid. He was critical, also, of the action of the authorities in taking their fingerprints. I ask you, Mr. Speaker: How could the Quebec police force know which of the 29 were to be charged until they had taken the fingerprints of each to ascertain which, if any, matched fingerprints on documents and articles seized?


An hon. Member:: Why don't they fingerprint
everybody?


Hyliard G. Chappell: I say, also, that some very serious charges have been laid. These charges may be against the leaders. Would it be wise to lay charges against those on the fringes in these circumstances? In any event, there is no evidence at all that some of those who have been set free may not be charged in the future. The hon. member also attacked the RCMP. Why, he asked, has the RCMP not caught these people? In fairness, I must point out that the RCMP are not responsible for policing Quebec with respect to ordinary law enforcement; their numbers are not sufficient to enable them to do so, in any case, and it is not right that it should be implied they have this duty and ought to have carried it out.
He also quoted Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the author, and adopted his statement that if one person felt he was right he should continue to maintain his stand even though 99 opposed it. I do not disagree with that. Then he said the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), by bringing this act into force, had done more to separate Quebec from the rest of Canada than all other actions to date. I say this: if the hon. member is serious in his remarks, I will expect him to try to convince us next week that every tomcat carries a marriage licence.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Hyliard G. Chappell: I consider the subject now under debate to be as serious as any we have discussed in Canada for some time. On October 14 I spoke of the need for democracy to demonstrate that in time of emergency it can quickly produce the teeth and muscle necessary to defend itself against those who would destroy our way of life and force their will upon us. I refer to the group of people who call themselves le Front de Liberation du Quebec. I have observed from history that terror can succeed if there is vacillation-
Public Order Act, 1970


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: And procrastination. I will help you with that one.


Hyliard G. Chappell: -and undue softness on the part of the authorities in dealing with it. At such a time the people must be reassured that democracy can guarantee protection and preserve freedom from mob violence, or in panic and confusion they may be stampeded into a lower form of government. But if democracy moves firmly and quickly, confidence can return just as quickly. It is the duty of the government to take such action when necessary.
I supported the introduction of the War Measures Act on October 16. Although somewhat cumbersome and broader in scope than was required, it was the only tool immediately available. To those who still criticize its proclamation in spite of the overwhelming support in favour of this action from the Canadian people, I say that if one is about to be stabbed in the back one cannot spend too much time looking for the exact defensive weapon. I support the bill before us and congratulate the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) and the government for having been able to consult with the provincial Attorneys General and the leaders of the opposition parties and still bring it in within two weeks.
Freedom consists of freedom of the press, freedom of speech with the right to criticize and protest, freedom of movement, which includes the right to carry on one's chosen activities without fear or interference. It does not include the right to destroy the basis of the society which is our guarantee of freedom. Mr. Laporte died as a Canadian in a national emergency. He died in an attack against Canadian freedom. I urge this government to forthwith join with the Quebec government in providing full compensation for his family, and in undertaking to do the same for any other person in Canada who suffers the same fate at the hands of this group. I think all Canadians wish to share in this responsibility.
To those who doubt my statement that there was overwhelming support for what the government did on October 16, I say I have received a multitude of letters, telephone messages and telegrams and less than 2 per cent disagreed with the government's action.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
The FLQ, with its savage attitude and ruthless means, has done more to unite the people of Canada and to show that democracy can work in its own self-defence than any other single incident in our history. The people of Canada realize that with the FLQ we are not dealing with ordinary criminals, but with individuals who have jointly and severally audaciously established a format of terror for terror's sake. Their crimes are not attacks against individuals but against the values of an entire nation. On that basis, their behaviour approximates a state of civil war rather than a state of crime. They are, in essence, outlaws owing no allegiance to anything but their own vices.
I cannot believe that these people are offshoots from poverty. They do not direct their efforts toward
936

secretary or membership lists. Membership will be most difficult to prove, at least in the very early stages. But the clause has much merit because it signifies to all that the representatives of the Canadian people will not tolerate this type of activity. I am more concerned about whether the bill goes far enough, and I was somewhat disappointed with respect to the long time which the opposition spent on the problem as compared with the short time which they spent on the solution and the best means to deal with the situation.


An hon. Member:: Let us hear your solution.


Hyliard G. Chappell: As the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) said, we must give them the tools to do the job. I ask: Should we not create offences from their criminal acts of behaviour and legislate that certain acts in themselves carry a presumption of membership in the FLQ and an intent to overthrow the government by force? I shall not attempt to list them all, but under the circumstances that exist today could there not, and should there not, be a presumption in respect of one who has a machine-gun in his possession, or one who has dynamite or detonating devices in his possession, or one who has FLQ literature, not a single copy for his own consideration but an amount that is obviously for distribution, or those who associate with these people who are known to be involved?
Should we not also consider forcing them to become compellable witnesses in certain limited circumstances, and thus require them to disclose the names of people obviously with them at the time the crime was committed but whose identity cannot be established? If we do some of these things now, we may once and for all rid ourselves of the greatest attack on Canadian democracy.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I would have participated in this debate had it not been for the attack made yesterday by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) on the leaders of this party.


An hon. Member:: Here he comes now.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: How many leaders have you?


Francis Andrew Brewin: We have at least two.


John Napier Turner: No, you have 20.


Francis Andrew Brewin: We have many potential leaders but only two actual leaders, and now I am referring to the two actual leaders and I am saying that the attack upon them yesterday by the Minister of Justice is what provoked me to add a few remarks to this debate.
The Minister of Justice invited the House to participate in a constructive debate on the actual measure before us. I am not quoting him exactly, but I think he deplored the rehashing of the controversial issue as to the appropriateness or otherwise of invoking the War Measures Act. Having done this, he then devoted almost all his speech to an immoderate and partisan attack upon
Public Order Act, 1970
the leaders of this party. What was their offence? Their offence consisted of opposing the invocation of the total powers conferred upon the government by invoking the War Measures Act. When I say total, I mean total.
The Minister of Justice tried to make it appear that my leader had made some misleading remarks when he referred to the powers existing under the War Measures Act. I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House that the powers under the War Measures Act are in fact vast and unlimited. They are not confined to any particular regulation that may be made under the War Measures Act. The power to make regulations and orders is as widespread as you like and includes censorship, arrest, detention, exclusion, deportation and appropriation, control and forfeiture of property.
These are the powers that are conferred by the War Measures Act, but in this particular instance the government has only seen fit to employ one part of these powers which they conferred upon themselves by invoking the War Measures Act, namely, the particular regulation that was in fact enacted. But I point out once again to the House and to the minister that the wording of section 3 of the War Measures Act gives the Governor in Council the power to do and authorize such acts and things, and make from time to time such orders and regulations as he may, by reason of the existence of the emergency, deem advisable. It is not only the power to make orders and regulations that was taken by this government when it proclaimed the War Measures Act, but the power to do any other thing and authorize any other thing or act that it saw fit.


John Napier Turner: May I ask the hon. member a question? Would he be good enough, after he finishes reciting that section, to move on to section 4 or section 5 where it says that only orders and regulations passed under that act have the force of law.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I am looking at the act itself and I do not see the passage to which the minister refers. I am aware of the jurisprudence, as I am sure he is, which has made it clear from time to time that the powers under this act are virtually unlimited. The act speaks for itself. We in this party stand firmly behind our leaders and we reaffirm our conviction-


An hon. Member:: All of you?


Francis Andrew Brewin: There is a slight difference of opinion.


Donald MacInnis: And there is freedom of expression here.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


Francis Andrew Brewin: We have no totalitarian tendencies in this party. We have differing convictions and we express them. We express our differences. We are not afraid of voting according to our conscience. I do not have to agree with the rather small minority of my colleagues who took a different view, but I respect their right to do so. I notice the government party has always claimed the

November 5, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
same freedom of conscience, but I have seldom seen it expressed. I am waiting for the day the Liberals express their own convictions by doing otherwise than voting for the party which they support. That will be the day, Mr. Speaker. I have not seen it yet, and I have been here quite a few years.


An hon. Member:: You should be in the House more often.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, there was an exception. Mr. Ralph Cowan at least sometimes voted against his party, but he did not stay here very long. He did not get the nomination again.


David Lewis: He was read out.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Yes, he was read out. However, I reaffirm our conviction that the invoking of the War Measures Act should only be occasioned by the circumstances and conditions stated in it, and they are the existence of real war or civil war. Insurrection is a civil war. I say that these conditions have not been demonstrated to us in any way at all. I tell the Minister of Justice that there are many thoughtful people in Canada who believe our leaders-I am referring specifically to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) and the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis)-showed an admirable courage and sound conviction in fighting against what they considered to be a serious danger to the fundamental rights of Canadians. I believe that when history comes to be written, more and more Canadians will come to share this particular conclusion.
Certainly we acknowledge, and there is no doubt about it, that there has been evidence presented to us of grave and serious disorder created by the FLQ through its odious actions in Quebec, serious disorder which required action. But since this matter came up, we in this party have always made it clear that we were ready, and we are ready today, to support appropriate action to strengthen the authorities in order to deal with this crisis. However, in all the weeks since this matter arose, [DOT]no evidence has been produced of the existence of the conditions which alone justify the invoking of the War Measures Act. We have had rumours, we have had dark hints galore, we have had phony plots-but a complete absence of hard facts and evidence to justify what has been done.
What are the results of all the searches? Of the 450 people detained, only 40 are to be charged. Do 40 people without arms-there has been no evidence that any of these people have had caches of arms-indicate insurrection? I do not think anybody but the most nervous type would say that it indicated insurrection. I agree with what the Minister of Justice said, that the meagre result of the searches and arrests is not in itself proof that there was not a serious crisis; but it does create doubts as to the existence of a crisis of the sort that could properly be described as insurrection. It does not look as though the insurrection was a very real threat. Alternatively, one must come to the conclusion
that the searches were not competently carried out. One or other is the inevitable conclusion.
The production of this bill which we are discussing is itself evidence of the lack of necessity for taking the extreme step of introducing the War Measures Act. The minister himself said the present bill is in much more precise terms. I am glad to agree with him:	it
undoubtedly is. Why could not this bill have been introduced weeks ago? Is the government's drafting capacity so small that we must wait for weeks while innocent people are detained and then released? Surely it was possible to produce this bill sooner. I suggest it could have been produced and brought down sooner and, subject to certain amendments that we are ready to propose, we would have passed it promptly and it would have sufficed, instead of invoking the tremendous powers of the War Measures Act.
I now want to turn to the legislation that is before us. In my view it is-and I only repeat what has been said by the leader of my party-a very great improvement on the regulations introduced under the War Measures Act and by the invoking of that act. Mr. Speaker, I want to spend a moment saying why it is such an improvement as to justify, subject to certain amendments, our supporting it on second reading. First of all, the bill is temporary in its nature and does not confer such sweeping and extensive powers on the Governor in Council.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. There are many private discussions and conversations taking place in the chamber and the Chair has difficulty hearing the hon. member. I wonder whether hon. members who are engaged in conversations would continue them outside the curtains.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Sometimes it is a little difficult to compete against a number of voices speaking in the chamber at the same time.


An hon. Member:: It is hard listening, too.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I know some hon. members find it very difficult to listen. They have never been very good listening types. Mr. Speaker, I was going to give-I thought hon. members opposite might be pleased to hear it-the reasons why in my view this legislation is a tremendous improvement upon the invocation of the War Measures Act and the regulations orginally passed. The first point I want to make is that it does not confer such sweeping powers on the Governor in Council. It expressly introduces-which did not exist before-many of the protections provided by the Canadian Bill of Rights, including the right to counsel which in practice has been ignored during this operation, whatever the legal niceties may happen to be.
I think it is important that the legislation now before us does in fact introduce many of the provisions, and I think it should introduce more of the provisions of section 2 of the Bill of Rights. The definition of "illegal

November 5, 1970

association" has been very much restricted and narrowed, and the period of detention without trial abridged. Above all, this bill revokes the War Measures Act. In view of these very real improvements, for which I think the whole House can take credit-I do not think any one party should take full credit for it, because the vigilance and the concern of all Members of Parliament have had something to do with it-I think the fact is that this is a vastly narrower, more reasonable and more appropriate measure than was presented to us before, and on that basis I think it deserves some sort of support.
However, Mr. Speaker, in my view it is absolutely essential that certain parts of this bill be amended, because it still contains provisions that are intolerable in any country that values its fundamental freedoms. One thing that should be odious to the Minister of Justice, his government and party, is the provision that in effect calls for the retroactive operation of the law. The minister shakes his head. I have heard him say outside this House that these provisions are not retroactive. I say that clause 8 clearly has a retroactive effect because it refers to proof of membership, and presumed proof of membership is not based upon what one has done since this act came into effect. It is based upon what one did before and after the act came into effect. So that if five years ago or ten years ago, if the FLQ had been in existence then, you had attended a couple of meetings of the FLQ, perhaps quite ignorant and innocent of what it was, you could be hauled before the courts and told, "This is prima facie evidence of your membership. Now prove you are not a member and have not been a member. We are not satisfied with your proof of ignorance, so you are liable to five years in jail."
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
I say it is contrary to the jurisprudence of civilized countries to make actions criminal on the basis of things that were legal when the actions themselves in fact took place. The Universal Charter of Human Rights makes it perfectly clear that acts that were not criminal by national or international law before their commission are not to be punished. Here you are perhaps talking about membership today. Technically you can argue that membership today is not retroactive. If you prove membership today by relation to acts in the past and then say, "The onus is on you to get rid of the acts of the past", I say you are giving effect to ex post facto criminal law and no civilized country will recognize the validity of this. The international community of nations has made it clear that this is prohibited and wrong and is not in accordance with the fundamental rights of justice as recognized throughout the world.
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned before, I am very pleased that the new bill reintroduces large sections of the Bill of Rights. But it cuts out one that is in the Bill of Rights and which I think should be preserved. This is the right to have bail fixed, not by an official of the government, not by police officials and not by an attorney general but by the courts of this land. That is what the courts are for. We propose to urge the Minister of Justice and this
Public Order Act, 1970
House to remove from the bill this provision which deprives a few persons of the right to bail which is conferred by the Bill of Rights and in the manner which has been traditional in our courts. Again, the right to bail is recognized in international law.
Mr. Speaker, we in this party do not propose to delay or obstruct passage of this bill. We are prepared to accept it on second reading, but we propose to do our duty in examining the legislation as carefully as we can. Where we find provisions we consider offensive to fundamental freedoms and fundamental rights, we shall ask that they be amended. I hope that this government will show its confidence in Parliament by taking seriously the amendments which will be proposed by members of the opposition in this and other parties, to see wh ther we cannot get a better bill and one which has less danger of being oppress.ve. If they do not, it will be an indication of their unwillingness to take Parliament seriously.
It has been my conviction that the highest and most important function of Parliament is vigilance in regard to fundamental rights and democratic freedoms. I hope this Parliament will prove worthy of the trust that the people of Canada put in it to be defenders of their liberty, to be defenders of their fundamental rights and to make sure that at this moment of grave trial in Canada we do not abandon time-honoured principles which are so important to all Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr.   Paul-M. Gervais@Sherbrooke: Mr. Speaker, listening to the previous speaker, I realized that he said in the same sentence that the government acted too late, but on the other hand, that the measures invoked were extreme. I must say I find it difficult to reconcile the two statements.
In any event, because he is a former prime minister, I regret having to say that the words of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) were ill-advised; he took the opportunity to indulge in bombast and made vain attempts at humour.
Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that the people of Quebec and of the other provinces of Canada cannot see anything pleasant or funny in the distressing and serious situation we are facing.
As for the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) and the previous speaker, I understand why they speak as the champ, ons of civil libert es without giving a thought to the vast majority of Quebecers and other Canadians who willingly subm t to inconveniences, searches and even temporary arrests so that we may see the end of this anguish and terror which prevails in Quebec.


An hon. Member:: Hear! Hear!


Mr. Gervais:: These people are willing to undergo hardships, to forsake some of their liberties partially and temporarily so that may be stopped the activities of

November 5, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
terrorists who want to deprive them of these freedoms and force on them later their totalitarian doctrine, which we reject.
Talking of the freedom of all individuals, Mr. Speaker, it is a lovely philosophy. We heard about that when we were in college. However, what do we hear about Mr. Cross and Mr. Laporte's freedom and about the murder of the latter?


David Lewis: We have the Criminal Code.


Paul Mullins Gervais: We shall come back to that.
What should one think about the innocents who are threatened? I appreciate the fact that hon. members who live in the shadow of the Rockies may find it difficult to read the Quebec newspapers; nevertheless they could come closer to that province, where the crisis is the most obvious at the present time, by reading the newspapers and by consulting with their colleagues here, regardless of their party affiliation to find out what is really happening in our province.
There is much talk about civil liberties but the victims are forgotten. There are many of them at the present time. I think of Cross, Laporte and other innocent people who are threatened. I think of the citizens of Montreal who are afraid even to go to the movies at night. I think of those who have stopped going to night clubs. I think of those who must abstain from attending social or political events of all kinds. That is what is going on in the province of Quebec. Perhaps that in the shadows of the Rockies they are not aware of it right now but I hope that such tragic events never happen there. Today it is FLQ but maybe later on it will be the FLBC-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Why are you filibustering your own bill?


Paul Mullins Gervais: Children in schools, in CEGEPs, in universities, are threatened by other children who incite them to resort to blackmail, even though their parents make every effort to educate them properly. Here is an example: The hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) and myself went to the University of Sherbrooke to explain federalism to the students. By the way, the second issue, first volume, of the Estrien Rouge, published in the province of Quebec on April 3, 1970, with a picture of Mao on the front page and sold for 10 cents, contained, as the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) reported previously, the following which I quote:
The stand taken by those traitors, Ouellet and Gervais, who represent the colonialists, clearly proves that only the power of the people can drive them out of Quebec.

And then, it will be argued that there was not sufficient evidence to proclaim the War Measures Act.
I think that perhaps the time has come to proceed with the study of the bill and to stop rehashing old stories, as we did this afternoon. The aim of this bill is to extend the powers of the Attorneys General or of the Minister of Justice, as we say in the province of Quebec, those powers being delegated to the police forces in order to allow them to work more efficiently.
Those who claim that civil liberties are impaired will not approve, of course, in principle, a special act but taking into account the present context and such a complex situation, I do not think that it is so restrictive.
There is the matter of bail, of arrest, search and seizure without warrant. But, on the other hand, if one refers to the preamble of the bill now under consideration, one can see that if an individual has done nothing wrong, he has nothing to be afraid of.
Some people are acting out of political expediency, such as our friends from the New Democratic Party, who do not really know Quebec-there is not even one in the House who represents a riding from that province-but they could have consulted us. Anyway, the vote was eloquent enough to show them that other members were perhaps more enlightened than they were. In spite of these facts, I suspect they are not aware of the situation and after discussions, telephone conversations with people from other provinces, I submit that these members do not even represent the views of their constituents.
The people of Canada almost unanimously, support action taken by the government since the emergency measures have been in force.
As the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) has pointed out, there might be some abuse in the application of the legislation. That is unfortunate, but in the present circumstances we must apply it, and it is the responsibility of the Attorney General or the Minister of Justice of the province to see that the law is observed and that arbitrary measures are curbed to the greatest possible extent.
Others criticise the government for not having acted soon enough, as the previous speaker said. I should have liked to see how the same people would have reacted had the government taken action, say six months or a year ago. What would have been their attitude, had the government taken action before the kidnappings, before the assassination of Mr. Laporte, before the violent deaths caused by acts of terrorism? Then there would have been a terrible filibuster. The government would have been accused of taking fascist measures, whereas today we must act in that delicate and painful situation we have now.
In Canada we were not prepared to face a situation such as this one. The events followed in rapid succession whereas we were accustomed to live in an orderly way, in peace and in tranquillity. As they say in English: "We were smug, we felt smug." Unfortunately to defend one's liberty it is necessary to accept sacrifices and restrictions
November 5, 1970

of that liberty. It is in this spirit that the bill is introduced.
As for those who will say that there was no reason for proclaiming the War Measures Act, I answer them by quoting some excerpts from a document submitted to the committee which inquired into the Company of Young Canadians last summer:

Inevitably, Quebec revolutionaries will come to group themselves in a single movement without, however, losing their own identities.
That they fight today in the FLP, the FLQ, the citizen's committees, the MLT, the MIS, the Vallieres-Gagnon committee, and the unions makes little difference. They all participate in the same strategy.
There are not 50 strategies. There are only two: electoral and revolutionary strategy.
Is this not evidence, gentlemen? I will go on.


An hon. Member:: We heard that a year ago.


Paul Mullins Gervais: It is time you remembered it. I quote again as follows:
Here in Quebec the fight for the destruction of the capitalist system is inseparable from the struggle for national independence. One will not go far without the other.
Another quotation from the same article reads as follows:
Plan of Action: In the immediate future we must continue and increase the agitation, propaganda and permanent contestation at all levels of society so we can unmask, expose, demystify and weaken the cogwheels of the system which imprisons workers and students in stifling slavery.
Excellent work has already been done in this area; it must continue-
Inevitably this will lead to violence and breaking the law. But it is absolutely normal for a revolutionary to operate outside the law-
The FLQ Manifesto ends this way:
It is easier than denouncing the system, easier than protesting, to make the FLQ a convenient scapegoat for everyone.
But one must remember that it is all Quebec revolutionaries who, through their actions and determination, have brought forth the FLQ.
And the FLQ will endure as long as there are revolutionaries in Quebec who are determined to conquer.
There again, if some hon. members suspect that there is no evidence, I could give them more literature in private.

Like the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), I agree that the enforcement of this bill obviously will not kill terrorism once and for all, but it will provide the Minister of Justice of the province of Quebec with an instrument which will enable him and his police forces to carry on their investigations and arrest this pack of criminals.
The mere mention of some crimes in the Criminal Code will not eliminate them but, on the other hand, our police forces are thus empowered to rid our society of criminals.
Public Order Act, 1970
Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me say that we must all support this piece of legislation and instead of indulging in sarcasm and being nasty to our police officers, our duty is to offer them whatever co-operation and support we can provide in order that we may once again find this atmosphere which we long for and cherish heartily.


Mr. Douglas A. Hogarth (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Filibuster!


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Mr. Speaker, I realize how anxious hon. members of the House are to get into Committee of the Whole on this bill.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Is the hon. member trying to justify himself?


An hon. Member:: Why does the hon. member not sit down, then?


Douglas Aird Hogarth: I realize that this is a matter of urgency and that we are anxious to complete it.


An hon. Member:: Why not sit down, then?


Douglas Aird Hogarth: During the course of this afternoon I heard that the opposition in this House is the conscience of our nation and the conscience of the government.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member must be the government's mouthpiece.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: If this feeble group is the conscience of this nation, we are going to go to hell for sure. So far as I am concerned, I have never in all my life seen such waffling and indecision in an opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Aird Hogarth: I have never seen such an opposition.


An hon. Member:: And how long have you been here?


Douglas Aird Hogarth: It goes one way one day, and another way the next day. You cannot tell which way they are going.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Is the hon. member trying to speak as a hatchetman?


Douglas Aird Hogarth: I can tell hon. members that we in the backbenches of this party-


Some hon. Members:: Trained seals.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: If we are called trained seals, I do not know what words one could apply to the members of the opposition in this House.


An hon. Member:: Be careful, now.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Here we are in a moment of crisis, and we are abridging civil liberties. It does not matter wheth-

November 5, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
er you abridge them by one day or one year, the traditional and fundamental civil rights of this nation are being abridged. It is either right, or wrong, under the circumstances. It does not matter whether we are doing it under the War Measures Act or the bill before us tonight: the question is, are we right?
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Little or no argument can be raised against the proposition that every civil right that we enjoy is subject to the supremacy of Parliament. Parliament has jurisdiction over all civil rights. Acting within the scope of its authority and according to the exigencies of the situation which face the nation, province or municipality at the time, it is the supremacy of Parliament that counts. There is no such thing as an absolute civil right. There is no such thing as the right to liberty that is not subject to the supremacy of Parliament. There is no such thing as the right to security of the person and the right to the enjoyment of property. Any of these rights can be taken away by the due process of law. That is expressly stated in the Bill of Rights. It is something that Canadians should not forget.
The right to equality before the law, protection of the law, freedom of relig'on, speech, assembly, association and of the press are all subject to abrogation, variation and change by the process of law.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Aird Hogarth: The due process of law can mean the passage of a statute such as the one we are discussing today, an order of a court of an appropriate jurisdiction, or a regulation passed pursuant to authority delegated to the Governor in Council by Parliament, such as happened with the War Measures Act.
It has been suggested that the War Measures Act has just been proclaimed. In fact, it was proclaimed in 1914. It has been on the statute books ever since, and now we are merely acting under it. To suggest that we acted with the full force and effect of the act is absolute nonsense. The only right which approaches an absolute civil right is the right to habeas corpus, mandamus, certiorari or the right to prohibition. None of these rights have been abridged by the regulations under the War Measures Act or the bill with which we are now dealing.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: How can you exercise certiorari when there is no cnarge?


Douglas Aird Hogarth: There will be charges. It is provided in the regulations and the bill before us. We live in changing times, Mr. Speaker. It is time we realized that we live in very troubled times. We can no longer put our heads in the sand. We live in a world where the old values, the status quo and authoritarianism of the past are rapidly being replaced by concepts which have yet to be truly formalized and structured into acceptable political philosophy.

The people in our community today have been emancipated by superior education. They are knowledgeable by virtue of the vast progress that has been made in the field of mass communication. They are conscious as never before of the needless poverty in our country, the decadence and the intolerable bureaucracy with which we are faced at all levels of government. Young people in particular are testing and rejecting many of the concepts which the authoritarians cling to like a young baby clings to a tattered baby blanket. They have had enough. Such testing can by no means be considered to be among only the young people. There are many adults who have seen a little bit of everything, experienced a little bit of everything and seen the slowness of it. We see how long it takes to have the most minor reforms passed in this House. There was a 16-day filibuster on the omnibus bill dealing with abortion. There were 16 days of nothing but talk, the same thing over and over again. The reactionary forces are holding fast; the activists and reformists are anxious to get ahead.


William Arnold Peters: The bill was the only abortion.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: I will tell you about that in a moment.


William Arnold Peters: I did not ask you that.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: In encouraging dialogue, encouraging young people to get into the political institutions which we represent, and encouraging them to make changes we must have a peaceful transition and reform. In a rebellious world there is no room for violence. We cannot tolerate violence. When a government fails to act, refuses to change and refuses to see the causes of violence in its community, there is every chance the extremists, megalomaniacs and psychopaths will become terrorists. To a large extent, this is what happened in our community today.
This is not the occasion to discuss long-term solutions for what has happened. It is not the occasion to consider what has happened in our universities, among the working people, the unemployed and our ethnic groups such as the Metis who are dissatisfied. Today is not the time to discuss this, but it must be discussed soon. Nor is it a time to dwell on transformation and change of the government. It is not the time to blame, accuse or confront. We all carry, in a sense, a certain amount of the blame. What we must consider today is the legislation before us, its necessity, its provisions and hopeful effect. Regardless of what might have been said about rumours of the takeover of the government of Quebec, in my view there was ample evidence upon which this government and the province of Quebec were entitled to act, not only entitled but obligated to act to preserve social order. I am only surprised that we acted with the restraint with which we did.
Much has been said to the effect that the government had no basis and no ground on which to introduce regulations under the War Measures Act and that there was no evidence of apprehended insurrection. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) has said that we should
November 5, 1970

have acted earlier and taken effective action. These are two points I would like to discuss. Obviously, before October 16 we did not have a request for assistance from the government of Quebec. The government of the province of Quebec did not write to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) asking for such powers. Hon. members will recall in hearings before the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts that this matter was dealt with. There was never a request from the Government of Quebec for assistance.
Does the Leader of the Opposition suggest that the government of Canada should have acted in the absence of such a request? Should we have demonstrated that the government of the province of Quebec had no power to enforce the law in that province? That is contrary to the Constitution. Surely, it was the request of Mr. Bourassa and others, coupled with other evidence, that brought about the invocation of the regulations under the War Measures Act. Should the federal government have refused to act when the Premier of the province of Quebec requested assistance?
Consider the facts which we have heard. I will deal with them very briefly. In the last ten years we have witnessed bombings, we have witnessed riots, obviously organized, in the city of Montreal. There have been crimes of murder extending even to the city of Ottawa, last June. There have been robberies so that these people could gain their financial ends. There have been thefts of dynamite, thefts of weapons.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Hon. members can read today in the Globe and Mail about the discovery of a cache of weapons including carbines, machine-guns and a bazooka. Mr. Speaker, these are not for shooting ducks. They were to be used for one purpose only, and that is to destroy the social order. Twenty-three persons are in jail as a result of crimes perpetrated in the name of political power. If we can attribute these acts to the FLQ and its related associations, in these circumstances it would appear to me that we have been modest in our actions.
Consider the evidence which was produced before the Committee on Broadcasting last year. We heard about the infiltration of terrorists into the Company of Young Canadians. We were told by the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Douglas) in that committee that we were not to go on a witch-hunt, that we were confined in our terms of reference to dealing with the CYC. No request was made by the government of Quebec for assistance at that time. We heard from Mr. Saulnier, we heard from Mr. Cote. They were convinced then that there were grounds for apprehending an insurrection; not the next day, but they said it was coming, it was on its way. And they showed us the documentation which had been seized throughout the city of Montreal, obviously designed for distribution throughout the whole of Quebec. Mr. Cote, in evidence before the committee on November 27, 1969-


An hon. Member:: Almost a year ago.
Public Order Act, 1970


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Almost a year ago. There was no request from the province of Quebec for assistance.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Aird Hogarth: All right. Should we have invoked the War Measures Act a year ago?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: You are right. Consider the documents and the evidence.


An hon. Member:: Too late.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I find it a little difficult to follow what the hon. member is saying. Members of the House should allow him to complete his
remarks.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Mr. Cote was reading from one of the documents which was seized. This is what one of them said:
The organization oi the exploited classes on a vast scale must be brought into effect, when the time comes, with a direct view to popular insurrection which will be characterized by the armed occupation of factories, universities, schools, public services and the national territory.
Another document contained the following:
Since 1963, ever since the explosion of the first FLQ bombs, we have been in that first stage of the revolutionary struggle which will be pursued until agitation becomes widespread and culminates in a general political, social and economic crisis. We are now approaching this crisis very rapidly, and this has been particularly the case in the last six months.
It goes on:
This is the sort of struggle which is conducted daily, each according to his means, by the FLP, MIS, FLQ et cetera. This many sided action, which pursues the same objectives everywhere, is dominated by propaganda, agitation, ideological training of militants, and the progressive organization at the basic levels, of active cells, whether it be FLP cells, citizens' committees, political action unions, committees, strike committees, clandestine and armed FLQ cells, et cetera.
I do not intend to go through all this evidence tonight, but there is ample documentation here to show that the FLQ did plan an insurrection. Passages in these documents explained how to make Molotov cocktails, how to put ball-bearings beneath the feet of horses in a riot so that the police forces would stumble, how to use military weapons, machine-guns, carbines and the like, how to protect oneself with safety devices against anti-riot equipment. This clearly showed the purport of the FLQ.
It might be said that the committee dealt lightly with this evidence, that its members buried their heads in the sand. But, I repeat, there was no request on the part of the government of Quebec at that time for any action in this field. But the kidnappings of Mr. Cross and Mr. Laporte were obviously the last straw; it was obviously indicative to the government of Quebec, with the totality of its police force engaged in trying to apprehend those who had committed these acts, that the existing measures

November 5, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
governing law enforcement were inadequate. It was obvious that special powers were required, and they decided to act. It could not be said that insurrection was about to take place, because nobody knew. But, certainly, it was properly apprehended in the true sense because all these acts were committed pursuant to the basic manifesto, parts of which I have read out-a manifesto which indicated that at some future date, very soon, an insurrection might take place.
The action of the government, directed to stopping this terror, has been to sweep up all those suspected of any connection with it. I agree that this is an infringement of the civil rights usually enjoyed by Canadians. I do not like it. It required an awful lot of soul-searching to conclude it was necessary. But when one considers the overall picture, the fact that the Bourassa government is a young government, a government which had yet, really, to formulate its policy, it is apparent that the action we took was absolutely necessary and justified in the circumstances. The whole pattern indicates a format of insurrection, and if hon. members opposite cannot see that I suggest to them, with the greatest respect, that they are blind. This bill is quite moderate, considering what it might be.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Aird Hogarth: It is fair and it is just. I repeat my statement. A government acting in panic would surely have imposed censorship. The suggestion that there are retroactive provisions in the bill are not well-founded. Any experienced lawyer will confirm this. It is only the circumstances surrounding proof which are given retroactive effect. In the last analysis, the burden of proof remains upon the Crown. The Crown must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. I should like to hear some of the lawyers in the opposition discuss the question of rebuttable presumption and what happens to the burden of proof. It does not change. Within 90 days a trial date has to be fixed. I am not too sure I would not rather be charged under this bill than under the Criminal Code, because under the Code there is no obligation to fix a date for trial within 90 days.


An hon. Member:: What about Lortie?


Douglas Aird Hogarth: If Mr. Lortie was unlawfully picked up, if there was no reason to suspect him, he still has a right to sue for damages. That possibility exists.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Aird Hogarth: No criticism of this bill is really possible, considering the exigencies of the situation we face. But having said this, I agree that repressive legislation of any kind can only be of a temporary nature.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Mr. Fairweather:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Douglas Aird Hogarth: When I am through. We have to find the cause. It is clear to me, as it must be clear to all hon. members, that as long as we encourage dissent, as we do by participatory democracy and the like, we have to be more conscious than ever before of the security of this nation. We must have some introspection at all levels of government in future programs. We must consider changes in the criminal law dealing with group liability, sedition, treason and the like. We must be able to erase the basic structure upon which terrorists rely for their support in riots, and so on. We must consider our traditional concept of civil rights in a changing society and give it very close scrutiny. Greater freedom means greater responsibility. We have to examine civil rights in the light of a changing world.
I am satisfied that we can solve these problems in the future. I agree with the government that now is not the time to introduce such long-range, profound and deep legislation pertaining to civil rights. If we take our time in the sense of studying the question during this session of Parliament, hopefully we can come up with something that will be beneficial to the people of Canada in years to come.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Would the hon. member now permit
me to ask him a question?


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Yes, sir.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Is the hon. member seriously saying that attendance at a meeting of the FLQ before October 16, 1970, is not an offence; that clause 8 of the bill is not retroactive? If he can assure me of that, it may have some-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder whether it is in order at this point to get into a detailed discussion of this type.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: The hon. member just stated that.


Mr. Speaker:: I realize that perhaps the hon. member did give his own interpretation of the clause to which the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) is now referring. I was, unfortunately, not in the chair at the time and am in no position to say whether he did or not. In any event, the hon. member based his question upon a statement made by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hogarth), who might be allowed to reply. Nevertheless, I suggest there should be no detailed discussion of the individual clauses of the bill.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: As briefly as I can, Mr. Speaker, let me say that clause 4 creates the substantive offences. There is no substantive offence in clause 8, only a presumption dealing with evidence.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, this evening, as always, I am pleased to follow my bellicose, former municipal council colleague whom I always admire for his volume, his tone and his remarkable dra-
[Mr. Hogarth.1
November 5, 1970


John Napier Turner: But no harmony.


Mark Willson Rose: until the soloist was creatively drained and his listeners exhausted. The members of the percussion accompaniment in the back rows nevertheless seemed untouched by the stridence and volume and remained enthusiastic to the end, some beating not only their hands but even their heads, each contributing generously to the cacophony.
One critic, a friend of mine, asked the pertinent question as to what might possibly lie behind the performer's excessive preoccupation with the notes N-D-P which had not previously assumed great thematic importance, at least during the introductory section of the piece. Of course, one can only guess about this and a number of possible explanations, and a variety of interpretations remain extant.
The first one is that because of the timing of the concert there were insufficient rehearsal opportunities for the performer to alter his composition; in other words, he could not change his tune because he did not have the time. Therefore, he had to be content with changing his emphasis. Another possibility exists that the soloist just does not know any other tune, or even that he was specifically forbidden by his maestro to change his tune, the maestro of course being convinced that the piece "Variations for French Horn" continued to enjoy its former popularity with those out in radio and TV land.
The third possibility, and perhaps the most impressive reason that special teatment was given to the notes N-D-P is that the Minister of Justice was advised that

November 5, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
many critics have charged that his selection lacked depth, profundity and musical integrity; and that while this harsh melody might be on everyone's lips for the moment, there was no real evidence to conclude that its popularity could prevail for long, in spite of the cleverness of its construction and the elaborate polyphony of its texture, and finally, that it would certainly never stand the test of history as a masterpiece orchestrated, as it was, by the Department of Public Works.
Other critics agree that the whole composition was a badly balanced one from a structural point of view. The pianissimo introduction, though pedestrian, was lulling enough to suit most tastes. Following the introduction, the development section was belaboured, intense and far too long, bearing but little reference to the principal theme. After such an extended development section the coda, naturally, was awaited anxiously by all. When it came, an immense gasp of relief was heard from the audience, undoubtedly because, as in common with all audiences, this one identified with and shared the embarrassment of the soloist. A minor aside really, Mr. Speaker, but apparently the percussion section members were not paying sufficient attention to their scores, because many players tended to proceed with the rythmic ostinato long after it was quite plain to everyone else that the piece had ended.
I would like to turn at this point and give some attention to the technique displayed by the French horn soloist, the Minister of Justice. It was quite evident that yesterday's concert did not rank with his best. While the listeners had little reason to expect virtuosity from him, it saddens me to say that at least they could expect virtue. Perhaps serious music is not the best field for the talents of this young man. With his inborn personal attractiveness and his carefully acquired charm, he might do extremely well in the pop field. Others have abandoned classics for pop with no discredit to them. I mention only two to support my thesis, Xavier Cugat, who was once concert master for the New York Philharmonic, and Lome Greene, who forsook Shakespeare for "Bonanza."
I think that in discussing technical matters it would only be fair and kindly to point out to the minister that delicate nuances of tone capable of being produced by the French horn are better accomplished by the player inserting just his right hand rather than his whole right wing into the bell of this delicate instrument. Perhaps, though, this extravagant employment of the right wing was a not so subtle appeal to the nostalgia of the good old days when people were offered less dissonance, and a total acceptance of what was musically good prevailed throughout the land.
It must be said, too, that I was extremely disappointed by the way in which the performer handled the relatively simple triple-tongueing passages in the cadenza. Most agree that this particular soloist is superbly equipped for triple-tongueing and has displayed this ability remarkably on numerous previous occasions. Yesterday, alas, was not his day.
Typically, however, his reliance on the staccato style remains unimpaired. A series of short, detached bursts followed by deep-furrowed silences-believed to indicate thinking-have been a trademark of the minister's style for some years. Musicologists have theorize that his delivery has developed over many years in a valiant effort to overcome a childhood impediment caused by his efforts to speak clearly without the necessity of removing the silver spoon.
To conclude, let me say that regardless of what field of musical endeavour the soloist might find in the future satisfying and rewarding, it is obvious to me that he has directed far too much of his studies exclusively to the works patronized in aristocratic chambers. It is this critic's view that the soloist would do better to develop a greater acquaintanceship with composers such as Sibelius, Aaron Copland, or even the Beatles who have used as a stimulus for their creativity the melodies reflecting aspirations of little men living in a free society. And above all he must remember that when playing the French horn the best results by far are achieved if one keeps a stiff upper lip at all times.


Some hon. Members:: Encore.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmonl):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make one of my shortest speeches in this House, for which many members may be thankful. I rise merely to say that I feel this House is on the verge of committing itself to legislation that is very much against the best interests of this country. I will not go into all the arguments that I raised on October 16 and 17 when we discussed the War Measures Act, but they would apply equally to the legislation that is before us tonight. What we are dealing with is, in effect, just a revised standard version of the War Measures Act regulations. For that reason I have decided to place my vote against these regulations and against this new act.
I am sure that many people will recall that I supported the move of the government on October 18 or 19 to enforce the War Measures Act and its regulations. I did so, not without a great deal of thought and with some uncertainty on my part but basically in good faith, believing that the government had rightly apprehended the situation as it existed in the province of Quebec and was taking what at that time seemed to be a reasonable step. I now believe, 2 1/2 weeks later, that step to have been unwise and one that I can no longer support.
I cannot support this legislation and I certainly cannot support the War Measures Act. I will, as a member of this House, use every opportunity that I have to see it removed as quickly as possible. I think what we have done to the country has been amply proven here in the last few days by the kind of intemperate remarks, most of them irrelevant, and the fact that we have not been given, even to this day, sufficient justification either inside or outside the House to warrant the government asking for and producing the kind of legislation that I feel will, and has, very detrimentally affected this country.

November 5, 1970

[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. When shall the said bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole? At the next sitting of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being after ten o'clock, this House stands adjourned until 11 a.m. tomorrow.
At 10.27 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, November 6, 1970