1970-11-09

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellinglon-Grey-Dufferin-Walerloo):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I ask the unanimous consent of the House to propose a motion in the following case of urgent and pressing necessity. I refer to the situation that has developed in western Ontario, particularly along the Grand River, since the repeal of the Canada Water Conservation Assistance Act which provided federal and provincial assistance to municipalities wishing to carry out conservation projects so necessary for pollution control, projects which would assist municipalities faced with mounting unemployment and welfare costs.
Therefore, with consent, I intend to move that the Canada Water Act, 1970 be amended by the addition of a formula for assistance to municipalities similar to that incorporated in the Canada Water Conservation Assistance Act and that the House refer this matter to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works for consideration and report.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Duf-ferin-Waterloo. The motion may be put to the House only if there is unanimous agreement.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Under Standing Order 43 there must be unanimity. Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the hon. member that the motion cannot be put at this time.

export development act



AMENDMENTS RESPECTING AUTHORIZED CAPITAL, BORROWING, LIABILITY UNDER CONTRACTS OF INSURANCE

Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-184, to amend the Export Development Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-185, to amend the Crop Insurance Act.


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


Allan Joseph MacEachen: for leave to introduce Bill C-186, to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways System and Air Canada for the period from the 1st day of January, 1970, to the 30th day of June, 1971, and to authorize the guarantee by Her Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company and certain debentures to be issued by Air Canada.


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


Allan Joseph MacEachen: for leave to introduce Bill C-187, respecting minerals in the Yukon Territory.


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


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Introduction of Bills:
November 5, 1970-The Minister of Transport-Bill intituled: "An Act to amend the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act and to amend an Act to amend the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act".
[Stage Direction]
November 9, 1970
Questions
Allan Joseph MacEachen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this bill ought to stand in the name of the Minister of Labour rather than the Minister of Transport. I ask that that correction be made.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-188, to amend the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act and to amend an Act to amend the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act.


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


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motions:
November 6, 1970-The President of the Privy Council: That the report entitled "Participation by Telecommunications Carriers in Public Data-Processing", laid before the House June 15, 1970, be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of Standing Order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the House.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Skoberg: What airplanes does Air Canada now have on order or on a reserve basis?


Mr. Gerard Duquei (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Number
		Number	of	
Number	of	line	DeliveryType	on order options	positions	datesBoeing 747	3	Spring 1971Lockheed L-1011	6	Spring 1972*	3	Spring 1973if	1	Spring 1974Ji	5	Spring 1974if	4	Spring 1975Concorde SST	4	Approx. 1976Boeing 2707 SST	6	Approx. Spring 1980


*STE. SCHOLASTIQUE AIRPORT-PROPOSED ANNUAL EXPENDITURE
Mr. Kaplan: Has the government estimated its proposed expenditure on the Ste-Scholastique airport on an annual basis and, if so, what is the proposed expenditure for each year from and including 1970 for which such projection has been made?


Gérard Duquet: Mr. Speaker, the latest forecast of net expenditures, completed in the spring of this year for inclusion in the five-year plan for Ste-Scholastique, is as follows:	1970,	$54,681,000;	1971,	$89,912,000;	1972,
$97,022,000; 1973, $79,815,000; 1974, $10,813,000; 1975, $12,406,000.


COST OF LIFT PROGRAM
Mr. Mather: What, in dollars, to date has been the cost of the Lift program?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: As at
October 15, 1970, $27,878,298.51.


RICHARD MORANDINI
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Is Richard Morandini a Canadian citizen?
2.	Is the government investigating the disappearance in Italy of the said Richard Morandini of Toronto?
3.	Was he seized or compelled by the Italian military authorities to undergo military callup and, if so, has the Canadian Government launched a protest in strong terms to the Italian Government protesting this treatment of a citizen of a NATO ally?


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Department of the Secretary of State and the Department of the Secretary of State for External Affairs as follows:
1.	There is no record of one Richard Morandini having applied for citizenship or having applied for a certificate to show that he is a Canadian.
2.	No.
3.	The check which has been made of Citizenship, Passport and Immigration records has disclosed no record of anyone named Richard Morandini and the Canadian Embassy in Rome, which has received no approach either directly from him or on his behalf, has no knowledge of him.


INDIAN CONSULTATION AND NEGOTIATION SECTION PERSONNEL
Mr. Howard (Skeena): Who are the staff members of the Indian Consultation and Negotiation Section of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and, in each case, what is their respective annual salary as of October 1, 1970?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: The list below indicates the

November 9, 1970

names and salary range of those officers who are engaged full time, in the Negotiation and Consultation Group: J. W. Churchman, $22,000-$27,000; C. I. Fairholm, $20,000-$25,000; L. L. Brown, $19,100-$21,700; G. E. Bell, $13,403-$15,229.
In addition, the following employees of the Indian-Eskimo Bureau provide assistance to the Negotiation and Consultation Group, as well as to other Branches and Divisions of the Department: Mrs. M. Blanchard, $15,565; W. A. Gryba, $15,229; C. F. Kerr, $15,229; H. G. Sprott, $14,304; A. T. Fuller, $13,731; W J. Fox, $14,304; L. G. Smith, $13,403; J. G. Couture, $11,638.
An additional 20 persons are on support staff.


HOME MAIL DELIVERY SERVICE
Mr. Mather: 1.	Up to October 1, 1970, which Canadian communities presently have the population to qualify for home mail delivery, but are not receiving such a federal service?
2.	What are the reasons for this, and when is it expected that the above communities will be given home mail delivery?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister without Portfolio):: For the Post Office 1. Amherstburg, Ont.; Arnprior, Ont.; Bridgewater, N.S.; Castlegar, B.C.; Chatham, N.B.; Coaticook, P.Q.; Courtenay, B.C.; Delhi, Ont.; Fergus, Ont.; Gander, Nfld.; Hanover, Ont.; Hespeler, Ont.; Lac Megantic, P.Q.; Mont Laurier, P.Q.; Perth, Ont.; Sherwood Park, Alta.; Sidney, B.C.; Terrebonne, P.Q.; Whitehorse, Y.T.; Windsor, P.Q.
2.	The establishment of letter carrier service at the above centres would increase expenditures by approximately $1,050,000. per annum on a continuing basis. Because of this, the introduction of letter carrier delivery service has been deferred as a result of the Government's economy programme which became effective on the 1st March 1968. The inauguration of letter carrier services in the aforementioned communities is dependent on the relaxation of the existing economy measures.


PURCHASE OF CF-5 AIRCRAFT
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	When was the decision made by the Department of National Defence to purchase the CF-5?
2.	Was this decision unanimous among the Chiefs of Staff?
3.	Who, if any, were the dissenters?
4.	Was the decision based on the actual requirements and needs of the forces at that time and in the future?
5.	Was a thorough study made, prior to the commitment, of such a requirement by the forces and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: 1. The decision to purchase the CF-5 aircraft was announced by the then Minister of National Defence and the then Associate Minister of National Defence on July 15, 1965.
2 and 3. See Hansard of February 28, 1966, page 1845.
4.	Yes.
5.	Yes.
Questions


HALIFAX INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT-INSTALLATION OF AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM
Mr. Forresiall: Will the government proceed this year with plans to install an "Air Conditioning" system to (a) alleviate the, at times, extreme heat conditions at the Halifax International Airport (b) ensure humane conditions for both employees and users?


Gérard Duquet: 
EDMONTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West): 1.	Is it proposed to expand the facilities of the Edmonton International Airport to prepare it for jumbo jets and supersonic aircraft and, if so, what is the nature of these proposals?
2.	What is the estimated cost of such modifications and how are these divided?
3.	When is it proposed to commence such modifications and what is the estimated time of completion?
4.	Is any intermediate purpose, such as training air and ground crews, to be made of such facilities before the introduction of jumbo jets and supersonic aircraft in Canada's domestic air service, by whom and under what conditions?


Gérard Duquet: 1. Yes. It is proposed to expand the Air Terminal Building by the addition of a finger with the capability to accommodate B747 and L1011 (Jumbo) type aircraft.
2.	Estimated cost is $1,266,000. It is planned to make expenditures of $400,000 in 1972/73; $400,000 in 1973/74 and $466,000 in 1974/75.
3.	It is planned to start construction early summer of 1972 with a projected completion date of mid 1975.
4.	Air Canada has tentatively indicated to the Ministry their intention to use Edmonton International Airport for flight crew training on the Boeing 747 aircraft during the period previous to placing this aircraft in commercial service early in 1971.
Due to the uncertainty of the supersonic aircraft entering commercial service, the Ministry has not any active programs specifically tailored to its individual needs at the present time for Edmonton International Airport.


INFORMATION CANADA CONFERENCE
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Did the Director of Information-Canada call a conference of top government information officers for October 4-7?
2.	Was this conference called to coincide with the Opening of Parliament?
990

November 9, 1970
Questions
3.	(a) Where was the conference held (b) who authorized it (c) was it held in Ottawa and, if not, for what reason?
4.	What was the total cost of the conference?
5.	How many people were involved?
6.	What was the purpose of the conference?


Hon. Roberl Slanbury (Minister without Portfolio):: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	(a) The Conference was held at the Gray Rocks Inn, Saint-Jovite, Quebec; (b) The Director General of Information Canada; (c) No. As is the practice of other government departments and much of industry, the conference was held outside the city in order that delegates could work efficiently, day and evening, without official or personal interruption.
4.	The total cost of the conference may be split into two parts: (1) Common conference costs paid by Information Canada such as conference room rental, sound systems, coffee, copying services, etc., $740.75; (2) Room and board charged to each individual at $23.50 per night.
5.	Fifty-two.
6.	The aim of the conference was to bring together information heads of all departments and agencies to outline existing and proposed programs of Information Canada, and to obtain their views and proposals on these programs. Common problems, most of which were outlined in the report of the Task Force on Government Information, were discussed with a view to resolving them through coordinated effort.


STEPHENVILLE, NEWFOUNDLAND-NEW FEDERAL BUILDING
Mr. Marshall: 1.	What progress is being made in providing a new federal building at Stephenvilie, Newfoundland?
2.	Is a site acquired and, if so, where is it?
3.	What is the expected date for construction of such building?
4.	What departments will be housed in the federal building?
5.	Will a new post office be located in it?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Planning is under way.
2.	No.
3.	It is anticipated that construction may start during 1971-72, if funds are voted by Parliament.
4.	Departments of Manpower and Immigration, National Revenue (Customs and Excise) and the Post Office Department.
5.	See answer to Part 4.


INFORMATION CANADA CONFERENCE
Mr. Mather: 1.	Which persons were invited to attend the conference sponsored by Information Canada at Gray Rocks Inn, St. Jovite, Quebec, October 4 to 7?
2.	Which persons attended this conference?
3.	What was the purpose of this out-of-town conference?

4 Was this conference open to the press and, if not, for what
reason?
5.	What is the estimated cost of this conference by (a) Information Canada (b) departments and agencies?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: 1.	All Directors of Information of federal government departments and agencies.
2.	All those invited with six exceptions: Canadian Transport Commission; National Capital Commission; National Health and Welfare; National Revenue (Customs and Excise); Defence Research Board; National Arts Centre.
3.	The aim of the conference was to bring together information heads of all departments and agencies to outline existing and proposed programs of Information Canada, and to obtain their views and proposals on these programs. Common problems, most of which were outlined in the report of the Task Force on Government Information, were discussed with a view to resolving them through coordinated effort.
4.	No. It is not the practice for the press to attend departmental and interdepartmental meetings in the Public Service.
5.	The total cost of the conference may be split into two parts: (1) Common conference costs paid by Information Canada such as conference room rental, sound systems, coffee, copying services, etc., $740.75. (2) Room and board charged to each individual at $23.50 per night.


USE OF DIRECT DIALING FOR POLICY STATEMENTS
Mr. Macquarrie: 1. How many radio stations have made use of the offer ot direct dialing for policy statements made by the Minister of Communications in speeches or press conferences as offered to news editors in a letter from Frank Howard, Director, Information Service, Department of Communications?
2.	For each month since October 1970, how many recorded statements have been telephoned to the radio stations of Canada?
3.	Has this service been extended to television stations?
4.	Have other Ministers made use of this service and, if so. which Ministers?
5.	What is the estimated cost of this service?
Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Minister of Communications).-
1.	Since the recorded statement is played back automatically by a device called a code-a-phone and since there is no monitoring of radio stations in connection with this service it is impossible to say how many radio stations have made use of this device; however a survey conducted in December, 1969 showed that some five out of 42 radio stations had used the service.
2.	There have been five recorded statements in French and English since October 1969. Three have been prepared in November 1969, one in January 1970 and one in June 1970.
3.	This service has no video equivalent in our department.
4.	No.
5.	The estimated cost of this service is $40 per month.
November 9, 1970


LOANS UNDER PIDA PROGRAM
Mr. Saltsman: 1.	What firms have applied for loans under the Pharmaceutical Industry Development Assistance Program (PIDA) administered by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, up to September 30, 1970?
2.	What firms have received loans under PIDA, and what is the amount of these loans?
3.	What firms have been refused loans under PIDA, and what reasons were given for these refusals?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1, 2 and 3. The names of specific firms and the amount of assistance applied for cannot be released in order that the commercial confidentiality assured each applicant is preserved. The following information can be made available: As of September 30, 1970, two loans had been approved for a total of $296,000 and 22 applications or preliminary inquiries had been received of which five have been declared ineligible under the regulations.
The reasons for ineligibility were as follows: One applicant did not manufacture or plan to manufacture prescription drugs in dosage form. One applicant obtained the required financing from another federal government agency. One applicant could obtain all needed funds from its parent organization and two applicants proposed plans beyond their financial capabilities.


PARTICIPATION OF PROVINCES UNDER SALTFISH ACT
Mr. Comeau: Do all the provinces affected by the Salt Water Fish Marketing Board participate in the Salt Water Fish Marketing Board and, if not, which ones do not and what are the reasons given by the provinces for not joining?


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: No. Draft agreements with the provinces of Nova Scotia and Quebec are under consideration by the governments of those provinces. Consideration of an agreement has been deferred for the present by the governments of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island on the ground that production of cured fish within their jurisdictions is relatively insignificant.


BUREAU OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. McGrath: 1.	How many consumers written inquiries are received daily by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?
2.	Where and how many information officers does the Department have to handle phone inquiries?
3.	Is this staff multi-lingual?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. The Bureau of Consumer Affairs currently receives 135 written complaints and inquiries daily through its Box 99 service and its regional offices.
2. The Bureau has ten officers in Ottawa whose principal duties concern the handling of complaints and inquiries, including telephone inquiries. An additional
Questions
five officers are attached to the Bureau's regional offices in Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver to handle telephone and other inquiries.
3.	Six of these officers are bilingual.


DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND FORESTRY-MAN-HOURS SAVED BY UTILIZATION OF COMPUTERS
Mr. Robinson: How many man-hours have been saved as a result of the utilization of computers by the Department of Fisheries and Forestry during each year since computers have been used?


Eymard G. Corbin: No direct estimate is possible of man-hours saved as a result of use of computers, because a large proportion of the worthwhile analysis of data done by computers in the Department of Fisheries and Forestry could not have been undertaken by manual or desk calculator methods if the computer had not been available.


SASKATCHEWAN-SECOND NATIONAL PARK
Mr. Southam: 1. Has the government reached an agreement with the Province of Saskatchewan for a second national park in that Province and (a) if not, what are the reasons (b) if so, when will the development of the park commence?
2.	Where will the park be located?


Mr. Judd Buchanan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows: 1. No formal agreement has been signed yet. (a) It is believed that all major difficulties have been resolved, which means that the way should now be clear to reach formal agreement. (b) Development of the park might commence 1J to 2 years following signing of an agreement provided that lands have been transferred to the Canadian Government by then and provided the necessary funds are available.
2. The proposed park would be located in the Val Marie-Killdeer area of southwest Saskatchewan.


LIFT PROGRAM
Mr. Soulham: 1.	To date, what sum has been paid out to western farmers under the Lift Program?
2.	How many farmers have received payments to date?
3.	What have been the administration costs to date under the PFAA office in Regina and branch offices over the Prairie Provinces?
4.	What was the cost of the aerial survey as a separate item?
5.	Who were the aerial survey firms engaged and how many planes were used in each case?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: 1. $27 -
653.006.
2.	94,525.
3.	$1,055,249.86.
992

November 9, 1970
Orders for Returns
4.	$270,000.
5.	Spartan Air Services, three planes; Lockwood Survey Corporation-one plane; Northwest Surveys, two planes; Range Survey Co., 1 plane.


USE OF COMPUTERS BY TREASURY BOARD
Mr. Robinson: As a result of the use of computers by the Treasury Board how many employees have been (a) laid off (b) hired?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: (a) None; (b) eight.


TREASURY BOARD-MAN-HOURS SAVED BY UTILIZATION OF COMPUTERS
Mr. Robinson: How many man-hours have been saved as a result of the utilization of computers by the Treasury Board during each year since computers have been used?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The Treasury Board Department does not employ computers on the kinds of tasks in which the saving of manhours would be involved.


NUMBER OF &quot;SEPARATISTS&quot; EMPLOYED IN FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 343
Mr. Robinson:: How many "separatists" are there employed in the federal public service?


James Alexander Jerome: The information which is required to answer this question is not available to the government.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How much money was paid to each province under the provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan in each of the past three years for the period from January 1 to September 31?
2.	How many people in each province were receiving assistance under the provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan in March of 1968, 1969 and 1970?
Return tabled.


ADULT TRAINING PROGRAM BUDGET
Mr. Hales: 1. What amount was budgeted for the Adult Training Program in Ontario by the federal government for each year since the start of the Program?
2.	What courses were covered in these budgets?
3.	Have any courses been discontinued and, if so, for what reasons?
4.	What amount is left or overspent of the budget for each of the courses in this present year and, if budgets have been spent, what plans does the department have in mind?
Return tabled.


NORTHERN COMMUNICATIONS CONFERENCE, YELLOWKNIFE, NWT, SEPTEMBER, 1970
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What department or departments sponsored the northern communications conference held at Yellowknife NWT in September, 1970?
2.	What other groups or organizations joined in sponsoring and/or arranging the conference?
3.	What was the purpose of the conference?
4.	What are the names of the people invited?
5.	On what basis were the invitations extended?
6.	How many of those participating are residents of the Northwest Territories or Yukon Territory?
Return tabled.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. As the heads of the principal business organizations have stated recently that their members will not continue price restraints past January 1 unless organized labour agrees to limit wage demands, and as the leaders of organized labour have recently restated their refusal to do so, does the Prime Minister intend to meet with the labour leaders to discuss with them the need for their co-operation if price restraints are to be continued next year?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I do not
think I would completely agree with the hon. member's premise. I do not believe business leaders have turned down in such a categorical way as he implies the suggestion that some kind of moderation should be continued. As to the question itself, I can say there have been meetings at various levels between officials of the federal government and labour leaders, and there will be more.


George Harris Hees: As the reports which the public of Canada receive concern meetings that are being and will be held between the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission and the heads of the business organizations, not with the leaders of organized labour, would the Prime Minister not put the good of the economy ahead of his fear of a rebuff by these labour leaders and meet with
IMr. Olson.]
November 9, 1970

them, because it is vitally important that this matter be resolved-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's supplementary amounts to debate, I would think.



APPOINTMENT OF VICE-CHAIRMAN OF PRICES AND INCOMES COMMISSION

Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Could the Prime Minister tell the House whether at this critical time he can announce the replacement for Mr. Gerin-Lajoie as vice-chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission, and not leave the commission half-staffed or continue this game of musical chairs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am glad to see support from the opposition side for the important work of the PIC. The question of a suitable replacement for Mr. Paul Gerin-Lajoie is being discussed now with Mr. Young, the chairman of the commission.



EFFECT OF POSSIBLE RAILWAY STRIKE-SUGGESTED MEETING WITH UNION LEADERS

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Since it would now appear there is likely to be a breakdown of negotiations between railway management and railway workers which could lead to a serious strike and a serious dislocation of the markets for grain and other commodities important to western Canada and elsewhere, would the Prime Minister consider meeting the leaders of the unions in an attempt to avoid an economic setback of this kind?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Whenever possible I have the federal Minister of Labour engage in those meetings; he is generally more effective than I could possibly hope to be.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps I will allow the hon. member to ask a supplementary, although I have some doubt whether it is supplementary to the question asked originally by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings. It seems that from supplementary to supplementary we get away from the original question which was raised. In any event, perhaps the hon. member should ask his supplementary now.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Thank you for your graciousness, Mr. Speaker. May I now put this question to the Minister of Labour; no doubt he was listening very intently to the question that I put to the Prime Minister. Has the minister met with the union leaders in an endeavour to prevent a complete economic collapse, as far as western Canada is concerned, which would result if there is a railway strike which hinders the movement of grain?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, 1 think it is time to remind the House, particularly the
Inquiries of the Ministry
hon. member who has a legitimate concern about movement of grain, that it was only a few months ago that the unions in British Columbia showed their responsibility, at a time when management would not, in regard to moving grain for the western farmer despite the fact that at that particular time they were quite legitimately on strike. I imagine that the trade union movement in the railways will be just as responsive as any union in any other sector to the problems that are facing Canada, and I have no intention of interfering with the free, collective bargaining process at this moment.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the Minister of Labour advise whether some of the special mediators who he announced some time ago had been appointed are now working on this very important problem?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Yes, Mr. Speaker. They have been working with both railways and unions for some considerable time in particular areas that could affect the ultimate outcome of the collective bargaining which begins at the end of this coming year.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether he can bring us up to date as to any new arrests or releases since last Thursday, which I think was the day of the last report to the House. If the minister does not have a breakdown since Thursday, could he inform us of the total number of arrests, persons released and charges, as well as those still kept in custody without charge, under the regulations pursuant to the War Measures Act?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the last figures I have from the office of the Attorney General of Quebec as at 11.30 this morning are to this effect: 439 were arrested; 378 have been released; one was rearrested, and there are 62 detained. Of these 62, 40 have been charged with 63 offences, of which 19 are offences under the Criminal Code and 44 are offences under the regulations issued pursuant to the proclamation of the War Measures Act.



QUEBEC-SUGGESTED USE OF IDENTITY CARDS

David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question in the same general area to the Prime Minister. Has the Attorney General of Quebec been in touch with the government or any other federal minister or department regarding a study by the Department of the Attorney General of Quebec concerning the introduction of identity cards for residents of that province? Could the Prime Minister also inform the House whether the federal government is studying the constitutional implications of the introduction of such a system for the residents of only one province in the country?

November 9, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, if I may be allowed to answer the question directed to the Prime Minister, I have not to date been made aware by the provincial authorities of the details of any scheme of identification cards that they may have under consideration. In any event, the federal government has not given any consideration to a scheme of registration for the purposes of identification. While the legal requirement that citizens be in possession of clear means of identification through identification cards may facilitate investigations by law enforcement authorities, it is my view that we must bear in mind that consideration of any measure of that kind must be tempered by other factors. We are, of course, looking into the constitutional implications of that suggestion.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice a question supplementary to the one put by the hon. member for York South regarding the introduction of identity cards as advocated by the Quebec Minister of Justice.
When he examines the constitutionality of this matter, could he also consider the possibility of using a card which would have the same value throughout Canada?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I cannot add anything to the answer I gave earlier to the hon. member for York South.



WAR MEASURES ACT-TIME SPENT IN CUBA, ALGERIA OR JORDAN BY THOSE CHARGED

Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice whether any of the people arrested and charged under the War Measures Act have spent any period of time in Cuba, Algeria or Jordan during the last two years?


John Napier Turner: I cannot pretend I can answer that question, Mr. Speaker.



WAR MEASURES ACT-DYNAMITE, ARMS AND AMMUNITION RECOVERED

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice a supplementary question. Has he any information as to the amount of dynamite, other explosives, ammunition and weaponry seized as a result of the raids under the War Measures Act following the proclamation of that Act? Further, could he give us some precise details about the quantities and whether they bear any relationship to the knowledge that the government has of the quantity and type of such material stolen over the last while?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to give those precise details, nor have I really assessed the problem of whether I should.



STATEMENT BY MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE ON PROCLAMATION OF WAR MEASURES ACT

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, this supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister inform the House whether the Minister of Agriculture was expressing government policy on Thursday night in Manitoba when he said it would have been impossible for the government to produce documentary proof that the proclamation of the War Measures Act was necessary, and that the act was "too severe... unnecessary, under the circumstances..."?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, I myself admitted that the Act was too severe the very day I brought it into the House and I explained to the House that very shortly we were going to bring in another Act to replace it. However, under the circumstances even all opposition parties agreed there was a state of terror in Quebec at that time and that it needed exceptional measures which are not in the Criminal Code, and therefore this was the only way we could act with any expediency. I cannot vouch for what the minister said. He can do that for himself, but for that part of it, it is no great news. As I say, that was the government's position from the outset.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Would the Prime Minister address himself to the first part of the question and indicate whether or not the government now believes it is not possible to prove it was necessary to bring in the Measures Act?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It may be difficult to prove a negative, but it seems to me we now have the admission of all parties sitting opposite, in their very own words, that there was a state of terror in Quebec around the middle of October which needed extraordinary measures. There was some disagreement, I understand, about whether the Act was not too strong an extraordinary measure, but we conceded that from the outset. From the point of view of the need for extraordinary measures the opposition is conceding that even by voting for the new replacement legislation a full two weeks after the worst of the crisis is over. Therefore, retroactively, surely they must admit emergency measures were needed at that time.



AVAILABILITY OF WEAPONS-TIGHTENING OF CONTROLPASSING OF ORDER IN COUNCIL

Mr. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Justice regarding the availability of weapons. Considering the evidence of Mr. Lortie at the coroner's inquest on Saturday that he and his fellow kidnappers were able to go down to Notre Dame Street and obtain several machine guns and/or repeater rifles a few hours before the kidnapping of Mr. Laporte, is the government considering the introduction of further legislation regarding the control of guns, or tightening the administration of the present legislation?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, before I answer that question I would like to review the circumstances in more detail. I do not know whether

November 9, 1970

it is the law which is at fault or the enforcement or application of the law.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the minister. I am sure he appreciates that last year we passed new section 82(e) of the Criminal Code dealing with restricted weapons, stipulating that they could be restricted by Order in Council. Did the government measure up to its responsibility and pass an Order in Council setting out that machine guns such as were sold to these people are restricted weapons?


John Napier Turner: As I said earlier, I would have to take a look at the facts of the situation to see whether it was covered by the type of provision to which the hon. member for Calgary North referred.



WAR MEASURES ACT-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF DETAILED CHARGES

Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Justice give consideration to obtaining the detailed charges that have been laid to which he referred and perhaps table them in the House?


John Napier Turner: I will give consideration to it, Mr. Speaker, but it is a rather unusual procedure although these are unusual times.
* * #



PRESENCE OF RUSTY BEETLE IN WHEAT SHIPMENTS- EFFORTS TO ELIMINATE

Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Has the Wheat Board or the Canadian government received formal complaints from the Soviet Union, China or Poland concerning wheat shipments in which insects have been found? If so, as a result of those claims, by whom will the losses be incurred, the Canadian Wheat Board or the farmers themselves?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, a number of complaints have been received by the Board of Grain Commissioners not only from the Soviet Union but from other countries respecting what is referred to as rusty mites in wheat shipments, but we are now engaged in a concerted effort in co-operation with the provinces to have this eradicated from the damp wheat that went into storage in the fall of 1968.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the right hon. gentleman rising on a supplementary?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that this situation has been known for some time to exist and that Poland, China and Russia, among other countries, have pointed out that this rusty beetle is to be found in the wheat they are purchasing, and in view of the fact that shipments through Vancouver of wheat containing the beetle have been discontinued, would the minister say what action has
Inquiries of the Ministry
been taken in the past three weeks and whether an all-out effort is to be made to meet this situation, however costly the undertaking may be and not at the expense of the western wheat farmer?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, not only will a great deal of concerted effort be made now but, indeed, last February 5 a seminar was held at the Department of Agriculture research station in Winnipeg to look into all aspects of the problem and in March of this year the Board of Grain Commissioners issued a bulletin to all country elevator operators to provide them with information in respect of identification and extermination of these beetles. There are many other publications which have gone out from the Department of Agriculture alerting farmers to the possibility of such a problem arising and giving some information and instructions on how to deal with it.


John George Diefenbaker: In view of the fact that action has been continuing since February, and has increased in the last few days as shown by the statement of the chief of the Board of Grain Commissioners, would the minister say that the concerted effort, whatever it may cost, will not be charged back to the western farmers, because it is not their fault that the wheat was not sold?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar on a supplementary.


Mr. Gleave:: Mr. Speaker-


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether or not the farmers are to get hooked on this.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the minister might reply to both questions at the same time. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar had already begun.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, in view of these reports of infestation may I ask the minister whether he can assure the House that measures are being taken to increase the inspection of rail cars of grain en route to terminals so that contaminated grain will be spotted before it reaches the terminal elevators?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, we are attempting to do that in so far as it is possible to do so.
In reply to the right hon. member for Prince Albert, I should like to say that we intend to do everything we can to co-operate with the farmers but I am sure he knows as well as I that the management of the farmers' operations, with their own granaries on their own farms, bears some responsibility too.


John George Diefenbaker: Is the farmer going to get hooked for these expenditures?


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, could the minister inform us whether the Board of Grain Commissioners has reinstituted the automatic inspection of all shipments of carloads of grain as they go through the Winnipeg yards, which was previously in effect some years ago?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that every car is inspected as it passes through Winnipeg but I can get the hon. member statistics concerning the number of cars from which we do in fact take samples.

November 9, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry POST OFFICE



ESTABLISHMENT OF CROWN CORPORATION

Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Now that the Post Office Department seems to be in the news again, can he advise whether the government is still considering the conversion of this department into a Crown corporation and, if so, may it be proceeded with during this session?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister without Portfolio responsible for the Post Office took over I discussed this question with him. He undertook to study the matter and make a report in due course. I did not encourage him to have legislation ready for this session.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In light of fears concerning the Canadian publishing industry and the continuing sales to United States interests, is the government reviewing the situation and does the Prime Minister expect that a statement concerning the government's attitude will be made shortly?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this question has been dealt with many times in the past several weeks. I have nothing to add. I have told the House we expect to have a general statement on our policy in respect of foreign ownership rather than proceed on an ad hoc basis if it would be possible to do so.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, is the government aware of any further pending sales of publishing businesses to United States interests and, if so, is any action being taken in this regard?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I personally am not aware. It is conceivable that some other minister, particularly the Minister of National Revenue who has been entrusted with the study to which I just referred, might be aware if such a state did exist.



REPORTED TAKEOVER OF CINEPIX INCORPORATED BY FOREIGN INTERESTS

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. I would ask him whether the government intends to take any action with regard to the reported takeover of Cinepix Incorporated, a film company which it is understood received assistance from the federal government, or will this be another case of the Canadian people being skinned?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
[Mr. Olson.)



INFORMATION CANADA


Mr. Rud L. Whiting (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for Information Canada. In view of the fact that the task force on information reported that the information apparatus used by most departments of government and Crown corporations was characterized by incompetence and duplication, is the government planning to take corrective action soon on the large amount of unsolicited material which is being sent out to the news media by departments of government and various Crown corporations?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I noted the hon. member's comments on this subject during the debate on the Speech from the Throne, as well as the criticism in the report of the task force on government information. I am glad to be able to tell the hon. member that the government has decided to act on these criticisms. All federal departments and agencies are being required to institute an annual review of mailing lists for information material and confirm these lists by March 31 next. Any persons who do not indicate a desire to remain on these lists must be deleted from them by that date.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. I would like to remind the minister through you, Mr. Speaker, that some time ago I asked him a question regarding the congestion in the unemployment insurance offices in metro Toronto, with consequent delay and inconvenience to the public. Has action been taken to remedy this situation?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The hon.
gentleman is quite accurate in saying that he brought to my attention some months ago the congestion in unemployment offices in the greater Toronto area, as well as a series of articles in the Globe and Mail on the subject. As a result we have opened five new offices and to take into consideration the problem of many new Canadians and the additional need of personnel with a knowledge of more than the two official languages of this country. These are in effect walk-in offices. There are now five of them across Toronto, and I thank the hon. gentleman for his original suggestion.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: have a supplementary question for the Minister of Labour. I would ask him to draw to the attention of the Prime Minister the worsening unemployment situation in this country which requires his department to open five new offices in Toronto.
November 9, 1970



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a question for the Secretary of State. Would the minister, in his capacity as spokesman for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, use his good offices to arrange for that Crown corporation to appear before an appropriate committee of Parliament so that its activities may be thoroughly examined by members of the House? I ask the question in view of-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has asked the question. I doubt whether it is in order to give an explanation for the question after the question has been asked. Perhaps the hon. member might allow the minister to reply and then make his explanation by way of a supplementary question.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I thought, Your Honour, that it might help the minister in answering if a brief reason were given for the type of investigation to which I referred.


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I think that as usual the management of the CBC will be summoned to appear before the parliamentary committee as soon as the latter gets down to work, namely, as soon as the estimates are referred to it by the House, if I remember correctly. However it is up to the committee itself, as the hon. member knows, to summon the witnesses it wishes to hear, and I have no doubt that each year it will feel the need to call in the CBC management.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the many rumours and stories concerning the activities of some branches of the CBC regarding the present FLQ situation in Quebec, I thought it might be a good thing if this were done somewhat earlier.



SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS RESPECTING NEWS PROGRAMS

John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I wonder if the Secretary of State has a report from the CBC on the question I asked on November 4 as to what news broadcasts, if any, on either the English or French-speaking networks were changed, before they were broadcast over radio or television, by direction either of the CBC or officials of the government?


Gérard Pelletier: No, I have not yet received the answer, Mr. Speaker. I do not remember if the hon. member had mentioned what period his request for information covered. If not, I would ask him to let me know or to write to the CBC.



PUBLIC AFFAIRS PROGRAMS-PROVISION OF EQUAL TIME FOR DIFFERING POINTS OF VIEW

Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: My supplementary question is obviously directed to the Secretary of State.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Last Friday I raised a question regarding equal time provisions on radio and television which I addressed to the Minister of Finance. He referred the question to the Secretary of State. I wonder whether today when he is in the House he would be prepared to answer the question.


Gérard Pelletier: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member has only to read section 2 of the Broadcasting Act which states that the CBC's information and public affairs programs must be balanced. This, I think, should allay the concern expressed by the hon. member.



MONTREAL-ALLEGED CENSORSHIP OF WORK OF NEWS STAFF-DISMISSAL OF PERSONNEL

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: I would like to ask the Secretary of State whether he has inquired into allegations of censorship by the CBC management of the work of its news staff in Montreal and the dismissal of one or more of the news personnel in that city by the CBC because of the censorship charges?


Gérard Pelletier: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have followed developments. I know the matter is not, strictly speaking, a sub judice one. However, the union has appealed against the CBC management decision and reliable sources have informed me that it is not customary for a minister to reply to questions on matters which, while not really sub judice, have been brought, or are to be brought in the immediate future, before an arbitration board.


Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: When the minister thinks it would be appropriate to make a statement on this matter, would he do so, particularly in the cases of Mr. Denis Vincent and Michel Bourdon? Would he inquire of the CBC the reasons for their suspension and make a statement to the House as soon as possible as to the CBC position on this matter?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I might say that I already know the reasons why the CBC has taken action. I have just given the reason why I do not think it is advisable to comment on it at present. But if the advice I have received proved to be wrong and if it became my duty to report to the House, I shall do it with the least possible delay.



ARREST OF CERTAIN NEWS BROADCASTERS UNDER WAR MEASURES ACT

John George Diefenbaker: I wonder whether the Secretary of State is now in a position to advise whether those three or four members of Radio-Canada who were picked up under the War Measures Act and who, according to one or another minister, were believed to be communicating by a code with the FLQ,
998

November 9, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
having been released are now back in the service of the CBC?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, the CBC has no answer for that since absences in a corporation employing thousands of people can happen for various reasons. It would be up to the Justice Minister of Quebec to say if some persons already arrested or detained under some charges have stated they were CBC employees. Since I have not received a reply from the Quebec Justice Minister, I am unable to give this information to the right hon. member.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister get in touch with the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and secure from him the names of those whom he had in mind when he said they were connected with the FLQ, and having those names could he have the records of the CBC looked up to ascertain whether these gentry are back in its employ again?


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



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister now able to give us the assurance that the white paper on social security will be tabled during the present month?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I cannot do so, Mr. Speaker. As I have mentioned last week, the matter is under consideration by the government. When a decision is taken, it will be announced in the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the government considering the possibility of introducing legislation rather than waiting for the white paper?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, all these matters are under consideration at the present time and when a decision has been arrived at on either of the aspects the hon. member has brought forward, it will be announced in the House.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the decline in our fisheries resources, what progress has been made toward calling a third international conference to deal with the convention on the territorial sea and contiguous zones,

the convention on the high seas, and the convention on fishing and conservation of the living resources of the high seas?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would have to check my records to see what progress has been made but both the Department of Fisheries and Forestry and the Department of External Affairs have been pressing very hard in this direction. We agree with the hon. member that the fisheries resources should be conserved not only in the interests of Canada but of the world at large.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: In view of the importance of France and its ownership of the Islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon and the fact that it was not present at the discussions in Geneva in 1958, will the Secretary of State for External Affairs make every effort to see that this nation is invited to the next international conference?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is making a representation.


INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MARINE RESOURCES
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: I wonder whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs can indicate whether Canada is giving consideration to a specific conference on marine resources in view of the fact that the law of the sea conference could very well take five years to be convened, according to Canadian representatives at the United Nations?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be desirable that these matters should be discussed together as they are closely related. However, if the prospects were to be so poor we would certainly be very happy to consider moving on to a discussion of the marine resources themselves. Of course, there are many things we will be able to do ourselves that I think will be helpful.


DISCUSSIONS WITH FRANCE ON TREATY FISHING RIGHTS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister could tell us whether Canada is continuing to hold bilateral talks with France with regard to that country's treaty rights on the south coast of Newfoundland, especially in view of the provisions of Bill C-2 now before the House with respect to pollution of the sea and the fishing zones which are set as jurisdictional limits by that bill?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that the discussions are going on at this very moment but there have been discussions recently and we will be having more not only in the context of this subject but of many others.


DECLARATION OF CANADIAN FISHING ZONES
Frank Howard: commitment to Parliament during the last session that the passage of the bill to amend the Territorial Seas and Fishing Zones Act would mean that fishing zones in Canada would be declared almost forthwith, could the minister tell us what steps or plans the government has to so declare these fishing zones?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the subject is under active discussion. I think the hon. member will realize it is related to many other things that Canada is trying to achieve. I am sure he will agree that we should act in the best interests of the fisheries industry as a whole, of which this is only one part.


AGRICULTURE
Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
As several milk producers have written us to find out why they have not yet received the subsidies for their end of July deliveries, could the hon. minister order the Canadian Dairy Commission to send to the producers involved a statement of their account in order to explain to them why the penalty they have been charged with under the current regulation was higher than the amount of subsidies they expected?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, if there has been any undue delay in the payment of subsidies to any individual producer I would be very happy if the hon. member would provide me with the names and addresses and I shall ask the Dairy Commission for a report on why the payments are being held up, if that is the case.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister advise the House, in light of observations by the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council that while his department is doing much the Maritime provinces are still falling behind the national average growth rate, whether his department or the government is giving any consideration to other innovations under this program so that this serious slippage might be overcome this winter?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, we make uninterrupted efforts to improve our programs in order to help the underdeveloped regions.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister for Regional Economic Expansion would indicate whether he plans to visit Atlantic Canada to say hello to the two new premiers and hello to the outgoing premier, Mr. Smallwood?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON RECOMMENDATIONS BY COUNCIL ON RURAL DEVELOPMENT
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister is prepared to tell the House, or perhaps make a statement on motions, what his department plans to do with the third report of the Canadian Council on Rural Development which has been in his hands since July, was made public last week, and recommends firm changes in government policy in different regions, particularly the Atlantic area?


Jean Marchand: The report is in the hands of department officials. It is being studied at present and, if necessary, we will make a statement in the House about that matter.
* * #


INFORMATION CANADA
Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the minister responsible for Information Canada. For the purposes of Information Canada, is the CBC now regarded as an agency of government and is it necessary for citizens desiring to secure excerpts from scripts aired on the CBC to secure them through Information Canada?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: No,
Mr. Speaker.


LEVELS OF LEAD AND CADMIUM IN FOOD-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF INFORMATION
Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: My
question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, Mr. Speaker. In light of the revelations about dangerous levels of lead and cadmium in Canadian diets, can the minister assure the House that the conclusions and data gathered by the Federal Food and Drug Directorate monitoring program into this danger will be tabled in the House and, if so, when?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I shall be pleased to consider the tabling of that information in the House and I shall let the hon. member know when.
23226-64J

November 9, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970 NATIONAL SECURITY


EMERGENCY POWERS-STUDY BY LAW REFORM COMMISSION
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister ol Justice. Have the chairman and the members of the Law Reform Commission been appointed? If so, would the minister refer to them the study of the emergency powers for the preservation of public order in Canada so that we may have their report prior to the passing of permanent legislation by this House?


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker, they have not been appointed. If the subject is dealt with perhaps it should be dealt with by this House.


PRODUCTION AND RECEIPTS POLICY-FARM CONSOLIDATION PROGRAM
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture and arises out of the recent grain policy proposal tabled by his colleague which proposes a program of adjustment aimed a creating consolidation of existing farms into more efficient sizes. Can the minister indicate to the House when such a program will be introduced and whether it will be in the form of a proposal or legislation? Also, will the details be made available in good time so that the whole matter of the grains policy can be discussed in unison with the policy of consolidation of farm units?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised far too large an area for me to reply during the question period.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, November 6, consideration in committee of Bill C-181, to provide temporary emergency powers for the Preservation of Public Order in Canada-Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)-Mr. Honey in the chair.
The Chairman:: When the committee rose on Friday, November 6, 1970, clause 2 of the bill was under consideration with certain amendments. Shall clause 2 carry?

On clause 2-Definitions.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, may I raise a point of order. It may shorten the debate on one of the main clauses of the bill. I wonder if the Minister of Justice would answer a question. I did not wish to take up the time of the House with it during the question period. Can the Minister of Justice say categorically that there has not been any censorship, either under the War Measures Act or under any other authority, with respect to the news media in the Province of Quebec?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I think the best way I can handle that question is by saying that in the opinion of the law officers who report to me, and according to the opinion which they gave to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation which receives its legal advice from the Department of Justice, there is nothing under the regulations currently in force pursuant to the proclamation of the War Measures Act that provides in any way for censorship. I had the opinion expressed to me which was relayed in turn, on my instructions, to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, that the regulations do not prohibit broadcasts in the course of ordinary news or public affairs coverage of statements which, when originally made, could have been made on behalf of the FLQ or by the FLQ for that matter. In the opinion of the law officers, only when the news media allows itself to be used as a propaganda vehicle for the FLQ and communicates statements of the FLQ would there be an offence. The key words are, "on behalf of", which are meant to establish an agency, express or implied. So, the answer is that there is no such provision within the regulations or within the bill currently before the House.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister one further question, and it may shorten the debate. In view of the minister's answer on the law, will the minister take the committee into his confidence and say that there has not been, in fact, any direction by any department of the federal government or of the Quebec government with respect to censoring the radio, the television or any other news media?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, that is not what the hon. gentleman asked me. He asked me what the position is under the regulations, and I have answered that.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I should like-


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. The hon. member for Regina East.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make some comments on this bill as we begin the detailed study of it clause by clause in committee of the whole. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I should like to draw to the attention of the committee the fact that we have had emergency situations in Canada before now. I say that as a member from the province of Saskatchewan where we had what was known in Canadian history as the Saskatchewan rebellion in 1885. That, of course, predates a good deal of the



November 9, 1970

modern history of the province of Saskatchewan and, indeed, of much of Canada. Nevertheless, that was a very important episode in the history of Canada in which a group of people who had a set of grievances against the government of Canada, and against many people in Canada, felt that they had to take strong action in order to try to rectify the situation. I think it would be fair to say that there are many people who today acknowledge that harsh and repressive steps were taken at that time. There were unnecessary steps taken at that time in dealing with the problems that existed. It must be acknowledged that some action must be taken when problems such as these arise. Nevertheless, unnecessary and harsh steps were taken. Unfortunately, some of the unhealthy effects, some part of the legacy of these steps, can still be seen in the pattern of events in Canada today, some 85 years later in our history.
I think this particular point can be best illustrated by some words that were uttered in Regina on October 2, 1968, on the occasion, I believe, of the unveiling of a statue in memory of Louis Riel who was hanged in 1855. The words of the statement are as follows:
How many other Hiels exist in Canada, beyond the fringe of accepted conduct driven to believe that this country offers no answer to their needs and no solution to their problems? How many of us understand the loneliness, the sense of futility of such a man? How many of us are willing to concede that future historians, in chronicling the events of our lives, may choose to emphasize and applaud the activities, not of the privileged majority but of some little-known leader of an unpopular minority?
For me this is the lesson of Louis Riel. For me this is the reason why we are here.
A democratic society and system of government, while among the grandest of human concepts, are among the most difficult to implement. In a democracy it is all too easy for the majority to forget the rights of the minority, and for a remote and powerful government to ignore its protests.
It is all too easy, should disturbances erupt, to crush them in the name of law and order. We must never forget that, in the long run, a democracy is judged by the way the majority treats the minority. Louis Riel's battle is not yet won.
Those word were uttered by the present Prime Minister in Regina on October 2, 1968.
This bill is extraordinary legislation and as such it imposes a special responsibility on legislators to examine both the general purposes and thrust of the bill as well as its specific contents very carefully. It imposes a special responsibility on the minister; this, I think, has to be said in view of the minister's credible record on many aspects of civil liberties.
Right now, I suggest, the minister's record is being put to the test. I hope that the minister will not take a rigid stand with respect to this bill. I hope that he does not even leave the impression that he has orders simply to hold the line with respect to this bill. I hope that he does not exhibit a non-flexible stand in dealing with the various proposals that will be put forward. The House has approved the principle that special legislation may be required to deal with situations such as this. We are prepared to consider the principle and to examine the bill based on that principle; but the contents and nature of the special powers contained in the bill still require
Public Order Act, 1970
close scrutiny. It does not necessarily follow that the particular provisions requested are justified merely by reason of the decision that special legislation is required. Thus, Mr. Chairman, I hope the minister will be responsive to proposals made by the opposition. I think, if the minister is truly concerned about national unity, this concern will be reflected in a serious sensitivity to the many objections which have been registered both inside and outside the House about this legislation and about the previous actions of the government.
I certainly hope that we do not hear any more statements such as those the minister made on Wednesday last. I say this, Mr. Chairman, out of sadness and concern for what is happening rather than in anger. The minister first of all said that, certainly, it is the right of anyone to question the government's actions; but then he seemed to brand those who chose to question the government's actions. We even find that he accused those who were arguing against his stand of intellectual dishonesty. How can the minister take such a stand when he admitted in his remarks last Wednesday that the government's position represented a value judgment? Why is he so concerned about the fact that there has been opposition when he admitted that the government had taken harsh measures and when it was also admitted that not all of the facts have been made public? That is what the minister said on October 16. I suppose the minister had to defend himself, but I suggest he did himself no credit in his performance last Wednesday.
I think we are prepared to grant that the minister is human, as we all are. We hope, now that he has got this matter off his chest, he will be prepared to be both responsive and responsible. I do not have to remind the minister that not only is he responsible for carrying out the letter of the law and the letter of his duties as set out in the statute establishing his position and his department, but he has to ensure that justice is done, with all its implications and ratifications in Canada. I am sure it is not necessary to remind the minister of that.
[DOT] (3:10p.m.)
There are a number of serious questions which must be answered when considering this legislation. The first question I wish to ask the minister is whether there is still a need for this sort of legislation, taking into account the events as they have developed up to the present time. As expressed by their vote, some members approved of the action taken by the government and others disapproved. I am one of those who disapproved. However, that is now a matter of the past. We are looking at current events, the situation as it is today, and attempting to determine where we go from here.
In his remarks last Wednesday, the Minister of Justice indicated that there was still a continuing need for this sort of legislation. I accept that as an expression of his view, but the minister did not back up his statement with an adequate explanation of why he considers powers of this sort are still required. The minister owes this House such an explanation.

November 9, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
I wish to refer to what has occurred up to the present time. During this afternoon's question period the minister reported that 439 people had been arrested; that is approximately ten more than were reported last Thursday. Of these 439 people, 378 have been released; one has been rearrested and 62 are under detention at the present time. Charges have been laid against 40 of these 62 people. Last week the minister indicated that there were still approximately 40 people to be arrested. That is a small number.
The one reasonable point made by the government is-although I think there is an effective answer to the point-that the element of surprise was required when the government invoked the War Measures Act. However, that is now a matter of the past. The cat is out of the bag. The situation is being dealt with in the open. The government should be able to deal with most of the problems that remain through the provisions of the Criminal Code.
I suggest that hon. members have a responsibility to examine the implications of this bill and its consequences. Most members reluctantly conceded that there may be occasions when special powers are required, but I think most members would agree that special powers which infringe on the rights of people must be kept to an absolute minimum. We must demonstrate that our problems can and will be dealt with within the framework of responsible democratic government which safeguards human rights. If existing problems are responded to with repressive legislation, and it must be admitted there are repressive features in the bill now before us, that will reinforce the arguments of those against whom the government wishes to act and to whom we must answer in the long run in Canada's political development.
I wish to deal with a point raised on Friday by the hon. member for Calgary North. He recited an incident which occurred near his home in the early 1930's. A shooting occurred at a meeting being addressed by Mr. M. J. Coldwell. This resulted from the pressure created by discussion of the problems that existed in the 1930's. I have attended many of Mr. Coldwell's meetings, both as a boy and as an adult I have know him personally for most of my life. I can state that there is no more non-violent man in all of Canada. I do not wish to suggest that the member for Calgary North left a different impression, quite the contrary. However, it must be pointed out that men such as M. J. Coldwell, and the present leader of the New Democratic Party, succeeded in keeping hope alive in Saskatchewan and the rest of western Canada in the 1930's at a time when we were faced with difficulties as great or greater than those with which we are faced at the present time. That is important to note. These men kept alive the idea that things could be and would be better, and that changes and improvements could be brought about through the democratic process.
During the past week or two there have been many quotations from the book published, or about to be published, by Pierre Valliere, one of those arrested and against whom charges have been laid. He has been quoted in a number of newspapers. This man points out
the deplorable conditions under which he was raised. I can point to many examples I have witnessed of people who have been raised under conditions as bad or worse than those described by Mr. Valliere. The important point is that for many of those people who lived under such conditions, hope was kept alive that changes and improvements could be made. That is a critical point. I think most people will admit that hope has been snuffed out for some people in Canada today. Those with that feeling will be joining groups such as the FLQ. We must demonstrate our faith in the democratic process and show that it will work. By keeping repression to a minimum and by tackling the social and economic problems that exist, we will show that democracy does work.
There has been a good deal of discussion on various sections of the bill. I do not intend to repeat all of the comments which have been made. At the present time we are debating clause 2 of the bill which sets out the definitions. When we note the definitions in this legislation, we realize the far-reaching implications of the bill before us. A wide definition is given to such terms as "communicate", the group which may be classified as peace officers, statements, and unlawful association. I wish to deal briefly with one of the definitions. I hope the minister is listening from behind the curtain because this point must be dealt with. It is the definition of a peace officer.
The hon. member for Matane made some points with respect to this definition last Friday. I wish to raise one further point. The definition of a peace officer is extended beyond that provided in the Criminal Code to "include the members of the Canadian Forces". I am prepared to acknowledge that under emergency situations, when legislation such as this may be put into force, there may be a need to give members of the Canadian Forces the powers of a peace officer. However, as the subsection is worded at the present time, it is open-ended. It automatically gives a member of the Canadian Forces the power of a peace officer. This is my interpretation of the problem as a layman, although I have discussed the matter with other people. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that a safeguard needs to be placed in this particular extension of the definition of a peace officer by adding certain words in relation to members of the Canadian Forces. I suggest the following words might be added after the word "Forces"-"when assigned to perform the duties of a peace officer under the authority of a competent civil authority". I would be interested to hear the minister's comments on this proposal. When we are dealing with special legislation of the kind before us, I believe we must be doubly careful to see there is adequate legislative provision to ensure maintenance of civil authority over the military. I am not suggesting there is any present danger involving the situation or position of the Armed Forces, but we should not leave the door ajar when such an issue arises.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
One of the main thrusts of this bill is to be found in clause three which outlaws the FLQ. I think all of us would agree without argument that there are undesirable

November 9, 1970

aspects to the activities of the FLQ and that some action should be taken to deal with them. The question is, what kind of action is best suited to meet the circumstances. First of all, how wide a net does the government intend to cast upon the basis of its definition of FLQ or associated organizations? Is there a significant danger that innocent people will be caught in such a net when this bill comes into force? Second, there is the point which has already been discussed by various speakers in this debate, as well as on second reading, concerning the effectiveness in practice of any provision outlawing a particular organization. Is this really the way to get at the problem in the long run? Many people hold the view, that it is not.
There is also a curious circumstance which arises as a result of the termination date which has been inserted in the legislation. Clause 3, as I say, provides for the outlawing of the FLQ, but there is also included in the bill a termination date.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but I do so in order to inform him that his time has expired.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Carry on.


John Stratford Burton: Just a few more minutes, Mr. Chairman.


Russell Clayton Honey: Is there unanimous consent?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Agreed.


John Stratford Burton: I thank the committee for its indulgence. I assure hon. members that I shall not take too long. As I was saying, provision is made for this legislation to terminate on April 30. After that date, presumably, the FLQ will no longer be an outlawed organization. The government has spoken about bringing in some form of permanent legislation. Is it intended that the FLQ shall continue to be outlawed after April 30? It seems to me we are faced, now, by a curious feature which requires further examination.
I further suggest that attention be paid to the wording of the preamble to the bill. The second paragraph contains a description of what it is about the FLQ that we do not like; as to a good many points contained in that description, there will be no argument, but I wonder whether this is sufficient background to establish the need for this legislation. Again, in the third paragraph of the preamble, reference is made to the invocation of the War Measures Act. It is, of course, true that this took place and that this particular step was approved by a vote in this House. Nevertheless, I question whether it is necessary to make this particular reference in such a way as to imply there was over-all approval of the action of the government up to this particular point in time. Possibly the wording should be reconsidered.
In conclusion, I submit that the amendments proposed by my hon. friend from Greenwood, and outlined by him on Friday, should be most carefully considered by the
Public Order Act, 1970
House if we are to handle this legislation in a responsible way. It involves our approach to the issues of civil disorder, of terrorism, to the extent it exists, and to the protection of citizens' rights throughout this country. The legislation before us has political and social consequences which go far beyond the impact of this particular measure. Each of us has a heavy responsibility. In my opinion, members of this House have dealt with this matter in a responsible way so far. The opposition has responded by its vote on second reading, a vote which indicated it was prepared to consider further a measure which provided special powers to deal with the situation which the Minister of Justice and others have described. It has been introduced on the basis of certain facts which are known, and others which have had to be deduced or assumed; we certainly need more explanation of this aspect. But I maintain the opposition has responded. It is now up to the government to respond, in turn, to the opposition's proposals. History will judge us on the basis of our sensitivity and adherence to democratic principles during this difficult time for Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I do not rise to speak at any length but I was struck by certain words used by the Minister of Justice a few moments ago. I shall await his return to the House before dealing with them in connection with the subject of censorship.
Today, we are considering an extremely serious matter. The subject of the bill before us is of paramount importance and the question whether its terms are to be preserved or amendments made should be, I would think, a challenge to ministers of the government and parliamentary secretaries to be present in the House. At this moment, in point of fact, there are two ministers in the House and there are, if my count is correct, three parliamentary secretaries. A minister finds it necessary, from time to time, to attend cabinet meetings, and that is understandable, but parliamentary secretaries are not in that category. The fact that there are so few of them in the seats of the mighty indicates that the debate is, to all intents and purposes, worthless and ineffective.


John Napier Turner: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I know that the right hon. gentleman would wish to be fair. He, and other members of his party, have suggested that the opposition is the conscience of the House. The conscience, also, is somewhat ill-staffed at the moment.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad to note that my remark that the opposition was, indeed, the conscience of the House, has struck home and that the Minister of Justice has imbibed and inhaled it. But the conscience can do nothing if the heart is absent. In this case, the heart of the government is gone.
The minister made a statement this afternoon, and I have to depend upon my memory as to what he said, in connection with censorship. He was entirely correct in saying that censorship within the meaning of the War Measures Act is not in effect. In fact, various sections of the War Measures Act which people sometimes consider

November 9, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
as being in effect are not in effect. I wish to make this clear immediately. A question was asked concerning whether there was any censorship of radio and television, and the answer given by the minister was that there was not within the terms of either the regulations or the present bill before the House.
[DOT] (3:30 o.m.)


John Napier Turner: With the indulgence of the right hon. gentleman may I, through you, Mr. Chairman, make sure that we understand each other. I said that there was nothing in the regulations or in the terms of the present bill, which in this respect duplicate the regulations, to authorize censorship.


John George Diefenbaker: No, there is no misunderstanding at all; we are clearly in agreement on this point. However, there is censorship today, and therefore it is censorship that is being illegally applied. Across the country various radio stations, or at least their representatives, have been advised, informed, made aware, that the publication of certain material would not be in the public interest. Indeed, as far as certain universities are concerned, the student bodies who edit university papers have been given to understand that they are subject to censorship, and that censorship applies today despite the fact that the minister stated clearly, unequivocally and properly that legally it could not be applied.
This is the most dangerous form of censorship, the subtle kind that determines what I shall read, what I shall see, what I shall hear, without there being any legal justification for such censorship. The minister used these words-and I give him the opportunity of saying whether or not he actually used them. He said that there was no censorship of the news as far as radio or television stations and the like were concerned. Unless they were being used as propaganda agencies, he said, there would be no interference.
I should like to know who determines whether they are being used as propaganda agencies. Is not that the essence of censorship-that somebody determines for me what is propaganda and what is not propaganda? On this basis, certain ministers of the Crown should have kept their mouths shut, for some of the statements made by them indicate an irresponsibility that is not in keeping with membership on the government benches.


John Napier Turner: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, and again with the indulgence of the right hon. gentleman, may I clarify what I said. The crucial words in the regulations, which are repeated in the bill, are if the statement is made "on behalf of"; and then there are the words "as a representative or professed representative of the unlawful association". This means that the crucial element in distinguishing between the valid reporting of news and fair comment on the one hand, and its being used as a propaganda vehicle on the other hand, is the idea of agency. Is the journalist allowing himself to be used as an agent?


John George Diefenbaker: That is what I like about a debate in this House, Mr. Chairman, with opinions being exchanged. I am glad to have that statement from the minister, because accepting his view we have censorship in Canada. It is censorship not legally brought into effect, but rather left to certain individuals who determine whether a radio or T.V. station or the press itself comes within the definition of the words just enunciated by the minister. I suggest this is a dangerous proposition. It is of the essence of the imposition of censorship without accepting the responsibility of having censorship put into effect either by Parliament or, as under the wartime regulations, by order in council.
I pass on now to the next phase. For several days I have been trying to get some information regarding certain individuals who were alleged to be with Radio Canada-news broadcasters, commentators and the like. There were three or four of these people. This is not a matter picked out of the air; rather it comes from the confines of the mind of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. On many occasions he stated that several people were involved, and in every phase. One began to look at ministers of the Crown, even at parliamentary secretaries and Members of Parliament. He said that the dangerous permeation of this philosophy through the various strata of society had undermined everything. As a matter of fact, the minister used some very big figures. In Ottawa, the minister stated be thought the FLQ had 3,000 members. When the minister appeared on a television program with Jack Webster, he was reported to have said that the figure was twenty-five to fifty thousand. The minister spoke of thousands of weapons and masses of dynamite. Then he went on: "We can't tell you everything because if we did the security of the state would be undermined".
Then, the minister of Indian affairs joined in, and he drew a horrid picture of fear and danger. He said: "We can't tell you. We know, but if we were ever to tell it would bring into focus men high in public life, and we can't do that". This is all nonsense, Mr. Chairman. Like every member of the House, I have been following the evidence given at the inquest last Saturday in the city of Montreal. If you read the evidence given by the man Lortie, it is the most infantile example of amateurism that could have been put together. The government said that these were professional wrongdoers. In my view, if Lor-tie's evidence is accepted, their whole conduct indicates they were a bunch of novices.
To return to the people employed by Radio Canada, according to one minister, and by inference another, these people were actually engaged in using a code for the purpose of passing on information to FLQ members while pretending to be giving the news. They interpolated certain statements, observations or letters in one way or another into their reports. Three or four of these people were picked up, and that is what should have happened to them.
However, I have been trying to find out what has happened to these gentlemen. The Secretary of State has had several days to find out. Can you imagine the colos-
November 9, 1970

sal wisdom inherent in the statement that he made today? He said: How do we know who they were? How do we know which ones were released? I am not going to designate what I consider that statement to be, but I think that even the Minister of Justice will know what I have in mind.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
These people were traitors to this country. They operated within Radio Canada to undermine the state; to ensure that the FLQ conspirators would be successful in their aims. It must be taken that they were trying to cover up the tracks of those who kidnapped Mr. Cross and the minister of the Crown of the province of Quebec. They were passing out information and then they were picked up. Where are they now? The very fact that the minister, in the last few days, refused to give information in that connection would seem to indicate that they are back on the job. That is what we have been trying to find out. They are paid by the taxes of the people of Canada, and on the basis of a statement made by one of the ministers of the Crown in the present government, they were actually engaged, not only in a seditious operation but in something even close to treason itself.
They are picked up. They are taken into custody. They are released. Where are they now? I would like to know. Is the minister in a position to advise as to whether or not these people are back on the job? That is all I am trying to find out. I was surprised the ministers did not have some communication between themselves in that connection and ask, "These quadruplets of treason and treachery-where are they"? They were on the job with Radio Canada. They were engaged in nefarious and treacherous work. They were picked up. Where are they? Have they been released? It has been stated that they have been. Where are they now? If they are back in the CBC, the people of Canada as a whole will be able to conclude a great many things.


John Napier Turner: I just wonder if I could ask the right hon. gentleman a question. Suppose there were employees of the CBC who were picked up. Suppose they were detained. Suppose they were thereafter released. Is the right hon. gentleman entitled to make any assumptions from this, or should the assumptions be made only after they are charged, if they are charged? I am asking this in all seriousness because it may be that, if charges are not laid, the police found there was no connection. I think the right hon. gentleman has to be very careful when he is dealing with this sort of thing.


John George Diefenbaker: I am pointing out that they were not in that position. They were picked up and, according to a minister of the Crown, they were engaged in giving information to the people in the FLQ to undermine the state. He would not have made a statement like that unless he knew.


David Lewis: Wouldn't he?


John George Diefenbaker: They are not in the position of others who were picked up on suspicion and then released. The
Public Order Act, 1970
minister said they were engaged in this activity, and no minister of the Crown would make a statement like that without knowledge. If anybody wants to disavow that minister, I am willing to accept the disavowal.
What the Minister of Justice has done has been to refer to the general case of the person who is picked up, and I cannot disagree with that. You can be picked up by mistake and misunderstanding, but these men were not in that category. According to a minister of the Crown, they were guilty of treachery. He was shocked into a state of deep concern, and worry was apparent on every line of his face as he spoke of the danger to the state.
These people are not in the category to which the Minister of Justice has referred. These are treacherous people who are known to have done these things, and the man who actually designated them as being such is a minister of the Crown. That bothers me, and I don't suppose we will ever get the information because, after all, it is a very difficult thing for the Secretary of State to find out which members of Radio Canada were taken into custody and which ones have returned to the haven of their former positions.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman-


John George Diefenbaker: I don't mind questions, but I have dealt with the point raised by the Minister of Justice. I will now deal with the point he has just made, of how careful one must be in picking up these people, that they be not unfairly and unjustly treated, or designated as potential wrongdoers by reason only of the fact that they have been taken into custody under the regulations.


John Napier Turner: Exactly.


John George Diefenbaker: The fact that he points this out indicates he realizes what terrible mistakes can be made, and that brings me to the need of protecting such people. The hon. member for Calgary North has an amendment to the effect that there should be a board of review set up. I have not seen any rush on the part of the government to accept it, but in view of the declaration just made by the Minister of Justice I take it he is giving it serious consideration, believing as he does in the dangers of innocent people being picked up. With his dedication to justice I am sure he will give it that consideration. You see, Mr. Chairman, that is what discussion does. You actually clear the atmosphere. I am so glad the minister has taken that position.
In the meantime, while this board is being set up, may I recall a suggestion I made, I think it was on October 15, that something in the nature of what was done in 1940 and 1941 might be valuable at this time. Without going into a lot of detail, Mr. Chairman, it was not a commission that was set up, but a group of Members of Parliament with some knowledge of the law. Everyone who is a lawyer is presumed to have that, because ignorance of the law does not excuse anyone, even a lawyer. This group met. They were sworn to secrecy, and they were shown the files. There was a most interesting thing. Not

November 9, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
(One leak ever took place from the day to day or the week to week meetings of this group.
We looked over the records. I do not want to designate anyone because, even though years have gone by, it might do him harm, but I will mention one man as an ^example of a person against whom there was no evidence whatever. In fact, he afterward became a Member of Parliament. There was not one scintilla of evidence against him, but it took him a long time to show that. 'There was a Canadian contractor who was incarcerated and held for months. There was not a suggestion of anything that approached evidence against that man.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order. I regret to interrupt the right hon. member. I do so to advise the committee that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: We looked over the evidence. I remember that case very well. Do you know what his .offence was? Some employee, some maid in the house, was present the night Italy declared war and she saw this man dump some papers into the fireplace. She did not know what the papers were, but she felt sure they must be very self-incriminating. That was the entire case. We looked it over, and it wasn't long before he was out of jail. That is why I am again suggesting that procedure. We have so many Members of Parliament who would like a job to do, and the greatest job of Parliament is not to turn out legislation but to preserve and ensure freedom for even the humblest in the land.
This would in no way interfere with the provincial government of the province of Quebec. We cannot slough off our responsibility on the province of Quebec, although whenever things go wrong I have seen a tendency on the part of the government to say, "You better get in touch with the Bourassa government because, after all, we are not an agency. We are just looking after the things of the state, and the responsibility falls on the province."
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Let Parliament assume that function. Let Parliament pick out nine or ten members of this House to determine whether or not any of these people have been held without justification. There may not be any basis for their being held. I know the minister entirely agrees with that. That is my suggestion. I give support to the setting up of a board of review although, from the attitude up until the minister interjected a while ago, I was not very hopeful this would be accepted. Certainly, this would give Members of Parliament an opportunity to look into this matter. Set up such a committee. It cannot embarrass you in any way. If such a committee were set up, we would be able to follow the peregrinations of those

people from Radio Canada who were designated by a minister of the Crown as criminals and dangerous to the state. If they should be let out, we will find out whether they go back to the sequestered and protected position of broadcasters for Radio Canada.


Mr. Saltsman:: Mr. Chairman, as one who supported the implementation of the War Measures Act, I should like to speak on this clause. A number of weeks have passed and we have had an opportunity to look at the events and at the public evidence, some of the not so public evidence, and some of the inferences and circumstances surrounding the events of that time. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, I have no reason at this time to doubt or regret the decision I then took. I still feel it was correct to implement the War Measures Act and if I had it to do over again I would support it. Others, of course, had doubts to begin with and at least one member had reason to express his doubts just the other day. The decision concerning whether or not the introduction of the War Measures Act was correct will not be decided at this time. History will decide it or it may very well be that this debate will never be resolved because all the people involved obviously gave their actions a great deal of thought. They had to make decisions based on their judgment of the situation.
Today, however, the issue before us is whether the War Measures Act should be replaced with a more circumscribed measure and, on this occasion, I find I cannot support the government. I had hoped that some legislation could be introduced that would meet the needs of emergency situations but would not contain the dangerous provisions of the War Measures Act. I have looked at the bill before us. I have even looked at the amendments my party is offering to this bill as well as the amendments of the official opposition. Even if all these amendments were accepted, I do not think I could support the bill. I do not see how a bill could be drafted, containing some of the powers asked for, which could be considered safe or satisfactory. If we look at our Criminal Code, we will realize it has been developed over hundreds of years so we have been able to place certain safeguards in it. The minute you remove any of those safeguards you depart very sharply from the traditional concepts of freedom, which is an aspect of our society I like.
Therefore, any emergency legislation that departs from the present provisions and safeguards in the Criminal Code in my view is dangerous. This brings me to the point of view that the only time such emergency powers can be justified is during extreme conditions, and then only for a short period. I can see no justification for prolonging legislation of a dangerous nature beyond the immediate circumstances that call for the implementation of such legislation. In some ways, I believe the legislation before us is more dangerous than the War Measures Act.
I am not saying this from a legal point of view because I am not in a position to make that kind of a legal judgment. I do not have a legal background. I say this from the psychological point of view. Whatever the dangers may be of the War Measures Act, it has one advantage. This is an argument that was first advanced by the hon! member for Skeena. This legislation is so terrible in its
November 9, 1970

Implication, and so jeopardizes every one of our civil liberties, that its very danger is its safety. We know its dangers and what could happen if it should be prolonged. Since, we are aware of this-and the government obviously is aware of it-we are on our guard and are .careful about how it should be used.
Everytime someone starts talking about using the War Measures Act, whether in respect of hippies or school teachers, one becomes aware of the real concern of the members of this House. We realize how dangerous an instrument the War Measures Act is, and how careful we must be with it. Now, we have a bill before us which says, in effect, that the War Measures Act is too broad, too dangerous, and therefore we must bring in legislation which, to some extent, can deal with the problem in a more specific manner and remove the difficulties with which we are trying to deal. I am suggesting that once we take this attitude, once we think we can curtail civil liberties in a mild way, we are on the road to finding ourselves in serious difficulty. We are pretending this course is not dangerous. What is worse, there is an additional danger of isolating the problem to the province of Quebec and the FLQ because many people will say this legislation is better since it takes us off the hook and places on the hook those who should be there.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I am suggesting it is not possible to curtail the civil liberties of any group in this country without curtailing the civil liberties of everyone. I think whenever we see this kind of curtailment we must all continue to be on guard in respect of how it may affect us personally. It is a great mistake to try to isolate one group and pretend that the civil liberties of this country are not in danger. We just heard a very moving address by the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert. He pointed out the difficulties that are already arising as a result of the implementation of the War Measures Act. We have had admissions from the Minister of Justice that people may have been picked up who were not guilty and who have been released. What does this mean? It means we are living with an enormously dangerous instrument and it is not possible to design an instrument that is in harmony with our traditional concept of liberty in this country. The only safeguard, if there is a safeguard, is, first, that we are constantly on guard against the implications of such emergency legislation and, second, that we remove it as quickly as the emergency disappears.
I want to suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that in my view the implementation of the War Measures Act did accomplish some useful objectives. If there was an apprehended insurrection-it does not appear to be the case now-in some respects we have achieved a short term gain. However, there are many things that we have not accomplished. We had hoped to save the life of Pierre Laporte. The War Measures Act was not able to do this, and neither will this legislation. We may still be able to save the life of Mr. Cross, and all of us are hopeful that this win be possible. If the War Measures Act will in any way contribute toward this objective, then it will be helpful.
Public Order Act, 1970
It seems to me that the chief advantage of the implementation of the War Measures Act is that we have, in some ways, won a psychological victory. For years now, people in Canada have been very concerned about violence in our society. This violence is not limited to Quebec. People have been concerned about violence in the world, violence in North America, and they have been worried that the government would be unable to cope with it. Now, I think they have to be told that violence has deeper causes than can be cured by legislation alone. But they have to be reassured that, to the extent that legislation is helpful or can be useful, the Parliament of Canada has that legislation at hand and is prepared to use it on their behalf. It seems to me that this is an important thing to say to the people of Canada. We must say to them "Don't be frightened; don't panic, Parliament can and will act if it is necessary". We have made that point.
Whether or not this bill passes, the War Measures Act will still exist. The Parliament of Canada can invoke it in an emergency if it is required. It seems to me that we will lose that short term psychological victory if we continue this or any subsequent act beyond the period of the immediate emergency. At any rate, there can be no justification now for continuing emergency legislation, let alone for contemplating writing a new piece of legislation. Rather than look back or hang on to something which in my view has done some good, we now have to direct our attention to the long term problems associated with violence in our society. Unless we do that, and unless we act quickly, we can lose the advantage we gained through the implementation of the War Measures Act.
What are those things about which we should be thinking? I do not believe legislation is the answer. It is useful up to a point, but it will not solve the problem. Although there are people who objected to the position that my leader took when he talked about the underlying root causes, the economic problems of Quebec-there are people who say that the revolutionaries are middle class, they are not poor-let there be no mistake that this is where the problem really lies. It may be that we could solve the economic problems of Quebec, and Quebec might still wish to separate. It may be that we could solve these economic problems, and there might still be violence. But let us be sure about one thing, there is a chance of success in this course. The other course, that is the use of emergency legislation, offers no chance of success. Either we solve the deep rooted problems, many of them economic, many of them social, that afflict the people of Quebec, that are real grievances in the minds of people who are not revolutionaries or fanatics, who are not terrorists, or we will have gained nothing. The turmoil and soul searching that this House has been through will have been for no purpose at all.
I think there are dangers if we continue with emergency legislation. We are going to create a whole new set of martyrs. I cannot see how you can have legislation that asserts guilt by association and say it is fair legislation or that it is an improvement over the War Measures Act. This is just not possible. Even if you remove the retroac-
November 9, 1970

Public Order Act, 1970
tive features of the legislation, which I think would probably make the whole bill pointless, you would still be left with legislation that is not fair. The minute you say that membership per se, or the support of any organization per se, constitutes a crime, you violate one of the basic premises on which our freedom is based. I do not think I have to demonstrate this. I am quite prepared to be tough in defence of democracy. I think that the defenders of democracy can make a mistake by being excessively permissive, but I think they are also wrong if they are tough and unfair for no good purpose.
Therefore, I think it would be a mistake for us to use the War Measures Act to charge those who are now held, and thus to create a set of martyrs. The longer they are kept in prison, the greater will be their martyrdom. Sooner or later, they will have to be let out, and sooner or later the memory of the atrocious murder of Pierre Laporte will recede from people's minds; their grievances will come to the forefront. People will forget the terrible violence and remember only their present unhappiness. This is a danger. One only has to look at the history of violence in other countries to see that many of the leaders came to their positions as a result of the martydom of imprisonment. It is difficult to think of these people as martyrs, but it is even more difficult to think of them as leaders now. However, let us learn something from the past.
There is also the danger that if we prolong this measure beyond the immediate and specific emergency, we will discredit the ability of the democratic system to operate at all. For instance, when will this legislation be withdrawn? It is becoming a crutch. The legislation will be in effect until April of next year. Is the FLQ going to go away by April? Are the difficulties in Quebec going to disappear by April? Will violence stop in Canada, in North America, in the world, by April? I do not think so. Whenever you try to withdraw this legislation, there may be some event, a death, a kidnapping, a bombing, that will prevent its withdrawal, and people will learn to live with this legislation. They will learn to justify the injustices. They will learn to forget about those who have been in prison and released, and will learn to accept this as a measure which had to be adopted, although it was unfortunate. It will become a great crutch. The police will say "we cannot operate without it". It will become more and more difficult rather than less and less difficult to remove this legislation as time goes on. Let us do it now.
To a very large extent, the House of Commons has shown its willingness to be the conscience of the nation, as some members decided to be; to be tough, as other members decided to be, but it has acted. No member in the House has stood in the way of Parliament acting decisively. Therefore, I think we could take this opportunity to withdraw this bill and withdraw the War Measures Act along with it.
The other danger is that we are going to drive the FLQ underground. The minister will probably say they are underground anyway. It is true that murderous activities are always underground, but we can deal with them
through the Criminal Code. Most criminal activity that can be dealt with by the Criminal Code is underground. But let us look at the situation. Who has been picked up? The people who were underground were not picked up, but the people who were above ground, who spoke publicly and who could be identified. If you drive the FLQ underground, then you will not know who to pick up the next time; you will have to do everything in the dark.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
It is important to bear this in mind. We made other organizations illegal and drove them underground. I can go along with making the FLQ illegal by implementing the War Measures Act for two weeks or ten days, because you have to act quickly when men's lives are at stake. Beyond that, you have nothing more to gain. When you have reached that point it is wise to say "We shall do what we have to do, so let's do it now".
To sum up, Mr. Chairman, I think the defenders of democracy have their point. They have proven that they can not only be fair but understanding. They have also proven they can be tough in defence of democracy. The public has been reassured by this act, and Parliament has shown that it can move quickly. It can move as quickly in the future if it has to do so.
The War Measures Act has not been repealed; it is still in effect and that should be most reassuring. Now is the time to withdraw that act, and now is the time to stop thinking of short term legal approaches. We should commit ourselves to an honest attempt at solving the long term and significant problems of the province of Quebec because those are the problems which create conditions on which violence feeds.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, during the course of this discussion on clause 2, members have attempted to point out some of the real dangers inherent in introducing the legislation that the government has brought in during the past few days. Last Thursday, when the vote was called, I was the only person who would not accept the government's justification for bringing this legislation forward.
I think I could begin by saying there is one point of complete unanimity in this House: all members would like to see an end to the problem as it has existed in the province of Quebec. What has not helped the resolution of the problem, however, has been the fanning of emotional discussion concerning the sometimes naive interpretation of events in that province, and the simplistic and misleading suggestions that have been put forward as to the exact nature of the problem. The very fact that the problem is one of terror and disquiet has unsettled many hundreds of thousands of Canadians. To some degree or other, most people in this country, seem to believe that we have not been able to deal with the problem because it is not easily understood. The emotions of people were fanned very easily at that time with the kidnapping of Mr. Cross, and later with the kidnapping and brutal slaying of Mr. Laporte.

November 9, 1970

One of the greatest disservices of this government was that, instead of attempting to quiet down the substantial emotions in this country during this period, it has in fact done exactly the reverse. The government has fanned the flame of emotion, as the Prime Minister said last Friday night, by polarizing public opinion in this country.
Since the early days of this crisis we have been treated to a round of interpretations as to the exact nature of the problem. Viewed officially as insurrection, it has been described variously as terror, revolution, social unrest, anarchy. A whole variety of other terms have been used in an attempt to explain, not through a reasonable process of presenting facts but through an emotional charge as to the nature of the situation. Indeed, if one takes an over-view of the past five weeks, one can see that there has been a trilogy of explanation by the government.
In the early stages, particularly when the government introduced the War Measures Act, we were told both inside and outside the House by the Prime Minister and ministers of the Crown that at root this problem was so sensitive, and the apprehension of some of the key people so imminent, we could not be given all the facts. At first, it seemed that it would only be a matter of days before such facts might be available. Then, the Minister of Justice remarked, outside the House I think, that some of these facts might never be known, and if they were to become known it might not be until some time after 1972. Why he would fix on the date of 1972 one cannot but wonder.


John Napier Turner: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I never said that. I think the question might have been framed that way, but I did not say it.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am sorry if I have inadvertently misquoted the minister or if the newspaper has misquoted him. I think I am right that he said it was impossible to give the facts at that time and that he did not know when the facts would be available. Since the minister does not disagree with me, I assume he agrees.
This is the first rationale we were treated to in the light of the government's invoking of the War Measures Act. This seemed to have great credibility, and I think it had great credibility for the opposition members of this House in the early days of this crisis, that because of the difficult nature of the situation and the problem of security all the facts could not be told. Even during the debate on the War Measures Act, I questioned that assertion. I did so because I think that is always a very cute argument to allow an authority to do pretty well as it pleases. I think the parliamentary system is not well served by that response! It was not well served even in the public mind, because shortly afterwards the Prime Minister brought forth the second argument in this trilogy by a statement to the effect that the facts were well known.
There was a rehearsal of the kidnappings and other deaths attributed to the FLQ over the past seven years; the capture of a large cache of arms and dynamite; the uncertain situation in Quebec; rather veiled suggestions
Public Order Act, 1970
about some parallel power and the need for some kind of sweeping powers such as these. The story was repeated so that the people would accept it; a neat package of obvious events supposed to prove sufficient to justify the government's action. That has been the response of the Prime Minister and other ministers until recently.
However, Mr. Chairman, in the last day or so the Minister of Agriculture has decided to play his part. Last Thursday night in Manitoba, as reported by the Winnipeg Tribune on Friday, he said:
Federal Agriculture Minister Bud Olson said here Thursday that it would have been impossible for the government to furnish documented proof that the proclamation of the War Measures Act was necessary.
Now, we come to the third stage in this trilogy of explanation and that is, that really it is not a matter of not being able to make the proof public because that would endanger the apprehension or arrest of individuals, nor that the facts are well known, but basically that it is the kind of thing you can never prove anyway. Having heard this third argument, through his answer to me this afternoon, the Prime Minister has supported it as being a cute way to round out this argument.
I hope the country will not be fooled by a later coming to terms with a basic question that has faced this government, both in the implementation of the War Measures Act and the necessity for this legislation. The fact of the matter is that it has not been shown, and this will be of increasing concern to the people of this country, that the War Measures Act regulations and this legislation are what is required in dealing with the situation in Quebec. No one in this House disagrees that steps must be taken to deal with the kind of fear that has led to the sort of paranoia we are witnessing in Quebec. That is the real effect of what has been happening. But whether the answer is that we must extend amazing powers to the police and judiciary in Quebec is something that I do not think has ever been faced by the government. The damage that will result from this legislation, as has already been said by other members of the House, has very serious implications for us.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
If one needs further proof of the dangerous leadership that the Prime Minister has given to this country, one has only to look at what the Prime Minister said last Friday night on the CBC program "Encounter" when he answered questions by Mr. Pierre O'Neil. Mr. O'Neil asked the Prime Minister this question:
Does the polarization of public opinion make it easier or tougher for you to fight separatism?
The Prime Minister replied:
In my opinion it makes it easier. I like a country where people have to stand up and be counted. I don't like wishy-washy thinking on anything. As much as possible I like people to have clear choices. That's the way I am and that's the way I will remain. Now if Canadians prefer some more wishy-washy type of government which won't fight separatism so hard, they can elect it next time around.
There, in a capsule, we have the essence of the Prime Minister's philosophic approach to one of the most dif-

November 9, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
ficult problems we have ever faced in this country. It was the height of dishonesty for him to suggest on the public media of this country that this kind of problem can easily be resolved by resorting to strong opinions, to disagreements, or to simple answers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: If this question is so simple I ask why, in God's name, did the government not solve it during the past seven years instead of bringing out this kind of response to what I consider to be the most basic problem this country faces today. The Prime Minister wants people to stand up and be counted. Well, I for one have stood up and been counted.


An hon. Member:: You are the only one.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I may be the only one in this House, but not the only one in this country; let no one in this House make that kind of mistake.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member does not believe in democracy.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Yes, I believe in democracy. That is why I cast my vote against the measure.


James Aloysius McGrath: That is why the hon. member stood up.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I will let the people be my judge. I, for one, had no doubts, especially after hearing the Prime Minister suggest that simply by polarizing public opinion we could resolve this most difficult human problem.
What does this legislation do, Mr. Chairman? Notwithstanding the proclamations and window dressing of the Minister of Justice and others, it does pretty much what the War Measures Act does. Basically, it is the same sort of legislation. The chassis of it is the War Measures Act regulations, but its body has been made a bit more attractive. The government has been trying to make the measure more palatable for those who are not willing to go to the heart of the problem, for those who believe that the problem can be dealt with by outlawing membership or support for organizations such as the FLQ, by providing for a detention period not of seven days but of 90 days, and by introducing a retroactive provision involving people who may or may not have been active members of an organization half a dozen years ago. I, for one, feel that this bill will do the country great damage.
I am also disturbed because this will not be the final discussion that we shall have on legislation of this sort. For reasons that are not fully explainable, I think the Prime Minister has set himself on a new course. The defender of civil liberties of ancient days will not be seen acting as he has acted up until now. I say that because of another reply the Prime Minister gave on the program

"Encounter" after having been question by Mr. Charles Lynch. Mr. Lynch asked:
Are you ready for a renewal of the situation that confronted you a month ago?
The Prime Minister replied:
I think all Parties in the House are, and that's why they've agreed to consider the introduction eventually of something a little short of the War Measures Act,-
We are to have something a little short of the War Measures Act. I find it passing strange that people who greatly treasure their liberties-and within a day or two we shall commemorate the sacrifices of our men in two great world conflicts who fought in order to protect our basic freedoms-should publicly accept a government statute which will inhibit and greatly limit the freedoms and responsibilities that have existed in this country. If this legislation is but a prelude to what the Prime Minister calls "something a little short of the War Measures Act" then I for one will not accept it and will not vote-for it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Supporters of the government have suggested that there has been much fuzzy thinking in this House. There may have been much fuzzy thinking in many parts of the House, but that is what happens when solid information is lacking. I think there has been much fuzzy thinking by government benches with respect to what is required in the law.
Perhaps at the risk of stepping into an area in which I have no professional experience, I may be allowed to read two sections of the Quebec Coroners Act. As I understand it, this law is in force today. This act, brought into force on June 29, 1967, sounds like a fairly inoffensive piece of legislation. Allow me to read section 22, to show what powers are available to the authorities of Quebec in dealing with some of the very real problems that exist:
22. When the coroner is of the opinion that a person whose testimony he deems necessary will fail or refuse to be present at the inquest, he may order such person arrested, with or without a warrant, and brought before him within twenty-four hours after his arrest or, if that is impossible, within the shortest possible delay; the coroner may then, in order to ensure his presence at the inquest, require bail of such person or direct that such person be detained in a common gaol.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Every coroners act includes a clause like that.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I have used the Quebec Coroners Act as an example.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A death must take place before that section can be operative.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: A death has taken place. I say that the temporary emergency powers bill goes beyond what is needed. The second paragraph of the Coroners Act reads:
No person shall be so detained for more than eight days without being brought again before the coroner;-
November 9, 1970

The Coroners Act provides that a man shall not be detained for more than eight days; that goes a good deal farther than the provisions of this legislation.
By citing this act, I am not trying to say that it is the answer to our legislative problems; I will not go into all the ramifications of the legislation, because this has been dealt with by other hon. members. I am simply saying that we have been badly misled into thinking that the only answer for dealing with terrorism, sedition and the sort of violence taking place in Quebec is new and massive legislation. I think government members suffer from some sort of absentmindedness when they forget the kind of federal and provincial legislation exists in this field.
Later we shall have the chance to discuss the ramifications of specific parts of the bill. The clause we are considering contains definitions. According to those definitions almost anyone may be apprehended. For instance, clause 2 (c) reads:
-'statements' includes words spoken or written or recorded electronically or electromagnetically or otherwise, and gestures, signs or other visible representations;-
One wonders at the limits of the definition; there is a possibility of arrest, charge and conviction for almost anyone.
I will not enter into details at this point. I want to say something about what this bill obviously does not do, and what is so desperately important about the problem we face here this afternoon. The Minister of Justice may have indicated, in an answer in this afternoon's question period, how difficult this problem is. One of the basic problems is not even dealt with in this bill. I refer to the degree of the effectiveness or otherwise of police detection and the over-all effectiveness of the courts and prosecution. The different stories that have been presented over the past four or five weeks show that there is some need for farreaching adjustments to the present police work being carried on in the province of Quebec. To try and masquerade that problem by hiding behind this kind of legislation, which gives more far-reaching powers to an agency that may not be effective, seems to be compounding the difficulty and not alleviating it.
a (4:30 p.m.)
As pointed out in the popular press, there has been little willingness on the part of this government to consider its own Royal commission report on security. That report clearly sets out that there must be some major changes in our security provisions if the country is not to be endangered. I do not know how serious the government took that report, but by and large it chose to ignore it. The time has now come for the government and Parliament to seriously consider it. I also point out that the security aspect is not covered in this bill.
As pointed out by some members of this House and a number of perceptive commentators in Canada, underlying the problems of Quebec is the serious economic situation in that province, something which is not new. In addition, there are the more recent and grave implica-
Public Order Act, 1970
tions involving unemployment and labour unrest. It is the duty of this government to address itself to those questions with the greatest possible urgency and concern. The Prime Minister sometimes gives the impression in this House that all of these problems are minor in nature and have been more or less dealt with to his satisfaction. They have not been dealt with to the satisfaction of the people of the province of Quebec. Unless the government realizes that fact, they are not going to stamp out the root causes of terrorism and unrest in Quebec or anywhere else. This cannot be done by the use of more repressive legislation. Fourth, we have to realize-


The Deputy Chairman:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I thank the committee. I will try to be reasonably short. Fourth, there was a very great loss of public morale, in the city of Montreal particularly, and in the province of Quebec generally. I find it odd that the Prime Minister never questioned the reason why hon. members from Quebec on both sides of the chamber so willingly voted in support of the steps being taken. His interpretation is that what he is doing is absolutely right. That is his privilege. Looking a little deeper, I suggest that the unanimity on the part of the Quebec members was an indication of the tremendous sense of fear, indeed the word fear is too weak to indicate the panic that existed amongst the people of the city of Montreal and the province of Quebec during the past few weeks.
It could be argued that by adopting these sweeping measures the government has, in effect, restored the loss of public morale. That may be true on the short term, but I fear for the long term. One can only reflect on the extent to which it would be very easy, if indeed acts of terrorism were to recur in one month, three months or three years, for the people of Montreal and the province of Quebec to have a much better understanding of the problem, if they could see that root causes of terror were being removed. The response of massive police and military intervention is immediate and effective, but it carries with it great dangers. Its successful termination of the problem may be shallow.
We must recognize that there has been a substantial body of opinion in the province of Quebec that has been increasingly alienated, not only from the federal system of government which we have in this country, but from the total operation of government. We must not accept that kind of feeling passively or simply react with hostility. We must try to understand and resolve those frustrations in the best interests of the country, not by

November 9, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
appealing to the worst instincts of men, violence, prejudice and hatred, but by appealing to their best instincts, idealism, humanitarianism and participation. If we do that, we will have no just cause to fear. If we place our inner and physical security on repressive legislation, we will do little to deal with the root cause of violence which is what this debate is all about.
How are we going to deal with the problem of violence? Through invoking the War Measures Act regulations and by introducing this bill, the government has indicated that these are the necessary laws to deal with violence. By reading this bill and the War Measures Act regulations, I, not being a lawyer, find that they state what is to be done after the violence has occurred. Are we incapable of responding in some fashion and only able to deal with situations of such proportionate violence after they have occurred? We must address ourselves to the causes and prevention of violence in our country. That is our basic responsibility. If we do not do that, it may appear by the repressive measures that we are taking, and the publicity included in the process, that we are giving some aura of attractiveness and even martyrdom to those who least deserve it. Not only must justice be done, but it must appear to be done so that violence will not occur in our society.
The right hon. member for Prince Albert described one process that would balance the tremendous powers the government feels are necessary with the responsibility it has to the people of this country. The government is again hoping to have these powers accepted through this temporary public order bill. If the government, in good conscience, feels such legislation is necessary, it has a duty to provide some kind of balance to these sweeping powers. We have heard about the possibility of parliamentary committees. Indications are there will be amendments suggesting judicial commissions.
Shortly following World War II there was a national crisis in this country. The then Prime Minister came into possession of a network of intelligence that was being communicated to a foreign nation. There was the great danger that there had developed a very elaborate spy system in this country. At that time the Prime Minister decided to take extraordinary powers to arrest and detain certain individuals. He also appointed the Tas-chereau and Kellock Commission, which reported to Parliament on an interim basis, and on the termination of the commission made a final report. I am speaking of course about the Gouzenko affair.
The Gouzenko affair was not exactly parallel to the present situation, but it was a national crisis. It was recognized that the government required special and sweeping powers. The Liberal government of that day felt that it was not sufficient to simply say, "We know what is best. We have the facts, but the need for these powers will be difficult to prove; just give us the powers." They said: We shall take these powers but we shall ensure the public welfare by setting up an independent judicial commission which will report to Parliament. It must surely seem reasonable to members of this committee, and to citizens of this country as a whole, that any

government which seeks such powers as have been exercised for the past three weeks should also be ready to commit itself to a role of public stewardship, and the only means by which I see this being done is the establishment of a judicial commission of the kind suggested. I wonder whether the government of the day can really believe it is exercising a public trust unless it accepts this kind of discipline and this kind of stewardship on behalf of the people.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Mr.   De Bane@: Mr. Chairman, regarding clause 2, I would have three remarks.
First, concerning clause 2 (d), one might, at first sight, find it purposeless. As a matter of fact, it is not so, for its main purpose, I think, is to make an equivalence in English between "the unlawful association" and "an unlawful association", and in French between "l'associa-tion illegale" and "une association illegale". I feel this is deplorable. Indeed, it is because of this clause 2 (d) that, in the remainder of the bill, there will be no further reference to "an unlawful association" but only to "the unlawful association". In other words, this clause is used to conceal, psychologically so to speak, the fact that this bill not only affects the FLQ, as stated earlier, even in the preamble, but also other associations.
Clause 4 says that it is prohibited to be a member of the unlawful association. Well, under clause 2 (d), it should be "an unlawful association", and I will show that in clause 3, it cannot be defined. In fact, each time the expression, "the unlawful association" appears in the bill, it should read instead, "an unlawful association".
Accordingly, I suggest first that clause 2 (d) be simply removed.
My second comment has to do with the logical sequence in the wording of the bill. Clause 2 is entitled, "Interpretation", and it defines some words. Then, I do not see why clause 3 could not be included in clause 2 where phrases such as "communicate", "peace officer", "statements" and "the unlawful association" are defined. I think that clause 3, which gives a definition of "unlawful association" should replace the present clause 2 (d).
I propose to introduce the following change, which is only editorial and does not alter the substance of the wording:
"Unlawful association" means the group of persons or association known as the Front de Liberation du Quebec, any successor group or successor association thereof, as well as any group or association that advocates the use or force or crime to accomplish or as an aid in accomplishing the same or substantially the same governmental change within Canada as that advocated by the said Front de Liberation du Quebec.
Again, I propose to substitute the wording of clause 3 to clause 2 (d) and later on I will deal with the substance of clause 3.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, here is my most important comment which refers to clause 2 (b). When you look closely for the purpose of this act, you notice that obviously it is
November 9, 1970

not to decree heavier sentences. As a matter of fact, sections 60 and 62 of the Criminal Code stipulate that a person who advocates, without using it, the use of force to overthrow the government is liable to 14 years imprisonment, while under the present bill, the person who not only advocates, as stated in the Criminal Code, but effectively engages in the use of force, as stated in clause 4, (g), is liable to imprisonment of only five years.
Therefore, the bill under study obviously does not intend to prescribe heavier sentences. Thus, we must look elsewhere for the characteristics of this bill.
Nonetheless, in my opinion, if this project does present basic features which provide a unique and exceptional character that is reflected in the powers it bestows on policemen under the authority of clause 9(1), to arrest without warrant any suspected persons.
That is the main thing, and I admit it with humbleness and vigour, so true is it that all Canadians agree to punish those who are guilty of the worst crime of all, to threaten this freedom of ours.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
So the argument is elsewhere; the danger of clause 9(1) is to arrest innocents on mere suspicion.
You may answer that this misfortune is inevitable. I then shall answer: let us make it a little less inevitable. According to section 2 of the Criminal Code the expression "peace officer" includes:
(a)	a mayor, warden, reeve, sheriff, deputy sheriff, sheriff's officer and justice of the peace;
(b)	a warden, deputy warden, instructor, keeper, gaoler, guard and any other officer or permanent employee of a prison.
(c)	a police officer, police constable, bailiff, constable or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace or for the service or execution of civil process;
Many of these people do not come under police authority at all, and, in this specific instance, under the Quebec Police Act. The implication is that those many individuals will be empowered to make arrests on grounds of mere suspicion under clause 9(1) and keep people in jail up to seven days, or up to three days without the consent of the Attorney General who, evidently, cannot personally study each prisoner's file.
All the classes of persons I have just enumerated are peace officers, as defined in clause 2. They will be empowered, under clause 9(1), to arrest people because of mere suspicion and this without being liable to any suits for damages. The fact that arrest per se is a denial of justice is borne out by the Criminal Code's stipulation that arrest without warrant cannot be resorted to in the field of what are called, in our jargon, "criminal offenses". As a matter of fact, it can be used only if a person is caught red handed. Then, to arrest without warrant, the police must see the person really committing the offence. Only in the matter of crimes, he may arrest without warrant if he has reasonable and probable grounds, according to Section 435 of the Criminal Code.
Now, I suggest that precisely because it is a law of exception, this power should not be granted to an officer
Public Order Act, 1970
of the peace, under subclause (1) of clause 9, that is the power to make an arrest without warrant merely on suspicion. Too many people fall in this category.
Here is an example out of a thousand: The mayor of a small municipality is suspecting three bearded men who have just arrived. He will be able to put them under arrest merely on this suspicion.
Here is another example: During a municipal election campaign, the mayor suspects that his opponent wants to use "telegraphers", according to the familiar term, meaning impersonators on election day. He could then under such suspicion and without any recourse, under clause 9(1) and under one subclause in clause 4, subclause (g) in particular, arrest and detain his opponent during the last three days of the campaign.
Thus, honest people cannot help thinking that Dr. Bel-lemarre's arrest at the last municipal elections in Montreal was motivated by such considerations.
I therefore conclude as follows. I move that clause 2(b) be rewritten so as to limit this power of arrest without warrant-which is one of the main points of this legislation-to the limited classes of persons specified in the orders in council of the Governor General or of a Lieutenant Governor in council.
Finally, I remind the House that peace officers who for weeks have prevented some prisoners from seeing their lawyers-a right which is recognized in the Canadian Bill of Rights and which is not abrogated by the invocation of the War Measures Act-may have violated sections 408 and 107 of the Criminal Code.
In short, I wish to propose three amendments. First, subclause (d) should be struck out. In my view, it changes the whole aspect of this bill in which the words "unlawful association" are often repeated. Under that subclause those words cannot be used. Second, there is no logical order in the bill. In clause 2, "unlawful association" should be defined. Third, I propose that the definition of "peace officer" in subclause (b) of clause 2 be restricted to a category of persons, the list of which to be proclaimed by an order of the governor in council or the lieutenant-governors in council.
This is all I have to say about clause 2, Mr. Chairman.
The Depuiy Chairman: Order, please, I would draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that if he wishes to propose his amendments at this stage, it must be done in writing so that the chair may get acquainted with the precise contents.


Mr.   De Bane@: I can submit them immediately, Mr. Chairman.

The Depuiy Chairman: Was the hon. member for Timiskaming rising for the purpose of participating in the debate?


Mr. Peters:: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

November 9, 1970
Business of the House


Gérald Laniel: The chair will recognize the hon. member for Timiskaming while looking at the amendments that have been put to the committee.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I have been very concerned, as I am sure have other Canadians, over the situation that has developed in the last month in our nation and how the government reacted to the events in the province of Quebec. I think everyone would agree that as the picture in the province of Quebec unfolds, less and less light is being shed and more and more confusion is being created about what the government knew to warrant such sweeping powers as those in the War Measures Act being invoked.
I have had the opportunity of reading the newspaper report of the evidence given by Lortie at the inquest, and the whole thing sounds to me very much like a play. Everything had been rehearsed, and more was being left unsaid than was actually said. I think as more people take the opportunity of studying the evidence that is adduced, they will come to the conclusion that the longer the matter is before us the less likelihood there will be for thinking Members of Parliament to consider extending the terms of this type of legislation in a situation that obviously does not warrant the consideration it previously received.


Gérald Laniel: Order. In order to permit the House to proceed to the consideration of private members' business, it is my duty to leave the Chair.
Progress reported.


PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. Forrestal), the Canadian economy; the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), regional economic expansion; the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) manpower.
It being five o'clock p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely notices of motions, public bills.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think it is generally known that there is mutual agreement to have our opposition allotted day on Thursday rather than tomorrow. However, in order that the Order Paper may reflect this

agreement, I think something has to be said about it in the House. In fact, I think it is necessary for a minister of the Crown to withdraw the designation of Tuesday as an allotted day and make a new designation for Thursday. Perhaps the Minister of Justice will oblige.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is perfectly correct. Discussions have been held, and if the House agrees we would designate tomorrow to continue the present debate on Bill C-181, if the debate is not concluded by ten o'clock this evening, to be followed, if debate is concluded tomorrow on Bill C-181, by Bill C-182, an act to provide for the examination, publication and scrutiny of regulations and other statutory instruments, which is also under the name of the Minister of Justice. The rest of the business to follow will be that originally indicated by the Government House Leader.
On Wednesday the House will not sit, and Thursday will be designated as an opposition day, the subject of which is at the option of the members of the New Democratic Party.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions along these lines and, while we would like to see this debate concluded tonight, I understand the arrangements are made in the event it does not. We concur in them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The House has been informed of the work program for the rest of the week. I do not think there is need to ask for agreement unless somebody else wants to comment. I will now call Private Members' Business.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If there is no disagreement, it is agreed.


John Napier Turner: You are perfectly right, Mr. Speaker, it is agreed. That is the way it is.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I don't need to ask if the House is agreeable, but is there agreement to the suggestion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' NOTICES OF MOTIONS


James Aloysius McGrath: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of introducing legislation to protect the privacy of every person against the improper disclosure of credit rating records and to protect the reputation of every person against misinformation contained in such records.
He said: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I hope you will pay attention to the fact that five minutes of private mem-
November 9, 1970

bers' hour today have been taken up with government business, and I hope that provision will be made today to make up lor that lost time because this is a very important motion. I know that many members of the House would like to participate in this debate. I know a number of hon. members opposite, including the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis), are very anxious to participate in it. I know it is a subject upon which we are all in agreement. I know they are just as anxious as I am to have the government bring down legislation to protect the consumer.
I am sorry the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) is not present because I was going to quote him as an authority on the need for protection of privacy. At the outset, I want to make it clear that I shall not take up all the time allotted to me because I believe there is agreement that a decision should be taken on the motion. All my motion asks is that the government give consideration to the advisability of introducing legislation. As I say, I know most hon. members are just as anxious as I am to have the government do that.
The Minister of Justice, in a very interesting paper which I am sure all hon. members have read, delivered at a seminar at Queen's University in May of this year, said:
The erosion of privacy is the beginning of the end of freedom.
He also said in the same paper:
The orbit of privacy will be an ever-shrinking one, but the need for privacy will become more paramount than ever. The law must ensure that the right to privacy remains sacrosanct.
I believe that this is a very serious matter. I think that 1984 is almost here. In this age of computers and data banks the citizens of Canada have no protection against false and misleading information which is often fed into computer banks and data processing centres-


Mr. Gibson:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


James Aloysius McGrath: No, I will not permit an interruption from the hon. gentleman who can make a speech on his own time.


Colin David Gibson: I just want to a ask a question.


James Aloysius McGrath: I am sure that the hon. member, who is so anxious to interrupt me, has never had this problem because he was brought into this world with a silver spoon in his mouth and he doesn't know what we are talking about. But, if he does, perhaps he will favour us with a contribution to the debate before the hour is over.
There is a growing concern in this country over the question of the invasion of privacy, particularly with regard to commercial reporting agencies which gather information from peoples neighbours and friends, and sometimes from competitors, in order to report on individuals to credit card plans, to industries, to retailers, to banks, and in many cases to government agencies. When I think of the information, stored by computers of all sorts, on personal matters I just wonder whether the government or the private sector is going to win the race to 1984, which I believe is almost here.
Credit Records
I can accept the existence, indeed the need, for these reporting agencies. I believe that in many instances they perform a very useful and necessary function in helping to facilitate the business and commerce of the country, and in helping to avoid bad debts. However, what I object to is the fact that these agencies are allowed to function in a completely unregulated fashion. The time has come when we should give consideration to bringing in legislation which would make it necessary for these reporting agencies to apply for federal licences and to operate under the terms of those licences.
I know that hon. members will agree that this is an area of growing concern. It is one we read a great deal about. Indeed, many of us are becoming growingly concerned over the widespread use of computers and the techniques that are being developed to assimilate information about every single one of us, and about our private acts. While individuals may have partial rights to checking the information in these information banks, as legislators it is incumbent on us to ensure that the individual has complete rights in this particular regard. Most Canadians frequently voice a claim to the right to privacy as a basic right in our society. If we were to ask for 20 definitions of what we understood by that right to privacy perhaps we might come up with 20 different definitions. However, I am sure we would all be in agreement on one thing, the right of the individual to have his reputation protected from unscrupulous credit reporting, reporting against which he has no redress.
It is an awesome thing to consider that in this computer age with techniques so sophisticated that computers can store every minute detail of every piece of information. Already in California, a new model laser has been developed which is capable of providing 645 million items of data on a single square inch of magnetic tape. This means that this technique could efficiently store data in respect of every single citizen of Canada. Robert Merton, in his book "Social Theory and Social Structure" said:
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Privacy is not merely a personal predilection; it is an important functional requirement for the effective operation of social structure. Social systems must provide for a portion of the self which is kept apart, immune from social surveillance.
We must act now, I believe, to protect the individual whose rights and whose reputation could and, in many instances, often are taken away by false and misleading information without the individual concerned having any redress whatsoever. When we consider the enormity of this at a time when we are approaching what has been termed a cashless society, a society of credit cards, data information and computerized systems, then obviously the need exists for action to be taken soon.
I know hon. members will raise the question of jurisdiction. I know some hon. members who are very anxious to participate in this debate, and who are anxious to see the resolution brought to a conclusion by having a vote on it, will raise the problem of jurisdiction and the constitutional limitations placed upon Parliament. I would point out, however, that the Parliament of Canada has already acted in many

November 9, 1970
Credit Records
areas by bringing in legislation which requires consumer protection from unjust, false credit reports. For example, the Small Loans Act, the Bank Act, and indeed some provisions of the Income Tax Act come to mind. But apart altogether from these specific areas in which the government already has acted in a legislative way, recognizing the rights of the provinces in the area of proposed changes, what rights do I as a Canadian living in the province of Newfoundland enjoy if that province has no legislation in respect of credit agencies. In the province of Ontario there may be such legislation or, if not, it certainly is contemplated. But I would not enjoy the protection of the Ontario legislation if I did not live in that province.
For this reason, I believe as a federal Parliament we have a responsibility to act in this particular area. I believe there are many and ample constitutional precedents for doing so. Mr. Speaker, I know hon. members are becoming impatient to make their contribution. Before I conclude, however, I should like to refer hon. members to recommendation No. 18 of the Special Joint Committee on Consumer Credit. This committee did not make many very specific recommendations, but one specific recommendation it made concerned the setting up of a federal-provincial committee on consumer credit. Here, surely, the need for such a committee is manifest because the federal government must take the responsibility of protecting Canadians from being victimized by these computer banks, these data processing agencies and credit agencies, which go around collecting this information and selling it in many cases to the highest bidder. In many cases these agencies destroy the reputations of individuals involved without their ever having had any knowledge of it. Mr. Speaker, I commend this motion to members of the House. I ask that they support it and allow it to come to a vote.


Colin David Gibson: Mr. Speaker, may I say very briefly that if there are any silver spoons lying around this chamber, I would be very glad if someone would give one to me. They are rather scarce so far as I can tell. My hon. friend raises a very interesting problem, but I submit there is really no substance to his motion. I do not say that disparagingly because I think it is a provocative motion and a subject matter into which we should all be looking, along with the subject of wiretapping, eavesdropping and the general problems created by the invasion of privacy. However,
I question whether in law there is actually a specific right to privacy. We have invasions by the media, by the telephone, and by all types of people who interfere with Dur lives to some extent. It is a question of just where .he line should be drawn. I submit it would be very easy :or the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) to bring in very stiff regulations and restraints against improper disclosure of credit information, but how does one enforce these things? Would our time as parliamentarians not be better spent in seeking...


James Aloysius McGrath: Licensing.


Colin David Gibson: Please; do you want to ask a question?


James Aloysius McGrath: I was answering your question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I remind both hon. members that they might address their remarks to the Chair.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for taking up the hon. member's time. I am sure he is anxious to proceed.


Colin David Gibson: Mr. Speaker, I am interested in proceeding, but I question the value of bringing in a lot of words which would look great in print, and probably help win a few votes, but which would do little to alleviate the situation until technology has advanced sufficiently to take care of these breaches of which my hon. friend complains. I have not heard any evidence from my learned friend concerning a number of flagrant breaches or abuses of these credit reports. There does not seem to be any mass outcry from anyone. I do not know whether my friend has received letters of complaint from Canadian citizens. I have had none, and I have heard of none having been received by members either on my side of the House or on his side of the House.
With great respect, may I say that I think the hon. member is really drumming up an issue which does not exist as an enforceable matter. We could pass regulations and make long impassioned speeches about the right to privacy which is not inscribed in any textbook on common law or in any statute. What is the right to privacy? There are the offences under trespass, assault, libel or slander. I really submit the law on libel and slander is probably the most efficient law by which to approach these wrongs. If it is possible to trace the person who maliciously or unfairly promoted an improper credit rating, there is action in the courts. The courts will find the damages. I say, leave it to a jury. A jury is composed of men who are very fair in sizing up the parties and in considering the merits of a situation. The jury would give consideration to the specific type of abuse to which my friend refers.
I suggest that basically the subject matter would be found to come within the purview of civil rights rather than credit and security regulations and, therefore, would come under the law of libel or slander rather than under any special legislation on credit which would normally come within the provincial sphere. If the House should find that the matter should be referred to a committee for consideration, I suggest that it be dealt with not in isolation but in the broader context of abuses by way of eavesdropping, wiretapping and the other so-called breaches of privacy, upon which I think legislation is needed.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
The individual needs to have protection from abuses of this type, and the whole trend of our modern living is an attempt to catch up with the tremendous technological advances made by science. We have computers and we are worried in Canada today about whether we have control over our sources of information as a result of foreign computer industries entering the country. We
November 9, 1970

have to look at these problems in the context of a changing society, the post industrial era.
I submit that my hon. friend's motion has a lot of merit because it stimulates thought. I do not criticize him for it at all. I think it is great that we have this kind of discussion and research, and we should plod on with it. However, I would rather have seen some constructive ideas advanced regarding how he would propose to enforce the regulations. Does he envisage a sort of control board of counter-detective agencies or counter-electronic devices checking on officials? We might end up in a quagmire of electronic spying wars. This may be what it will come to, but I hope it never does. I hope that our teaching process will somehow develop the kind of Canadian most of us know, the kind of person who does not believe in snooping and backhanded methods. We will get there eventually, but we are certainly a long way from being able to control this situation.
My hon. friend did not specify what committee would deal with this matter if it ever gets to a committee. The Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs dealt with the problem of wire tapping and eavesdropping. In spite of having had the Bell Telephone Company before it, and having had a demonstration of the type of electronic eavesdropping devices and wire tapping devices that are used, no conclusive legislation has been advanced to date.
We are hoping that the government, with the research staff it has available and, I hope, with its friendly relationship with the computer industry, will be able to find some practical answers. But then, we still have the unanswered question of enforcement. Will this be left in the hands of the police force or will it be left to the Attorney General? There are advantages one way and the other.
If my hon. friend's motion were to succeed, what department of government would undertake the administration of this measure? What sort of tribunal would be set up to enforce it? What sort of administrative group would work under the agency? What sort of cost would be involved? I submit that you would perhaps inhibit the value of having any creditable reports, and you would end up with an expense that would be positive but a result that would be negative. For those reasons, I am opposing the motion.


David Orlikow: The hon.
member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Gibson) who just finished made a typical speech, the kind he usually makes. Whenever a subject is discussed or a proposal made that something be done to alleviate the difficulties of ordinary citizens, one can be certain that the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth, if he is in the House, will rise, and in his own inimitable way, will defend the rights of those who are privileged to exploit those who are being mistreated in our society.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Orlikow: I wonder if the hon. member has followed the work of his own government.
Credit Records


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth is rising on a question of
privilege.


Colin David Gibson: I suggest that this is the type of second rate, lowbrow, personal insinuation-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


David Orlikow: I wonder if the hon. member has followed the work of his own government? Has he gone back to the studies and reports of the Joint Committee on Consumer Credit, the co-chairman of which was the present Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford)? I wonder whether the hon. member has followed the work of the government department concerned with credit problems. I do not have my files with me today but the minister has spoken on more than one occasion, as have other members, about the need to protect the rights of ordinary citizens. I suppose the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth, who was bom with a silver spoon in his mouth, does not have to worry about having to live on credit. He is in that privileged 1 per cent of the population that does not. But the rest of the people of Canada have to worry about buying a house with a mortgage, about buying a refrigerator, a stove, a car or television set on credit; very few people in Canada, even people in the middle and upper income brackets, can pay cash.
If they do not pay cash, somebody has to do a review of their credit. One cannot blame the company which is making the sale for wanting to get some assurance that the person who wants to make the purchase will meet his payments. So retailers, mortgage companies, carry out credit checks on people who want to make purchases, and I do not fault them for that. How do they do it? We know something about that. A lot of studies have been carried out about it. The hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth obviously has not read any of them because he is not interested, but many studies have been made and the information is pretty clear. Retailers go to other retailers, as they should, to find out if the person who wants to make a purchase and who wants credit has been paying his bills.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth is rising again on a question of privilege.


Colin David Gibson: The hon. member has implied that I did not attend committee meetings. I attended them all, but I do not recall one occasion on which he was there, and if he was, he has not made any contribution whatsoever.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think hon. members would make a better contribution to this debate if they tried to stay on the subject matter rather than on such ancillary matters as committee meetings.

November 9, 197&
Credit Records


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not think the hon. gentleman should be allowed to take up the limited time in this debate on pseudo questions of privilege.


David Orlikow: I am discussing the question which is down for debate. May I say, for the information of the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth that I was on that committee only in the years before the member came to this House. When he says I was not there; that is the kind of stupid thing which I would expect from the hon. member. It may be the hon. member was there. If he was there, he certainly sat there with closed ears because he absorbed nothing.
I will now come back to the problem of the motion which is under discussion. What the hon. member who moved the motion is saying is that the person who wants credit should be told-I presume, and I listened to him very carefully-about the adverse things which may be said about him by certain people. That is all that is being proposed. I say that retailers and other people who are making sales go to other retailers for information. They also go to neighbours and to supposed friends. Let us suppose the neighbour does not like the person who wants credit and says that that person has a reputation for being drunk, for moving too frequently or for living with somebody who is not his wife. All these are examples which have been documented again and again in newspaper stories in every part of Canada. That information goes on the credit report, and a company decides that it will not extend credit to the person who wants to make a purchase because of these allegations.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
The hon. member makes the ridiculous suggestion that one can go to court and sue. Of course one can, if one knows the misdemeanour, the mistake or the allegation made against the person. But if it sits in the credit file, unsupported and unknown, how is the person who has been adversely affected by misinformation to go to court? Of course he cannot, and the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Gibson) knows that; he is not stupid. But he does not want them to have the protection which would be given under this proposal. It is as simple as that. He is fronting, as he so often does, for the interests that do not want that kind of disclosure.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: That is unadulterated nonsense.


David Orlikow: The hon. member has already spoken, and I enjoyed his remarks. The record tomorrow will prove how ridiculous he is. If one can be serious with that member, Mr. Speaker-and that is difficult-I tell him that before he speaks out criticizing a member of the opposition, he should take a look at what his government and ministers are proposing. If he did that, he would see that what is proposed in this motion is four square with what the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is
moving toward, and that is that we have more and more disclosure of information for the consumer and that the consumer be given the protection which he has not had in our society all these years.
If the hon. member would listen to his own minister and follow the course which the minister is moving toward, he would not attack members of the opposition who are in fact, by making a proposal like this, endorsing and supporting the views so frequently expressed by the minister. Mr. Speaker, I close by saying to the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth that with friends like him, the minister does not need enemies.


Mr. Douglas A. Hogarth (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity I have had this session to speak in private members' hour. It appears to me that of all the rules of the House which require reform, private members' hour should be looked into first. It must appear to be a hopeless task to the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) to put before the House a resolution with the validity of this one, knowing that the whole matter must be considered within one hour with only a remote hope that the government will ever adopt it. Only in that remote hope is there any value at all in putting forward this resolution.
Those of us with bills which have been discussed in private members' hour have given a great deal of thought to reforming the rules of the House, perhaps by the creation of a committee on ways and means or some of the many other methods available, so that this hour, with the good ideas so often projected in it, should have some meaning and purport.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Aird Hogarth: I am equally concerned that both members opposite have made an attack upon our friend, the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Gibson). I do not think that those who suggest they have been born in poverty-and I do not think there is much poverty among them-should attack a person because from birth he has been more fortunate. I have always found the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth to be most concerned with people from all walks of life, regardless of his own background.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Aird Hogarth: I am surprised that the hon. member for St. John's East did not present this motion in bill form. I find the motion to be extremely restrictive. It provides that the government should consider the advisability of introducing legislation to protect the privacy of every person against the improper disclosure of credit rating records and to protect the reputation of every person against any misinformation contained in such records. First of all, there is no suggestion by the hon. member for St. John's East that a person cannot be investigated without his knowledge, and it appears to me that this is where a great deal of the evil arises out of records of this nature. When a person is investigated without his knowl-

November 9, 1970

edge, hearsay evidence creeps into such a report, he is never presented with a copy of it, and for reasons never made known to him his contractual ability is affected. I think that, per se, is grossly unfair.
More and more we are coming to consider the protection of the privacy of the individual, making it the subject matter of modern legislation. More and more we are aware of the fantastic and overwhelming power of not only government but of bodies corporate acting in the commercial field within our society. Certainly, last year in the Justice Committee we spent a great deal of time on the invasion of privacy by electronic devices. Many provincial governments have passed legislation dealing with the subject. It is interesting to note from the Speech from the Throne that we can anticipate legislation along that line from this government.
In conjunction with this matter I would like to consider the problems pertaining to the storage of information about the person, the ability of machines to consolidate tremendous amounts of information about one person or many persons and to make it readily available throughout the world. Control of these machines and the organizations behind them must be a matter of great concern. One frightful aspect of this which is in the minds of us all is that of "Big Brother". As George Orwell wrote in "1984", the concept of government completely overshadows the privacy and right of the individual. The prospect of international corporations and multiconglomerate corporations having access to these data banks and the like which could so affect the individual in his daily life, is rather frightening. I think it is something with which we are concerned now and must be concerned about in the future.
As I have suggested, this resolution is relatively narrow in that it deals only with a very minor problem in relation to the whole issue. I have doubts about several aspects of the resolution. First of all, it has been suggested that it is a question that should properly be put in the hands of the federal government from a constitutional point of view. Certainly, it might be said to come within banks and banking, but it would not affect the many financial institutions which are subject only to the laws of the provinces in which they operate. Nor would it affect protective agencies which are under the law of the provinces and which so often find the information about which the hon. member complains.
It is certainly questionable whether it applies to the criminal law, though it is probably closer to that than any other aspect of the powers of the government of Canada. In that respect I am inclined to the view that it is far closer to provincial powers than to the Constitution. For my part, I am inclined to suggest that a resolution of this nature be left with the provincial government. In any event, the revelation of the material contemplated in the resolution might well be libellous and actionable if the motives of the person releasing it were not bona fide under the circumstances. I think it would be improper, under certain circumstances, to release such information even if it were the truth.
Credit Records
There are many circumstances which arise whereupon the disclosure of such information is very valuable to citizens of the community. For instance, somebody in the ordinary process of collecting judgment in the courts who wished to examine the ability of a judgment debtor to pay, would find this information of value, and surely it should be made available to the judgment creditor. I can think of many other situations that might arise which would limit this resolution in its present context.


Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I too have sympathy for the hon. member's notice of motion and I commend him for bringing it forward. It is not too often that I disagree with the conclusions of the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Gibson), but in this instance I am at odds with some of them. That is one of the great things about being Liberals; we are not afraid to disagree among ourselves.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) might have said more on this motion instead of attacking an hon. member of this House. I suppose that since he is a member of one of the smaller opposition parties in the House, he and his group are seldom subject to criticism. As a result, they have become unduly sensitive. That has been demonstrated by the leadership contest, so called, that has taken place and powder puff fights that have taken place among leaders of that party.
The hon. member who introduced the notice of motion has not suggested that it is the be-all and end-all of this matter. I think he was probably right in not introducing a bill and in bringing this matter forward in the form of notice of motion. For the first time I have heard that hon. member admit that he does not have all the answers. That is quite right. I think he suggested that the problems raised by the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth ought to be given careful scrutiny, and that they should be embodied in a government bill.
I have found, in talking to former clients of mine, that many of them have experienced difficulty in establishing a good credit rating or any credit rating. They see nothing wrong with someone inquiring about their credit background and very often say to the inquirer, "Go and speak to my bank manager." Often they mention someone with whom they have done business.
The notice of motion we are considering is carefully worded. The hon. member suggests that the government should consider the advisability of introducing legislation to protect the privacy of every person against the improper disclosure of credit rating records. That is the part that appeals to me. Very often an individual with a poor credit rating is unaware of his rating. Very often his poor credit rating results from an incident that took place when he was a young man and new in business. Perhaps then he was unable to pay a bill. That incident shows up on his credit rating and he may be unaware of it.

November 9, 1970
Credit Records
The invidious aspect of this is that he has no opportunity to defend himself when applying for credit. The bank may say to him, "We are sorry but we cannot grant you credit," and the applicant is not in a position to defend his record. Then the applicant begins to wonder if the debt he could not pay some years ago has more weight than he suspected on his credit record. He may wonder what the reason is for his poor credit rating. Nevertheless, the information is not made available to him; it is given only to the individual seeking information about his credit rating.
Often, when clients come to me and say, "Apparently I have a bad credit rating," the first thing I say is, "Do you deserve a poor credit rating? Do you have debts?" On the other hand, a person may early in his career have been sued, and as soon as action is instituted against the man, the credit bureau immediately takes cognizance of the fact. What the man's credit record does not show is whether he had a good defence to the action. If he is sued for a debt, that fact automatically is included in his credit record. What is not indicated, very often, is how the matter was resolved before the courts. Very often a person applying for credit may feel that he had a bona fide defence to the court action.
There are many instances in which an individual has been asked to defend an action wherein he is sued in respect of goods he has bought on credit. He may have bought the goods and signed a promissory note, and on refusing to pay on the promissory note because the goods were defective or not delivered, he is sued. The court will say to him that his defence is not a good defence in view of the promissory note; that his claim or counterclaim must be directed against the establishment which sold him the goods, but so far as the promissory note is concerned he owes the money and must pay.
Sometimes an individual in that situation will thumb his nose at his creditors, or perhaps leave the community. I remember one such incident. The individual returned two years later. The finance company sued him. By way of defence we alleged that the kind of interest the finance company was trying to collect was unconscionable. We were successful in our defence against the interest claim of the finance company. All too often such companies claim an usurious amount of interest on debt.
Another situation in which an individual is named as a defendant in a court action arises in the following manner. A person has bought a home, placed a first mortgage on the home and has paid regularly, say for five, six or seven years, on that mortgage. Then he has sold the house. The individual who has bought the house from him has made regular payments for a considerable time, then he has suddenly gone into default, possibly because of unemployment or other reasons. He has not kept up the payments. In that case the mortgagor sues, not only the individual who presently owns the home and who is responsible for making the payments but also the first owner because the name of the first owner is on the convenant under the terms of the mortgage. That person,
of course, has a perfectly good defence; he has paid his money. Surely, therefore, his credit rating should not suffer.
Because an individual has no opportunity to defend his credit rating, because he has no way of knowing whether he deserves his rating or not, I support the motion of the hon. member. It is not complete in its proposals. The hon. member does not say it is. It lacks many, many things. The hon. member is only suggesting that, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of introducing-here I would add the adjective "appropriate"-legislation to protect the privacy of every person against the improper disclosure of credit rating records. Therefore, I support the motion of the hon. member, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Jacques Guilbauli (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I should like first to commend the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) for introducing this motion which I think is quite necessary.
The hon. member is not the first one to object to the disclosure of facts concerning the private life of individuals. I remember reading, a few years ago, a book written by an American, Vance Packard, entitled Naked Society, where the activities of American credit bureaux were described in detail and which contained several cases where the life of an individual had been publicly revealed and scrutinized by those agencies.
Personally, for the last four years I have been closly associated with a large insurance company. I have had the opportunity to look at credit reports and I have often noticed, with disgust, that some of those credit reports contained information which had nothing to do with the financial situation of the persons involved. I read, in those credit reports, sentences such as these: "This individual is often intoxicated. He is a shady character and goes with several women."
I would say that those famous little pink reports often contain similar information and that they are handed to dealers, or any person who is in business and who regularly requests information of this kind from the credit bureau, information which have absolutely nothing to do with the financial situation, the steadiness and solvency of the individual involved.
Those are the reasons why I think the member for St. John's East is quite right in presenting his motion and I will support it.
I would like to offer two constructive solutions along this line, mainly intended for the Minister of Consumers and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) whom I invite to introduce soon in the House a piece of legislation aimed at protecting individual privacy.
This legislation should at least have two characteristics. First, a copy of any credit record should be sent to the individual concerned. I see no reason why a bill should not be submitted to the House including such a

November 9, 1970

provision and ensuring that the individual who has been inquired upon be sent a copy of the report. If this report is true, what is wrong with letting the individual involved having a copy of it? The individual is supposed to know the content of the report. Why not let him know the content of a report that will be circulated on request to several financial organizations?
And now my second recommendation: the individual receiving a copy of his report should be entitled to request the deletion of erroneous information contained in it.
I myself have checked the contents of certain reports with the people concerned. They contain, for unknown reasons, information that is entirely false, that was collected by the agent entrusted with the inquiry who could question neighbours, the neighbourhood grocer on the habits of the person concerned. Still, that information is in the report and often gives a distorted picture of the life of the individual.
To my mind, when we deal with facts and not opinions, and the facts are erroneous, on receiving copy of such a report, the individual should be able to have the false information deleted.
I feel, it might be well to introduce a bill containing far more details than those I have just mentioned. Such a bill would surely please the hon. member for St. John's East as much as me.
In closing, I merely wish to add that I am very pleased with the initiative taken by the hon. member for St. John's East, and were the government to introduce such a bill, I would be the first to support it.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Mr. Roberl P. Kaplan (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in this debate, not only because it is five minutes to six o'clock but because of an observation made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). I support the principle of this resolution. Measures should be introduced which would adequately ensure that the reputation of individuals concerned is properly protected. However, I do not agree with the way in which the resolution is put forward, "to protect the privacy of every person". It is not specific enough. I object to the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North that my colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Gibson), raised this as a class objection. Measures of this sort make no difference to two classes of people, the very rich and the very poor, because they do not have to resort to credit. However, to most of us, the average Canadian, credit is extremely important.
I agree with the point raised by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) that we are becoming a cashless society. It is apparent that credit is very important. It is desirable that we become a cashless society. However, this can only be accomplished by great technological advances, improved communication and advanced merchandising techniques. When these goals are attained, it will be desirable for our society to use them. A cash-
Public Order Act, 1970
less society will depend upon those who extend credit having ready access to the records of individuals who wish to buy from them. If dependable information is to be available, some sort of communications system will have to be devised whereby this information can be readily produced.
This brings us to the problem raised by the hon. member for St. John's East. It is not only in the interest of the purchaser, or borrower, that credit information be available. The vendor is just as anxious to have an opportunity to make a sale, but he must know the accurate and truthful credit position of his customer. I do not think there is any class factor involved in this question. I do not regard it as one in which sellers are pitted against producers. There is a common interest in all society that accurate information be available and that it can be verified.
I was impressed by some of the suggestions made, including that of the hon. member who proposed the resolution, that the important thing is not that this information be unavailable to the marketplace, people who want to see goods or extend credit, but that the information be available in a ready way to a person who wants to take advantage of his credit rating to buy or borrow. If this information is available to him, he can periodically check to see if it is accurate.
If we are to move into a cashless society, it is obvious that this sort of information must be available to all parties. For this reason I am pleased to support the idea behind the resolution. I congratulate the hon. member for having introduced it and in being fortunate enough to have it presented to the House at this time. I appreciate the discussion that has taken place. I have no doubt that it will be drawn to the attention of the government. Anything of value that is said this afternoon will be taken into consideration when legislation is being considered or introduced. I regret that the hon. member did not spell out in more detail the manner in which privacy could be protected. Nevertheless, our entry into the cashless society-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hour for the consideration of private members' business having expired, the House will revert to the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-181, to provide temporary emergency powers for the preservation of public order in Canada-Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)-Mr. Honey in the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
1022
November 9, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Public Order Act, 1970 AFTER RECESS
The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
William Arnold Peters: Before the committee rose, Mr. Chairman, I was saying that we have now had an opportunity to look at some of the reasons behind this bill.
One of the recent developments is the inquest which has just taken place in Montreal. As one follows the evidence, one appreciates the fact that only the information the prosecutor wishes to bring out is brought out during the proceedings. So the public is still left with an incomplete picture, despite the testimony of Bernard Lortie and Mrs. Rose. Nevertheless, reading the newspaper reports of this testimony one would be hard pressed, in my opinion, to find anything to be particularly scared of, though certain people were exercising a less than normal attitude toward human life in their treatment of individuals.
There is no indication that this was a great conspiracy, or part of a great conspiracy. The inquest proceedings showed that three of those directly concerned were down in Texas with the mother of two of them. They heard about the Cross kidnapping and then drove night and day to get back to Canada. They returned because they felt the others had kidnapped the wrong man, that they had no chance of securing the release of prisoners in accordance, I presume, with an FLQ decision made at a higher than cell level, that nothing could be expected from the kidnapping of Cross, a British diplomat, and that they would have to lay their hands on a political figure from Quebec. So they went out and captured Mr. Laporte.
The evidence at the inquest suggests that these were young people who acted on the spur of the moment, without planning. They took Mr. Laporte to a house where they had food enough for only one day. Indeed, they had to borrow from Mr. Laporte sufficient money for food for the next several days. This does not look like a grand conspiracy to me. It is more like a bunch of punks hell-bent on making a name for themselves in a very bad and nasty way. The testimony indicates that these young people made their decision on the way back. They were very sin-prised at the choice of victim for the other kidnapping, which was also an amateurish job.


Mr. Boulanger:: May I ask the hon. member a question? The hon. member said this was decided at the last minute. Did he not read in the report that they had made up their minds, when they were at the Maison des Pecheurs, to kidnap someone?


William Arnold Peters: There is an indication that this is not the only kidnapping which has taken place in the past year.


An hon. Member:: Or the only murder.


William Arnold Peters: I suppose there were 50 or 75 murders. It is interesting that in Vancouver there are between 25 and 30 murders a year, most of which are not solved. There are many murders in Montreal, I am sure, because of the size of the city. Montreal to many of us is just a city to
visit, but we must not forget that it is a very large city with some two millions inhabitants, and that murder is not unusual there. Four or five attempts, with plans or arrangements, had been made to kidnap other people. I believe the kidnapping of Mr. Laporte was probably more accidental than the evidence at the inquest would lead us to assume. I give some credit to the rumour, and it is only a rumour, that it was the Postmaster General whom they intended to capture and that Mr. Laporte was captured only as a substitute. This makes sense, in terms of some of the things which were said at the inquest. It appears to me to have been a very amateurish job.
There is no doubt that there is a problem with these young people. There is a problem in every country of the world with young people today. But to call this a conspiracy to destroy the whole fabric of our government and society is giving these people more credit than they really deserve. Condemn them all you like for the murder they committed and the kidnapping they arranged. At one time, my leader used the phrase that we were using a sledge-hammer to crack a peanut. The bill before us would be hard to justify on the basis of the evidence which came out at the inquest. This was hardly, it seems, part of a large conspiracy to destroy our democracy. It seems that more consideration was given to what was happening in Quebec City, inside the cabinet, and to its reaction to the situation than was given to the kidnapping and to the operations of the kidnappers.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
For example, the government in Quebec city could have fallen apart. We could not have been too strong in our condemnation of this because it did not have time to gain experience as a government, and since this would have been a calamity that had never befallen a provincial cabinet previously, it could not have been anticipated in any way. The point has been made that it should have been anticipated, and I think this is a good point. We should be prepared for such situations.
The reason the Canadian public has been so shocked at the turn of events is that it believed this sort of thing could only happen in a banana republic; that it could not happen to Canadians. But our experiences on the Saturday and Sunday when Mr. Laporte met his untimely end were almost like a psychedelic trip for the entire Canadian public. Some Liberal members have stated that 98 per cent of the Canadian public supported the government, and I think that is true. This is a matter the broadcasting committee will have to examine and to which a great number of people will have to pay close attention.
I am sure that had the Prime Minister asked for the sort of powers that de Gaulle was given when France has been in serious trouble for years and years, the Liberal Party would have given the powers to him. So would the 78 members from the province of Quebec, without any question at all.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Seventy-four.


William Arnold Peters: Seventy-four. To be fair to the Prime Minister, he was the only Liberal who had any qualms

November 9, 1970

about applying this sort of measure; he was the only one who said it was a dangerous piece of legislation. Every other Liberal was willing to go along with the government.
We shall have to examine why this happened. Perhaps there should be some curtailment of the freedom of the news media to prevent their producing stories that have no basis in fact. For example, Mr. Chairman, if you cast your mind back to that Saturday night when we were debating the proclamation of the War Measures Act, you will recall that it was reported that three bodies had been found. One was at St. Hubert, one at Dorval or some community north of the city, and a third body on the back seat of a car in a parking lot in downtown Montreal-and all were reported to be the body of Mr. Cross. However, somebody must have spirited those bodies away, or something, because they were not factors in the discussions that followed the next day.
The Minister of Justice must concern himself about the presentation of facts to the public in a way that forced us to adopt such a strong position. Most Canadians are very staid people. We come from the northern hemisphere, the colder part of the continent, and we do not usually react in the same manner as the more hot blooded people in temperate climates. As a nation, we reacted to this situation as a bunch of sheep would react.
I attended recently one of those early November 11 Remembrance Day observances in the town of South Porcupine, and was interested to hear many veterans who had served their country and had spent four or five years in uniform defending the very freedoms for which they had fought. Yet I am sure that most of those people would be in favour of law and order to safeguard their liberties. Recent events have made us for the first time consider just what democracy means to us, what we owe to democracy and what democracy owes to us. No doubt there are limits to freedom. There are also certain rights for which we have fought over hundreds of years, which we should guard very sacredly and should be willing to fight very hard and long to maintain.
I suggest that television had something to do with the recent public alarm. It reminded me of the Orson Welles play which took place years ago at Halloween and caused a public stampede in New York city. People turned on the radio news and were told that Martians had landed and were attacking the city of New York. A number of people were killed. Some had listened only to a bit of the play and had not appreciated that it was a play. Most of the people in the United States listened to the play that night, probably because the program on the other station was so bad. As Members of Parliament we will have to consider recent events impassionately and, in my opinion, without political bias. This is the sort of situation that can be duplicated and could possibly stampede people into taking a position that has not properly been thought out and which might make it impossible for the nation to function as a nation.
One thing that has been clear throughout the whole episode which resulted in the invocation of the War
Public Order Act, 1970
Measures Act and in this bill now before the committee is the total failure of our police forces to operate efficiently. This afternoon I boarded a plane in northern Quebec and overheard several businessmen talking about this question. They were concerned about the police because they were connected with municipal politics. They discussed what might happen in their own communities in view of the inability of the police in Quebec to operate efficiently. For example, I am told there are 51 police forces in greater Montreal, most of which do not talk to each other and jealously guard their territory. In the main they are three or four-man police forces. I suggest that some arrangement will have to be arrived at for making police jurisdictions more national in scope. No policemen can better serve a small community than those who know the area. The trouble is that most of these policemen do not have proper training.
What of our provincial police? I am sure every Member of Parliament was amused and at the same time shocked to hear the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police say in a press interview the other day that all we needed to do to wind up the whole matter was to make one telephone call and then have an emergency cabinet meeting. This reminded me of the first speech made by the commissioner shortly after he was appointed, which he was then told was to be his last speech.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


Gérald Laniel: Order. The hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth on a point of order.


Colin David Gibson: Mr. Chairman, I submit that the conduct of the commissioner of the police has nothing to do with this amendment, and reference to it is out of order.


Gérald Laniel: Order. I would remind the hon. member that it was agreed by all hon. members that discussion on clause 2 of the bill would be of a general nature. That is why the Chair has been lenient until this stage.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I welcome the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth back to the chamber. I was pointing out that the police commissioner had originally got himself into trouble, and this is the second time for him to be in trouble. It reminds me of the little guy who went out to the station with his horse and buggy to pick up the wife he had ordered from Eaton's catalogue. When they were driving out to the farm, the horse tripped. The farmer looked at the horse and said, "That's once." They drove along a little farther and the horse tripped a second time. The farmer looked at the horse and said, "That's twice". They drove a little farther and the horse tripped a third time. Then the farmer hauled out his pistol, shot the horse-


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I regret having to interrupt the hon. member, but I must inform him that his time has expired.
23226-65i

November 9, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970


Stanley Howard Knowles: We can't leave the horse halt shot.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, we just have to find out what happened to the horse.


Gérald Laniel: The hon. member may continue his speech if he has the unanimous consent of the committee. Is there unanimous agreement to let the hon. member complete his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Arnold Peters: I thank the committee for their indulgence. Anyway, he shot the horse and the new wife immediately started to berate him. He turned to the wife and said, "That's once". This is the same story with the commissioner. He was told once. Now this is twice. I am looking forward to the third time.
The point I would like to make is that our Canadian police forces have not been properly trained in riot control or in preventing assassinations. Our police forces, particularly the RCMP, spend a lot of their time tackling our national drug problem. They have infiltrated the youth, underground drug market. They have trained their dogs to sniff out marijuana, but very few of their dogs have been trained to sniff out explosives, something with which we will probably be concerned for some time yet.
In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, it would be dangerous for the House to pass this legislation unamended. If the government was justified at all in proclaiming the War Measures Act, that justification lasted for only the first 24 hours. There is a retroactive provision in this legislation. It is like saying that if you belonged to the Kiwanis five years ago, and we now outlaw the Kiwanis, you could automatically be committed to five years in prison. The idea is frightening.
Freedom is an expensive commodity. It has to be safeguarded. I believe the Minister of Justice will be as glad to listen to the conscience of small minority groups as he is to accept the support of members of his own party. The minister could easily be stampeded into taking action that would cut the essential liberties of the Canadian people, unless it is pointed out to him that there are limitations on the amount of freedom we can forgo until the point is reached when we have lost freedom itself. Therefore, I hope he will consider favourably the amendments proposed, particularly those dealing with the retroactive clause. If he does not, he will find he will not have the support of many people in this House.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, I have listened carefully throughout this debate and have noted an assumption made by many people that economic problems in the province of Quebec have been responsible for the creation of the FLQ.


Colin David Gibson: Is that so?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I wish the hon. member for Hamilton Wentworth would contain himself at least until I get
[The Deputy Chairman.]
started on my remarks. Economic conditions in parts of Quebec may well have been responsible for some of the motivation behind the FLQ, but there are many other factors that one has to consider in this regard. In a situation such as this we are dealing with fanatical people who are not often motivated by logic, and economic problems are things that give rise to logical motivations. I would not like this particular assumption to go completely unchallenged because we are dealing with an extremely serious matter, something we will have to consider for a long time. As the Minister of Justice indicated earlier, we shall have to deal with permanent legislation along these lines at a future date.
Dealing with the legislation before us, as has been pointed out by various ministers the situation at the present time in Quebec is an unusual one. It is dangerous. It requires special measures, indeed, extreme measures. In my view, the people of Canada support the government both with respect to the invocation of the War Measures Act and the introduction of this legislation. A number of amendments having to do with some of the details of the legislation have been outlined by my colleague, amendments which I support, but nevertheless in general I think the people of Canada quite approve the government's actions. More than that, Mr. Chairman, the people of Canada want terrorists, terrorism and terrorist activities stopped.
Three or four years ago there was a general attitude in this country of allowing people in Canada to do their own thing. This extended to freedom of expression, no matter how free it might be. It was thought people should be allowed to do anything they wished, no matter what violent means accompanied their activities. But after the recent events in Quebec, particularly the horrifying murder of the provincial Minister of Labour, people have had enough of this. There has been a great change of opinion in Canada, a great feeling of revulsion toward this sort of activity. There is no doubt about that.
Some of us try to get around a bit and talk about these matters. We are not entirely confined to the ivory towers in Ottawa. We try to find out what people are thinking. In my view, most people are completely disgusted at the recent actions of this tiny minority group in Quebec, and indeed of related minority groups holding similar ideas in other parts of the country. People wish this kind of thing to be dealt with. I have had a great many letters, as I am sure have all hon. members, on this subject. From the inquiries and observations I have made, I have the impression that about 85 per cent of the people of Canada wish this Parliament to bring in pretty severe measures to deal with activities such as murder, kidnapping for political purposes and threats to blow up airliners with passengers on board, such as the FLQ reportedly has done.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
As I have indicated, a few years ago people were more inclined to be sympathetic toward killers and murderers. They seemed to take the position that perhaps it was not their fault and we should look after them. Now, however,
November 9, 1970

people have come to the conclusion that we cannot go along with that idea entirely and that something must be done about people who, although they may be psychotic, are motivated to do these things. People are beginning to realize there should be some sympathy extended to the victims of murderers rather than to the murderers themselves.
The remarks I shall make in the next moment or so I indended to make at perhaps a later date when more permanent measures are brought in by the Minister of Justice, as promised. On second thoughts, however, it would seem that these remarks might be appropriate at the present time. This bill has a limited life. It is a temporary measure which is to expire next April. In view of the fact that it is a temporary measure, it would seem to me we might as an experiment introduce certain amendments. I would hope the Minister of Justice would give consideration to these.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He has made no statement concerning what he would agree to.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: As my colleague the hon. member for Calgary North has said, the Minister of Justice has not yet indicated what he might agree to. I suppose he is reserving his decision in this regard until he has heard all the representations. I hope this is the case. The present bill is more acceptable to, but reminiscent of, the regulations under the War Measures Act. It would seem to me that since we are in the middle of an experimental period regarding the removal of the death penalty in Canada, except of course in respect of a policeman or other law officer-apparently it is all right if the Governor General or a like person should be killed-the government might be well advised, because of the unusual circumstances which exist in Quebec, which on the government's own admission will probably exist until April, to reinstate the death penalty for murder during this period. In addition to that, since the FLQ reportedly has threatened to carry out bombings and kidnappings and has threatened death to victims, it might be desirable that capial punishment also be introduced as a temporary measure in respect of kidnapping where threats of death are made, or in respect of the hijacking of aircraft involving a threat to blow up the aircraft with passengers on board.
I would think these things might be introduced on a trial basis until next April. I do not wish to become involved in the argument concerning capital punishment versus non-capital punishment. Such arguments have been heard many times. We have heard that capital punishment is not a deterrent. In many cases capital punishment probably is not a deterrent when we are dealing with fanatical people. But very often it is a deterrent. If we were to follow the argument to its logical conclusion, we might ask why it is necessary to have penalties in law if none of them is deterrent. There is no doubt in my mind that capital punishment is a deterrent, and so long as it would prevent people being murdered or blown up I think it would accomplish something.
Public Order Act, 1970
Thinking back to a time when I was very young, I recall a notorious kidnapping. I refer to the kidnapping of the son of Charles Lindbergh, the Atlantic flyer. This case received a good deal of publicity in the media which I do not think was very helpful. There was a rash of kidnappings throughout the United States at the time. Capital punishment was introduced for kidnapping and this put at stop to it right off the bat. In view of the unusual circumstances in Quebec and perhaps in other parts of Canada at the present time, I suggest that as a trial measure we might introduce the death penalty for murder and political kidnapping as well as hijacking of aircraft. Then we could examine the situation in order to determine the result.
In respect of the experiment we are now conducting concerning the removal of the death penalty, which I believe is to be reviewed in 1973, I think the statistics are somewhat misleading and confusing, but at the present time they would seem to indicate that the murder rate has just about doubled in Canada since the death penalty has been removed. It is more pronounced in some parts of the country than in others. This is a worrisome situation. The rate might have increased in any event. However, the fact is that the murder rate has since the death penalty was temporarily suspended.
I do not think there would be any harm in introducing these extremely harsh measures until next April. The government had no qualms about introducing harsh measures in respect of the province of Quebec, and possibly elsewhere, as has been suggested. It is true that since the troops have been around, the FLQ people have been playing doggo. They are lying low. But the moment the troops are gone, their activity may start again. I would hope the minister would consider putting some of these measures into effect until next April. Then if it should appear they have had a beneficial effect, well and good. If not, they can be reviewed. I believe this is a suggestion which should be considered and adopted.


Mr. Roy (Timmins):: Mr. Chairman, the bill before us is the result of tragic events which happened in Quebec.
It is most unfortunate that this measure was not among the laws already existing and able to deal with the case of the FLQ. Such a law would have been much more suitable to the problem than the War Measures Act which the government had to invoke.
God willing, Mr. Chairman, I hope that we never have to invoke the legislation before us even if it is much less stringent than the War Measures Act.
This provisional bill it intended to replace the War Measures Act in this period of emergency. It is not a permanent bill, and I believe that the government deserves to be commended for dalaying the introduction of a permanent bill at a future date when calm has been completely restored and the judgment of individuals and Parliaments is more detached.

November 9, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
Hon. members opposite strike at details of the events. They desperately seek something on which to hang on to in order to defend untenable positions. They speak about the lack of information, while they already have supported much more stringent legislation with less information, as it were. They speak about the abuse of rights and repression, while they mention no name or no action to prove it. They speak about numerous rumours which allegedly come from sources inside the government, without having the courage to check those rumours and to reveal their authors.
Opposition parties say that they will support this legislation although they will submit amendments. Let us see what is suggested in this legislation.
It is asserted that our freedom is possible only to the extent that it rests on the respect of moral and spiritual values and on the supremacy of the law. I will never believe that one could deny this principle unless one is an anarchist.
It is also stated that the FLQ has exercised violence in Canada and that this movement is still dangerous. Certainly no one will deny that. In fact, that violence goes back to 1963 and continues with increased intensity.
It is stated that the Canadian Parliament wishes to take measures to protect society. Surely we will not be asked to wait for an insurrection before considering necessary legislation. In fact, the New Democratic Party blames the government for invoking the War Measures Act when other legislation was available. What other legislation, Mr. Chairman?
Even if the War Measures Act was secretly proclaimed, 40 odd persons are now being sought and remain undiscoverable.
It is said that the FLQ is an unlawful association. Indeed, all hon. members agree on that. One would have to be extremely naive to believe that the FLQ is a lawful and commendable association.
It is said that if an offence is committed after this legislation is enacted, the past record of an FLQ member could serve as evidence against him. I cannot see that the FLQ members could not be identified as such before the coming into force of the legislation.
Some punishment is recommended for FLQ accomplices or supporters. Surely they are as guilty as those they help.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
It is suggested that detention be much shorter than that stipulated by the War Measures Act. It must be recognized that detention is necessary in such circumstances.
Arrests are to be made without warrant. Of course such a proposal opens the door to abuse. But how can we fight the abuses of a revolutionary movement without adopting very severe measures?
It proposes entering without warrant any premises suspected of harbouring terrorists. Everyone will agree that such premises must be entered in order to find proofs and arrest the terrorists. A similar provision must also apply to the seizure of objects found on those premises.
Finally, the act is to apply for a set period of time. This shows that the government is intent upon avoiding abuse in the application of such severe and serious bills. While recognizing the seriousness of the situation, the government is anxious to normalize it and a definite duration is given to this bill.
I am convinced that the majority of my constituents will approve me when I have the pleasure of supporting Bill C-181.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 2 carry?


Mr.   De Bane@: Are we going to vote, Mr. Chairman? Do you want me to read again the amendments?


Gérald Laniel: Yes.


Mr.   De Bane@: I move that clause 2 (d) of Bill C-181 be deleted and replaced by the following:
(d) "unlawful association" means the group of persons or association known as the Front de Liberation du Quebec, any successor group or successor association thereof, as well as any group or association that advocates the use of force or crime to accomplish or as an aid in accomplishing the same or substantially the same governmental change within Canada as that advocated by the said Front de Liberation du Quebec.
And, finally, that clause 2 (b) be deleted and replaced by the following:
(b) "peace officer" means the limited classes of persons specified in the orders in council of the Governor General or of a Lieutenant Governor in Council.


Gérald Laniel: Order. I would first outline to the hon. member for Matane that it might be desirable to dispose of the amendment he is proposing in connection with clause 2 (b) since the Chair has some reservations as to the form of the amendment relating to clause 2 (d).

Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the said amendment?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gérald Laniel: Will those in favour please rise. Will those opposed please rise.
Amendment (Mr. De Bane) negatived: Yeas, 1; nays, 28.


Gérald Laniel: I declare the amendment lost. Shall clause 2 carry?


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to participate in this debate. I think that the speeches made by the leader and deputy leader of our party express my views and that it is sufficient for me to vote as I feel I should. However, I am impelled to say a few words in this debate because of the speech which the Minister of Justice made last week in which, having asked the House to consider this matter calmly and dispassionately, he then proceeded to spend more than half his speech in a

November 9, 1970

bitter attack on the members of this party who voted against the government's War Measures Act.


Mr. Howard (Slreena):: He was desperate.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I am not hurt by what the minister did, but I must say that I am a little puzzled. I do not think I need say that we in this group, as all Members of Parliament and an overwhelming majority of the Canadian people, are opposed to violence. We oppose assassination. Mr. Chairman, our party has very close association with labour and democratic socialist parties in Europe. We know what our colleagues in Germany, Norway, Denmark, Holland and Belgium, to mention just a few countries, have suffered as a result of violence and totalitarian methods from both the right and the left.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: Even Russia had trouble.


David Orlikow: The hon. member for Calgary North mentioned Russia in his speech the other day, but I do not intend to get into that subject.
So, Mr. Chairman, we could do nothing but oppose the kind of actions in which the terrorists of the FLQ in Quebec have participated. We support every action that this government or any other government would take to apprehend, to charge, to try, to convict and to punish those people guilty of criminal actions. But we were and are disturbed by the tremendous powers taken by the government when it implemented the War Measures Act, and by the tremendous power which the government will still have if it passes the bill which was introduced by the Minister of Justice.
We are concerned about the fact that the power which the government took, and will take for itself under this bill when it passes, will not be exercised by this government, this Prime Minister or this Minister of Justice, but will in fact be exercised by another government, by a provincial Attorney General, by provincial and municipal police over whom the federal government and this Parliament have little or no control.
Another thing that concerns us, Mr. Chairman, is that of over 400 people who were apprehended, held in custody for up to 21 days and questioned, more than 350 were released. I ask the Minister of Justice to give some thought in the days, weeks and months ahead to what the effect will be on those people who were not involved in terrorism, kidnapping and assassination because of the kind of procedures that were followed-


An hon. Member:: They are out already.


David Orlikow: -in arresting them when they were not guilty of any criminal act. All, or most of the people who were apprehended and have since been released must have been innocent or else there was not enough evidence to convict them. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it is extremely dangerous to arrest and hold people when they have not been guilty of illegal acts.
Public Order Act, 1970
The government had tremendous support when it asked for endorsation of the War Measures Act. To my knowledge, not a single newspaper opposed the government, and as far as I know only one or two newspaper columnists opposed the government. The House voted 190 to 16 to support the government. We 16 who voted against the government knew that the government's action had widespread support. We knew that the vote which we were casting was unpopular but we took that action because we felt, and members of this House and the public may think we were wrong, that the government's measures went too far and that they could be used to harass innocent people.
Mr. Chairman, why did the Minister of Justice react so violently and bitterly toward the 16 members of the House of Commons who voted against the government's proposals?


An hon. Member:: Read his speech and you will find out.


David Orlikow: He knew and he said that we had no support. I think he was right two weeks ago, we did not have much support then. But he knew that and he did not need to spend his time attacking us. I do not mind that he attacked us, I am used to that, but as I listened to his speech I wondered why he carried on as he did. I gave it some thought and I think the reason he did so is pretty obvious now. The Prime Minister has had almost 100 per cent support of the press of Canada since he came to Ottawa, Mr. Chairman. While he was Minister of Justice-


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might rise on a point of order.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka rising on a point of order?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Yes, I am, Mr. Chairman.


Russell Clayton Honey: The hon. member for Parry
Sound-Muskoka.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: In rising on a point of order, I apologize to the hon. member for interrupting him but it is necessary to put this question under Standing Order 6(5) before nine o'clock, and the proceedings must be interrupted at this time. I am rising to propose, under Standing Order 6 (5) (a) (i), that the Committee of the Whole continue beyond the ordinary hour of adjournment for the purpose of completing the committee stage of Bill C-181.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. The motion just put by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka is meant to be put to the Speaker in the chair, so I shall rise and resume the chair immediately.


William Arnold Peters: The Chairman can't just do that.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please.

November 9, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970


William Arnold Peters: Order. He can't do that.


An hon. Member:: Of course he can.


William Arnold Peters: He had better ask about it.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Certainly the Chairman has the right. The proceedings may be interrupted. Mr. Chairman, since I started this matter, may I point out Standing Order 6 (5) (a) (i) provides that the proceedings of the Committee of the Whole may be temporarily interrupted for the purpose of proposing this motion, and that it must be made to Mr. Speaker in the chair. Therefore, Your Honour should take the chair for the purpose of hearing the motion.


An hon. Member:: That is right.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. It is the understanding of the Chair that this kind of motion is quite different from the one where the Committee of the Whole has to have permission to report progress. Therefore, I shall resume the chair at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, how can you leave the chair unless instructed to do so by the committee?


An hon. Member:: It is in the rules.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It is in the rules we wrote, Stanley.


Mr. Bell:: You had better be careful; the bill might go through. Even the minister is against the bill going through.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I might also point out, Mr. Chairman, that when the hon. member moved his motion-


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. If hon. members of the committee would permit me, I would refer them to Standing Order 6(5)(a)(i), which reads as follows:
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
The motion must relate to the business then being considered provided that proceedings in any Committee of the Whole may be temporarily interrupted for the purpose of proposing a motion under the provisions of this Standing Order.
According to my interpreting of this Standing Order, the committee does not have to rise and report progress.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, it is quite clear from the portion of the Standing Order that Your Honour has read, that if the proceedings of the Committee of the Whole are to be temporarily interrupted, surely that would have to be at the direction of the committee. Surely, it is not the right of one member to say, "Mr. Chairman, please leave the chair". Your Honour does not have to leave the chair, surely.
I might also point out that at the time the hon. member moved his motion he was not in order, although he would
be in order now, it being after nine o'clock. I submit he would have to move the motion again.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Surely that is not so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The motion must be proposed in the hour preceding the time at which the business under consideration would be interrupted. In this instance, the hour before ten o'clock is between nine o'clock and ten o'clock. The hon. member made his motion before nine o'clock. I am also suggesting to Your Honour that is is not a proper point of order when an hon. member who has not the floor interrupts for the purpose of bringing a motion. You can only bring forward a motion like that when you have the right to the floor. I think the hon. member did this the wrong way.


Russell Clayton Honey: The Chair agrees completely with the last point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. It is not permissible for an hon. member to seek the floor on a point of order and to put a motion of this type regarding the adjournment. The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka should seek the floor after the hon. member for Winnipeg North has finished speaking; otherwise we shall have all kinds of interruptions and all kinds of motions for adjournment. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Winnipeg North.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I was trying to say, before being so summarily interrupted, that I think the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister attacked the NDP so vigorously because they are not used to being criticized by the press. It is amazing that the press, which was unanimous in its support of the government when the government introduced the War Measures Act, has in the space of less than three weeks, turned so resoundingly to criticize the Prime Minister and the government. The Minister of Justice ought to have answered the kind of attack the press made on the Prime Minister: they were much more vicious, much more biting, than the attack made by any member of our party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Orlikow: One columnist of a large and responsible newspaper headed a column with the words "Spiro Trudeau". I suggest that is why the minister took the time to attack the members of our party. He realized that it is not politically wise to attack and criticize the press; yet being disturbed by press criticism, he answered by attacking the NDP. The Winnipeg Free Press-and there is no more partisan Liberal in Canada-has in its editorials asked the Prime Minister to tell the people of Canada why he felt it necessary to invoke the War Measures Act. As I say, it was because of press attacks that the Minister of Justice attacked the members of our party so vigorously.
I said that we oppose violence; we oppose kidnappings and we oppose murder. We are, therefore, very pleased that one of the kidnappers has been arrested. We hope, as I am sure do all members of this House, that other arrests of the guilty ones will follow very quickly. If four,
[The Chairman.]
November 9, 1970

five or six people can kidnap, hold captive and then murder a person, whether he is the Minister of Labour of a province or anybody else, and carry out their actions with a mindless sort of violence, we ought to be disturbed. That is very disturbing.
Nevertheless, if I have interpreted newspaper reports of Bernard Lortie's evidence at the inquest held Saturday correctly, that evidence indicates to me that the kidnapping of Mr. Laporte, reprehensible as it was and creating the extremely difficult problems for this country which it did, was not what some had alleged it to be. That evidence indicated to me very clearly that although this country is facing trouble and was facing trouble, we are not and were not facing the kind of danger which we were warned against by a many members of the government.
I will not go into detail with respect to all the speeches made by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Agriculture and-I could go on and on. I will not speak about what the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion may or may not have said outside the House on that famous hot line radio program. But I want to put on the record again a couple of paragraphs from the speech the minister made in the House on October 16. It is reported at page 224 of Hansard. Among other things, the minister said on that occasion:
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 pessimists say that the FLQ has some 3,000 members.
An hon. member interrupted and said, "More". The minister continued:
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.
Some say: Why have you not made it illegal? That is what we are doing under these regulations though it might not be the best solution. It is known that the FLQ is made up of cells of two or three persons each, cells that do not know each other, that do not necessarily work hand in hand and that are now in touch simply through coded messages broadcast free of charge by our radio stations.
I pause to make it clear that the minister said that coded instructions were going out over radio stations. He did not imply, as the right hon. member for Prince Albert this afternoon attempted to imply, that those people worked for the CBC. They may have worked for other stations. It is interesting that we have not heard the minister repeat these very serious allegations since October 16. What about those coded instructions that were going out? Have the people involved been apprehended? Have they been charged? What about the infiltration that has been alleged? Were the police of Montreal infiltrated? Were the Quebec provincial police, the Royal Canadi-
Public Order Act, 1970
an Mounted Police and the armed forces infiltrated? We do not know, Mr. Chairman.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
It seems to our members, as it seems to most newspaper reporters, that if these charges were based on facts, we should have been told this so we could deal with it. It is because we have not got any of the evidence which may or may not exist-it has not been given to us or the public-that we have our doubts about the procedures which the government has followed. I ask the Minister of Justice why the government waited until October 15 or 16 to take action. After all, the activities of the FLQ did not begin with the kidnapping of Mr. Cross and Mr. Laporte? Bombings by the FLQ began in 1963, and thefts of dynamite have been going on for years.
What steps did the government take to combat the subversive, illegal actions of the FLQ? Was the security and intelligence section of the RCMP beefed-up between 1963 and 1970? We do not know, Mr. Chairman. The police forces in Canada have not been able to infiltrate the terrorist organizations in Quebec in the same manner as the FBI-without the acts that the government of Canada has asked Parliament to pass-has been able to infiltrate terrorist organizations in the United States. Canadians have a right to know what the government was doing between 1963 and 1970 to eliminate the dangers which have arisen and which occurred previously, namely, the dangerous, illegal, terrorist actions of the FLQ.
I believe that police action is necessary. But that alone will not eliminate the causes which led to the feelings of frustration which produced the terrorists of Quebec. I am not going to discuss economic and social conditions in Quebec, but I suggest that the Minister of Justice should read carefully the statement made last week by the Quebec Welfare Council, which is certainly not a very radical organization, to the Senate Committee on Poverty. They described the kind of situation that exists in the slum areas of Montreal and Quebec, the lack of adequate housing, recreational facilities, medical and hospital services. Until we do something about this situation, we will not eliminate those feelings which permit the FLQ to get the support of a small percentage of the people of the province of Quebec. Until we do that, we will fail.
The people of Canada, especially those in Quebec, are upset, disturbed and frightened because of what has occurred in the province of Quebec during the past few years. It is not surprising they feel the way they do. It would be surprising if they could be objective about the situation. They want action. We support their feelings. We support the government in any action it takes to correct the situation and to apprehend those who are guilty. Some people, including some members of this House, feel that the danger is so great that in order to stamp out the danger it may be necessary to arrest some innocent people; that this is not too great a price to pay. Some have said that you cannot make an omelet without breaking some eggs. Although I understand that feeling, I do not agree with it. We have tried to read and understand history. We have looked at other countries and we
1030

November 9, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
have looked at the attempts of colonial powers to stop independent movements by imprisoning the leaders of those movements. All those attempts met with failure, Mr. Chairman.
I suggest to the Minister of Justice, who has some family relationships in Winnipeg, that he read the history of Winnipeg. In 1919, faced by a strike the government of the day passed an amendment known as section 98 of the Criminal Code which gave that government tremendous powers. Under that section of the Criminal Code they arrested and imprisoned six or more strike leaders. There is no similarity between the leaders of the 1919 strike and the leaders of the FLQ. The leaders of the 1919 strike believed, as we do, that changes in the system can be made democratically. However, Mr. Chairman, they were imprisoned because they led a strike.
The result of imprisoning those men has been that for more than 50 years the people of Winnipeg, at least that part represented by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and myself, in almost every federal and provincial election have elected representatives who are not members of the Liberal party or the Conservative party. The arrests and imprisonment of the strike leaders resulted in a feeling of hostility toward the establishment which still exists among a large group of people in Winnipeg.
I am opposed to the FLQ, their philosophy and methods of terror. I disagree with them completely. Although separatism would be a disaster for the province of Quebec and Canada, advocating separatism by democratic means is not illegal. When people who are not terrorists are arrested and imprisoned, we are creating martyrs and sympathy for the cause of separatism.
I would support this bill if I felt that it gave the government and the police authorities the powers they need, but I cannot support it if it contains provisions which drastically curtail the democratic rights of people, or if it contains provisions which would make its penalties retroactive. That is completely contrary to the basic premise of a democratic system. I urge the government to consider seriously and agree to amendments which will make the bill fair and acceptable to members of this House and all Canadians.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Cha;rman, I apologize to the hon. member for unduly interrupting previously. Since Your Honour ruled that I should wait until the hon. member finished his speech, I now move, pursuant to Standing Order 6(5)(a):
That the sitting of the Committee of the Whole House continue beyond the ordinary hour of adjournment for the purpose of completing the committee stage of Bill C-181.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman, to ask whether the hon. member would give consideration to rewording his motion so that we sit for an additional hour beyond the time of adjournment, rather than the open-ended motion he is proposing. We would be quite happy to sit an hour beyond the normal time of adjournment, but we feel
that to sit all night would not be the way in which to deal properly with this important legislation.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


Gordon Harvey Aiken: If the intention is that the question be put after one hour, I would agree.


J. Michael Forrestall: Which question?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: All questions.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Edward Broadbent: I should like to speak against the motion. There are a number of serious-


An hon. Member:: It is not debatable.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order. Perhaps I should read the Standing Order which was cited as the basis of the motion put forward by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. It reads as follows:
6(5) (a) When Mr. Speaker is in the chair, a member may propose a motion, without notice, to continue a sitting through a lunch or a dinner hour or beyond the ordinary hour for daily adjournment for the purpose of considering a specified item of business or a stage or stages thereof subject to the following conditions:
(i) The motion must relate to the business then being considered provided that procedures in any Committee of the Whole may be temporarily interrupted for the purpose of proposing a motion under the provisions of this standing order.
My understanding is that the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka has moved, under the provisions of this Standing Order, that the proceedings of the committee be temporarily interrupted for the purpose of putting his motion under Standing Order 6(5)(a). In these circumstances I think I should proceed to put the motion. Before doing so, I would read the relevant portion of Standing Order 6(5(b) which is as follows:
When Mr. Speaker puts the question on such a motion, he should ask those members who object to rise in their places. If ten or more members then rise, the motion shall be deemed to have been withdrawn, otherwise, the motion shall have been adopted.
Mr. Deputy Speaker resumed the chair and put the following question:
The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) moves:
That the sitting of the Committee of the Whole House continue beyond the ordinary hour of adjournment for the purpose of completing the committee stage of Bill C-181.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would ask hon. members who object to rise in their places.
And more than ten members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. There being more than ten members objecting and rising in their places, the motion is deemed to be withdrawn.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a point of order. Before Your Honour leaves the chair and
[Mr. Orlikow.l
November 9, 1970

we go back into committee, I wonder whether there would be unanimous consent for the committee to sit until eleven o'clock? We would agree to that.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do not hear unanimous consent. I will now resume the chair in Committee of the Whole.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Don't keep playing games, Stanley. If you don't want to sit, say so.


David Lewis: You made a speech saying this legislation should be carefully scrutinized.


An hon. Member:: They prefer the War Measures Act.
And the House having resumed in committee:


Russell Clayton Honey: Shall clause 2 carry?


Mr.   De Bane@: Mr. Chairman, I moved an amendment to clause 2(d), so that it will read as follows:
(d) "the unlawful association" means the group of persons or association known as Le Front de Liberation du Quebec and any successor group or successor association of the said Le Front de Liberation du Quebec, or any group of persons or association that advocates the use of force or the commission of crime as a means of or as an aid in accomplishing the same or substantially the same political governmental change within Canada as that advocated by the said Le Front de Liberation du Quebec.
The purpose of this amendment is twofold. Firstly, I think that it in its present form, clause 2(d) tends to confuse the terms "the unlawful association" and an "unlawful association". Secondly, each clause of this legislation regarding public order should include the definitions of the terms used in that clause. Now, since clause 3 gives a definition of the term "unlawful association", I think that the definition should be included in clause 2 under the heading "Interpretation".


Frank Howard: With respect, Mr. Chairman, would you mind reciting the amendment?


Russell Clayton Honey: I will ask the Clerk Assistant to read the amendment now before the committee.

And the Assistant Clerk (legal affairs) having read the following amendment:


Mr.   De Bane@: that subclause (d) of clause (2) be deleted and replaced by the following:
"The unlawful association" means the group of persons or association known as Le Front de Liberation du Quebec and any successor group or successor association of the said Le Front de Liberation du Quebec, or any group of persons or association that advocates the use of force or the commission of crime as a means of or as an aid in accomplishing the same or substantially the same political government change within Canada as that advocated by the said Le Front de Liberation du Quebec.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, I only wish to ask a question. If 1 understood correctly, the amendment proposed
Public Order Act, 1970
by the hon. member for Matane (M. De Bane) is not intended merely to modify clause 2 but also to strike out clause 3. Am I right?


Mr.   De Bane@: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member is absolutely right. If this amendment is adopted, all other clauses must be renumbered. As you see, clause 3 as it now reads is a definition, so its provisions should be included in the clause reserved for definitions.
In clause 4 and all subsequent clauses, the words "the unlawful association" should be replaced by "an unlawful association", since, at the present time, the only function of clause 2(d) is to equate "the" and "a". So, as clause 3 deals with several sorts of associations, one would have to say in French "une" and not "la". These two words cannot be confused.


Frank Howard: Having heard the amendment read by the Clerk at the table, and listened to the sponsor thereof explaining it, I feel one could perhaps vote yes or no if it made any sense or if there were any real purpose behind it, that is, if it altered the force of the bill. But it seems to do neither and I think the best one can do is to sit quietly in one's seat and vote neither way.
Amendment (Mr. De Bane) negatived: Yeas, 4 nays, 40.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Chairman, I rise to move a small amendment to clause 2. I discussed the matter earlier this afternoon and I had hoped the Minister of Justice would comment on it at some time, but since he has not chosen to say anything perhaps the best procedure is to move the amendment. I regret that I do not have it translated into French and I hope the copy I have will suffice. My concern is with respect to the definition of "peace officer" in paragraph (b) of clause 2. This paragraph provides:
"peace officer" means a peace officer as defined in the Criminal Code, and includes a member of the Canadian forces
On the assumption that this legislation will pass, I can see that the armed forces may be called upon to exercise a civil authority, and it seems to me that there is therefore need for some greater control. According to my reading as a layman, this provision would automatically make a member of the Canadian forces a peace officer. While it might be argued that there are provisions in other statutes such as the National Defence Act-which I have not had an opportunity to check-that cover the situation, it seems to me that when we are considering special legislation of this nature we should make certain we have adequate civil control of and authority over members of the armed forces and the way they are used within the scope of this legislation. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar:
That clause 2(b) be amended by striking out the semicolon and adding the following:
"when assigned to perform the duties of a peace officer by authority of the Governor in Council"-
Thus, the entire paragraph would read:
(b) "peace officer" means a peace officer as defined in the Criminal Code, and includes a member of the Canadian forces when assigned to perform the duties of a peace officer byauthority of the Governor in Council-
23226-66J

November 9, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Burton) agreed to: Yeas, 31; nays, 28.


Russell Clayton Honey: I declare the amendment carried. Shall clause 2 as amended carry?
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 3-unlawful association.


Mr.   De Bane@: Mr. Chairman, with respect to clause 3, I wish to suggest first a new French wording which I think renders the English text better, and which is somewhat more consistent with the French language. I suggest-


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. Will the committee come to order. The Chair has some difficulty hearing the hon. member who has the floor. I ask the committee please to come to order and remain that way.


Mr.   De Bane@: Mr. Chairman, I suggest another French version of clause 3 which does not affect the essence of it but only the wording. In my opinion, legislation that, at least de facto, is directed primarily to French-speaking people must be written in a style more characteristic of the French language.
I suggest the following French version of clause 3:
Le groupe de personnes ou 1'association qui s'appelle Front de Liberation du Quebec, ou tout groupe ou association lui succe-dant ainsi que tout groupe ou toute association qui preconise de recourir a la force ou au crime pour realiser au Canada un changement de regime politique identique ou analogue a celui que preconise ledit Front de liberation du Quebec ou pour y contribuer sont declares etre des associations illegales.

Although my English is not very good, I should just like to say I have attempted both in this amendment and in the other amendments, without touching the essence of the provisions, to try to draft a better French version. As hon. members know, the content of this legislation is in fact mainly addressed to French Canadians, and I think the French version is very bad. This is why I have tried to make a better translation, and I hope I have succeeded. At least the French version will be more readable and will not look like a colonial law drafted by the English for the French Canadians, without the French style. What I just read was my amendment, and if I do succeed in changing the wording of the clause in my second amendment it will at least be more readable in French. I will now continue in French to say what to me is bad about clause 3.

It must be noted here that three categories of associations or groups are declared illegal. First, the FLQ; secondly, its successors; thirdly, any other association
which would advocate the use of force or crime to reach the same or substantially the same goal as the FLQ.
It must be noted that this clause is entirely different from the second paragraph of the preamble which is actually restricted to the FLQ. It is my deep conviction, in the first place, that clause 3, beginning at paragraph 5, is ambiguous, or, if you want, can be interpreted in so many different ways that it is totally inconsistent with the usual rules governing the wording of an exceptional law, considering that this legislation is characterized by quite excessive powers which must be counterbalanced by a scope of enforcement as clearly defined and restricted as possible.
I am prepared to believe that the subject matter of this legislation, as stated, is restricted to the FLQ. However, allow me to point out that whoever drafted this legislation has a very poor knowledge of the FLQ movement. What did he mean by:
-the same or substantially the same-
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)

-in accomplishing the same or substantially the same governmental change within Canada as that advocated-
-by the FLQ. In Webster's Third International Dictionary, 1967, "substantially" is defined as relating to the main part of something". Then I would ask, what is the main part of the FLQ? Nobody can say what it is. That is why I say the words "or any group" at the end of line 5 give rise to any interpretation.

For instance, the communique No. 11 of the FLQ dated November 2-and it is known today to have been a fake-read in part as follows:
The FLQ does not aim at political power; we are determined to make the revolution, as it is the only way lor the Quebec workers to come into power.
Such stupid and morbidly anarchic nonsense is not even original. It is typical of all movements which keep harping on anarchic concepts termed by Lenin as a passtime for bourgeois.
Finally, it is essential to show that clause 3, as worded, especially paragraph 5, lends itself to unacceptable interpretations in an exceptional legislation. Once more, the good intentions are exemplar: in fact, the circumstances are not deemed favourable to the introduction of a comprehensive bill, but I say that the challenge was not taken up.
Indeed, if one carefully considers the third group to whom the legislation applies, any group whose goal would be "the same or substantially the same"-
Now, let us agree on terms. What is the aim of the FLQ?
I find regrettable that such tremendous powers are given to the police over groups or associations when the wording of clause 3 makes it impossible to determine what is the prevailing element in the FLQ. In this connection, I shall give only one example: If two Newfoundlanders conspire to kidnap a federal minister represent-

November 9, 1970

ing a British Columbia riding, are they pursuing the same or substantially the same goals as those of the FLQ?
Another example: when an hon. member states that violence is spread not only by those we suspect, but also by Messrs. Laberge, Pepin and Claude Ryan, adding in the same breath that such people should be shot ten at a time, without trial, as well as some ten FLQ leaders, is he not pursuing goals very close to those of the FLQ?
Here is another illustration: let us assume that by ill luck a few distraught hot-heads among the Lapalme exemployees were to explode a bomb, and considering that the FLQ had also resorted to criminal acts in order to impose the solution to their problems, would they be pursuing an objective by advocating means fairly similar to that of the FLQ?
In short, it may be seen to what extent the second half of clause 3 may lead to all kinds of interpretations and, again, the person who has been arrested on mere suspicion has no recourse. If it is true that the wording of legislation in general terms is preferable, the situation is altogether different when it comes to a provisional and exceptional measure which provides policemen with practically unlimited powers and eliminates any recourse for the arrested persons.
What does clause 3 actually mean? Briefly, it deals with associations which advocate the same means for accomplishing the same objectives. Obviously, clause 3 thus summarized is not as restricted as mentioned in the preamble.
That is all the more serious as jurisprudence is constant: in case of conflict between the preamble and a section of the act, the latter prevails. The preamble reads as follows:
-within Canada with respect to the Province of Quebec-
-whereas clause 3 stipulates:
-within Canada-
So if a Newfoundlander, member of a secret organization, comes to Ottawa to kidnap a federal minister from British Columbia will he not also be pursuing "substantially the same" goal as the FLQ?
What is the FLQ's goal? I would be pleased if somebody would explain it to us. Violent anarchy? It may be, but the criteria to define it are very nebulous.
I propose a version of clause 3 which is at least French, and fundamentally I propose to delete in line 6 the words:
-that advocates-
-and to substitute therefor
"appointed or described in an order of the Governor General in Council".
Evidently, my proposal does not entirely solve the problem, but it leaves to politicians the task of making decisions which could be discussed. If the bill is passed without amendment, an individual could be arrested and detained without bail. Only after several months, the Court could rule that he belonged to an association which was not unlawful. In my opinion, it is essential that the
Public Order Act, 1970
associations coming under the legislation be clearly identified.
I move that at line 6 which reads in English as follows:

The clause refers to any group of persons or association that is enumerated in a special order. That means at least there could be a debate on the decision of the government to call it an unlawful association. By the other law, an agent of the peace might arrest somebody whose association, in his opinion, was unlawful and it would take months before the courts decided that question. Therefore, I think the "loi exceptionnelle" should be the clearest possible. C'est tout.


Russell Clayton Honey: Before we proceed I will ask the Clerk
Assistant to read the amendment.

And the Clerk Assistant (Legal) having read the following amendment:


Mr.   De Bane@: that clause 3 be amended-

He said: If I may, I would ask that you first present the amendment relating to the French version, without touching the essence of it.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise a point of order. It was my understanding that we were to debate all amendments at the outset of our discussion.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: I may be wrong. I notice the hon. member for Calgary North agrees with me on this.


Some hon. Members:: No; clause by clause.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Yes, they were to be voted on clause by clause as they came up. But with the greatest respect, it is extremely difficult to vote on an amendment to clauses 3, 4 or 5 without considering what might be consequential amendments to clauses 7, 8 or 9. It is my submission that copies of these amendments should be distributed to every member of the House so they may be examined before we are called upon to vote on them. I think the present procedure is grossly unfair.
When I asked the Clerk earlier today for copies of the amendments that had been filed, they were unavailable. It is grossly unfair that we are called upon to vote on amendments that are not before us. I ask that copies of these amendments be distributed, so that we may have them to reflect upon. Then we could vote on them clause by clause at the earliest opportunity tomorrow.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order may I say that I find it difficult to understand the hon. member's difficulty, because we in the official opposition are not having any difficulty. We understand what is going on. Perhaps hon. members opposite would come over here and we could explain it to them.

November 9, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member tor New Westminster is perhaps contusing Committee of the Whole with a Standing Committee. In Committee of the Whole there is no rule which requires anyone to give notice of any amendment: we can move amendments as we go from clause to clause. It is impossible to arrange, every time someone moves an amendment, to have it duplicated and made available to all members in writing. I think such a procedure would be completely unworkable for all of us in respect of all bills.
This is not the only bill that has been before Committee of the Whole in this or in other parliaments. There have been bills just as complicated as this one. This is the way in which we have always had to proceed in Committee of the Whole. A little attention as things proceed makes it not too difficult to follow the amendments moved. The hon. member says it is impossible to vote on an amendment on clauses 4 or 5 without realizing its relationship to clauses 9 or 10. Of course, in such a situation it is the duty of the hon. member moving the amendment to indicate, if he knows, what its relationship will be to other clauses of the bill, if there is a relationship, and for other hon. members to agree to it or oppose it, indicating the effect it would have on some other part of the bill. I do not know of any other way it can be done otherwise.
I am under no obligation to give the members of this House copies of the amendments I propose to move. As it happens, we have given copies to the Minister of Justice because he is piloting the legislation through the House and we thought it only fair that he should see those amendments so that he could consider whether or not he agreed with them. But there is no obligation under the rules to do this. There is nothing to stop an amendment being brought to the floor as was done by the hon. member for Regina East earlier this evening. He moved it because he thought of something which ought to be improved. Should we not have voted on it, and should we have held up proceedings until it was duplicated?
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, this is an impossible suggestion, much as I appreciate the desire of the hon. member to have everything in writing before him. He might ask people who move amendments to read them slowly while he writes quickly, but that is about the only solution we could have to that problem.


Russell Clayton Honey: Is the Minister of Justice rising on a point of order?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, at the commencement of the committee stage the hon. member for Calgary North suggested we ought to have a fairly wide debate on clause 2, so that those members who intended to move amendments could describe in general terms what they were and place them on the table for the benefit of other members and for the benefit of myself for which I am thankful since I have the obligation of piloting this piece of legislation through the House. Surely this has happened except for the amendment spontaneously introduced by the hon. member for Regina East, which on the face of it did not seem to
[Mr. Hees.l
complicate the bill in any way and which was voted on and carried. We accept that.


John Stratford Burton: It was discussed.


John Napier Turner: I do not know who the hon. member discussed it with. He did not discuss it with me.


John Stratford Burton: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I should make clear that I did discuss this matter in the debate this afternoon.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order.


John Napier Turner: The amendment that was submitted did not come to my attention in the ordinary way. I believe all other members have put their amendments before me, and I put the one amendment I intend to move on the table. Amendments to legislation as important as this should be given a bit of notice so that hon. members on all sides of the House have an opportunity to deal with them. I think the point made by the hon. member for New Westminster is properly taken.
The hon. member for Matane I believe introduced his amendment because he felt that the French version was inaccurate. I have checked the French version of the bill again and am advised that it is perfectly in order. It may be that from an artistic point of view he does not agree with it, but from a legal point of view it is perfectly accurate. It does not advance the position of the committee if members are taken by surprise, because we are dealing with a very important piece of legislation which we all want to consider.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order. Will hon. members resume their seats. The hon. member for Matane.


Mr.   De Bane@: M. le president-


Russell Clayton Honey: If I might interrupt, there are two minutes remaining and unless someone has a burning desire to make a further contribution I should like to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. member for New Westminster. My recollection is there was a general agreement at the opening of this stage of the proceedings that members would outline in general terms the amendments they proposed to move. I think, however, that was not binding on hon. members but was a general agreement among all parties.
As has been pointed out by the hon. member for York South, there is under the rules no provision that would require the giving of notice by hon. members, although it would seem to me and I believe to most hon. members, as the minister pointed out, to be a desirable practice. Nevertheless, there is no such requirement in our Standing Orders. While the point of order is well taken, I do not think the agreement was binding on all hon. members and we should proceed, as the hon. member for York South mentioned, in accordance with the practice of the House.
It being ten o'clock-


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, it is not quite ten o'clock.
November 9, 1970


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, it is always a great thing in one's life to see everybody fleeing as if they were-


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Just like the Grits did earlier.


Robert Jardine McCleave: -being threatened by the plague, when one gets up to speak on the late show. None the less, I rise in an effort to do my duty. I do it for obvious reasons. The great question which brings us here tonight is the question I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) which may be found by referring to page 876 of Hansard. I am sure everybody has looked at it four or five times in the last hour or so. My question is the following:
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance and arises from the speech to the British Columbia Federation of Labour by the chairman of the Economic Council of Canada about employment and unemployment forecasts. Does the government agree with these projections?
The minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, I have not seen them at this point. I will take a look at them.
I then posed another question to the minister:
When the minister answers that question, will he also say what the government expects the unemployment situation to be if he differs from the chairman?
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
Really, Mr. Speaker, that is the sum and substance of my being here tonight trying to press for an answer to what surely must be the most important question for Canadians at this time. It is not an esoteric question; it does not deal with anything that happens abroad. It deals with what I would call the lunch-pail question: Is somebody going to have work? Will somebody be able to go home to his wife and children with money and say, "This is what I have been able to earn"?
I had to go home in somewhat different circumstances myself when I was faced with certain facts in 1963. But the fact is that every cotton-picking man or bread earner among us has to assume a certain posture. That may mean nothing to the Minister of Finance, but to us it may mean a very important posture-the right to be a
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion man or woman, or the right not to be. It was in the spirit of that sort of question that I asked what was the forecast. The Minister of Finance cast it off in a cavalier fashion over his left shoulder. In that respect he almost becomes an imitative shrugger of his boss, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). But he answered it by saying, in effect: Oh, well; in due course that question would come before us. When I presented the question I did so seriously and I expected a serious answer, and I still do.
I should like to read 143 words into the public record. They come from the report of the Economic Council of Canada. The group of people who presented the report to the Minister of Finance was composed as follows, as appears at page 15 of the annual report of the Economic Council:
The council is assisted by a staff of approximately 120 persons, including about 60 professional and administrative officers, drawn from a wide variety of former positions with the federal government departments, other federal agencies, provincial governments, universities, business firms, labour unions, and international institutions. The wide range of training, experience and knowledge of the staff reflects the wide terms of reference given to the council. In spite of these wide terms of reference, there has been a deliberate attempt to keep the over-all size of staff relatively small and to expand it relatively slowly in order to maintain strength and consistency in the work of the council.
In the spirit of finding strength and consistency I ask the question: Where are we going, employment or unemployment-wise, this winter in Canada?


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to be precise about the particular rate of growth in the economy that is required to give a given level of employment or unemployment, and the government is not prepared to comment on the projections made by the chairman of the Economic Council.
In his remarks during the Throne Speech debate, the Minister of Finance on October 13 dealt at some length with the present state of the economy, the difficult nature of the problems confronting us and the steps taken by the government thus far to deal with them. It may be recalled that the minister acknowledged, too, the fact that, as he put it, we shall need a substantial annual rate of real growth before any marked improvement in the unemployment rate will be forthcoming. These are the hard facts.
The minister also expressed his confidence that the economy is capable of returning to the rate of growth that will reduce the unemployment rate significantly over the next four or five quarters. He said:
We believe that our policy stand will guide the economy on this course.
The government will do the people of Canada no service if it rekindles the inflation by seeking to force an advance more rapid than productivity improvement and cost moderation will permit.
Before concluding, it may be worth reminding the House that in its last review the Economic Council itself stressed the extreme importance of moving the economy back toward its potential gradually, and with great care, so as to avoid the danger of renewed inflation.

November 9, 1970
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion MANPOWER-SUCCESS OF RETRAINING PROGRAM IN PROVIDING JOBS


Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Speaker, on November 5 I posed a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang) asking him to give a statement to the House regarding the effectiveness of the training and retraining program carried out by the department. I wanted to know specifically whether this program was successful, because on the same day in response to a question at page 904 of Hansard the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had said:
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.
The Prime Minister was boasting about this, saying this is the type of thing the government was doing in order to alleviate the unemployment situation. But I simply want to know how effective is the program. I do not see the minister nor the Parliamentary Secretary here, but I am sure somebody will answer the question. This important question lies at the heart of the problem in order to deal with unemployment and poverty in Canada.
To my knowledge we have not had a real accounting of the effectiveness of the program. I do not wish to criticize the program out of hand or disregard its benefits, but I am concerned that the government seems to place practically all its efforts to deal with unemployment on this manpower retraining program, and I submit that it does not always work though a great deal of money is spent. Last year the government issued press releases about the amount of money spent, but there was no mention of its effectiveness in bringing people from these courses into the labour force.


An hon. Member:: There were no jobs to go to.


Louis-Roland Comeau: That is exactly the problem-there are no jobs. This is why I want to know how the program is being assessed. It is better to have a program than to simply pay unemployment insurance. At least it gives the trainees something to do, but in itself that is not good enough.
What relation is there between the training and the unemployment situation? If we have 1,000 people or 1,000 jobs, are the 1,000 people trained for the 1,000 jobs, or is it the other way around? If we have 1,000 people training for particular jobs, are the same 1,000 people being employed in the field that they have chosen? How do we assess the program? Is it by the employment or is it simply by the training that we give?
For example, I am aware of a program where 700 people applied but only 200 were accepted. This raises the question of whether it is a program for the elite, if I may use that term in this context. Naturally, the best people get the training but what happens to the other 500 who applied for training under this program? Do we send them to other courses? I do not know the answer and this is why I asked for a statement, because if we have to shift people to other courses it presents another problem.

[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
Are we simply trying to offer a complete range of courses? That is a question I should like answered. For example, I know of one case in which a gentleman was told to apply for three or four courses. That does not make much sense. Either he is suited for one course or he is not. Perhaps he did not want to take three or four courses; he only wanted one course. The department did not want him to apply for only one course. Apparently they did not have that course to offer. Why do they not tell the applicant they do not have the course, and try to help him in some other way? Let us not shift these poor people around.
Many questions could be asked about this training program. I want to know how the government assesses it. After going through a training program, are the people suitable for employment? Also, is the government really providing incentives for employers to hire these people? The first thing an employer asks an employee is, "Have you had any experience?" We must do something to encourage employers to hire these people. For all these reasons I want to know how effective is this program.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member's receptiveness to enlightenment will be commensurate with his ingenuity for framing questions. In replying to the hon. member's question, I would say first that for the fiscal year 1969-70 alone some 320,000 persons were placed in training under the Canada Manpower Training Program. With reference to the success of this program, I would refer him to a survey tabled by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration on June 22, 1970, on adults who have taken Canada Manpower training courses. This survey involved 83,193 persons who completed full-time courses in public institutions between January and September 30, 1969, and indicates that graduates of Canada Manpower training courses have more than doubled their prospects of getting a job and increased their earnings potential by at least 12 per cent.
As these figures indicate, the results of this survey are very encouraging and demonstrate that the Canada Manpower training courses make a very positive contribution to higher productivity and income security for Canadian families. Specifically, the survey shows that 75 per cent of those who finished training and looked for work were fully employed within three to four months. Only 31 per cent were employed when they entered courses. Men increased their average earnings by $43 a month, and women by $47 a month. This was a gain of 11 per cent over pre-training earnings for men, and 24 per cent for women. Seventy-one per cent of those who took skill training found jobs in occupations closely related to their training.
I would also point out that this survey forms but part of the Department of Manpower and Immigration's continuing review and evaluation of the effectiveness of the training programs for adults. This review and evaluation is believed to be the most comprehensive of any country's. With reference to the higher proportionate wage gains for women, I would mention that one of the great
November 9, 1970

virtues of the training program is that it is tending to equalize opportunity for women who prior to training had substantially lower earnings. This is true for both women taking skill courses and those in basic upgrading.
These results indicate that, particularly in the case of women, improvement in the basics alone can lead workers to a more rewarding job and bring about a substantial increase in productivity and earnings. None the less, trainees who go to further skill development can, judging from the results, expect an additional increase in earnings. Both men and women completing skill courses showed substantially higher earnings after training than those taking upgrading courses.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION-CORNWALL-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON STUDIES AND PROGRAMS

David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, on October 29, as reported at page 693 of Hansard, I directed the following question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand):
Will the minister give consideration to making a statement on motions outlining the results of studies made by the federal government and the government of Ontario into the heavy unemployment in the Cornwall area and an early start on various programs under the provisions of the DREA legislation?
My question was prompted by the continuing concern of many people about the situation in the Cornwall area. In December of last year the secretary of the textile workers' union in Cornwall wrote to the minister, I think, and to the leader of the NDP pointing out that 650 people had been given notice of permanent lay-off by the Cour-taulds plant in Cornwall.
On April 13 of this year the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) directed a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, pointing out that in the area of Stormont-Dundas-Glengarry 13.7 per cent of the total labour force was unemployed. He asked what was being done. The minister replied that his deputy had visited Cornwall and they would be giving serious consideration to the question.
On May 25, 1970, the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Douglas) directed a question to the same minister pointing out that the unemployment rate in Cornwall was approximately 18 per cent. He asked what the results, if any, had been of the special task force studying the situation in the Cornwall area, whether a report had been received and what action would be
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion taken. On that day the minister said that the task force had returned the week before, that he had not received a recent report but that he would inquire and inform the House of the results of the study within a few days. That was on May 25. It is now November.
If the task force made a report, it is still in the files of the minister. If the task force recommended any special measures to help establish new industries in the Cornwall area, nothing has been done about them to our knowledge. The minister replied to the leader of the New Democratic Party that he had inquired about the plight of the 650 people laid off at the Courtaulds plant and that they had been offered the opportunity of a retraining course. No one wants to downgrade the importance of retraining courses, but it is a rather desperate situation if that is all that can be offered to people in an area such as Cornwall.
If the result of the retraining is that they will be offered jobs in other cities, requiring them and their families to move, this is a very serious situation for the people concerned. I join the right hon. member for Prince Albert, the leader of my party and others in asking the government what steps are being taken to help alleviate the situation in eastern Ontario, particularly in the city of Cornwall.


Mr. Martin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: For some months, Mr. Speaker, the federal government and the government of the province of Ontario have been working together to develop increased employment in the area of Cornwall. This effort applies not only to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion but to other federal departments such as transport, public works and manpower and immigration, which can help in making Cornwall more attractive to industry. There is a parallel and co-ordinated effort on the part of the various departments of the provincial government.
While I do not have concrete results that can be announced tonight, there is a likelihood that some positive results will occur quite soon. Everyone regrets that the problem is so difficult and solutions take time to develop. Every practical effort to bring them into being as soon as possible is being made.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.23 p.m.

Tuesday, November 10, 1970