1970-10-17

Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: should like to ask the Prime Minister whether there is any information he can give the House about Mr. Cross and the Hon. Pierre Laporte?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I regret, Mr. Speaker, there is no information I can give at this time.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: With regard to the legislation to be introduced in substitution for the invocation of the War Measures Act and the regulations proclaimed by the Governor General in Council under that Act, is the Prime Minister prepared to give an assurance that legislation will be introduced at an early date? In particular, is he prepared to give a specific assurance that such legislation will be introduced next week?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think I covered this point in my speech to the House yesterday as well as I could. I remind the Leader of the Opposition that I suggested at that time we would give serious consideration to introducing such legislation but that we need a period of time during which to see how the regulations might be improved before being changed into statutory form. I asked the leaders of the opposition parties, indeed, all members of the House, to put forward any suggestions as to how these regulations might be improved before ultimately being transferred into a statute.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I assure the Prime Minister that we would be happy to make suggestions of the kind he has in mind, but does he not recognize that the statement he has made does not contain any assurance of a concrete nature and that according to other statements he has made the present situation might conceivably continue for the duration of the proclamation? Can the Prime Minister not give the House some specific assurance that legislation will be introduced within a given time which will do the job necessary to be done but be sufficiently narrow in import so as not to interfere with the normal course of civil liberties any more than is required?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The answer to all of that is yes, except for this. If the hon. gentleman wants to know exactly how much time it would take, then I cannot give him an assurance. Obviously I could not undertake to revoke the War Measures Act next week if next week we have not passed this legislation. I do not yet know from the Leader of the Opposition how long he will take to co-operate with us in producing such a measure.



FLQ ACTIVITIES-DURATION OF EMERGENCY POWERS

Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: In view of the fact that the proclamation bringing the War Measures Act into effect and the subsequent Orders in Council are related to the FLQ and the activities of the FLQ, can the Prime Minister indicate whether it is the intention of the government to keep these emergency powers until the government is satisfied that the FLQ and associated and related bodies have been wiped out?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not necessarily this particular legislation, Mr. Speaker. I repeat that if we can replace the regulations by some statute that would have the same effect we would be very happy to give up this theoretical exercise in which we are engaged which includes powers much broader than we need under the War Measures Act. When this will happen, of course, remains to be seen. We will have to continue to exercise powers in one way or another under the War Measures Act or under a special statute while there is a danger of insurrection.



VANCOUVER-COMMUNICATION RESPECTING APPREHENDED INSURRECTION

Gerald William Baldwin: Has the Prime Minister received a communication from the mayor or other authorities in the city of Vancouver indicating that there is an apprehended insurrection there requiring the application of the War Measures Act to that city?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not. Has the hon. member?



NEGOTIATIONS FOR RELEASE OF KIDNAP VICTIMS

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he could inform the House, since Mr. Lemieux has again been detained and the two radio stations concerned consider that it would be illegal to transmit any messages, if either of the two governments are carrying on any negotiations for the release of the two kidnap victims?

October 17, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I cannot answer that, Mr. Speaker.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister indicate to the House whether his inability to answer my question results from not knowing or whether-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Defence may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will there be an investigation into the unfortunate death yesterday of a member of the armed forces while he was on guard duty in Ottawa, and can the Prime Minister say whether the government will make sure that any survivor's benefits that are available will be put into effect?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that the Minister of National Defence has asked that a board of inquiry be set up to look into this matter.



WHEAT-NUMBER OF ACRES TO BE SEEDED IN 1971-LIFT PROGRAM

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture having to do with the estimate he has been making recently as to the number of acres of wheat which should be seeded in 1971. Would he say what that estimate is and also whether, having regard to that estimate, he has concluded that the reasons for setting up the Lift program have not been justified by events and demands for wheat from all over the world?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: No, Mr. Speaker, I would not agree with that conclusion. Canada will have at the end of this crop year sufficient quantities, notwithstanding the 50 per cent reduction under the Lift program, to meet all anticipated demands for Canadian wheat. What I and my colleague the Minister of Manpower and Immigration responsible for the Wheat Board have said is that it would appear at this time that up to about 20 million acres of wheat in 1971 would be appropriate.


John George Diefenbaker: Then may I ask the minister whether the estimate given by a prominent member of the grain trade and economist that on the basis of world demands almost 30 million acres will be required is not correct?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, if world demand appears to increase sufficiently between now and planting time in 1971, of course that will be taken into account in our information to farmers.



MANPOWER


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration whether he has now looked into the matter I brought to his attention the other day about opportunities for summer employment for our students in West Germany and, if so, with what result?


Hon. Olio E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the department has been looking into the source of the proposal and of the news release. It has no connection whatever with the department and so far it has not been related to the generally well known student organizations. Of course, the department at the same time is interested in the pursuit of exchange programs of a different scale and a different sort. Therefore I do not have complete information yet for the hon. member.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasier):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Can he say whether the government has under reconsideration the renegotiation of the FRED agreement in northeastern New Brunswick?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Miller Bell: May I ask the minister if he can say whether there will be favourable word on this in the near future, say by election day, Monday, October 26?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as asked has too much of an election flavour and as such is not acceptable.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, October 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. Trudeau:
October 17, 1970
[Stage Direction]
That the House approves the action of the government in invoking the powers of the War Measures Act to meet the state of apprehended insurrection in the Province of Quebec as communicated to the Prime Minister by the Government of Quebec and the civic authorities of Montreal and further approves the orders and regulations tabled today by the Prime Minister on the clear understanding that the proclamation invoking the powers as contained in the regulations will be revoked on or before April 30, 1971, unless a resolution authorizing their extension beyond the date specified has been approved by the House.
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I resume my remarks this morning even more disappointed, if that is possible, than I was last night at^IemaTCTI^ of the government, as reflected through the Prime_Minister (Mr. 'iPlM^aui ana the members of the cabinet, to give the blouse sufficient, indication .wliv it should support the extreme and, in mv view at least, unwarranted measures which have been takeiL_ky_the government.
It is very difficult for an individual member of the House to believe that he is actually participating in this kind of debate and that at one stroke both th^ constitution and Ilie civil ri.ehts of file people of tins countrv liav^Teen suspended^	-*


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: It is also difficult to believe that a man who used as the thread of his campaign for election a little more than two years ago the unification of the country should now threaten to divide it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Those who do not see this are victims of their own blindness. Perhaps they do not recall the remarks of the Prime Minister earlier this week to a press conference in response to a number of questions relating to the dreadful kidnappings in Montreal. He replied:
Yes, well there are a lot of bleeding hearts around who just don't like to see people with helmets and guns. All I can say is, go on and bleed, but it is more important to keep law and order in the society than to be worried about weak-kneed people who don't like the looks of-
Then the reporter interrupted:
At any cost? How far would you go with that? How far would you extend that?
The Prime Minister answered:
Well, just watch me.


Some hon. Members:: 
An hon. Member:: Shame on you.


An hon. Member:: You can do better than that.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: 
An hon. Member:: That is a lie.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: willJ^full^^j^bj^Jigdj^thedjj^Jfljjaflifi.in light of what seems to be becoming painfully apparent now. Not only in the area of political literature, however, is there seeming indecision concerning what constitutes a grave threat to the safety of the state and its citizens. .We also see the abuse. ayi-pct nnrl Hptpnt.inn nf innocent individuals and in a free society the fear-
Cafiky May I ask the hon. member a mipstinrt?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Would it be one worth replying to?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I hope it will be recorded that a number of government members applauded that quotation.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: AjC two thP Tjynrrfs of a man who seeks both to resolve the differences of opinion and~ points of view in this country and to accept the rule nf JawY-Tlipy are the words of a man who in fact lias suspended the rule of law.


Mr. Cafik:: you can judge that. You suggested that innocent people have been arrested becSTise of these measures. WOUUl jillll (iare to name one who is innocent?


Gerald William Baldwin: The police will not release the names


Mr. Nowlan:: We cannot even get names in this police state.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: The question merely indicates the ignorance of the author.
25U

October 17, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. MacDonald (Egmonl):: Mr. Speaker, I thought there was still a little opportunity left to be heard in this place because, as I said last night, this is the only place in this country where one can now express any kind of political opinion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is quite right that he should be given the hearing he is entitled to. I would suggest he be allowed to continue.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It is bad enough that fear and anxiety are now being felt by many people in our society because of this action, but what hits most directly at the vitals of a free society is the obvious reluctance of much of the mass media, particularly in the province of Quebec, to express the kind of views and opinions that enhance and encourage free discussion and free assembly in a society.


An hon. Member:: Where did you hear that?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I ask for order and for the co-operation of hon. members. I do not think that the kind of interruptions we are hearing at this time help the debate very much.


Mr. Aiken:: It seems that some members are pretty touchy.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I find that there appear to be two classes of people in the discussion of this problem, those who make their home regularly in the province of Quebec and everyone else. If it will console those who feel that I have absolutely no understanding of the problem, let me say that I spent five weeks in the past year living in the province of Quebec. I do not say that that makes me an expert, but perhaps it does make me a little more understanding of and sympathetic to the problems of all Canadians, and it is with this in mind that I hope I am speaking today.
I do not expect all hon. members to agree with me. Quite obviously I may be in the minority as the majority party seems to support the government action. But what I do expect is that if Parliament is still free to function, I will be given a hearing. That is all I ask at this point; that is all any member can hope for in the forum of Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: But I am deeply troubled by the fact that much of the mass media in the country generally and certainly within the province of Quebec is extremely reluctant at this very moment to offer the kind of free information that they are able to provide in relation to the free exchange of opinions and the exercise of freedom and liberty within our society. There have been reports that not just in the private sector of broadcasting but even in the public sector unwarranted influence may have extended to the higher levels of administration in order to curb the kind of speculation and
[Mr. MacDonald (Egmont) .1
comment that the government feels would encourage the free expression of opinion that it no longer finds acceptable in that province.
It seems also, by implication, that Parliament itself is to be considerably limited in considering these vital questions. We were told at the outset that the reason the War Measures Act was invoked was that there really was not the necessary machinery within Parliament to deal effectively with this question, that too many other problems would arise, and therefore Parliament was an outmoded and ineffective instrument to deal with this problem.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: That is what was said yesterday and I invite the hon. member to look up the record of yesterday's proceedings. Arguments were put forward by both the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) to the effect that it was not possible for the Parliament of this country to make decisions involving the temporary suspension of the Bill of Rights of this country.
Quite frankly I find it passing strange that a number of provincial premiers seemed to respond favourably so quickly to the action that the government has taken. I am not sure what methods were used to elicit this response. But I do think it passing strange that, although we have watched meetings to make changes in our constitution between the provincial governments and the federal government for some two years now, at which the discussion has been long and difficult, with seemingly little progress made to date, suddenly overnight a number of these premiers are willing to let the whole of the constitution be suspended for an indefinite period of time. I cannot accept it and as a Member of Parliament I will not accept it. We must be sure that the people realize the grave and serious measures that have been enacted by the government.
[DOT] (11:30 a.m.)
I want to try now, Mr. Speaker, to discover the reasons for the action taken by the government. Why is it being done? I have noticed that even in the editorial opinion this morning of those who, by and large, support the government's position there are reservations about what has happened to force the government into this extreme position. The question is being raised, and I think will be raised increasingly over the next few days, is it panic? Has the government in fact been panicked into taking this serious action?
What happened on Thursday to force the government, in the wee small hours of Friday morning, to bring forth a document suspending the constitution and the civil liberties and human rights of the people of this country for the stated purpose of dealing with apprehended insurrection? Where is this insurrection, Mr. Speaker? When did it occur? What information was available to the government on Thursday and early Friday morning of this week that it did not have in the earlier part of this week, last week, last month or last year?
October 17, 1970

Indeed, the Prime Minister has told us that he well understands the problem in Quebec. He has told us ever since he became leader of his party that he knew how to handle this problem, that if the country would entrust leadership to him he would deal with it effectively, that there would be no more of the difficulties, uncertainties and fears that had been growing in number in the province of Quebec in the middle and late 1960's, that he was the man to deal with the problem rationally, coolly and without provocation. We can now see the result of his dealing with the matter.
Of course, the reason advanced by the government for what has happened is that it has special information which, if it were revealed, would endanger the very kind of detection and apprehension that needs to be undertaken if we are to overcome this serious and grave risk to society and its governments. In how many other countries throughout the centuries have certain individuals, having asked for in effect dictatorial powers, said to the people, "Give us these powers because only we know best, only we know how to deal with the difficult situation that exists in this country today, so trust us and we will not desert you"? Mr. Speaker, such words have always been, and still are where they are echoed, an invitation to accept a dictatorship.
I hope the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand), who has left his place in the chamber, will not go too far. I would like to raise a question with regard to his speech in a moment. As I was saying, such words are an invitation to accept the kind of authoritarian or totalitarian state that I am sure no right-thinking person in this country would ever choose.
Surely the very reason that we have Parliament and this House is that people can be fully informed, so that the people can in fact exercise their right to know.
We have lost this week, Mr. Speaker, not only all individual and property rights that pertain to living in this country but we have also lost the most basic right of all, the right to know. That is what the government has deprived this House of both yesterday and today. Is there panic? Has the government responded in some degree to panic?
There is another possibility, one so terrible that I am extremely reluctant to raise it this morning, but I certainly could not be true to myself, to my own opinions and to my own ideas, which I feel I have a right to express in this House, were I not to express it in this debate. Does the action which has now been taken by the government represent, in effect, the seizure of an opportunity to suppress and repress those who have disagreed with them and whom they cannot accept?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I hear some ohs and ahs as
if this were a terrible thing to say, and that is why I want to quote what the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion said in the debate last night. I am glad he is still here because he can correct me if I misquote him.


An hon. Member:: Quote Hansard, not a newspaper.
Invoking of War Measures Act


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I certainly have not had a chance to read Hansard this morning. It was a little late in reaching us. The minister is here and he can certainly say if it is a misquotation. He is reported as having said in the debate yesterday:
If we had not acted, the separation of Quebec would have been a fact, a month or a year from today.
I ask the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion-I will allow him a moment if he wishes to return to his seat-if in fact-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is not the question period. The hon. member should make his speech.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I will ask him rhetorically, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps he can communicate with that well known nod of his head. Is there some confusion, perhaps not confusion, but is there some feeling-


An hon. Member:: In your mind?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: -in the mind of the government, particularly in the minds of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, the Prime Minister and perhaps others in the government, that the FLQ to some degree or other means separatism? Is that what the Prime Minister is saying, that separatists are the FLQ, that somehow or other you really cannot distinguish, that they are one and the same thing?
Has the minister in fact spoken for the government in saying that what we are really out to deal with here by these measures is not just acts of terrorism by one relatively small group of people, who are seeking through violent and anarchic means to destroy society, but a much larger group of people, 25 per cent if we can go by the last provincial election results, who believe there is a realistic option in considering some form of independence for the province of Quebec? Is that what the minister was saying to us yesterday afternoon? If it is, Mr. Speaker, then all of us, English-speaking and French-speaking alike, had better examine our consciences extremely quickly because we have allowed to be launched in this country this week the most dangerous kind of political action ever known in the history of the country and one that I refuse to accept.
Let me be perfectly clear. I am not a separatist either for the province of Prince Edward Island or for la belle province de Quebec. I do not support those who believe that the people of Quebec, French-speaking, Englishspeaking, whatever language they speak, would find a better destiny apart from Canada than within it. I support a viable and vital place for the people of Quebec within the Canadian confederation. But God help me if I believe that the only way I can convince those who disagree rationally, honestly and fairly with me is by the taking up of arms, that men who do not hold this opinion can only be subjugated by force of arms and by repression. If that be so, Mr. Speaker, this country is on the threshold of doom and disaster. This is of such paramount importance that if the Prime Minister or the Minis-

October 17, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act
ter of Regional Economic Expansion would like at this moment to take the floor I will yield it so that they may make perfectly clear that what is being attempted here is not in any way directed toward suppressing the free expression of the opinions of those who believe there is another political possibility for the province of Quebec that can be achieved through a rational and democratic process.
[DOT] (11:40 a.m.)
The Prime Minister, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, and no other minister, has made this fact clear to the people of this country. If the Prime Minister wishes to avoid, as I most sincerely hope he does, the very grave possibility of misunderstanding on this matter, he will not hesitate for one moment to let all the people of the country know that at the very least what is being attempted here is that the government is dealing with those who will not respect law and order and the democratic process of choice and change. If, in fact, the Prime Minister is directing his ammunition and the repeal of law in this country at a wider audience, at those who disagree with the federal option, what hope can any of us have for the workings of a rational, democratic process in this country? I remind him, as I would remind the Premier of Quebec if he were here, that those members from that province who were elected to this House and to the Legislature of Quebec who support their governments do not represent even half the people of that province. If one looks at the matter merely from the standpoint of those who speak French in that province, one sees that the proportion who did not vote for these governments is even greater.
I want to refer to what surely is another basic question, the extent to which this action will be effective. Presumably the basic reason behind the measures the government has taken is the belief that only through the use of extensive powers of this kind can the authorities detect with effectiveness the kind of terrorism that they believe is at present abroad within the province of Quebec. Yet I remain very seriously troubled.
I have found from my reading and from my listening to the news media in the past few days that those who are being detained are from all ranks of society, that some of those who are suspected of having connections with the FLQ are even in the police. How is it possible, just through the use of increased and wide-ranging powers, to assure us of the effectiveness of the detection that we are told is so badly needed? What are the long-term effects of this kind of detention going to be in our society? Surely we realize that when we throw great numbers of people into prison, sometimes on short notice and with very little information, a number of them are bound to be peaceful and innocent citizens who may have expressed a point of view at some time or other which is in disagreement with that of others. They may not be inclined toward violence. What will detention for 30, 60 or 90 days in jail do to innocent people who have held opinions differing from those of others? May I remind hon. members that what we have learned over the past
two years of the general jail situation in Quebec would not lead anyone to believe that the kind of bitterness that may result from holding people under those conditions will not lead to more and greater violence. Will that solve the basic problems confronting us in this situation?
We have been told time and again during the past two and a half years that the government and the Prime Minister knew how to deal with the situation. The Prime Minister knew how to solve these big, basic problems. Have they been solved? Have they been alleviated? Speaking yesterday, the Prime Minister reminded us that the action that had been taken could be considered by some as a trap, that by the state's use of strict and authoritarian-one might say totalitarian-measures, there is a danger of giving both encouragement and credibility to the forces of darkness the government is trying to stamp out. Earlier this week the Prime Minister said that what this group really wanted was lots of publicity. Has any organization ever received more publicity than this organization has received as a result of the actions the government took?
There is another troublesome thought that comes to my mind increasingly. By this action of dealing with terror by imposing a kind of state terror we have descended to the level at which these people operate. Mr. Speaker, this House must have, if it is to maintain its freedom and its responsibility, more information. A free society can only live by free communication. If the government, in addition to bringing in the War Measures Act, has actually said to the people of this country that they no longer have a right to information, then our situation is even more grave than we are willing to admit.
The lives of two men, Mr. Speaker, are central to this tragedy. No one in this House this morning knows whether or not they are alive. All of us cannot help but be deeply troubled by the dreadful circumstances into which these men, their friends and their families have been cast. Yet I cannot help feeling that we have compounded the tragedy by endangering the safety and security of all our people. I remind all hon. members, Mr. Speaker, that democracy can not be inherited; it can only be preserved. There has been a tendency over the years in Canada to be smug about the kind of tolerance and freedom we have exhibited. That we may have endangered our freedom by one stroke of government action this week is taken altogether too lightly.
Does one not see a paradox when one considers man and his social system? In the world of today, or of any day, one will find men of strong opinions and individual differences. Most often they live in a society which itself is of a fragile quality. Greater or lesser risk always underlies the functionings of such a social system. On the other hand, you will find weak and docile individuals within authoritarian and totalitarian systems. If we are opting in this House to bring in that kind of system, then we have seriously endangered not only the liberty of individuals in our country but their future opportunity to be the strongminded, independent individuals that surely God has given each one of us the right to be.
[Mr. MacDonald (Egmont).l
October 17, 1970


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, last night, when I felt compelled to enter this debate, I gave much thought during the evening as to the philosophy underlying the type of speech that I would make today. I do not like talking from a prepared text. I have listened to the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald). He is a man with whom I have sat in this House for many years. I respect him and I know that everything he said today was said with that degree of sincerity which is one of his characteristics. Nevertheless, when he says that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) of the country-I believe I have his exact words-is fanning the fires of bigotry or increasing the possibility of bigotry across this country, it indicates that if there is any panic that panic lies in the remarks of the hon. member for Egmont.
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Despite the five weeks the hon. member spent in the province of Quebec he does not understand the difference between the FLQ, the terrorists and bandits who make up that organization, and the legitimate political party known as the Parti Quebecois of Quebec. I would sacrifice my life to see the existence of that party preserved because it is a legitimate, political party. It wants to bring an end to this country through democratic means, but that is the privilege of that party. That is what the House of Commons and democracy are all about. I endorse the right of the Parti Quebecois to exist, but when we try to equate the FLQ with the Parti Quebecois we are equating bandits, terrorists and part of an international movement with a legitimate political party in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Minister of Labour deliberately wants to misquote me. I was not confusing the difference between those who support separatism and the FLQ in Quebec. I was asking whether the confusion did not lie in the minds of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question of privilege. I have been in this House of Commons since 1962. I am a member of the government and of the cabinet. What is even more important to me at this moment is that I am a Canadian from the province of Quebec. I was born in that province 49 years ago. My family still lives in Montreal. We will remain in Quebec as long as it is part of confederation, which will be long after all of us are dead. No separatist group that espouses violence, such as the FLQ, will force me or anyone in my family out of our homes. To suggest that the Prime Minister does not understand the difference is ironic.
The speech I want to make today is on the failure to make a distinction in the debate yesterday between separatism and the FLQ. I have a few words to say about that.
Invoking of War Measures Act


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Why don't you-


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I listened to the hon. member with respect and I ask him to do precisely what he asked us to do, listen in quiet. Possibly he will learn something.
I have often been laughed at, sometimes even by members of my own party, for regarding myself as a House of Commons man. I am not ashamed of that. Some backbenchers were in my office last night. They reminded me of what I told them when they were elected to this House two years ago. No matter what changes we make in our parliamentary system, sooner or later the action comes back to the House of Commons. We must understand this procedure and its existence. It is the heart of the democratic system of this country.
Having understood this all my life, having sat in cabinet and having taken part in the agonizing decision which the government took under the War Measures Act, let me say that there are very good reasons why people who pride themselves on their liberalism made this decision. At the risk of being accused of vanity, I think I am one of those. I support the government, not because of cabinet solidarity but because I am convinced as an individual, a member of this House and a citizen of this country, that what the government did the other night was the right action for the future of this country. I now want to direct my speech to the motion.
This country has been blessed like no other country. Until the last few years we have never known bloodshed. In the eyes of some cynics we were united 100 years ago in a way that was too peaceful. We have never known civil war. Perhaps we have taken democracy too lightly on both sides of this House. We have been blessed like no other country.
For some ironic reason, throughout Canadian history we have had the right Prime Minister at the right time to deal with the particular crises that have faced this nation. We had Laurier when we needed a man to bridge the gap between the two cultures. We had Sir John A. Macdonald who had the vision to weld together the British colonies. We had Mackenzie King for many years, who piloted this country very skilfully through the war, the problems of conscription and other things that could have torn this country apart.
When this party got too smug and too arrogant we were replaced by the right hon. member who sits opposite in 1956 or 1957 until 1963. That reminded this party that there is no room for arrogance or dictatorship veiled or otherwise. This party had grown old in office. The right hon. member for Prince Albert was eventually replaced by another, Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson who gave this country some of the symbols that stand us in good stead today including our flag. Finally, we have the present Prime Minister, the man who in 1964 had the power to stand up in Quebec when very few people were standing up at the height of the separatist movement and say, I am a federalist and prepared to say so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
254
October 17, 1970

Invoking of War Measures Act


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Can anyone here think that a man with his record in the field of civil liberties, a man who fought against the infamous padlock law, against a law not designed to put down insurrection but designed to prevent amongst other things freedom of religion and religious expression, a man that fought for the Jehovah's Witnesses along with Frank Scott right through to the Supreme Court of this country, would treat this situation lightly? I refer of course to the Prime Minister of this country. Who else went side by side with the present Minister of Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) and the Secretary of State, whom the opposition laughs at periodically, to stand up for the oppressed workers of Quebec against Duplessis and his infamous bill? Do you think that these people arrived at this decision lightly? With their background they know what they are doing.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Can I ask the minister a question? I have a question for the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I heard the hon. member the first time. He does not have the floor. The minister has the floor.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I also heard the hon. member. Knowing the tenor of his questions, I am not prepared to answer them right now because I have a vein of thought I want to pursue. I might also say I am proud of the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner). Although he now represents an Ottawa riding, he spent most of his formative years in the province of Quebec, in the heart of French Canada.
Do hon. members opposite really think that we take civil liberties and the rights of individuals so lightly that we would bring in this particular Act without agonizing soul-searching based on facts we have which cannot be revealed? What other reason do we have? How many people have even bothered to read between the lines of the letters appended to yesterday's Hansard? How many people have bothered to read the emotional but factual speech made by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion yesterday?
The hon. member for Egmont cannot have it out of both sides of his mouth. If the democracy he is talking about is something that should be preserved, then we have to do everything to preserve it, even temporarily invoking laws such as the War Measures Act to ensure that democracy remains in this country.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: You want to destroy freedom.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The hon. member asked us to remain quiet when he was speaking. Why does he not practise what he preaches?
[DOT] (12 noon)
There is a letter printed in the back of Hansard signed by the Mayor of Montreal and the Chairman of the Executive Committee. It begins:
The chief of the Montreal Police Service has informed us that the means available to him are proving inadequate and that the assistance of higher levels of government has become essential for the protection of society against the seditious plot and the apprehended insurrection in which the recent kidnappings were the first step.
But it is like using vaccine against the flu. If the steps we have taken prove successful, then certain events do not take place. We are then in the embarassing position, of course, of being accused of over-reacting. People may say there was no plot really; nothing happened; Place Ville Marie was not bombed out of existence or razed to the ground. In a few years we could be accused of having over-reacted because certain things did not take place. But if we waited until they had happened, what would we be accused of? What do you think might be happening in Quebec while we dawdled over the possible passage of special legislation, having made a start on it in yesterday morning's debate without first having used the powers under the War Measures Act.
I am prepared to listen to another man who is well known for his views on the rights of individuals in this country, Mr. Eugene Forsey-I do not think he loses any of his credentials because he is now a member of the other House. When he spoke last night on television-and I suppose his answer surprised a lot of people-he said he thought the government had acted wisely; he could not understand the excitement. When he was asked to analyse the word "forthwith", he said: "Any time within the next ten days." He expressed the opinion that it could be even more tragic for democracy if a hastily designed emergency bill drawn up so as to pass through the House of Commons and the other place in the space of 24 hours had been adopted. Eugene Forsey thinks such a bill is essential. The Prime Minister thinks it is essential. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) thinks this is essential-


Mr. McGrath:: Well, where is it then?
As hon. Member: Bring it in.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: There you go. As Eugene Forsey said, such a bill should be well thought out. It should reflect the best advice of members of this House and of the other House. Above all, it should be proceeded with in a deliberate fashion. If we had followed this procedure rather than the procedure we have adopted under the War Measures Act, tell me how many people we would have apprehended among those it was necessary to apprehend? Who knows where they would have been while this debate was going on? They would have been laughing at us from other lands and, again, we would have been accused of bungling and failing to protect the democracy about which everyone is concerned. The way the hon. member for Egmont talks about civil liberty, one would think he had a monopoly of feeling on this subject. We all share those sentiments. This is what made our decision an agonizing one. But certainly, if the Prime Minister goes on television and says he will bring in such a bill, he is the Prime Minister of this country and I am satisfied with what he says.
[Mr. Mackasey.!
October 17, 1970

The logic of the New Democratic Party, Mr. Speaker, is amazing. I do not know why I always come back to that party; it has been suggested I have a love-hate relationship with it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He really loves us.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Only certain members. I listened to the leader of that party speaking on television last night, hoping that because he speaks from the heart and without prepared notes he might unintentionally have adopted what I believe to be a most falacious argument when he spoke here earlier in the day. He suggested then that the FLQ existed only because there is unemployment in Quebec, only because there are slums in Quebec. This part of his speech is reported on page 200 of Hansard. He makes a valid point that every terrorist movement, every revolutionary movement, must have a base. I agree with that. Then he goes on to ask: "What is the base of the FLQ?" I apologize to the hon. member for Egmont for my emotional attack on him. This is the point which really upset me. This is what the hon. gentleman has to say:
The base of the FLQ lies in the disadvantaged and unfortunate people in the province of Quebec.
He goes on, then, to talk about unemployment, slums, and regional disparity. Mr. Speaker, by those criteria the FLQ should exist in Newfoundland where there is more unemployment, more disadvantaged people and more regional disparity.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I believe the hon. member for Egmont seeks the floor on a question of privilege.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I do not know who is responsible for the quotation which the minister has just made, but it does not come from any speech of mine.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I am sorry. I suspect the hon. member was not listening closely. I was referring to the speech of the leader of the New Democratic Party.
This is precisely my point. If the people of Quebec have a right to be sorry and upset about the high rate of unemployment in that province, and I think they have, if they are concerned about slums in Montreal and Saint-Henri, and I think they have a legitimate cause to be concerned, and if certain people in Montreal look at some of our delusions of grandeur in that great area and compare the results with their own environment, this is bound to breed unrest. But there is a legitimate way of expressing this unrest and that is at the ballot box. Any time the people of Quebec feel sufficiently fed up with the free enterprise system they can vote for the New Democratic Party-though the NDP has never been able to achieve power in Quebec since confederation. Nevertheless the people have this right. If they do not want to vote for the Liberal party in Quebec they can vote for one of the other parties, and one of the other happens to be the Parti Quebecois. And if the vote in favour of the Parti Quebecois in the last election represented one out
Invoking of War Measures Act of four, this should provoke us to think about doing something to ease the unrest, and this is the best defence against the legitimate aspirations of the Parti Quebecois.
But let us have no illusion that the base of the FLQ is limited to the underprivileged people of the province of Quebec. The same FLQ would exist in Quebec if there was no poverty, if there were no slums. In fact, it would exist even if the Parti Quebecois was in power, because they are there for one reason only, and that is to overthrow the state, not only in Quebec but as part of an international movement. When I look at the position of some of those in that movement, I wish I had their income; I wish I earned in a year what some of them get in a week. Nevertheless, I can understand the concern of the New Democratic Party about a free enterprise system which tolerates the rate of unemployment which prevails in this country. We all share it.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)


Mr. Woolliams:: Ten per cent.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: October 17, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act cocktail and a bullet was put through the front window of my living room. That occurred during the last provincial election in Quebec. It does not give me any satisfaction or make me feel any braver to stand here in the chamber knowing that my family is in Montreal; but I leave them there because I believe in democracy. I believe in the intelligence, the wisdom and the really deep feeling that French Canadians have for this country.
When the so-called three wise men, the present Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, came to this Parliament in the sixties, their motivation was to stand up for what they believed to be federalism. They stood for the best interests both of Canada and of Quebec. They sacrificed what they were doing then, as have all other members from the province of Quebec, be they from this party or other parties. The members of the Creditiste party have stood up in their province and spoken up for Canada, and they are not ashamed or afraid to do so.
I do not want to appear smug when I say that we know what the events are in Quebec. We know them because we come from that province. If the New Democratic Party were able to elect a few members from that province, then they might be somewhat more enlightened about what are the real causes of the situation and what is the basis for the FLQ's existence. The NDP can claim that the 25 per cent of the vote given to the Parti Quebecois resulted from social unrest. I would say that the majority of the votes came from an abnormally high number of unemployed, and this is a real indication to all parties, including our own, that these people are fed up with the type of society which in their opinion, makes them second-class citizens in their own province. These people have shown an indication of that in the traditional democratic manner with which French Canadians are synonymous-through the ballot box, and have established a legitimate political party known as the Parti Quebecois, a party that has rejected the violence of the FLQ.
Sometimes unintentionally we blur the lines. I have heard more than one member say that the CNTU is part of the FLQ. The CNTU is not part of the FLQ. Some do not know who is the successor in the CNTU to Jean Marchand. They think it is that big mouth Michel Char-trand, but he is not. It is a gentleman called Pepin who has rejected and deplored the bombings, the kidnappings and the violence of the FLQ movement. This is also true of the Quebec Federation of Labour and Mr. Laberge, and it is true of the overwhelming majority of the Lapalme workers.
When we say that the discontent of the Lapalme workers is one of the contributing factors to the growth of the FLQ movement, let me point out that the plight of the Lapalme workers today is due to the unwillingness, rightly or wrongly, of a lot of people to examine the philosophy behind Bill C-186. If when the LaPalme workers had been offered integration into the Public Service they had been permitted under the laws of the land to bring their bargaining unit with them, or to apply in the
normal manner through the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act for certification on a regional basis, then they would be working in the Public Service today.
Let us all understand that when that legislation came before the House it may not have been the best type and it may not have been the worst. But it never had the opportunity to be fully examined because it was rapidly made the subject of hysteria between employers and employees and all the vested interests in the country who felt that national bargaining units were best for Canada. And they may be. But that more than any other fundamental reason is the reason those men are out marching. They have refused to give up their bargaining unit, their union, which under the law we could not give to them.
In conclusion, when the Prime Minister says he will introduce a bill to provide all of the powers that the authorities need, and no more, to fight these terrorists, bandits and revolutionaries, then I believe him. Knowing the Prime Minister and knowing the agony he went through before putting the powers under the War Measures Act into force, before concluding he had no alternative but to move in the way he did-surprise was of the essence in the particular situation we faced-I am sure the Prime Minister will not wait one day longer than he thinks necessary before repealing those powers.
This country is going to remain united, and no bandits, terrorists or revolutionaries known as the FLQ are going to destroy it as long as we can combat them by democratic means. The War Measures Act is a democratic means. It is part of the laws of the land. The government came to the House of Commons at the earliest opportunity to explain as fully as it could the reasons behind its action.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the remarks by the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey). We have also listened to several other ministers of the Crown who were involved in the decision to invoke the War Measures Act early yesterday morning, and I mention particularly the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand). I wish I could accept with confidence the remarks of these and other members on the government side who have spoken in this debate because it would be much easier for me to agree than disagree.
I believe that the vast majority of people across Canada and the vast majority of the press yesterday and today are giving support to the government for having done the right thing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Norman Thompson: They are so fed up with the activities of the FLQ terrorists in the province of Quebec and have pleaded for and expected action for so long to meet this problem that in the present emergency, about which we have not been given all the details yet except that it is

October 17, 1970

very serious, they feel this type of action is warranted. I understand their reaction.
Having said that, I am convinced that Canada will rue the day which is marked on our calendars as October 16, 1967. I say that not because I do not want action taken against the FLQ. I have many times pleaded for action. In fact, it is very interesting to note as far as history is concerned that on October 17, 1967, just three years ago today almost to the hour, I asked in this House the following question of the Solicitor General:
Is the hon. gentleman aware that Radio Havana is broadcasting a daily half hour program on the 49 metre band in French, beamed directly at Quebec listeners and giving instructions in subversive activity and guerilla warfare-
They laughed at me that day. The Solicitor General would not give an answer. Many members then accused me of radicalism and extremism. I have in my hand a montage of clippings taken from various newspapers dated July, April and May, 1967. These are clippings from our own Canadian newspapers telling about the subversive activity that was already taking place in Canada.
On October 30, 1967, having been unable even to get an answer to a question in the House, let alone being given any credit for raising a pertinent question of some importance, I wrote an open letter to the Secretary of State for External Affairs listing the various activities which had come to my attention and were taking place. I was not conducting some witch hunt. I had picked this information out of the papers that were circulating in this country including the newspaper Granma, which is the official organ of the communist organization in Cuba. It was circulated in mass quantity in this country all during Expo right out of the Cuban pavillion at Expo. It was brought then to the public's attention, although there was no public admission by the police and certainly no admission or recognition given by the frontbenchers of the government at that time, that there were actual training camps in the Laurentians teaching subversive activity, guerilla warfare and terrorism. They laughed at that time. The people of Canada have been subjected to this kind of thing for too long. They are getting fed up and tired so today they have reacted in favour of extremism against something that should have been handled in the normal way a long time ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Norman Thompson: I am convinced the police knew all about this. These things were not done in secret. It was open so far as those people who wanted to acknowledge and see that it was taking place are concerned.
Just last Tuesday, October 13, when I spoke in the House, I outlined a four point program I thought the government might accept. It is very interesting to note that the government has acted on all these points except one. They could have taken a much less severe and less dangerous step than the implementation of the War Measures Act which would have done for the FLQ crises exactly what has been done under the War Measures
Invoking of War Measures Act Act. The people of Canada have hoped and prayed that the government would take this action. I called then upon the Prime Minister to make a nationwide address to the Canadian people and to assert the primary rule of law and to assure the people of Canada that the government was resolved to take measures of appropriate severity.
I asked the Prime Minister then to declare, under the provisions of Section 91(1) of the British North America Act, that the terrible kidnappings in the city of Montreal were matters affecting the peace, order and good government of Canada and henceforth would be treated as a federal responsibility in close co-operation with provincial and municipal authorities. Had the government followed and strengthened the law it would have meant bringing a bill into the House of Commons, if that was necessary, to amend the Criminal Code. I also asked that he announce a substantial reward to anyone who could provide authoritative information leading to the apprehension of criminals, for that is what these FLQ people are.
I found it very interesting to hear the Minister of Labour talking about the difference between the Parti Quebecois and the FLQ, and then suddenly announcing to the House that he knew what that difference was. He then went so far as to say these were international revolutionaries. Anyone who knows the situation and has been following it at all knows that is what has been happening. I agree entirely that the Parti Quebecois has endeavoured to do something I cannot agree with but through legitimate, political means. It is an altogether different thing than revolutionary terrorism and no one on this side of the House has intimated they were the same. It is an altogether different thing when people are plotting revolution and terror and overthrow not only of the government but a system of government.
I am convinced that these people are part of a Communist organization which is working in the north and south of the western hemisphere to do that very thing. They would like to do the same thing in Canada as well and life means nothing to them. Violence and terror mean nothing at all to them except that they are a means to an end. So when the Minister of Labour acknowledges that here in this Chamber, let him not accuse anyone on this side of the House of not knowing that difference.
This whole exercise is an attempt to obscure and cover over the fact that action should have been taken several years ago, six months ago or a week ago but was not taken. The Minister of Labour, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and the Minister of Justice have all mentioned in their remarks in this debate that they found it necessary to move with severity under the provisions of the War Measures Act because of the critical situation the country faced 36 hours ago. The Minister of Labour this afternoon has quoted from yesterday's Hansard the comments of the mayor of Montreal and the chairman of the executive committee, Lucien Saulnier, contained in a letter addressed to the Prime Minister. By coincidence, Mr. Speaker, these two gentlemen said the same thing last November. They pleaded for action and they were laughed at then.

October 17, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
Yesterday the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert outlined some of the actual facts contained in their submission. They referred to the fact that political kidnappings would be one part of the FLQ strategy. Had action been taken on the advice of Mayor Drapeau, we would not have Mr. Cross and Mr. Laporte where they are today, wherever they are, in the land of the living or not. These are the things which concern me. It is all right to say now that it was necessary to implement The War Measures Act, but why was some action not taken before? Last Tuesday I asked the Prime Minister and members of his cabinet to commit such officers of the RCMP and the Canadian Armed Forces as are necessary to ensure the speedy apprehension of those responsible for these heinous crimes. I asked them to explore every feasible way in which this could be done. Had they done this they might have been in a position to have acted in a more constitutional way than they have now.
I wish to make clear again that I do not object to what has to be done in respect of apprehending those who are dedicated to the overthrow of our way of life. I merely object to how it is being done. On the one hand, the government might have acted a little earlier had they listened to the facts. Surely the security files revealed this situation a long time ago. But they did nothing. A lot of what we hear today about the protection of law and order in this country is a smokescreen, on the one hand for the inactivity and indecision of this government and, on the other hand, is a cover for the real implications of what the War Measures Act really means to this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Norman Thompson: Yesterday the Minister of Justice said that this resolution was brought before Parliament to test the will of Parliament. It is all right to test the will of Parliament in respect of the action taken, but some kind of justification is demanded and that is why we are here today. If in the next week or days ahead the people of Canada do not understand what we on this side of the House are trying to say, I am convinced they will later on. Again, having commended the government for taking action, late as it was, I should like to ask this question. Why is it necessary to take away the civil liberty and freedom of Canadian citizens living in Alberta or Newfoundland because of a situation which exists only within the province of Quebec? Surely there must have been some other way to do it. The period is indefinite, as the regulations are in force for six months with power to extend.
What I am about to say is not a popular thing to say but I shall say it in any event and do it at the risk of being criticized. I am old enough to remember what happened in Germany in the early 1930's. I can remember a voice we listened to on radio which pleaded for the support of the German people for the very same reasons-the maintenance of law and order. Tragically, the public responded to the plea. A few did not. Many of those who did not lost their lives because a few years later they even dared to complain.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask this question as well. Is it wisdom to entrust unlimited power to the Prime Minister under such a stringent measure as this because of a localized emergency which might have been controlled otherwise? I have spoken to many members from the other side, some of whom approached me at the close of the session last evening. I give them full credit for being just as sincere and dedicated to Canada as I think I am. They said: Look, regardless of the past and regardless of whether or not the government was slow in taking action it was obviously necessary that this kind of action be taken now. I do not disagree with that.
However, this morning I should like to ask these members why it was necessary that it be done in the way it has been done. Why could the Prime Minister not have said: Look, we had to take this action; we were slow in not taking action before with regard to a situation in respect of which I cannot give you all the details at this moment. He could have said that they took the action they did but that it has been taken for only a temporary period of time, perhaps only for a month. I would not have objected even to six months if the government could have said that within that period, or as soon as it is possible, legislation will be prepared to amend the Criminal Code or that new legislation would be brought in that would adequately take care of the situation after this emergency has passed. I do not think any of us on this side of the House would have objected to that. I believe that would have been assurance to us that the government was intending to use this only as a limited emergency power. The government, however, has not done this.
This extraordinary power has been granted for a period of six and a half months and the Prime Minister has reserved the right to extend the time if he wishes to do so. He has the same right or authority to extend the time as he had when he brought in this measure in the first place at four o'clock yesterday morning. Why could we not now have from the Minister of Justice and our Prime Minister a statement which would unequivocally commit the government to bring in the necessary legislation to limit to a shorter period the time in which the War Measures Act will be in effect? I would hope the Prime Minister would do this.
I have a good deal of confidence in the Minister of Justice. We have come to know each other very well in the years during which we have sat together in the House. I have confidence in his motivation. If I can have confidence in that regard I think we can differ and differ honestly. But having that confidence I should like to hear him commit the government unequivocally to the use of this measure strictly as an emergency measure for as short a time as possible and that beginning tomorrow work will commence on legislation to cover the specific situation. I grant that it will take some time to make sure that the proper legislation is brought before the House of Commons either as an amendment to the Criminal Code or in the form of a separate piece of legislation. We would give support to that.

October 17, 1970

No member of this House can like what is going on. The Minister of Justice does not have a reply for me in this regard. I wish to say to him what I believe was said in similar words yesterday. The means that are used to determine the end achieved-change predicated on violence or terrorism-are bound to end in a police state which can only perpetuate itself in violence and terrorism unless we deliberately and conscientiously include the safeguards and checks that are necessary at the time of implementation in order to prevent that taking place.
For the sake of the record and in reply to some members on the other side who have ridiculed our questioning and the stand some of us are taking on this side, may I say that we are being asked to approve the suspension- they laugh when we say this but it is true-of all the laws of Canada and replace them with dictatorial powers to be used at will. Maybe the regulations that we have before us do not exactly provide that, but the War Measures Act does. If the government can implement it on the one hand as it defined it yesterday, they can, on the other hand, extend it to complete the power which the War Measures Act allows them, again by order of the Governor in Council, and they can do it at night.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
The authority in this measure enables the government to give police the power to arrest, detain, and deport those suspected of insurrection. The Act gives the government blanket authority to take any action it considers necessary in cases of feared insurrection. I think this is probably necessary at this time, and no one is really questioning that. But the government may also, according to the War Measures Act, do and authorize such acts and things and make from time to time such orders and regulations necessary or advisable for the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada. This includes such action as censorship and the control and suppression of publications, writings, maps, plans, photographs, communications and means of communication. That is what it means. It means the arrest, detention, exclusion and deportation of undesirable people. It means the control of harbours, ports and territorial waters and the movement of vessels. It means control of land, air and water transport and movements of people or their belongings. It means control of imports, exports, production and manufacturing. It means control of appropriation, forfeiture and disposition of property and its use.
Furthermore, the act automatically applies to every section of the country although its use is limited and directed by regulations devised by the government to assist in the apprehension of those involved in the recent kidnappings in Montreal.
This is why I am fearful that in the future we in this democratic nation, with a democratic way of life about which we have continued to boast, stand in jeopardy because of the action taken at this time. Such complete power is unnecessary to resolve the issue that is involved and it is dangerous in the hands of any man or group of men. That is why we on this side are concerned. Again I
Invoking of War Measures Act say that in that concern we recognize that action had to be taken. But it should have been taken a long time ago. We also recognize the danger of what might be the end result. I have yet to hear from any member on the other side an adequate assurance that precautions will be taken, that more reasonable alternatives will be initiated, to prevent the happening of what it is actually within the authority of the present legislation to bring to pass.
I only want to say again that I resent very much that the civil liberties and freedoms of the people of Canada, 21 million of them, have to be abrogated. Even the Bill of Rights itself has been cast aside because there exists in one part of this country a serious situation that demanded firm action lest the country should break apart. I believe it is not in the best interest of the country that Parliament should give unlimited power to the Prime Minister or to those who are responsible for the administration of the affairs of the country over an issue such as we face. I was shocked yesterday, when the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was reading documentation that had been presented to the Prime Minister by the mayor and the chief executive of the city of Montreal, to hear the Prime Minister call it nonsense. Is this action reflected in the statement which was made by the Prime Minister on the steps of the House of Commons-just watch what I will do? It is the kind of response that we receive from the Prime Minister which leads me to believe that we are not out of order in being fearful about what might come to pass in the country as a result of having given him the powers that now rest in his hands.
I want to give credit to every member of the House for being a loyal Canadian. We are the representatives of millions more such people. We should be proud of what our nation has been, of our history and our heritage. But we should also be mindful of what has made it such. I believe that we could sum it all up if we were to quote here the very paragraphs of the Canadian Bill of Rights to remind us of what are Canadians' rights. These rights do not come from the government, they come from God himself. We are creatures in his image. It is our responsibility to protect them, to guard them, to perpetuate them, not to assume that the government can give these rights or take them away. Let us examine carefully the real issues before we are taken in by the heat and the emotions of the moment, and in the end lose what we still have.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Would the hon. member allow a question?


Robert Norman Thompson: Yes, with pleasure, if the Speaker gives permission.


Marcel Prud'homme: When he said that the War Measures Act should apply to only one part of the country, was he aware that Canada is one country and that what applies to one part of the country should apply to all of it? Is there not a danger that if this were to apply to one part of the country only, Quebec at present, some people could profit from the situation in another part of the

October 17, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act country, could profit from the fact that all the forces were busy in Quebec by taking violent action in some other part of the country?


Robert Norman Thompson: I respect the question and the questioner, who is a good friend of mine, but I do not accept the validity of his argument. If I were playing football today and I cracked my shinbone and drastic action had to be taken such as surgery to correct the injury, need I bind up my other leg and arms as well? I do not think so. There is such an accident or unfortunate situation in one part of the country, that requires this kind of action but people who live there because of a danger that does not exist?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
Translation]


Mr. Ovide Laflamme (Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to participate in this interesting debate which is drawing the attention of a great many Canadians, even though it is meant primarily to give members an opportunity to express their opinion on the measures adopted by the government to meet the present state of emergency in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, when we listen to the speeches of opposition members, we wonder about the purpose of this debate. They say: The government could not act otherwise under the circumstances but assumed powers that are too extensive.
Mr. Speaker, when a state of emergency has to be dealt with, one is not justified in criticizing the government for taking too many precautions in order to regain control over a situation which is deteriorating from day to day.
But, as this debate permits the exchange of some views, I wish to call attention to the fact that the government's decision was made following a request from the Quebec provincial authorities, with the unanimous approval of the National Assembly, that of the executive Council of the City of Montreal, which represents close to one-third of the population of the province of Quebec, and that, I am sure, of almost the whole of the Quebec population. This was an urgent request and, in my view, the government acted wisely and speedily. The government acted so promptly that, in a few hours, throughout the province all those who advocate the use of submer-sive means to overthrow the established order were arrested and are now detained.
Mr. Speaker, who is responsible for such a situation? The matter can be discussed for hours and attempts made to find out causes, but this would only serve to provide us with guidelines for the future. But there is a point which it is important to consider for a few minutes and upon which many hon. members have insisted, that is the great influence of the mass media on the population.
The generation that is challenging the established order was born with the media, especially television. That generation has greatly abused freedom of speech and is guilty also of many other excesses. It is obvious that the great impact of the mass media has incited people unable to control themselves perhaps because they enjoy too much freedom to use subversive means.
Last Sunday, the premier of Quebec channelled the thoughts of all Canadians when he said that the responsibility for protecting order and justice rests with the competent authorities, even though the lives of two citizens-one British diplomat and the hon. Pierre Laporte, provincial member for Longueuil, a friend of mine who, I am sure, is mentally and morally fit to take it-are at stake. I hope, in the interest of the province of Quebec and of Canada, that they will be released safe and sound.
The Parti Quebecois, as it was said earlier, is not directly concerned. One thing remains sure, however, and this is why some confusion may exist. The objectives seeked by the FLQ and the Parti Quebecois are identical; only the means to reach them differ. The FLQ wants to upset the established order, destroy the country through violence and force. As for the Parti Quebecois, while challenging the minds and attempting to destroy the country in the minds of the people, especially, in the minds of the young people of Quebec, wants to subvert the established order by advocating the separation of Quebec through democratic means, but it does it through excesses of language and the "rape" of young people's minds, as it has already been said in the House.
And during the few years when we have witnessed the rise of separatism and heard these inflammatory flights of oratory, hot-headed young people were setting themselves a sort of aim which was not a real one, that is the establishment of a Quebec state that, alone, would be able to settle all problems. This theory has been idealized on the one hand and on the other hand subversive minds, people unable to bear the wealth of freedom which we enjoy both at the provincial level and at the national level, have swung into action. Now, we are witnessing a series of bombings. Time has passed and, for a while, the bombings in Quebec may have answered the purpose of certain people, because they contributed to the unstability of the economy. While industries were being established outside the province, these people would say: "Bombings in Quebec are not such a bad thing after all as we can see industries being set up in other provinces".
The provincial elections held on April 29 had disappointing results for Mr. Rene Levesque, leader of the Parti Quebecois. Last night on the publicly owned TV network, acting like the crow that dropped its prey, he tried to convince his viewers that this debate is tantamount to a federal-provincial crisis. He claimed that the government of the province of Quebec had ceased to exist. In my opinion, this is cheap politics on his part at a time when the National Assembly where some of his party members are sitting was unanimously begging the federal government to put into effect the measures which are now known to us, i.e. the intervention of the army to help out the police forces which for several months now have had more than they could handle in the way of

October 17, 1970

protecting the citizens in general, and more especially respectable persons like the hon. Pierre Laporte, from falling into the hands of kidnappers, and of bringing an end to any panic within the population.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being one o'clock I do now leave the Chair to resume the same at two o'clock this afternoon.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Ovide Laflamme: Mr. Speaker, at the time of adjournment, I was explaining certain issues underlying current events in Quebec, outlining to the House the significant influence of the mass media, particularly since the advent of television.
The great influence of the mass media and the misuse of the freedom of speech have lead a number of extremists to commit assault and terrorism. Those very people who want to turn our society into a "society with more freedom", deprive at the same time of their basic liberty the citizens of the country, especially Quebecers. It is not a question of establishing now who, in the past, could have been responsible for these actions and for the present situation. Rather, I think that action was imperative.
For years, civil authority has been jeered at in all structures of society, in Quebec as well as in the entire country.
By the information media, especially in Quebec, there is also "the challenge of authority constituted in the schools". And the entire present generation, which benefits from greater access to schools, is being indoctrinated by these revolutionaries who repeat emulously that our constitution is bad and should be completely remodelled.
Moreover if one would analyse the average age of alleged FLQ members one would see that they are 25 or less.
As these subversive activities were being planned drugs were distributed among young people. There is no city in Canada right now where youngsters of 16 or 17 have not impaired their health owing to uncontrolled use of drugs. Naturally, this created an atmosphere favourable to subversive action.
That is why, every time I hear members of the opposition say that the government should have acted and taken measures sooner, I contend that most of them would have been the first to say then that the government was reacting too quickly and was trying to exercise too strongly the powers it had under the law.
In my opinion, the government could not face the fact that in a society which had as much freedom as we have,
Invoking of War Measures Act subversive elements were fostering a revolution to establish a dictatorship such as the ones that exist in Cuba or other countries which do not have anything like the basic freedoms we enjoy in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, before recess I was saying that on television yesterday the leader of Parti Quebecois Mr. Rene Levesque had suggested a federal-provincial debate on the present situation, tragic and serious as it is. In this I submit he went against the opinion of the members of his own party sitting in the National Assembly where Premier Bourassa received the unanimous support of all members to ask the federal government for armed intervention in order to assist the police forces.
Mr. Speaker, it was said time an again that the present government action is one of assistance to police forces. I do not see how we can reproach the government for having acted so swiftly and I would even say so efficiently. Hundreds of lives have thus been spared by the armed forces and the police in resorting to arrests of a preventive nature. Prompt action was required.
In fact, in Hull, a young girl was kidnapped and held captive until four o'clock this morning. She was subjected to all kinds of tortures, then she was relaased only so that she could warn the Prime Minister that, unless a stop was put to the use of the army to fight the FLQ, children would be the next victims. This was a message that the Prime Minister was to give, with assurance, on the radio.
That is what terrorists are doing in our country. The time had come to use against criminals, who want to spread panic and terror by threatening the lives of individuals, every measure that a structured society like ours has at its disposal.
A society such as ours does not have the right to give in to blackmail, even though young people are used to seeing such tense situations unfolding on the screen.
If the Quebec or Ottawa government had yielded to that outrageous blackmail, a lot of young people would have witnessed that blackmail and that terrorism. It is fortunate that Quebec had at its head a young premier who was wise and forceful and who acted with insight and in co-operation with the government of his country; he was thus able to keep the situation under control and to tell those people, once and for all, that terrorism has no place in Canada and that the agitators will have either to die or to change their minds.
Those are, Mr. Speaker, the preventive measures that the House should adopt unanimously. It will still be time later on to discuss the subtle technicalities aimed at preventing any kind of subversive activity in Canada.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: I will not be here on Monday when the vote is taken. For this reason, I wish to make my stand perfectly clear. Everyone should stand and be counted on this issue, but the
262

October 17, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act
fact remains that some of us have to attend to other unavoidable commitments. I do not want any ambiguity as to my position and the reasons for adopting this position. That is why I am participating in this debate.
The main points of argument have been put forward very clearly by the various parties in this House. I have listened to these speeches exceedingly carefully. I do not think I have missed a speech since this debate began. I wish to sum up the reasons why I would vote against this motion. It amounts to endorsing and showing confidence in what the government has done by invoking the War Measures Act at this time.
I want it to be abundantly clear that the members of my party do not deny that the government of Quebec needs the extra powers for which it is asking. Nor do we deny the fact that this government has every right and responsibility to see that they get these powers. We have known for a long time that there is a cancer eating at the vitals of the province of Quebec, a cancer which is very likely to spread to other parts of the country. I am not talking about one province versus another. We know this has to be dealt with.
I want to give the reasons why we think the way in which the government is dealing with this matter is wrong. It is far too dangerous a method for those of us who respect Parliament to accept. I could not vote for this motion because it asks us to blindly approve the government's action. We have not been given the facts indicating why this motion is necessary. We have heard about sticks of dynamite, cells of the FLQ and other things. I have no doubt that these are the facts, and a great deal more could be alleged.
The members of this House have not been given a proper analysis or outline of the complete situation. This is our right. Why could there not have been a special in camera session during which the government could have briefed hon. members if there are other matters which we do not know about? If there are facts that in the opinion of the government warrant this action, why haven't the responsible elected members from every province and district in Canada been informed of these? As the representatives of the people of this country, this is what we have a right to expect. We have not received an answer to that question. Why were we not approached days, weeks or months ago with regard to this particular need?
An hon. member this morning very cogently indicated, with documentation, that for well over a year the city of Montreal and the province of Quebec have been in a state where they wanted help from the federal government. No action or insufficient action was taken to meet the need. Why was this not done? Why was it necessary to have a hurry up, middle of the night performance about which we were informed only after it occurred? It has now been more than ten days since Parliament resumed. Why could we not have been informed earlier about this proclamation to help the city of Montreal and the province of Quebec?
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) says this act is stronger than is needed at the present time. We want to know why we cannot have legislation of the kind which is needed, not far-reaching provisions which are sweeping away every vestige of hard-won civil liberty across Canada. What is needed now is a measure to deal with the particular emergency in Quebec. I have read carefully the letters of the Premier of Quebec and the Mayor of Montreal, but nowhere can I find a request that the War Measures Act be invoked. The idea did not come from them, or at least it does not emerge in the letters. The Prime Minister says he does not need all the powers contained in that act. Very well, let him ask for the powers which are in fact required. The explanation that it is necessary to pounce quickly upon suspects is not sufficient, in my view, to justify the action which has been taken.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) failed to explain yesterday why amendments to the Criminal Code could not have handled this emergency in Quebec. Why were such amendments not proposed? We in this party would have supported amendments designed to strengthen powers of search and confer other powers for dealing with terrorists. But this was not the course taken. Instead, a statute was invoked which had been designed to deal only with a situation in which the country was in a state of war or insurrection of a kind no one has yet referred to in this House. No reply has been made to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) and others that a statute be drafted rapidly to meet the situation and replace the sweeping powers conferred by the War Measures Act. The only answer we got was that we must have faith in the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is a fine man, an upstanding man, a lover of his country-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Winona Grace MacInnis: Why cannot we rest our confidence there? I want to say that if the angel Gabriel appeared to me in person and asked me to turn over the functions of Parliament to him because he was a clean-living, fine angel, my answer would be, no. To do so would be to negate our very reason for being here as representatives of the people.
There are altogether too many unanswered questions in this situation. Those of us who come here believing we have a duty to represent the people cannot be fobbed off by excuses, or persuaded to give in to a small group of members, in fact, in the ultimate instance, to the wishes of one man over an issue which will affect this country for a long time to come.
The Prime Minister promised he would consider drafting such a statute as I have described but there is nothing to compel him to do so. Between now and next April he could, if he wished, extend the powers he presently has beyond April 30. There may be members on the other side of the House who are prepared to abdicate their responsibility to the extent of approving the inten-

October 17, 1970

tions of one man, not knowing under what conditions he may have to operate, but X, and those associated with me, have no intention of belonging to their company. This is my first reason for opposing this motion.
The second reason is that this action in invoking the War Measures Act is one which should not have been taken in the absence of consideration and debate by this parliamentary body. I am aware of all the excuses and reasons given for the course taken, but there is no reason under Heaven for bypassing the elected representatives of the people when such sweeping powers are brought in, particularly since we are in session and quite able to deal with emergency legislation. There are procedures by means of which a suitable measure could have been got quickly through the House. In my opinion this is just another example of this tendency to downgrade the authority of parliament. People have remarked that liberty is seldom taken away in one sudden swoop but that it is usually taken away piece by piece. In my opinion, this is one more serious step in the downgrading of the authority of this Parliament, the legislative body, the decision-making body of the people of Canada, that is, if more than lip service is to be paid to the idea of democratic government in this country.
In the third place, I believe we should oppose this motion because no serious reasons have been given for the government's failure to use another method of meeting the situation, such as amending the Criminal Code or the passing of a special statute. I will put forward a further reason for opposing this legislation. We have found in the past in this country and in other countries that once measures of this kind have been put into force they are extremely difficult to remove. My memory goes back to days when I was a very young girl and section 98 was placed on the statute books of this country. It was debated by Parliament. It was before the House for two or three hours and received Royal Assent quickly; it was put through in a panic situation. People at that time- nobody believes it any more-believed firmly that we were in the midst of a red revolution on the banks of the Red River. They panicked, and the government of the day put through section 98 which in its own way provided sweeping powers to deal with what they considered to be a dire emergency.
That section, section 98, was on the statute books of this country for 17 long years. It was used in the depression to very bad effect. During the 'thirties, when he was a member of the opposition, Mr. Lapointe, later minister of justice, tried to get legislation through Parliament to repeal it. He was unsuccessful because once a measure of this kind comes into force it is extremely difficult to get rid of it. Those who cheerfully say "Give the Prime Minister a few weeks and he will be bringing a suitable measure before Parliament to replace this statute" are optimists to a very high degree indeed, in my view. I would not be a bit surprised to see this measure remain in force a lot longer than April 30 next year. I hope that will not be the case, but on the basis of experience these measures are terribly hard to remove.
Invoking of War Measures Act
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
Another reason that I must oppose this measure is that no one knows where this sort of measure will end. We were led to believe by the Prime Minister-no, the Prime Minister was a little more frank than some of his supporters who have spoken; he indicated that the measure was to be used to deal with the FLQ and perhaps other organizations of an illegal type. Other speakers on the government side were very much more careful to point out that they felt the measure was invoked solely to deal with the FLQ. But who is to say where the measure is going to end? Once you move into the area of calling organizations illegal, heaven alone knows where this will end.
It is very interesting to note that not more than 36 hours after invoking the act the mayor of my own city of Vancouver, a city where no one has yet heard of a state of insurrection existing, showed himself to be very eager to take action under the act. I should say he wanted the authorities to take action since he is unable to wield its powers himself. The mayor desired to have what he regarded as "nuisance organizations" declared illegal. The fact is that he is running for election and badly needs to have demagogic material to assist h:m to return to office; but his election has nothing to do with the powers that can be exercised under this act. However, I am just citing the fact that throughout British Columbia it is already very well known that this legislation is available to those who are in a position to use it.
It was made abundantly clear to me yesterday in the speech of the Minister of Justice that the authority for declaring what is an illegal organization rests with the attorneys general of the provinces. In my opinion this is a very peculiar way to secure even handed justice in Canada. The act and the orders in council that were passed may be federal in form; but if the attorney general of each province is to be permitted to determine what is an illegal organization in his province, then Canadians do not have uniform justice across the country.
The fears that have been expressed by many in this House that the action taken by the government will not help to solidify Canadian unity but, on the other hand, will divide Canadians becomes all too real. To my mind it is wrong to leave the definition of what is an illegal organization to the whim of the attorney general of a province. In fact, if I were in charge of the government, knowing something of the composition of the present government of British Columbia, I might even be a little alarmed at allowing the attorney general of that province to declare which organizations are legal and which are not. Perhaps there is no immediate danger in this regard, but we must remember that this sort of thing can snowball at an accelerating rate.
These are some of the reasons that I oppose this measure, but there is one over-riding reason, and it is that I believe firmly in democratic government. I believe that although people may not be as informed as we would like-and they cannot be informed so long as we have a situation where even their representatives are not told
23226-18J

October 17, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act the truth-and even though people are unable to use the machinery of government to achieve their objectives, I still believe that government by the people is the only form of government that is worthy of people like us who have a great heritage to preserve and to protect.
I believe that this sort of measure has reduced the members of the House to the role of rubber stamping a decision by the Prime Minister of the country. This applies to the backbenchers on the opposite side of the House as well as those of us on the opposition benches. If we are going to be reduced to the role of rubberstamping, after the event, something the government has done, then I believe the sooner the doors of this Parliament are closed and the truth becomes apparent to the people, the better. The people are being lulled into a sense of false security as a result of our not being given the facts. As I say, their representatives are being faced with a fait accompli when they are invited to endorse a policy adopted by the government without their knowledge, and without being given any information on which to base a udgment.
Those are the reasons I must oppose this measure. When the votes are registered on Monday, let no one say there were those of us in this House who were afraid to stand up and be counted. I am getting my vote in early. My vote will be one that says I believe that, serious as the situation in the province of Quebec undoubtedly is, it is important that, in giving the government power to deal with the situation, we should not throw away those liberties that all of us from coast to coast have won, liberties which our forefathers gained for us with such difficulty.
These rights that we have won are worth preserving. In my view their fate cannot hinge on the decision, judgment and honesty of one man, no matter how able he may be. We must keep these rights in our own hands if we are to consider ourselves worthy to sit in this House and to represent the people in our constituencies.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) said yesterday morning, this is a most serious matter. I sincerely regret that many of those on the opposite side who have spoken to this question have not regarded it as sufficiently serious to comment on the matters genuinely at issue and to avoid political recriminations.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has invited the members of this House to make constructive comments on the changes they would like to see made in the regulations, and to comment on the provisions they would like to see incorporated in the new piece of legislation of a less sweeping nature that he has promised to bring forward as soon as it is feasible to do so. If opposition members are not prepared to fulfil that duty, then I am. I should like to begin my remarks by commenting briefly on the regulations which have been presented to the House for its consideration and approval.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
I would comment in particular on two of the regulations before commenting in general on the question of

unlawful associations. First of all, with regard to regulation 7(2), which provides for a detention for 90 days before a person is brought before a judge, I would submit that 90 days seems to be an unnecessarily long period. I believe this period in these regulations, and also in any subsequent statute which might be passed, might well be limited to 30 days. This would seem to fulfil the needs of the moment and would also provide for somewhat greater protection for the liberty of the subject.
I would also draw the attention of the House to regulation 8(a) where it is provided that:
In any prosecution for an offence under these Regulations, evidence that any person
(a)	attended any meeting of the unlawful association,.. .is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof that he is a member of the unlawful association.
I think this sub-paragraph goes too far. I do not think we ought to have this type of provision in the legislation which states that mere attendance at a meeting, even of such an unlawful association, in the absence of more evidence is proof of membership. I would also have some reservation about sub-paragraph (c), if this purports to mean that someone who, as a result of negotiations entered into between the government and an organization such as the FLQ, were ipso facto to be considered a member of that association. I believe if there were evidence to the contrary in such a case, such a person would not be guilty of any offence under these regulations.
Despite my feeling that several of these regulations go too far, I am very firmly in agreement with the principle of these regulations and with the action which the government has taken. The member who preceded me just now was discussing the passing of the unlawful association legislation in Canada. She referred to the fact that in 1919 the Conservative government at that time passed unlawful association legislation and installed it in the Criminal Code as Section 98.
Some 17 years later, in 1936, a Liberal government removed that unlawful association section from the Criminal Code. What the previous speaker failed to avert to was the fact that it was precisely because this provision was made an amendment to the Criminal Code rather than a temporary emergency measure that it lasted for 17 years. The problem with unlawful association legislation is that after the crisis period is over, it tends to remain on the statute books and its interpretation is extended to apply to situations for which it was never intended, and sometimes very unfairly so. This does not mean that such legislation is not very essential at moments of crisis to deal with particular problems which exist at that time. The essence of the distinction is simply that this legislation should be in effect for as short a time as is necessary to cope with the specific problem for which it is intended, and it should not remain indefinitely on the statute books of Canada. That is precisely the way in which this measure works.
The real test of the government's intention will be how the exceptional powers which are granted by these
October 17, 1970

October 17, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act East. These are not the methods of democratic men or even of men who are prepared to fight openly in the streets. These are the methods of hidden violence. I am astonished that the hon. member for York South did not make a distinction between limited and unlimited violence. In Quebec we have seen murder and the threat of murder. We have seen kidnapping and the threat of kidnapping. We have heard of threats to destroy the communication and transportation system of Canada. I am above all astonished that the hon. member for York South did not make a distinction between violence which is proportionate to social ills and violence such as this which is completely out of proportion to any social ills.
Does any hon. member of this House sincerely believe, even if we accept the fancy hypothesis about the Lapalme workers, that if those workers were given back their jobs the FLQ would disappear and violence cease in Quebec? Does anyone think that if there should be no unemployment in Quebec this would solve the problem? This violence is not proportionate to the social ills which exist in Quebec. It is violence of a kind which, as I said, is hidden, is unlimited and is totally out of proportion to the social ills which exist in the society.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
I have spent many years fighting for civil liberties in Canada. I have been a director of the Civil Liberties Association and its chairman. It is precisely because I believe I understand what civil liberties are all about that I support the government's action.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mark R. MacGuigan: It is an action which is directed toward preserving civil liberties and freedom generally in this country. There is no freedom in anarchy; there is no freedom in violence. There is no freedom in terror. There is freedom only in law. Let us have that law so that we may have our freedom.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, we have just heard the words of a man who is supposedly learned in the law, a former dean of law and a young man supposedly of some ability. If I were that man with the background I would anticipate I should have and should be displaying to the people of Canada I would think that the words spoken should stick in my throat, because what he said was that whenever freedom is threatened you give the government the power of dictatorship so that it can protect your freedom.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Carman Coates: I am against government by dictatorship. That is what the War Measures Act is. I am opposed to it. Somebody said, how did we get elected. Mr. Speaker, members of this House were elected by the democratic process which is not in effect in Canada today.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


An hon. Member:: Why are we wasting our time listening to you?


Robert Carman Coates: Whether you do or do not listen to me, my friend, does not really make any difference, because if your Prime Minister decides that I should be incarcerated for the next 90 days then I can be in that jail for 90 days whether I am a member of the FLQ or anything else. That is what the War Measures Act and the regulations associated with it provide. It is just as simple as that.
The members in this House are very touchy, Mr. Speaker, and well they should be. It is not just the 30 or so men sitting on the treasury benches but all 158 members of the Liberal party who have decided, and will decide just as long as the Prime Minister wants them to, that this government will have the power of a dictatorship, an oligarchy, the power to take away their freedom and liberty. So, they may well be touchy.
Yesterday and today, members of this chamber have been provided with a rare display, a display the equal of which I have not seen since June 1968, a display in which cabinet ministers, including the Prime Minister, stand up in this chamber in an effort to defend themselves. We have not been treated this way before, and there is a very good reason. The Prime Minister and his cabinet ministers know just how extreme the measures that have been taken are. They know how far they have gone and they are endeavouring to justify action that is far in excess of anything that has ever been done in this country in its 103-year history, except in time of war, and to do what?


An hon. Member:: To save Canada.


Robert Carman Coates: Somebody says "To save Canada". Are we in Canada at the present time in a state of civil war?


An hon. Member:: Almost.


Robert Carman Coates: The gentleman says "almost".


An hon. Member:: Like the Tory party.


Robert Carman Coates: Now, the gentleman becomes facetious.


An hon. Member:: Tell us about the leadership
convention.


Robert Carman Coates: Well, my friend, it is indeed a very high level of intellect that is evidenced by the remarks of some of the backbenchers of the Liberal party. It is no wonder we in the opposition must speak out for freedom in this country when there is a bunch of asses like those speaking out from the back benches of the Liberal party at the present time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The Chair would like to bring to the attention of hon. members that the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates) has the floor. At the same time, I wish to remind the hon. member that the language used in this House should be on the highest level.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that your ruling was quite correct, with all respect. Asses do not speak out. Asses just bray, as we have seen.

October 17, 1970

[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Robert Carman Coates: If anybody is deeply hurt, I can always change the word to "jackasses," "donkeys," "oxen," or something that is at least as appropriate and indicates the degree of esteem in which these members should be held by the Canadian people for the great contribution they have made up till now. We have heard members who support the government suggest that Canada is either in the throes of a civil war or on the verge of it. If that is the case, why have the people of Canada not been told, because I am sure one does not overnight get to the point of being involved in a civil war. Why has the government not taken action before now to prevent such a situation developing?
My hon. friends suggest that we are on the verge of a civil war. To my knowledge this situation has been in existence in this country since at least 1963. Until now people have not been kidnapped, but they have been killed and maimed, properties have been destroyed and threats have been made over and over again against the state, against the province of Quebec and against people. Nothing new has occurred, except that a British diplomat and a Quebec cabinet minister have been kidnapped. It is terrible to think that this has occurred, but it is just a continuation and an escalation of what has been going on since 1963, a period of seven years.
If during that period of time this government had thought we were approaching a civil war, should it not have taken steps to produce legislation that would have given it the power to stamp out once and for all insurrection in this country, instead of announcing at 4 a.m. that Canada is to have its liberty and freedom set aside? And our liberty and freedom is to be set aside not just for today or tomorrow, not just for this week or next week but for 63. months at least while the government moves in whatever way it decides to move to eliminate the problem as it sees it.


An hon. Member:: Brilliant!


Robert Carman Coates: We heard the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) speak yesterday. He made a brilliant speech, but he should have because no man in this country, including the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), bears greater responsibility than the Minister of Justice. He is the guardian, not only of the law but of the liberty and freedom of the individual. If we as individuals in this nation cannot depend on him to jealously guard our freedom, we do not have much hope.
Let us go back, not to 1963 but to June of 1968 at which time I and all hon. members of the House were involved in an election campaign. At that time I was led to believe-I have read and listened to the Liberal propaganda-that the problems facing Canada between 1963 and 1968 would disappear immediately, overnight with the election of Pierre Elliot Trudeau as Prime Minister of Canada; that the just society would come into effect and that regional economic disparity would be eliminated immediately.


Norman Augustine Cafik: How stupid can you get.
Invoking of War Measures Act


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: The Canadian electorate were stupid to believe that Pierre Elliott Trudeau would produce that situation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I would ask the hon. gentleman to resume his seat. Is the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) rising on a question of privilege?


Norman Augustine Cafik: I was rising to ask if I could ask the hon. member a question.


Robert Carman Coates: If the hon. member wishes to ask a question, he can do so when I have finished my speech. We were told that with the election of a prime minister from the province of Quebec we would have no serious problems in the days ahead, because who better could talk to the people of Quebec than someone from their province, and who better could show them that federalism was the way of life for all Canadians to follow? What has happened? After less than 2J years in office we have heard this Prime Minister say that he does not have the answers, there is no just society and he does not even want to use that slogan any more because the just society is not working out.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Carman Coates: The jackasses are still braying in the background.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: What we have now, rather than a just society, is an unjust society that infringes upon our liberty and freedom, liberty and freedom which we are told is being eliminated for a reason which a great many Canadians feel is proper. I do not say for one moment that the action taken by the Prime Minister is unpopular in the country. Indeed, last night I listened to Premiers from coast to coast saying that it was a reasonable action on the part of the government. They had not even had an opportunity to look at the regulations passed under the War Measures Act, yet they were saying they believed it was a reasonable action. When they look at the regulations and see that, among other things, they provide as follows, I wonder what their reaction will be:
8.	In any prosecution for an offence under these Regulations, evidence that any person
(a)	attended any meeting of the unlawful association,
(b)	spoke publicly in advocacy for the unlawful association, or
(c)	communicated statements of the unlawful association as a representative or professed representative of the unlawful association is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof that he is a member of the unlawful association.
9.	(1) a peace officer may arrest without warrant (a) a person who he has reason to suspect is a member of the unlawful association;
o (3:10 p.m.)
A police officer may, after arresting an individual, incarcerate him in jail for a period of 90 days. The hon.

October 17, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act
member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) suggests that this may be too severe. He says that members of the opposition have been asked by the Prime Minister to make suggestions regarding the type of legislation that should be produced. But although the Prime Minister says that, he is unwilling to give us the facts about the seriousness of the situation. In the absence of documentation on the seriousness of the situation we are supposed to propose legislation for the government's consideration. How ridiculous could anything become? Mr. Speaker, it is the government's responsibility to produce legislation based on the facts that it has and outlining the degree of power it feels it should have. We are saying that nothing we know indicates that the government had to go to the extreme that it did in order to secure the power it has today.
Let us consider the country to our south, which is much bigger than Canada, with ten times as many people. It has all kinds of difficulties because of organizations like the FLQ. It has dozens of organizations like the FLQ which are bent on the destruction of that country, bent on the destruction of its system of government, just as the FLQ is bent on the destruction of our system of government. But that government has not announced that civil war exists in the United States. It has not proclaimed that the President of the United States should be made a dictator. It has logically and systematically asked its legislative bodies to increase the power of the President so that he may be better able to protect the individual through law and order. How much more reasonable it would have been had our government, when it knew the seriousness of the situation existing in the province of Quebec, moved to take the same steps, to produce the same kind of legislation that would have given the Prime Minister the type of power that the President of the United States achieved through the legislative process?
All Canadians have been asked by the Prime Minister to accept his decision, to agree to the elimination of liberty and freedom so far as the regulations passed under the War Measures Act are concerned. I watched the Prime Minister last night on television, as I am sure most Canadians did. He did a tremendous job in explaining his position; there is no argument about that. As a matter of fact, I think that even Barbra Streisand would have been proud of him last night because he acted so well. But, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is a Jekyll and Hyde. I recall seeing the Prime Minister in this House of Commons yesterday, when he was listening to a former prime minister outlining the documentation that had been presented to a committee of this House by the mayor and chairman of the executive committee of the city of Montreal. When he had finished gesturing, making fun of a former prime minister, he had this to say as recorded at page 204 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out to the hon. member that I was very willing to listen to him but if he intends to read nonsense in this way-
The "nonsense" that the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was reading happened to be the evidence that had been placed before a special committee
of this House inquiring into the activities of the Company of Young Canadians. That was the Prime Minister we saw in action in the House of Commons. He was a far different fellow from the individual who appeared on television last night pleading with the people of Canada, at his pleading best, to bear with him during the period in which liberty and freedom were to be set aside so that he could wipe out the insurgents in the province of Quebec. That is just one of the many examples of the type of Prime Minister we have.
I remember when he was Minister of Justice and he rose in this House and told members of the opposition, "We are the masters of the House." I remember very well when as Prime Minister he said on July 25, 1969, as recorded at page 11635 of Hansard:
The opposition seems to think it has nothing else to do but talk. They say: If there is a problem, we will talk. If there is a difficulty, we will talk about it. If the government is going too slowly, we will talk about it. If there is a real problem in some part of Canada, we will talk about it. That is all they have to do. They do not have to govern-


An hon. Member:: Amen.


Robert Carman Coates: *-they have only to talk. The best place in which to talk, if they want a quorum is, of course, Parliament. When they get home, when they get out of Parliament, when they are 50 yards from Parliament Hill, they are no longer hon. members-they are just nobodies-


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, that is the Prime Minister who is asking the people of Canada to go along with him. If he says that Members of Parliament, who represent the 21 million people in this country, are nobodies, then what are the Canadians in the street whom the members of this House represent?


An hon. Member:: Somebodies.


Robert Carman Coates: I wonder just how high is the Prime Minister's regard for the ordinary man in the street, if a Member of Parliament is a nobody. Yet he is the man who says, "Bear with me, my friends. I will be a benevolent dictator for 6J months, or I will then tell you how much longer I will be a benevolent dictator." The Prime Minister allowed a situation to develop in the province of Quebec. He saw it developing even before he became a Member of Parliament. He saw it developing when he was in this House as Minister of Justice and then as Prime Minister. Then suddenly, at four o'clock in the morning, he said, "Today I assume new and greater powers; greater powers than any man has ever held in the history of this country." He took those powers unto himself.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
Last night he put on sackcloth and ashes. He told us a fine story. No doubt Canadians were touched by his performance. If that had been the performance of the

October 17, 1970

Prime Minister day in and day out, I would say it was well and good. But that is not the kind of performance the right hon. gentleman puts on for the members of the House, who protect our freedom and liberty. He laughs at us; he gets up in the middle of our speeches and walks out; he sits down and hoots at us when we ask him legitimate questions; he stands up and says, "If you are going to heckle me, I am not going to talk to you; I am going to take my doll home and play."


An hon. Member:: That is pretty childish.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: It is childish.


Robert Carman Coates: That is the kind of Prime Minister we have. That is not the man who put on such a performance last night on television. They are different men; they are Jekyll and Hyde. I do not know which of these two men wields the greatest power that has ever been assumed by any individual in this country.


An hon. Member:: Mr. Hyde does.


Robert Carman Coates: I am afraid that instead of Dr. Jekyll, it is Mr. Hyde.


An hon. Member:: Are you Barnum, or Bailey?


Robert Carman Coates: I will take the hon. member into the circus, because he is the biggest clown you will ever see.


An hon. Member:: There's a sucker born every minute.


Robert Carman Coates: The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) had this to say yesterday about the government's action, as reported at page 195 of Hansard-.
The War Measures Act provides for the possibility of very sweeping interference with what we ordinarily consider to be the civil rights and liberties of Canadians. It is true that the government has presented and adopted regulations which do not invoke all the powers of the War Measures Act but, the War Measures Act having been invoked, there certainly are many additional powers in reserve which the government could utilize by regulation at any time. Furthermore, the extensive powers described in the regulations are to be in effect until April 30, 1071, a very considerable length of time. These powers apply, of course, throughout the country.
It is my belief, Mr. Speaker-I want to make this abundantly clear-that it was not necessary for the government at 4 a.m. yesterday to go to the extreme of invoking the 'War Measures Act. But now this has been done, now that the government has taken this action, now that this law is in effect, I say the government ought to move forward and produce for this House specific legislation giving the power necessary to combat the FLQ and any other subversive organization in this country. The legislation should be in effect for whatever period the government may deem necessary. But 1 say that whatever reason there was for invoking the War Measures Act, the inherent value of using that legislation has now gone.
Surely, the most significant reason the government can put forward for adopting an act giving it such sweeping powers as the right of immediate arrest is that surprise
Invoking of War Measures Act was needed to round up the insurgents. The government did not want to take the chance of their doing any more damage. Now that the element of surprise has gone, why does the government say, "We want this power for an additional six months and we are not even willing to consider giving it up before then"?
Why cannot the government, if it knows the facts, come to this House with them. It says it knows the facts and on the basis of those facts it has invoked the War Measures Act. If that is the case, surely the government must know what is required by way of special criminal law that would allow it to deal with the problems in Quebec. If that is the case, why does the government not bring legislation before us immediately so that we may consider and discuss it in this chamber which is the embodiment of freedom, liberty and the democratic institutions of this country.
The government produced the regulations it wanted, all-embracing as they are, in the short period of time that was available to it. Therefore, why cannot it bring forward special legislation that would give it the same powers but would not give the Prime Minister and the cabinet the additional, all-embracing power that abridges the liberty of every Canadian, which liberty may be eliminated if that be the wish of the federal government and the attorney general of any province. Why cannot the government make that move now, instead of 6J months from now? Why cannot it now produce the legislation which it feels is required in order to stamp out the FLQ and other terrorist organizations in the province of Quebec?
Because I believe the power that has been assumed by this government is far greater than it need be and will bring more danger than good to the future of our nation, I wish to amend the motion to read as follows:
The House approves the action of the government in invoking the powers of the War Measures Act to meet the state of apprehended insurrection in the province of Quebec as communicated to the Prime Minister by the government of Quebec and the civic authorities of Montreal and further approves the orders and regulations tabled today by the Prime Minister on the clear understanding that the proclamation invoking the powers as contained in the regulations will be revoked on or before October 30, 1970, unless a resolution authorizing their extension beyond the date specified has been approved by the House.


Thomas Miller Bell: Let the government get around that one.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I would ask the hon. member to send a copy of his amended motion to the Chair.


Mr. Dube:: May we also have a copy of it, Mr. Speaker?
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Mr. Paul Si. Pierre (Coast Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, I introduce my remarks by pointing out to the House that in my part of the country laws are not the most important element of our lives. In Coast Chilcotin we prefer fewer laws, not more. There are a great many who hanker for the good old days when laws were few and

October 17, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act simple. As one old-timer expressed it, in those days we did not have many laws in this country and the tew we had, the people broke. Arising out of this, Mr. Speaker, I have an impulse of sympathy for those in the opposition who have been opposing this drastic measure taken by the government.
Whatever my impulse may be, Mr. Speaker, I feel bound to follow as best as I am able the fundamental law of common sense. In common sense, this government had no choice except to act as it did. It had a duty to protect six million good citizens of Quebec from a few hundred terrorists. The government had to move swiftly. It could not afford the luxury of prior public debate about its plans.
If there was any way that this government could have announced its intentions days before taking action and still have rounded up any suspects when a new law was finally passed, I have not heard a single member of the opposition explain it to my satisfaction.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul St. Pierre: I have no hesitation in fully supporting the measure, Mr. Speaker, much as I and other members of this House dislike it. If this were all I had to say, there would not be much reason for being on my feet. All the reasons in favour of this move have been given fully and very eloquently by speakers who have preceded me and there is not much point in my repeating them. But there is another aspect to the situation.
We in this House are discussing democracy. Democracy is closely bound with the whole question of the introduction of this measure. This is a time to ask ourselves: How well is this operation proceeding on Parliament Hill? How well does it serve the nation? To what extent should we respond to the mood of the people? To what extent should we react to the strengths and weaknesses of the democratic system? In the few minutes available to me I should like to deal with just one of the operations on Parliament Hill.
There is an operation here which I suggest is not fulfilling its function. Its members are supposedly appointed for merit. All too often I suspect they drift into that body as a reward for long service. They are appointed, Mr. Speaker, not elected. Not for them, the true test of democracy, the test of the ballot-box. They in fact very often claim that their voice is the voice of the Canadian public, but they never put it to the test of the vote. Of course, there are some good men among them- clever, brilliant, distinguished men.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will realize there is a motion before the House which, to my understanding, does not cover the subject upon which the hon. member now seems to be embarking. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) seems to be mesmerized by the hon. member's comments, and perhaps a few others. I suggest that the hon. member is straying some distance from the matter now before the House for consideration.


Paul St. Pierre: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that many preceding speakers have dealt at great length with the question of whether democracy is working properly in this country. I am merely following on the path that they have opened.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the War Measures Act has been proclaimed, which makes it possible for the government to bring in other orders to do anything that it wants, perhaps the hon. member will suggest that an order be brought in abolishing the other place. I think we should allow him to develop his case.


Paul St. Pierre: I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that these appointed persons very frequently claim to speak for the public of Canada. However, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre misunderstands my meaning. He appears to think that I am discussing the Canadian Senate. I am discussing the parliamentary press gallery.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Bed is my face, Mr. Speaker.


Paul St. Pierre: It is perhaps the largest collection of singular, incurious reporters ever gathered in a single place. I stress the word "reporters". In the newspaper business a good reporter is the noblest work of God, a man who can get facts, get them right, often in spite of strenuous opposition, gain them if necessary by subterfuge, but get the facts. Place the significant facts in front of the reporter. This is the one man on which the entire industry depends. He is more than an editor, editorial writer, publisher or columnist. He is more than all of them together-because the reporter digs out facts. Without him, none of the others would have any material with which to work.
Something seems to happen, even to good reporters, when they enter the parliamentary press gallery. All too often they turn into pundits and are never again good for anything.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must confess, if it is in order for the Chair to make confessions, that I had the same misunderstanding as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. If the words of the hon. member had referred to the other place and were out of order, they are equally out of order with regard to the fourth estate. The hon. member should in due course indicate how the remarks which he is making are related to the motion before the House.


Paul St. Pierre: I can only repeat what I have already said, Mr. Speaker. The operation of the press is a fundamental part of democracy, and I suggest to hon. members that what we are discussing in this debate on the War Measures Act is the essence of democracy. Unless there is a functioning press, we cannot have democracy.

October 17, 1970

[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul St. Pierre: I would draw the attention of the House to the pundits. Certainly we have plenty of them. Every morning they get up and put their fingers on the pulse of the Canadian public. They have never been elected, but somehow they know exactly what the public is thinking and they inform us of the success or failure of this or that government motion, what the feelings of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) are, or what sort of power play is operating within this or that party.
We get that familiar Parliament Hill news story in which significant facts are as scarce as a piece of pork in a can of beans. Of course, the pundits are never defeated. They never stand for election, and they are never defeated. In recent months they explained to us how the Social Credit government was going to lose the election in British Columbia, how Wilson was going to win the election in Britain, and how Mr. Smith was going to win the election in Nova Scotia.
Failure does not bother them, because a pundit is a man who can predict what is going to happen tomorrow, the next day, next month or next year and is never at a loss to explain why it did not happen. They are entertaining fellows; their writings are often witty and certainly highly enjoyable. But, Mr. Speaker, where have all the reporters gone? Where are the men who can give the Canadian public the plain, unvarnished facts about what goes on on Parliament Hill?
Where is the respect which the parliamentary press gallery should claim from members of this House? It does not command it, from my observation, from what I can sense of the feelings of Members of Parliament after two years here, which is not a long time but I have taken care to try to sense their feelings. The feelings toward the parliamentary press gallery are equal measures of fear and contempt. Members fear the gallery because the press is for many members the only consistent means of contact with the constituency at home. This is why I say it is vital to the process of democracy. A bad press for a member can be devastatingly damaging. The contempt arises for the reasons I have already listed.
It was interesting in the course of this debate to observe the reaction of the House to the attack on the French language CBC made by the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette). He has made it before. Yesterday I made a particular point of scanning the House while the hon. member for Temiscamingue was launching his familiar attack. In the time I had available I observed that every French-speaking Canadian member of this House, in all parties, applauded his words. This, surely, is a serious matter.
I cannot discuss French language television because I do not see it. In fact, I very rarely see English language television; on the few occasions that I do, I have usually found the reporting rather tendentious. But there is no doubt, I suggest, as to the mood of this House concerning the services of the CBC, and I do not think it will be
Invoking of War Measures Act good enough for the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) to continue to shrug his shoulders and say the matter is out of his hands.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul St. Pierre: I return to that part of the media 1 observe more closely, that is, the newspapers. I am not enjoying making this speech, because the gallery contains some very able and hardworking newspapermen and I feel a temptation to single them out by name. This would scarcely be fair because by force of circumstances I have come to be acquainted with the work of some of them and not of others, and to name one or two while ignoring others would be unfair. But I should not fail to exempt one organization from my criticism, and that is the Canadian Press. I suggest we do not give enough recognition to that organization, Mr. Speaker. Hour after hour, day after day in this House we look up, and of the some 130 men in the press gallery one only is there-the Canadian Press reporter.
The general public does not realize that members of the gallery seldom attend the House except for the brief circus of the question period. From my own observation, the Canadian Press still clings to the principle of objective reporting and the reporting of fact. It was drilled into that organization by a very fine newspaper man named Gil Purcell. However, there is another fact about the Canadian Press that most hon. members in this House may not know. It is a co-operative news-gathering agency whose funds are provided by a number of newspapers; and with their typical parsimonious and niggardly attitude, the Canadian publishers starve it.
The Canadian Press does not have enough men here to staff the many jobs they are doing or could be doing so well for us. The publishers, I submit, bear the responsibility for much of this breakdown in communication between Parliament and the people of Canada. The publishers should get down here and take a look at what is going on. They should know, some of them, that what they are providing here is a gaggle of old hens who cluck around in the parliamentary restaurant over a few grains of gossip. The Canadian public deserves better.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul St. Pierre: They should send down here some young, eager and curious men. Reporters, Mr. Speaker, are what we need, not somebody with a degree in political science and an exaggerated sense of his own omniscience. I suggest they should come from the police beat, which is one of the hardest in the newspaper business because policemen do not provide facts freely or easily. It is a great beat for gathering news and a fine training ground for reporters.
I blame the editors. Sitting hundreds or thousands of miles from Parliament Hill, they take it upon themselves to decide what is happening down here. Time and time again they send a reporter down here and say, "Go your own lick. Get in deep and find the stories." Two days after, the correspondent's phone is ringing. The editor

October 17, 1970
Invoking oj War Measures Act says: "Get the local angle on this. We need a follow-up on that. Why weren't you at this or that press conference?" Most of the time these editors can get everything they need along these lines from the Canadian Press. But when an editor gets what he calls his "own man" in Ottawa, he cannot seem to rest unless he is poking, prodding and chivvying him around.
Of course, the introduction of a number of cracker jack reporters into the press gallery will not be an unalloyed joy to the government. But it would be very healthy for the government. Active reporters would find out secrets and print them, and that is how it should be. What is needed, if the Canadian public is to get the factual information it should be getting from Parliament Hill, is new blood in the press gallery. I thank hon. members for their attention.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainie-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I should like to congratulate the hon. member who spoke before me for the courage and the audacity he has shown in saying in a loud voice what several hon. members have been thinking for many years. He touched upon a subject which I wanted to bring up myself during my remarks. Although his speech did not deal solely with the subject matter under consideration, namely the passage of measures intended to remedy the difficult situation in Quebec, he said some things which should make us think and should remind the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) that it is his responsibility to see to it that his department exercize more stringent control over the C.B.C. which, in the past few days namely, has given too much publicity to the FLQ anarchists, much more than it has ever granted hon. members.
Therefore, I congratulate again the member who has the expertise since he is of the trade, I am told, and who is aware that the criticisms of his government bring out some deficiencies of this Liberal government which otherwise would not be noticed by the public. However, he should also remember that in 1962, 1963, 1965 and 1968, we, the Conservatives, especially those from Quebec, have been the victims of a partisan and blind press which was seeking to show but one side instead of stressing the quality of the candidates.
Mr. Speaker, I will have the opportunity of dealing with this question on another occasion. I should like now to deal with the subject under discussion. What is strange is the fact that we are expressing our opinions on the emergency measures to be taken in order to end this emergency.
In the circumstances, it seems rather cynical or ironical that today we should discuss the survival of democracy in Canada.
This is the first opportunity provided us by the government to take advantage of democracy. Since the government took office, the opposition has never been able to outline its views and have them accepted, partly if not
totally. Even if the amendments proposed by the opposition were good, the government would reject them. Today, for the first time, we are enjoying complete freedom to discuss an important matter.
Yesterday, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), for whom I have great admiration and much personal friendship, told us in his speech that the House should sit long enough to allow all hon. members to express their opinions on the war measures.
He even suggested that the government was ready to move that the House should sit until all hon. members had stated their views.
This is the first time that we see the government recognize that it must set an example of democracy, if it wants to impose it by force on Canada, and especially on Quebec. I hope that this will be a lesson to the government and that it will realize that democrary is not a one-way proposition or concession, in short that democracy really exist only when all members of society have the same rights, the same privileges and the same possibilities to represent their fellow-citizens.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Of course we could quote several examples showing that this government has never respected this democracy of which he proclaims itself the sole defender.
Mr. Speaker, we have been living through some dark and painful hours in Quebec. Some hon. members have expressed their opinions in an honest, conscientious and responsible way. As for those who do not agree with me, I respect their opinion and I hope that they will respect mine. Nobody in this House is in a better position to judge the seriousness of the situation than the hon. members from Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish for a moment to excuse the way the government has acted, but in the circumstances the authorities did not have any other means available to thwart the organized offensive prepared perhaps by the Company of Young Canadians which has been financed by the federal government for several years. The members of the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs have found out that a great many members of the Company of Young Canadians were activists, anarchists who, with the financial means provided by the government, had been able to spread their hate and prepare disorder and revolt.
I wittingly refrain from answering certain political provocations coming from some government members answer these considerations. In the interest of all Canadians, we should limit ourselves to the careful study of the question and try to understand that there is an explosive situation in Quebec and everywhere in Canada, if it admitted that Quebec is a part of Canada, and that the authorities had not only the moral but the political obligation to intervene-according to the information given to us by the government-upon request not from the Quebec Liberal party but from the government of the province of Quebec.

October 17, 1970

Mr. Speaker, if the government had refused to meet this urgent request from the authorities of the province of Quebec, it would have simply refused to recognize the authority or the right of a provincial government to take the line of action required to protect the people. I believe that in the circumstances, the federal authorities had to comply with the request of the government of Quebec.
Besides, Mr. Speaker, we, in our party, feel that the government could have prevented such events through amendments to the Criminal Code or other appropriate measures likely to achieve the same purposes. The thing is to know whether the government had enough time to pass such a legislation considering that the situation was deteriorating at an alarming speed.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
One must have lived under that tension, and worried about one's security and that of one's family to understand the situation and appraise the importance of the decision taken by the government. I feel that we should objectively ask ourselves: What was the situation in Quebec 15 days ago, 7 days ago, a couple of days ago?
The government and the people of Quebec as well as the Canadian government were given the ultimatum by a group of revolutionaries to accede to its requests in order to spare the lives of two innocent people. The alternative was not easy for the governments, and I feel that a sense of responsibility was needed to meet the challenge as the governments of Quebec and Ottawa did. They also had to ask themselves whether there were other means at their disposal. I feel that, under the circumstances, there were none.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, my colleague the member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates), proposed the kind of amendment that will surely ease whatever concern some people might have if the emergency measures were to be maintained over a long period of time.
I trust the government will seriously consider this amendment. Obviously, the measure set before the house smacks of dictatorship and interference with fundamental civil liberties. There is the danger of too strict a control of the state over the individual. That is why we, of the Progressive Conservative Party, have cause for concern if the government intends to apply these emergency measures over too long a period. That is why my colleague moved this amendment. I hope the government will indicate to us that it does not intend to use these extraordinary powers to inflict its whims upon the people.
That is what my colleague was trying to point out earlier.
I would have voted against the measures proposed by the government, but if I have decided, along with some of my colleagues, to support the government, it is because were we to refuse our full support to the government for the implementation of the measures taken, we would be supplying additional weapons to the FLQ, which would use that argument to denounce the autocracy, the interference and the authoritarianism of governments. I would not want to take that chance, because
Invoking of War Measures Act radio, television and the press have already given them too much publicity.


Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Say that to your leader.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I could easily answer the hon. member for Laval and tell him some government members disagree with the government on that point.


An hon. Member:: Name them.


Georges-J. Valade: Ask them.


An hon. Member:: Name them.


Georges-J. Valade: Here is proof that some government members are not being serious about such an important question. And, had I wished to answer, I would have been side-tracked by government members-


An hon. Member:: Name them.


Georges-J. Valade: -and we would fail to discuss the subject matter and the importance of the question. I do not intend to digress right now, but I shall do so some other time. This is a serious matter, and I feel it is not the proper time to make jokes.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) once said: Enough of this nonsense. Today, it is not nonsense we are discussing but the very serious situation that now exists in Canada. Some 10,000 policemen and a great number of troops are now posted all over Montreal, and specially outside the homes of all diplomats and officials of municipal, provincial and federal governments. That is an indication of a state of things so serious that we cannot afford to wander off into frolic and nonsense.
Mr. Speaker, the information function of the press was discussed earlier. I am among those in the House who are entitled to complain of the lack of objective information supplied by parliamentary reporters with a few exceptions, as our Liberal colleague who spoke before me stated.
Quebec newspapers almost totally lack objective information as regards members of the opposition and here is proof. During the month of november 1969, I asked the government to think seriously of the situation which existed in that province and I said, as recorded on page 453 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, to close one's eyes and to pretend that things will settle with time is to sit on an erupting volcano.
For too long the Prime Minister of Canada has ignored or made light of the many warnings that were given to him, both in this House and outside. When tolerance, Mr. Speaker, turns to flabbiness, when liberalism becomes licence and political dogma obliterates authority, sweeping reforms are needed to prevent a disaster.
The government answered that we could not foresee that the situation would degenerate into this critical state. This is not true. We were talking about it in the House last year and the newspapers never mentioned our interventions. Were they bent on hiding our warnings to the government? Was what we were saying too serious for them to find the "sensationalism" needed for their

October 17, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act headlines? I do not know. Owing to the lack of objective press coverage the people of Quebec were kept too long in the dark about the work of their representatives in the House of Commons. This is why extremists use these pretexts to rouse the population by saying: Why continue to be loyal and faithful to a central government that is not interested in our problems? They are right in reacting this way, considering the lack of information. The correspondents are not telling our people of Quebec what their members of Parliament are doing in the House of Commons. I would like them to report not only on those members who do address the House. We all know that our work day begins at 9 o'clock in the morning and ends at 11 o'clock at night, four or five days a week. When has a correspondent told the population what the job of a member of Parliament actually consists of? Parliamentary correspondents have written only about the pay increase the members will eventually get and sure enough this topic did make the headlines!
It was a sensational topic for newspapermen. But when a member stands up and tells the government: be cautious, pass legislation to avoid tragedy, find solutions to economic problems, to disparities, bring in legislation to remedy the situation, reporters do not even mention it.
We have sat on committees, we have worked 12 to 15 hours a day in certain cases. Occasionally, there was one newspaperman, but most of the time there was none.
It is not surprising that we see a clash in Quebec and I am not in any way condoning the extremists for having taken advantage of the situation. But if we have this explosive situation today, someone is responsible. The responsibilities should not only be laid at the door of governments and members, of provincial and federal politicians, of city councillors, but also at the door of the press, radio and television as well as of every Canadian citizen.
If we have come to the point where a member must return home accompanied by a soldier, it is that we are leaning over the abyss and that we must take the necessary action to protect the lives of the citizens, the lives of those who are respectful of law and democracy.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said yesterday, and I quote:
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)

Those people of the FLQ have utter contempt for the rights of others.

I agree with the Prime Minister in that regard. However, I ask the Secretary of State the following question: Is it true that those people refuse to respect the citizens' rights? Why, in the last few years has the Secretary of State let the state radio and television systems be systematically invaded, to be used for revolutionary purposes in Quebec?
We have often urged the minister to appeal to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation so that Algerian, German or Cuban revolutionaries would stop corrupting
the minds of our young people and inciting distressed workers to revolt and protest. At that time, he gave us the stock answer: As a minister, I am only the CBC's spokesman. If that is so, then let us make the necessary amendments. After all, it is certainly not an unassailable fortress, unless it is the headquarters of the FLQ.
Something must be done. We must stop burying our heads in sand and ignoring the existence of corruption and attacks on public figures, governments and traditions, the instigator of which is the CBC for which the Canadian people pay millions of dollars each year.
Here is something worse still: Recently, a CBC commentator, who had been sent to the Press Gallery, was airing his views on the hon. members. According to him, all hon. members-apparently he did not want to spare any-especially the French-speaking members from Quebec, are not worth much. He told someone: no hon. member from Quebec has any ability. I shall not name him because I would not want to put him in a position where the authorities would consider that he is being persecuted by politicians.
It rests upon the CBC to see that its employees are objective and do not show partiality, depending on circumstances, their whims and their moods.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to give proof of what I state because it is well known that I always say what I think, in spite of the dissatisfaction that it might cause in news circles.
In August last, some politicians criticized the travels of the Prime Minister abroad, the country being in a difficult economic situation, and the CBC broadcast these charges. It was a newscast and not a public affairs or information program since it began with these words: "You will be hearing now a commentary from our correspondent in Ottawa". The correspondent in Ottawa said on the air that the Conservative opposition, for want of serious arguments, had criticized the Prime Minister for his travels abroad, and he added that he knew that the Prime Minister, when travelling, took a lot of paperwork with him, because he was a glutton for work, f do not intend to discuss the working habits of the Prime Minister, because when he is on a business trip, he has work to do surely. But that a newsman should take advantage of a news bulletin to make a personal remark with a political impact, that is altering the news. It is an abuse of his position, since this position comes under governmental authority.
Mr. Speaker, I felt it was my duty to make these remarks, since a Liberal member has made similar ones before I did. There is at this time in the province of Quebec a dangerous situation because the life of two men hangs on the emergency measures proposed by the government, as well as on the investigations and searches that are being conducted.
But it is our duty, as public men, to eliminate some situations, otherwise Quebec will cease to be a part of Canada.
Last year I attempted to bring some problems to the attention of the authorities. The government did not heed my warnings. Today I have an opportunity to submit to

October 17, 1970

the government some remarks on the fundamental freedoms of the individual. When public men, elected by the people to represent them, are denied such freedom, how can it be granted to the population as a whole?
Those, to my mind, are contradictions to be found in the government's attitude. If we adopt emergency measures merely to deal with such an explosive situation, those measures should be followed up by legislation to correct the anomalies that exist in the economic and social fields as well as in the news media, especially when a government agency financed from taxpayers' money is concerned.
Mr. Speaker, I hope the government and my colleagues will understand that I am bound to vote in favour of the emergency measures. It must be understood that when the survival of freedom, of the Quebec people and of all Canadians is at stake, there is no room here for political disputes since the general welfare must come first.
Mr. Speaker, I hope my remarks have not hurt anyone. At least, this was not the intent of my contribution. I hope that the newsmen, who might be hurt by my remarks and those of the previous speaker, will understand that after 12 years in this House, we can no longer keep silent about this situation. Those people should understand that we are not trying to control or censor the news media. Far from it. But more often than not we are ourselves censored and intimidated by those people, their behaviour, their lack of objectivity and information.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Since the beginning of this debate on the motion concerning the enforcement of the War Measures Act, too many members of the opposition and journalists have taken the Right Honourable Minis.er (Mr. Trudeau) and his cabinet to task, accusing them of depriving the Canadian people of their liberties.
When a minority takes advantage of the great freedom we have to undermine our parliamentary institutions, we are duty bound to grant those who are responsible for the protection of society emergency powers in order to maintain law and order.
Mr. Speaker, we shall preserve and improve our civilization provided it is realized that it does not result from a combination of mysterious and elusive elements, from a blind and senseless fate. All of us contribute to make it every day by our actions.
In a well-organized democracy, society must be directed towards progress by the authority. Therefore it must have the support of all the citizens which it will have to co-ordinate in a well-adjusted entity, which respecting the indefeasible rights of everyone to live in honest liberty. The best formula to lead us to this ideal is democracy, that is government of the people, by the people and for the people. It constitutes a political state in which sovereignty belongs to all the citizens, without distinction of birth, wealth and ability.
Canadian society is presently endowed with one of the best forms of government ever found. Does the
Invoking of War Measures Act public know it? Does the youth understand it? Is civic training an element expressly desired in education? Are the means of communication, press, radio, television positive enough to show and have appreciated the good side of life in Canada, in its true sense?
Never in the history of mankind has life been as good as it has been these last years. However, in spite of the ever increasing rate of progress, discontent, criminal activities, rebellion and even revolution on an organized scale seem to gain wider acceptance from day to day.
The FLQ which has made the headlines in Quebec for several years now has set up a revolutionary program which is well organized all across the "belle province" and besides ammunitions and dynamite, this group can boast of weapon at its disposal, the most effective, the information media.
In recent years, the Gaspe area has seemed to lose its calmness during summer, particularly since the information media, with the CBC in the lead, have presented a new colourful description of the Matson du Pecheur at Perce and of its occupants as well.
During the summer holidays the Matson du Pecheur is the meeting place of protesters and anarchists of the province of Quebec and their sympathizers. Persons like Pauline Julien and Pierre Vallieres visited those young anarchists at that Perce training school last summer. That is part of an overall plan, a well-organized system, as the hon. Minister for Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) pointed out to the House yesterday.
When the activists at the Matson du Pecheur occupied private hunting and fishing grounds in the Gaspe area last summer, that was part of the program of revolutionary activities in Quebec whereby private fishing grounds in the province were to be visited during 1970.
The population of the Grande-Riviere area became indignant at the temporary occupation of that peaceful club whose members leave more than $50,000 in salaries and other income to that municipality. Furthermore, that club protects the reproduction of salmon in the Gaspe peninsula.
The goal of the activists at La Maison du Pecheur was to prevent the people of the Gaspe area from fishing in that river, because they have many other fishing spots. Indeed, that river contains hardly 200 salmons. The activists were looking only for a certain publicity over the CBC and in the newspapers of the fair province. They attained their goal. And the police succeeded in getting them out of the club which they occupied only when they told them: If you do not get out, we will use force and to take you to jail. And as soon as they were told: "We are bringing you in", they got out smiling. That is where they wanted to go, in order to allow their lawyer, Mr. Robert Lemieux of Montreal, to be able to go to Perce. As to the latter, he enjoyed free publicity over the CBC network and in all the other news media.
However, with regard to what happened in the Gaspe peninsula last summer, especially, in connection with

October 17, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act La Maison cLu Pecheur, the action taken by the Corporation des Enseignants du Quebec was the last straw. They helped Lemieux and the anarchists by providing $100 bail for each of the prisoners, several of whom already had a criminal record.
The circular letters distributed in the Gaspe peninsula last summer by the activists from La Maison du Pecheur bear a close resemblance to the FLQ manifesto published after the kidnapping of diplomat James Richard Cross. Those people are therefore members of or fellow-travellers of the very same revolutionary organization that we are declaring illegal in order to protect the freedom of the honest citizens of the Gaspe peninsula, as well as those of the cities of Montreal and Ottawa.
Mr. Speaker, history teaches us that small active groups can destroy democracy and replace it by a rule of terror.
We are happy in Canada compared to people in other countries, but to be happy is not enough. It is essential to know it and to think about it to realize what happiness truly is.
Each night, we take time out to think about that, reading newspapers, listening to the news and to the discussion of problems over radio and television. Unfortunately, as many previous speakers remarked, most of the time we hear about what the government has not done, about the ills of our society: crime, accidents, bankruptcies and class struggle. This gives rise in the individual to a deep feeling of insecurity and discontent. Young people do not have enough experience to consider the other point of view. They feel that they are being exploited, and that they live in a world where everything should be changed and overthrown.
Since the media are practically within everyone's reach, too often the most bitter Canadians use them to pour out their bitterness into the rather peaceful soul of the quiet majority of the working and honest people in this country.
Disturbance and disorder are more sensational than order and well-organized work, and it seems that it is this disturbance and disorder which is mainly covered by several of our radio and television stations, including the C.B.C.
A revolution is the product of immature minds which have skipped some stages in their development, and for want of taking the necessary time to mature, their only hope lies in destruction, in the belief that a new, perfect and calm order will crop up by itself without their building it.
Does Parliament at times give the people a true image of democracy? The government, elected by the majority, must be respected and even supported by the minority which did not select it. The right to express one's opposition to some government bill is indefeasible, but it must be done with a showing of respect for the authority lawfully elected, without ever interfering with the efficiency of its work. It is permissible to alert public

opinion but never to thrust oneself upon it, motivated by personal interest in definance of truth and order.
Mr. Speaker, Canada and particularly Quebec are living through difficult times and the governments need the support of all political forces to save their institutions. Through our actions, we will inspire confidence to our young people who have been poisoned too often by the destructive ideals a, la Michel Chartrand.
Allow me to quote an editorial aired by CJRC, Ottawa, on the present situation. I quote:
We find comfort in the calm and the sense of measure of the local population who make allowances and consider these measures as necessary to avoid the worst. This is a plea to students. Doubtless impressed by recent events and inclined to participate in this social upheaval and follow like sheep the reactionaries who have no other purpose than the destruction of society, the majority of students are mature enough not to believe all they are told and to refrain from engaging in a symbolic crusade that can only lead to disaster.
We are amazed to note, for instance, that some agitators are trying to prompt the students of the area to walk off following the arrests made during the night. Chartrand's arraignment was long overdue, because far too long he has been spewing his insults, his harsh and dirty words. He preaches nothing but revolution and anarchy.
The students must realize that what is going on in Quebec is not a game, a cruisade; it is no longer a mere contestation: It is even worse, and you must stand and be counted not in support of those trained revolutionaries, but to show your good
sense.
You do not want to be governed some day by Chartrand, Vallieres and other so-called patriots of the same ilk. Patriotism for those loud-mouths is anarchy.
So, students, wake up and unite to protect what will be yours later: a democratic society where freedom is not trampled upon, but in which everybody must participate.
Open your eyes, we are writing history. Do not think it is a game and reject from your midst the undesirable ones.
Canada belongs to Canadians, but Canadians must work for Canada. We are living in a huge country, but there must be no place in it for revolutionaries and anarchists.
The government must patiently and wisely safeguard the freedom of the community by restricting the liberty of those who want to destroy it.
It is dangerous to argue no end and to use the most sensible arguments with people who no longer speak the same language.
Society belongs first to those who work, who honestly pay their taxes, to those who express sincerely their views through a reasoned vote and who respect and support authority to whom they have delegated their administrative powers.
We must first ensure that society is successful for those people and ensure their happiness as well as the happiness of their families. People in the Gaspe peninsula, which I represent, wish to live in a society where the elected governments are respected. They expect those governments not to sacrifice society to a small bunch of revolutionaries who want to assume power at gunpoint.
October 17, 1970

[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, during the time I have been here, which covers six Parliaments, I have, I fear, made a good many speeches. Never have I spoken with less joy, with more pain and distress, than I bring to my engagement in this very serious discussion. Indeed, I would say that I couple immense sorrow with considerable fear.
The strain upon members of this House has been great. It has been much greater on those who lead the country. We all know the immense stress which surrounds the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his associates, and even that is very much less than the awful anxiety which those who belong to Mr. Cross and Mr. Laporte have been bearing and enduring for far too long. Then, today, we have another sad postscript with the loss of a young Canadian, a member of the Armed Forces.
This is an important discussion and it is interesting, I think, to recall that we are now purely in a deliberative role rather than a legislative role because the impact of that which we are discussing has already been felt. The operation is in effect, and we are here not legislating in the sense that we are passing any law. We are seeking to appraise an action, a very important action, a very serious and unprecedented action already undertaken.
Tom Paine, many years ago, spoke of his age as "times that try men's souls," and we in public life in recent years might well say the same thing about this period in Canada. I verily believe that this House and this country are passing through fires which will leave such a mark upon our country and its institutions that they will never be quite the same again. I never thought that on a beautiful autumn Saturday I would be with my colleagues discussing in peacetime, or what we call peacetime, the question of the approval of the invocation of the War Measures Act in a situation wherein there has been no foreign invasion of this country.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
We delude ourselves, Mr. Speaker, if we do not acknowledge that because of the terrible events of recent weeks, months and years Canada stands a little less tall than once it stood. In such times, and I have seen evidence of this in the debate, it is hard even for reasonable men to maintain a reasoned, reasonable and deliberative approach to public questions. These virtues are all the more essential to a steady deliberation of public questions because of the stresses and strains of the society around us and the easy inducements to quick, emotional responses to very serious matters. Already in this debate things have happened occasionally which I find regrettable. I had hoped that no one would seriously suggest, in trying to score debating points, that any one in this House, in this atmosphere of anxiety and tension, wants anything but the termination of the terror and the eradication of the terrorists in the FLQ just as quickly as possible. To suggest otherwise is, I think, shameless and regrettable. Let it not be suggested that any member cares less about the terrible travail of the people of
Invoking of War Measures Act Quebec than does any other member. I have no friends in the FLQ and no former friends in the FLQ.
I am happy that at long last some measures are being taken against these people. I hope they will be efficacious. But it is unworthy for anyone to suggest, however subtly, that any group or any individual is soft on these unworthy and unwholesome residents of this land and on those whose actions have brought us to this dread state of crisis. What we are trying to evaluate at present is the efficacy and propriety of various steps taken in respect thereof. But as to the desire and the need to rid the land of these diabolically active and evil men, there is no question; nor should anyone state that there is. Nor is it really helpful in these difficult times, when people are sorting out what they think are best approaches, for anyone to use designations such as, "bleeding hearts", or "weak kneed" or "timid". We are all terribly traumatized by the tragedy. I do not describe as weak-livered people those who, like the Premier of Saskatchewan, suggest, while recognizing as we all must the sanctity of human life, that perhaps throwing a few goons out of the country once and for all was a price that he would consider paying if he were in Premier Bourassa's shoes.
I think what is essentially the problem in this serious question, and since other members have advanced their points of view I will put my views in an abbreviated form, is that one might designate the government's handling of this situation very simply as, "Too much too late". The question which must be answered, and I think it is incumbent upon those in charge of the nation's affairs to answer it, is this: was there any other way of dealing with the situation, other than the suspension of the civil rights of Canadians, as is the case. There is no point I think, sir, in our discussing whether in fact there has been a suspension of civil rights. Of course, there has been a suspension of civil rights. Many people say that this is fine and that is their point of view. I have a feeling that many who applaud this particular exercise are, as the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) pointed out this morning, rejoicing that something is being done-and God help us, it is time that something was done. But it is our duty at this time to examine the nature of the action. Perhaps I ought to call it an extreme reaction.
People approve some action being taken. I think the whole country, except the possible victims of the action, is at one on this. But has it yet been demonstrated to us that this was the best, that this was the only solution? Many people in Canada are not, thank God, too familiar with the War Measures Act. I am sure that many people who have proclaimed their delight have not had the opportunity to read the regulations and probably are far from familiar with the War Measures Act. I am glad of that. I am glad that it is many, many years since this very, very serious piece of legislation has been operative, in this land in peace.
I am not going to indulge in a series of tirades or bring forward a catalogue of criticisms. That will not help much and it is not essentially in my nature so to do. Nevertheless, I think there is a terrible onus on the Prime Minister and his associates in two respects: they will have

October 17, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act
to answer to the people of this country for what they are doing now; but more so, I think, they will have to answer for what was not done for so long.
I heard the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) this morning, with his usual eloquence and sincerity, talk about some of the problems he has faced and the violations taking place around his home and office. Those are terrible. We have heard about these things for many, many months and years. One cannot help asking, not even the most charitable, why was so much allowed to happen without the state taking retribution by utilizing the powers of the police and the courts in their municipal, provincial and national emanations. The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) yesterday, and my colleague for Red Deer today, catalogued, I think powerfully, masterfully and fairly the situation in respect of that particular aspect of the case. The public will ask, as it must, why this was not done. After this first operation is over, the public will have to know something more about the government's various operations in what I hope is the final phase of the crisis. This information must be forthcoming. There is a major responsibility on the government in this connection.
The Minister of Labour told us this morning to read between the lines of the letters from Montreal and Quebec City. I have done that and I have not been able to learn the answer. There is no denying that these regulations offer a panoply of powers. It is the essence of any constitutional democracy that any emergency action be limited as much as possible to that which stimulated the action, and that the suspension of normal constitutional procedures be limited as narrowly in time as possible. Just the opposite happens when governments take unto themselves a plenitude of powers and when there is a lengthy period of suspension of the normal course of constitutional processes.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Professor D. E. Smith, an authority who has studied the Canadian constitution, recently wrote an article in the Canadian Historical Review. I quote:
Constitutional governments cannot ignore this temporary concentration of power, for as long as it lasts it forms a threat to the constitutional order. It is essential, therefore, that the threat be removed as quickly as possible. And this can be best accomplished by establishing rules for the initiation and exercise of emergency powers. Emergency powers should be initiated only for the defence of constitutional government and they should be devoted solely to ending the crisis. Any other use of extraordinary powers by the executive would destroy the distinctive feature of constitutionalism-the restraint of arbitrary political power.
I hope that if this debate accomplishes anything, it will reinforce the urgency of finding these other measures and means which have been suggested by the Leader of the Opposition and spokesmen for other parties in reference to the provision of legislation which more narrowly and precisely, and just as effectively, accomplishes the ends. It will then not be necessary for Canadians to have their state, their country, their nation operate under this very drastic and extreme legislation designed for use on
[Mr. Macquarrie.l
the rarest possible occasions. I hope that something new will be found as soon as possible.
The indication which came from all parties would presage its rapid translation into legislation. The suggestion that we are debating the end as well as the means would no longer be an essential part of our operation. There are always uncertainties when the state leaders have to operate under emergency situations.
I was disturbed when I read an excellent editorial in this morning's Globe and Mail. I am not suggesting that the editorial disapproves of the action, but it does underline something. I quote from the editorial:
There is a more immediate responsibility-to make certain that the powers the Government has taken are not abused. That they are used only for the purpose stated, to combat those who would use violence to destroy our society. That they are not used to inhibit old enemies or hamper legitimate political opposition. We must be told who is arrested, when they are arrested, why they are arrested and when they will be tried and for what offences. We must be certain that every soldier on civil duty in Quebec is essential to public order.
If there is opportunity for wrongdoing, intentional or otherwise, then all guardians of freedom should be concerned. I was interested to read the report of the raid on the home of Dr. Lebel in Hull yesterday. One item that impressed me was, and I quote:
Police took Parti Quebecois literature from her room.
Wrong as I think the Party Quebecois is, surely they are not criminals for publishing these documents. This is the kind of danger that may arise.


Mr. Langlois:: They also took the phone book. Come on, don't be silly.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Pardon me, while I instruct this gentleman. The rule is when one wishes to address this House, he rises, gets acknowledgement from the Speaker and makes a speech.


Paul Langlois: We all know that.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Rudeness is never a substitute for ability. The fact that literature not of a terrorist nature was seized is something which should cause people to be concerned. Mistakes do happen. There may be people who do not have their instructions precise. This is why the continuation of such broad vehicles which permit mistakes is not something we should applaud. That is why we are suggesting these things be made more precise, direct and less restrictive. There are many questions.
I noted with interest the exchange between the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner). These questions will arise if this broad opportunity exists for long. The hon. member asked the minister, what about communists?
Some months ago I saw a most unsavoury group of people on the lawn of Parliament Hill. They were called Maoists. It strikes me that they would exactly fit the
October 17, 1970

terms of the regulations because they do not believe in overthrowing this form of government by persuasion, gentle or otherwise. Are the students who belong to this group also to be apprehended and dealt with under these regulations? This is something the public should know. I did not think they were very wholesome people. However, if you take them, what do you do with the other types who also suggest changes by violent means?
It would be very easy for one to deliver himself of his views on the FLQ, to apply adjective upon adjective, to heap opprobrium upon opprobrium and every word he would say would be sincere because they deserve all the opprobrium one can think of and then go on to say hear, hear; go, ahead, bravo.
But it is incumbent upon us to calmly, coolly and carefully reflect as to whether this is the best measure and whether it contains dangers which would be harmful to the state. We have to ask ourselves whether stamping out that which should be stamped out by this particular method might result in injuries of other kinds to other people who do not deserve this heavy weaponry of the state. I hope that this emergency, and the consequence invoking of the War Measures Act, will have a much shorter duration than set forth in the regulations.
I will rejoice when the day arrives when the executive is able to say that the immediate need for this has been removed and we will now resort to something else. I invite them to do that as quickly as they can.
The War Measures Act and all it implies has now been in operation for some little time. I fervently hope that what the government set out to do will be achieved. I do not like the situation. I want to terminate it as soon as possible. However, while it is in operation I am sure all decent Canadians wish that it will accomplish its goals, so that terror and anarchy, too long dealt with without efficacy and I am afraid at times without strength, will be brought to an end.
0 (5:00 p.m.)


Mr. Ross Whicher (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, so much has been said during the past few days that it is certainly not my intention to speak at any great length. What happened the night before last was, of course, that the government decided to make use of the War Measures Act. The government has been accused of doing this in a dictatorial fashion, and the necessity of taking such action at all has been questioned. Some opposition members have said that there was nothing democratic about the action taken.
Let us consider the facts for a few minutes. There is a great deal of difference between sitting to the left of Mr. Speaker, in opposition, and sitting to the right of Mr. Speaker, with the responsibility of governing. Many years ago the War Measures Act was passed in this House by members sitting in the seats which we now occupy. So it was passed democratically. I was not here, of course, and I do not suppose anyone here today was present on that occasion. But the act was certainly passed in a democratic way by Members of Parliament then
Invoking of War Measures Act living and sitting in these hallowed seats. It was not designed to be used specifically during wartime; it could be applied at any time should the government of the day feel circumstances were such as to justify its being put into force.
Much has been made by members of the opposition of the fact that this is the first time the War Measures Act has ever been proclaimed while the nation was not at war. It has been proclaimed only twice, once during the second world war and once during the first world war. When those proclamations were made, they were made to help protect us from the people we were fighting thousands of miles away. This is the first time in Canadian history that we have faced the possibility of being shot by fellow Canadians. I am sure this is just as much an act of insurrection as those which took place during the war with Germany, Japan, or whatever country it might be.
Parliament passed the War Measures Act in a democratic way, right here in this House of Commons. What could be more democratic than what happened in June of 1968? It is high time those who sit to the left of you, Mr. Speaker, realized that in June, 1968, the people of Canada did not just vote for the Liberals; they voted against the Tories and decided that this government should accept the responsibility for taking action should a crisis arise. A crisis certainly arose the night before last. Is there anyone in this House who would deny it? When property is being bombed, when bullets go through the houses of certain members, when people in Quebec say they are afraid to walk down the street, how much more serious a crisis do we need?
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the government has acted most democratically. It did not need to bring this matter to debate in the House of Commons. It could have carried on with the normal business before us; it could have continued the debate on the Speech from the Throne. Instead, immediately after the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had told us what he had done, he gave an opportunity to all of us to discuss the situation and the measures taken. How much more democratic a procedure could be desired?
When I listen to some of the opposition members-I emphasize the word "some" because there are a number who are genuinely worried about what might happen-I realize that some of them have played politics from the word go.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I know this is not a time to tell stories, but I cannot help recalling the one about the three people who were discussing which was the oldest profession in the world. A doctor said it must be the medical profession because we read in Genesis that God took a rib from Adam; so there must have been a doctor there. An engineer pointed out that even earlier in Genesis we read that God created the world from chaos; so there must

October 17, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act have been an engineer there. The politician said, "Where do you think the chaos came from?"


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: It has come in the last few days from the opposition parties in this chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: The deputy leader of the New Democratic Party appeared to have little regard for Liberal backbenchers. It was all right for us, he said; we would have to support the government whatever the circumstances. Mr. Speaker, what is wrong with being a backbencher in the Liberal party? Anybody could be a frontbencher in the NDP because there are so few of them. I would much prefer to be a backbencher in the Liberal party in a situation such as this, than be a frontbencher in some of the other parties.
The government has acted with a great deal of responsibility. Perhaps some hon. members do not agree with me. The strongest Tory in Canada today is Premier John Robarts of Ontario. Let members of the official opposition ask him what he thinks about it. The strongest member of the New Democratic Party today is Ed Schreyer, Premier of Manitoba. I invite members of the NDP to ask him what he thinks about it. And he was a colleague of hon. members sitting to my left not so many months ago.
The duty of governing makes people responsible. It is all very well to be petty; it is especially easy if one comes from out west or from Nova Scotia, knowing nothing of what goes on in Quebec. I like to think I know what is going on there because I have been a close friend of many in my party who live in the province of Quebec. They let us know what is going on in that province. It is too bad that some of my Conservative friends have apparently not listened as closely to some of their colleagues from the province of Quebec. Sound advice would be given to them by some of these fellows who know very well what is going on.
They should read the speech delivered only a few moments ago by a Conservative member from Quebec. It was a fine speech. Conservative members who had the opportunity to hear it should put a copy of it on the desks of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbak-er) first thing tomorrow morning. They should pay attention to the spirit of the speech, not just to the words. Let them read the speech delivered by the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade). Let them listen to the speech which will be delivered in a few minutes by my good friends who sits only two seats from me. It will be a good speech because he is putting Canada ahead of politics.


Mr. Ricard:: Not like you.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: A lot has been said in the past few days about the terrible things that have happened in the prov-

ince of Quebec. There have been bombings and kidnappings, and people are asking whether the next thing will be shootings. My friends in the New Democratic Party have said that the action taken by the government is going too far; that we should have introduced legislation. I ask rhetorically: What would have happened had we brought in legislation and discussed it for five or six days? Where would the 254 people who are traitors to Canada, members of the FLQ now in jail, be had we wasted five or six days before we passed legislation? They would be scattered underground across the country, disseminating their poison either through their pen or voice.
We are facing a serious situation. We believe in Canada, and Quebec is part of Canada. We cannot get along without Quebec. The boys in Quebec are not only fighting for their rights; they are fighting for ours. Thank heaven we have a Prime Minister who appreciates what is going on in that great province. Somehow or other he will bring things together. When the crisis is over we can carry on as a peace-loving nation, as we have for many years past, and go on to that greatness that is bound to be Canada's.
I listened to the deputy leader of the New Democratic Party the other day criticize those of us who are proud to call ourselves Liberal Backbenchers. In this regard I bring the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) into the discussion, since he chastised the government this morning. I remember a year ago when these people said we were not doing our duty as far as Biafra was concerned. We were told that millions of people would be killed; that genocide would be committed; that the whole of Biafra was starving to death. Certain people in that country were trying to divide the country of Nigeria, in the same way as politically certain people are trying to divide Canada today; and we are not going to stand for it.
The deputy leader of the New Democratic Party, who I am sorry is not here today, is a brilliant man and has been well trained. Yesterday he said that the Spiro Agnews of the United States were throwing their poison around. I most humbly inform him that many members of this chamber are not nearly as afraid of the Spiro Agnews of the United States as they are of the David Lewises of Canada. I remember the hon. member proudly stating, "I will put my reputation on the table above that of anyone in this chamber. I have been fighting communism for years and years". That may well be true, but many of us who occupy the backbenches of the Liberal party have been doing exactly the same thing.
I remember that a great American, Joseph Kennedy, who had a wonderful family, said it was not the $400 million that he had made that was important; it was his family. As far as fighting communism is concerned, the bogey that the hon. member raised, I am willing to put my reputation on the table along with his, and dozens of others in the House would do exactly the same. How would you like it, Mr. Speaker, if the leader of the Conservative party were Prime Minister of Canada today? How long do you think Canada would last? Or if
October 17, 1970

the leader of the New Democratic Party were Prime Minister of Canada today, how long do you think Canada would last? I say it would last about ten minutes. I would sooner have my good friend, the leader of the Creditistes as Prime Minister and gamble on him.
We are lucky in our choice of Prime Minister-and in saying that I am certainly not waiting for any call. When I first came to Ottawa after long experience in the legislature of the province of Ontario, I was not a Trudeau man. I did everything in my power to see that he did not become leader of the Liberal party. But having been here for a couple of years and seen the sincerity and brilliance of the man, the quietness with which he does business, I say we should all thank God that he is Prime Minister of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: He is one of the few men who can hold Canada together.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Why are we in this mess, if he is iso damned good?


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: If I were a Tory, I would not talk about a mess. They have three leaders and do not know which to choose. That would be enough to bother anybody. Talk about acts of insurrection! It is a wonder they have not invoked the War Measures Act in their own caucus.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I do not wish to take further time, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure my Tory friends will applaud me for saying that. I want to end on a serious note. Having talked to my friends from the great province of Quebec, I know of the serious difficulties confronting that province, indeed the whole country. I also know this measure was not invoked lightly. I have every confidence that legislation will be brought before the House, if not next week then the week following. The War Measures Act will not be the law of the country and legislation more limited in scope to look after the present crisis will be put before Parliament. I hope that instead of taking four or five days discussing it, members of the opposition will pass it quickly.


James Aloysius McGrath: It has been passed since four o'clock Friday morning.


Mr. Mahoney:: He is talking about the proposed legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I bring to the attention of hon. members that the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) still has the floor.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: 
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, as a Canadian and a Quebecer, I would like at this time to express some very objective and personal opinions in the course of this most important debate, in view of the consequences of the measure now under discussion. Of course, as a member of an opposition party, I have responsibilities but these are not necessarily of a nature to compel me to oppose this measure now before the House.
My first responsibility does not consist only in participating to debates on various legislative measures, but it includes as well compelling the government to take action when I feel that the legislation being examined is necessary for society. However, it is also my duty to oppose the passage of a legislation which might go against the interests of Quebec or Canada.
Belonging to a political group is not conducive to an end, it is a means. As a chosen representative in the last election, I am entitled to express my opinions and my constituents expect that I do so freely and objectively. They do insist that I protect not only the interests of my constituency but those of my province and my country as well.
Therefore, I shall carefully refrain from political partisanship in the course of such an important debate. I shall carefully leave aside certain arguments which can be discussed at the proper time.
I did not think that so soon after being elected I would have the opportunity to take part in the passing of such an important measure. In the name of the majority of the people of Quebec, in the name of the French Canadian nation and of its future, I do not have the right to give in to partisan considerations.
I did not hesitate to say, when I was elected, that I would first of all represent my province in Parliament.

October 17, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act It is my duty not to miss any opportunity to defend the interests of my province which are, really, those of Canada.
The speeches of some of my colleagues have left me with a feeling of disappointment. They took advantage of this debate to make points that reeked of partisanship.
The leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Douglas) does not shy away from doing just that, upbraiding the people responsible for the atmosphere which has in the end brought about the problem which we must face now.
The leader of the Ralliement creditiste (Mr. Caouette) has charged the leaders of the opposition parties with partisan politics but could not refrain from ending his speech with a manifesto which, if carried out, would in his estimation bring about a settlement, but I doubt that it would be effective.
When such an important problem is discussed it is wrong to waste time since the enemy is still free. In fact, the enemy is upon us.
Of course I have not always been in agreement with the measures moved by the government in this House. Nevertheless I feel that I was able to support the wise ones tending directly to the preservation of the interests of Quebec and Canada.
I have listened with attention to the speech made yesterday by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) and I greatly appreciated it. I take the liberty of also mentioning the one made last night by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I must admit that the latter has, in a very dignified manner, drawn a clear picture of the present situation. If all my colleagues in the House followed this speech very closely, I must say, in all fairness, that it is because the Prime Minister explained plainly and objectively the situation prevailing in Quebec and in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Roch La Salle: I am not saying this to win the applause of the government members. I have said that I am not always in agreement with the government's proposals, but I believe that I am brave enough to support the adoption of measures that I believe adequate and necessary. In my view, the Prime Minister's speech yesterday gave the best possible description of the situation we are facing at the present time. We wonder why the government acted with such haste in this matter. We have been told that the city of Montreal through its representatives and the province of Quebec through the prime minister officially applied to the federal government. I certainly would not have supported the government if they had refused help and assistance. I do not question the veracity of the facts submitted by Messrs. Bourassa and Drapeau.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Last year, Mr. Saulnier painted a dark picture of the situation and of the FLQ.
We all know that today unfortunately the young people of Quebec are led by hot-heads. I am not saying that they belong to the FLQ or support it.
They were left to do as they pleased, which is unfortunate. They succeeded in securing election to associations which seem very prestigious to all Canadians.
Mr. Saulnier was certainly right. But I do not believe this is the proper time to blame the government, delay adoption of the measure now before us, or panic about what we have been told. However, certain reasons led a very small part of the people to support movements like the FLQ. But I will give the benefit of doubt to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, to the provincial police and to other police authorities who probably thought that it was not yet time to act immediately.
The fact that they waited for some time allowed us to get rid of a greater number of revolutionaries. The experts among the police force know much more than we do about it and I wonder if, precisely, we are not passing unfair judgment. As I would rather not worry about what seems to be indecision from the government, I reserve myself the right to discuss that in due time. I shall not hesitate in doing so if it ever becomes necessary.
Like several hon. members, I wonder whether the legislation is not too strict.
From what the Minister of Justice said yesterday, I understood that it might be amended and that the enforcement of the act could be suspended if it was deemed that the emergency situation warranted it. I am still convinced that emergency measures should be passed. Needless to say that I shall not hesitate to vote for the measure now before us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, Hear.


Roch La Salle: Last Thursday, I had prepared a press release because I felt the government had to take action. I did not have to send it out Friday morning, since the government's action met my views completely.
Nevertheless, I should like to read it. It dealt in particular with the detention of two hostages, in this case Messrs. Laporte and Cross. It is clear that this situation will be coming to an end soon.
It appears on the one hand that our governments must exercise a certain flexibility in this matter and on the other hand, that we must protect the moral authority of the state and the democratic institutions because they have to be safeguarded.
In my opinion, yielding to all the FLQ's demands would be equal to the worst kind of prostitution. Nothing would be settled and the outlaw's would certainly do it again. We would therefore accept to become condi -tionned to an anarchic dimension. Whether we admit it or not, we are dealing with a group of terrorists who are leaving our governments no other alternative but a final confrontation.

October 17, 1970

The lives of these hostages require that our governments take all the necessary measures to avoid the worst but any settlement that would guarantee the liberation of Messrs. Cross and Laporte while permitting these people to proceed with their subversive action, would certainly entail disastrous consequences for the Quebec economy.
The statement by Ontario Premier Robarts, which has been termed inflammatory in the circumstances, is none the less very realistic, because I believe that Mr. Robarts considered it was impossible to yield to the terrorists' demands.
The FLQ has granted several extensions of time, but our governments will have to set a final deadline in this matter. It is urgent therefore that our governments devise some machinery such as legislation carrying very severe penalties for any extremist movement; they must not hesitate to bring in troops as soon as an insurrection is in the offing. I was saying those very words last Thursday night, Mr. Speaker.
To conclude, I shall say that people are extremely concerned about the establishment of a police state whose prime duty would be to restore order in Quebec.
To those who are concerned about the presence of policemen in the province of Quebec, I say that I would rather be near a police officer than near two terrorists. I think there is no need to remind the people that it has cost daily, for these past few days, approximately $500,000 for the protection of our institutions.
I know it is high time for our governments to act in order to restore a climate of trust which will ensure the political and economic stability in the province of Quebec.
We can and we wish to continue discussing that measure. The government could also be blamed on many other counts. I do not say that the measure under study is perfect but considering the situation we are facing and the concern among the people in Quebec, the government must without hesitation assume its responsibilities.
The possible independence of the province has been discussed, but I feel Quebec is still part of Canada. Most Quebecers want to remain within Canada.
According to the arguments of some of our colleagues, we should withdraw from the scene and leave Quebec the full responsibility for the situation. The members from the province of Quebec did not hesitate to support any government when serious problems cropped up in other parts of the country. Must I promise to support the members from the other provinces if a problem arose there? I feel that the members from Quebec will not hesitate to support their federal colleagues to solve, partly or completely, a problem that may exist outside Quebec.
This allows me to appeal to the openmindedness and good will of all members, to help the province of Quebec to get rid of a minority that worries its people and can spread the problem elsewhere in Canada.
According to the speeches of some members, the rest of the country is being penalized because of the problem
Invoking of War Measures Act in Quebec. Nothing proves that the movement does not exist elsewhere in Canada. If you refer to the document Mr. Saulnier presented last year, you will see that the movement was not necessarily limited to the province of Quebec. This is one reason why all the members should be responsive to the problem, and should work in order that this measure might allow us to get rid of this radical and harmful movement whose object is the destruction of our democratic institutions.
I would not say that this measure penalizes the rest of the country. I doubt that the Canadians who are not aware of the problem, who are not disturbed by the FLQ, are inconvenienced by the presence of policemen or soldiers.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I do not believe that anybody in my parish is or has been annoyed by police, even though the War Measures Act has been in force since four o'clock on Friday morning.
I have the clear impression that those who feel uneasy because of the presence of a policeman have something on their conscience.
The job of the police is not to bother innocent people. We try to adopt a measure and I intend to support it, because I believe it is necessary under present circumstances.
I say it once again, it has not been established that this measure will still be necessary six months from now. It is quite clear that the House will be able to propose new measures when the one now in force will no longer be encessary. We will then be able to ask and even force the government to revoke it.
I do not believe that the government will refuse to revoke this measure if it is proven that it is no longer necessary.
I do not believe either that a government would be ingenuous enough to assure itself all the protection it is presently granted, if this should not prove necessary.
And, for this reason, I will continue to believe not only that this measure is necessary, but that it will result in the annihilation of a movement which is obviously not wanted either in Quebec or in other parts of Canada.
There has been a tendency to accuse the government too easily of having been too slow in acting and I think this is true. The necessary measures probably were not taken. The lesson may be a tough one but its effects will prompt us to quicker action in the future.
On the other hand, and in all objectiveness, I must say that members of the New Democratic party have blamed the government for going too fast. I wonder exactly what they want. The government goes too fast or it is too slow in taking action. I am still convinced that conclusive evidence was needed. It was uncovered a few days ago and on its strength the government had to do something.

October 17, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act
In my opinion, the motion before the House should not only be examined further but passed while too many people in Quebec seem to be giving way to dejection.
Some have referred to social order and to problems due to unemployment. Those things maintain a revolutionary atmosphere. I will have the opportunity to talk about it some other time. I shall not fail then to ask the government to act quickly in order to solve problems. I do not think that now is the time. I shall appeal to the French Canadian people and seize the opportunity to discuss the theory that the present system has not been able to bring the French Canadian people what they expected of federalism.
I often say that in the last 10 years we have made giant steps. A review of the 100 years of Confederation shows that I am one of those who have reason to be disappointed.
Considering the developments of the last ten years and the statements made by some French Canadians in various walks of life, in politics or business, I see no reason to get discouraged.
Considering the open-mindedness of our colleagues in other provinces, I have every reason to be hopeful for the future. I wish to remind the French-Canadian nation in Quebec that it should not get discouraged but should trust the representatives it has chosen.
Whatever my political affiliation, I believe that it is my duty, as an opposition member, to take part in the nation's business. I wish to do it objectively, opposing some measures if I am deeply convinced that they go against the interests of the French-Canadian nation of which I am a representative in this House.
As so many other hon. members, I make it a point to look after the interests of Quebec and those of Can-nada. The liberation of Quebec cannot but help the liberation of Canada. And as much as my Ontario colleague, I hope that we shall build together a marvelous Canada, in the framework of well-organized Confederation.
That is how I see the possibility for greater happiness for the French-Canadian nation, the population of the province of Quebec and that of the other provinces. There is no doubt that the indecision of the Canadian government when the constitution was discussed did not do much to give hope to the people of Quebec. The government should seriously consider the amendments which are being sought to the constitution. I ask the government to consider particularly the briefs presented by the premiers of Quebec in the last 10 years. The subject matter of those briefs is identical, because the needs and aspirations of Quebec have not changed. Furthermore, the peaceful means of Quebec have not changed, except that the province has been infiltrated by a movement of which we are trying to rid ourselves by an act which, in my opinion, is perfectly justified, and that is why I will not- hesitate to approve it. I therefore appeal to other hon. members to do the same in the interest of Canada.
This measure does not provide exclusively for the protection of the province of Quebec, but also of Canada as a whole. There is no evidence that such a movement does not have supporters in other provinces where it will carry out its operations. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to note that all hon. members have been allowed to express their opinions freely. It made it possible for me to understand how few are those who really understand Quebec's problems. The most unbiased speeches made in this House have allowed our colleagues of the other provinces to understand Quebec's aspirations which do not run counter to those of Canada.
The government was obliged to take an embarrassing measure but it was necessary. When the nation is threatened, there is reason for concern and this is how I feel now. When I say that a majority does not want to be crushed by a slim minority in Quebec, this is a fact.
The sacrifices made by the French Canadians from Quebec have been rewarded with some degree of success. I said earlier that in the last ten years, the province of Quebec asserted itself by peaceful, democratic means. I might disturb the peace of mind of certain members by saying that to my great pleasure, the Canadian government includes an unprecedented French Canadian representation. If some day we were in power, I would wish for a French Canadian representation as numerous and as competent as the one we see today in the cabinet.
Considering all the sacrifices willingly accepted by Quebecers, I believe that we are in the process of asserting ourselves in Canada and of proving to the Englishspeaking majority that we are willing to co-operate in the building of a magnificent country.
Some rays of hope seem to be appearing on the horizon; on the other hand, the FLQ, by its evil actions, can but reduce this hope to dust. That is why I am asking the people of Quebec and all members, wherever their electoral district is located, to consider the importance of this measure, so that the province of Quebec may continue to grow and to strive towards the same objective: that of a Canada at peace.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I ask why a less stringent measure was not proposed. At this moment, two hostages are in the hands of the kidnappers, and it has been proved that an amicable arrangement would have been equivalent, for the government, to a rejection of basic principles, and the hostages would not have been freed for all that.
It is foolish to believe that this action was unnecessary. I say this quite objectively. My intention is not to save the face of the government; but I think that, in all conscience, I must be objective about such a serious matter. Whatever my colleagues may think, I shall be convinced that I have said not only what I had in mind but also what I ought to say in these circumstances.
Last night, I heard on television the leader of the Parti Quebecois, Mr. Levesque, who was very concerned about the arrest of some PQ members in the province of Quebec. Let us not imagine that at present, the police merely arrest members of the Parti Quebecois. Such a

October 17, 1970

suggestion is untrue. It may be assumed that, in the province of Quebec, the members of the FLQ support the PQ but it would be wrong to believe that PQ members are also members of the FLQ.
I am deeply convinced that the purpose of this measure is not to embarrass members of the PQ who work towards an ideal that I respect, namely, the independence of Quebec. This option is premature. I am not saying that it is impossible that the independence of Quebec will ever be achieved.
Therefore, the hon. members should keep in mind the willingness and the work to be achieved by the committee on the constitution whose task will consist in considering the granting to Quebec of some legitimate supplementary powers. In so doing, the majority of Quebecers will enjoy a federalism that will respect the needs of the French-Canadian people of Quebec.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I will say that I felt it was my duty to take part in this debate as the elected member of a very typical Quebec constituency and that I had to voice my opinions.
Needless to say I am deeply convinced in supporting this measure. It is my sincere belief that I am protecting the interests of my people, of my province and at the same time those of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member who sits close to me, the hon. member for Hillsborough, I have been in this House for some length of time and, so far as I know for some time before my own participation in the business of this House, parliament has never been asked to deal with or express an opinion about such a fundamentally important matter as that which we are talking about right now. We are dealing, in one sense, with the lives of two individuals, Mr. Cross and Mr. Laporte, and in another sense we are dealing with the fundamental liberties of Canadians all across the land.
Endorsement is being sought, in a moral sense not a legalistic, authoritarian sense, for action that has been taken. We are being asked to endorse some action that I believe very clearly could contribute to an escalation of the difficulties and could result in pockets of civil war taking place in Canada. Because if we are to believe the declarations made by the various members of the cabinet concerning the seriousness of the situation, and couple that with our knowledge through newspaper accounts of the terrorists activities over the past seven or eight years, then we know those activities are not going to stop with the arrest of 100, 200, 300 or many more people.
This situation is not going to end with the finding of the dynamite and of the weapons that have been stolen from armouries as well as elsewhere. As long as that psychotic feeling exists among such groups of people, and apparently they are extremely well organized and profi-
Invoking of War Measures Act cient in their activities having gained a certain expertise far in excess of what existed in 1963, 1964 and 1965, that activity is not going to desist but is going to increase. That is why it is a very crucial thing that we are being asked to consider and endorse.
I listened, and was greatly impressed, by part of what the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) had to say today because one thing he mentioned, to which apparently many of his colleagues in his own party did not listen, was that we should be engaged in a type of debate which does not involve the catcalls, the hoots and hollers, that usually take place when differences of opinion are expressed. It is a sorry situation when individuals in any part of the House, expressing their views out of the depths of their own sincerity, are ridiculed and slandered, as was the case in the speech of the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher). The greatest tribute one can give to that speech is to ignore it. It is unfortunate that those assumptions of the Minister of Labour were not listened to, because we are dealing with a serious situation. From the point of view of the Minister of Labour, it is unfortunate that he had to rely on the opinions of Dr. Forsey in order to buttress his position. If there were four sides to any question Dr. Forsey would, in the time I have known him, be on all four sides of it himself.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)


Mr. Perrauli:: Do not attack someone when he cannot defend himself.


Frank Howard: I should appreciate it if my hon. friend from Burnaby-Seymour would keep his mouth shut.


Raymond J. Perrault: Do not attack someone here who cannot defend himself.


Frank Howard: I am perfectly willing to repeat what I said about Dr. Forsey outside the House, to his face.


An hon. Member:: It is Senator Forsey now, is it not?


Frank Howard: I say to the newly appointed Parliamentary Secretary that he ought to look into his own mind, and at some of the things he has said. They are not very pleasant, are they?


An hon. Member:: Don't be that way, Frank.


Frank Howard: I say here, and I will say outside, that I do not value very highly Dr. Forsey's opinions because so many times I have seen him adopt whatever views seemed to be convenient for the moment. I do not say that unkindly.


Mr. Peters:: We were paying his salary, too; at least, we had some interest in it.


Raymond J. Perrault: Does the hon. member have any charges to make?


William Arnold Peters: No, we do not have any charges.
286

October 17, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act


Raymond J. Perrault: There is no unity in the hon. member's party.


William Arnold Peters: I have known Dr. Forsey for many years and what my colleague has said is perfectly true.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Skeena has the floor.


Frank Howard: The point I am trying to get across is that concern for the well-being of Canada does not rest exclusively with any one member, and that applies even to Parliamentary Secretaries. Disdainful thoughts should not be expressed simply because one happens to have a particular view about one matter that is as fundamental and basic as this. We are initially concerned about the safe return of Mr. Cross and Mr. Laporte. We are also concerned about retrieving the explosives, guns, ammunitions and other weaponry in the hands of members of the FLQ as well as other insurrectionists.
One aspect that puts a different colour on this matter and is a cause of some wonderment is this: I think the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), and the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith), on the basis of their knowledge of the criminal law and the way in which the police work, will tend to agree with what I am about to say. If the members of what I loosely call the underworld had abducted Mr. Cross, Mr. Laporte or anyone else for that matter, it would have been only a matter of a few days before the police would have discovered the criminals. The police use informers to obtain information about activities in the underworld. The police operate on the basis of approaching informers and making deals. In return for information on certain major crimes, they tend to lessen the impact on the individual and charge him with a lesser crime. They do that for the individual who is giving them information. On the basis of information received, they are able to discover where certain criminals are, where stolen goods are, and the like. This fact gives one reason for wonderment.
What has caused the breakdown of the normal and efficient activities of police forces engaged in obtaining information about activities such as we are discussing? This failure, I suppose, more than anything else indicates that the abductors are a highly organized group of insurrectionists and that they think differently from criminals whether in Montreal, Vancouver or anywhere else. We do not know, actually, whether Mr. Cross and Mr. Laporte are even in the country at the moment. Certainly, this is a cause for wonderment.
On the other hand, recent events suggest, perhaps, that the authorities know where Mr. Cross and Mr. Laporte are. They certainly suggest that there may be some substantiation for the impression given by Premier Thatcher that the authorities know who committed the abduction. I notice the Minister of Justice looking quizzically at me. May I say that I am not responsible for what appears in the newspapers. I am only alluding to what Premier Thatcher is alleged to have said. Premier Thatcher is reported as having said that, he spoke to a federal cabinet minister who told him the federal government knew

who the abductors were. The Minister of Justice shakes his head. I am sorry; I am misinterpreting what the shake of a head means. In any event, Premier Thatcher has said this. Whether he knows what he is talking about in this situation is impossible for one to say. But it seems to me that there is something a bit fishy in the activities of the highly organized police forces. There is something fishy about the fact that neither the police in Montreal nor the Quebec Provincial Police have given any indication as to whether Mr. Cross and Mr. Laporte are still in the country, still in Quebec, or still alive. That is a situation about which we have to be concerned.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand), the Minister of Labour and others have said that the government had certain information which necessitated its taking the action it took. This information demanded the invocation of the War Measures Act. Parliament is being asked to participate now with the government and to endorse that action. We are being asked to do that on the basis of a simple declaration; we are asked to have faith in what the government says was the correct course of action. We do not know about that, because no one has indicated yet what that information was or the extent to which the situation was serious. It seems to me that, since the Prime Minister and the government had reason to believe such a terrible situation existed that it necessitated taking such extraordinary measures as removing the civil liberties of all Canadians in this country, and not just of members and supporters of the FLQ, and since the government has asked Parliament to participate in its decision, the government ought to have taken certain selected members of the other parties of the House into its confidence, and revealed to them this information.
But that course of action was not taken. The government simply requests us to have faith in it. It says, "We know what we are doing, and all will be well." I do not think that is good enough. We should not be approached on such an important matter on that basis. I might add as an aside, to put the matter into perspective, that the decision to invoke the War Measures Act was taken-and I think this is essentially correct-on the basis of a provision within the Bill of Rights itself. When the Bill of Rights was introduced into Parliament by the Conservatives, when they were the government, that party asked Parliament to amend the War Measures Act and to include it within the Bill of Rights. Parliament did that unanimously.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
Under that section of the Bill of Rights introduced by the Conservative government, the government of today has taken this action. It is rather odd to hear the person who was prime minister at that time, who had authority to take protective measures, if he wanted, with respect to the War Measures Act, complain about the action being taken under a measure for which he himself laid the groundwork. That is really an aside; it has nothing to do with the consequences of the decision we are being asked to make.
We should consider some of the factors which have contributed to the situation in the province of Quebec.
October 17, 1970

Many have made great declarations about Canada, perhaps more than any other country, being a place where freedom of speech, action and movement are taken for granted. They are part of our heritage. They are part of what we understand as we grow up. This carries with it, without fear of consequence, the right to dissent, petition, complain, object, demonstrate, appear on Parliament Hill with placards, picket this place and in that way disseminate information throughout the land. Many people take advantage of that freedom. We should not be misled into thinking this is all that constitutes democracy in our nation. What is the point of dissenting, complaining about a difficult situation and asking for redress or solutions to problems when no one listens, when government refuses to act on complaints or chooses to disregard their legitimacy? People develop frustrations. All across this country there are groups which feel they have a legitimate complaint against the government for what it has done or has not done. The government has ignored or disregarded those legitimate claims and these groups have become frustrated. There is a sense of hopelessness. This, to an extent, probably happens in Quebec as it does elsewhere.
A case in point comes to mind with respect to the Eskimo people in the province of Quebec. With one voice they have insisted that they do not want to have their rights and jurisdiction transferred to the province of Quebec. They have said this on more than one occasion, yet the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien), who is responsible to them, has completely ignored the unanimous opinion of these people and is continuing with Quebec negotiations regarding the transfer. Surely, frustration and hopelessness will come out of that situation. If it continues, these people will conclude that they must take some other course of action instead of simply expressing their views to a government which will pay no attention to them.
With the death of Maurice Duplessis there came into Quebec a new concept of freedom of political thought, political hope and freedom for the people to advance from the shackles that the Duplessis government had put on that province for a long time. Out of this situation came what we call the separatist feeling, the desire for political individuality within the bounds of the province and a desire for specific recognition of the political unit called the province of Quebec. Some people in political life exploited that feeling for political purposes. One was Jean Lesage, former Premier of Quebec; another was my friend from Temiscamingue, the leader of the Ralliement Creditiste.


William Arnold Peters: Temiscamingue, Quebec.


Frank Howard: I tried to make the proper pronunciation so that it would not offend my colleague from Ontario, the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters). The Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) also exploited that attitude and feeling. In fact, he referred to the people in Quebec as his separatist brethren. That is rather an affectionate term to apply. Exploitation and recognition of that feeling in Quebec was abandoned before and
Invoking of War Measures Act during the time Jean Lesage was Premier of Quebec. He realized that it was dangerous to continue playing games with the separatist feeling. He abandoned it because it was getting out of hand.
Once these people-and they are not confined to those I have mentioned-gave up the idea of trying to establish some sort of political alliance for votes, the people who had been exploited naturally felt frustrated and sought another avenue. I do not know to what extent the members of the FLQ were party to the separatist development in Quebec eight, ten or fifteen years ago.


Mr. Pelletier:: Obviously you do not know much about that matter.


Frank Howard: I am glad the Secretary of State has finally said something in this debate, instead of just sitting embarrassed in his seat. I said, quite candidly, that was something I did not know. How much clearer could I be? I am not trying to be shallow or to play games. I make no connection between the FLQ and the Parti Quebecois or any other political party. The fact is that elements within the FLQ have a psychosis; they are not concerned with taking the reasonable approach to anything.
I do not know if anybody knows whether the hope for political support of the growing feeling of separatism in Quebec resulted in the FLQ. This is a distinct possibility. This is one way in which groups develop their objection to society, first by frustration, second by exploitation and third by finding no avenue for their situation. I think the recent unconscionable strike by the police force of Montreal contributed to the present breakdown. If the police, the people who are supposed to protect our rights and positions, abandon their cloak of protection and do not really care what happens to individuals and property, it contributes to the growing disenchantment that exists in that province.
The intrusion the other night by Premier Robarts contributed to the situation. His intrusion and comments resulted in Claude Ryan, Louis Leberge, Rene Levesque, and I do not know who else, combining their voices and saying to the government: Give in to the demands of the abductors. That did not contribute to the situation in a very helpful way. I am sure Premier Robarts has enough problems with the Mafia, the police force and union movements in the province. He should have been overly cautious about what he said.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
I have great doubt about what is the correct course of action. The Prime Minister asks us to trust him. There may be some in the House who will do so. But there are members of the cabinet who would not, I am sure, be trusted by other members of the cabinet in terms of asking them to take their word for something. The Prime Minister rose in the House, made the statement he did and read certain letters. It was difficult for me. It is easier to grasp the meaning of something one reads oneself than it is when someone translates it. This is my own

October 17, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act problem for not being bilingual. It was easier for me to grasp what was involved after reading Hansard today and listening to the Prime Minister on television last night.
Admittedly, there was a need for surprise; I do not gainsay this.
The fact that the government has refused up until now to take action under the Criminal Code in respect of additional authority for the police force is really beside the point. The government felt there was need for surprise; there was need not to telegraph the punch to those who would be picked up. I agree with this wholeheartedly; I have no hesitation in supporting that contention. The element of surprise has ended and everybody knows that the police forces are on their way and are searching hither and yon.
The effect of the War Measures Act has been felt. Everybody knows it is there and that the police and the army are out to ferret-out everyone they can, and they will make mistakes in doing it. But I think it is unfair to the people of Canada for the government to come here and ask us, on the basis of trust only, to endorse the concept of trampling on human rights and freedoms, to suspend the operation of the Bill of Rights-for how little that means in itself-to invade the privacy of people, to lock people in jail upon suspicion or because of the feeling of an individual police officer or somebody in the army. It is unfair for the government to come to Parliament and ask us to participate in that decision on the basis of trust alone. Members of this House might not hesitate one bit if they knew fully what was involved, but I do not think it can be done on the basis of the Prime Minister asking us to trust him, when he does not show any trust for Parliament.
I think, quite frankly, that Premier Bourassa was pretty incompetent in this field, understandably so because he has been Premier of Quebec for only a short period. I think he was frightened and that he panicked. He was not sure what to do, if anything, to cope with the situation, regardless of the degree of competence of the police forces under the authority of his government. He wrote a letter to the Prime Minister. That letter was tabled. I should like to read one short excerpt from it to show what was asked for by Mr. Bourasssa. He did not ask for something which might be considered reasonable, and I am sure that letter was very carefully drafted after consultation with the Prime Minister. It did not come as a bolt out of the blue, as a one-sided piece of correspondence. It is a co-operative, or collaborative letter to put a point across. He asked for authority and power far beyond even that which exists at the moment. Referring to emergency powers, he said:
I request particularly that such powers encompass the authority to apprehend and keep in custody individuals who the Attorney General of Quebec has valid reasons to believe are determined to overthrow the government through violence and illegal means.
This, to me, does not carry with it the right to court procedures, appeals and the other things about which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) talked the other day.
This gives me more reason to think that Premier Bourassa in a moment of panic and fright wanted thoroughly authoritarian and dictatorial powers to do what he liked, to lodge people in jail and let them rot there whether or not they were guilty of anything. So far, that plea, as I read the regulations, has been resisted. But it does seem-and this part of the message did not get through the other day-that the letter and, I am sure, the other letters which the Prime Minister of Canada received, were written with his knowledge and consent, which gives an entirely different dimension to the situation.
The Prime Minister said in the House yesterday, and repeated in his television broadcast last night, that legislation is to be developed and presented which will be less broad in its scope than that which is authorized under the War Measures Act. To me, this implies that the legislation will be in the area of criminal law; that it will be part of the Criminal Code regardless of the restrictions, unless they are unique ones. But at the moment no indication has been given that the legislation will be any different from simple criminal law, and if that is the case it will leave the liberties of the Canadian people in the hands of the police or the army to be determined.
I, for one, do not want the liberties and the rights of any Canadian to be left in the hands of policemen or army personnel. I say this because the police forces and the army of this nation are not taught to concern themselves with apprehending criminals and others who break the law. They are not concerned with justice or other humanitarian aspects of our society. Frankly, I would prefer to have the War Measures Act than similar authority given under the criminal law to the attorney general of any province or to the police force.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Howard: I think the cabinet, not this cabinet particularly but any cabinet, any elected body, any government-because we have inculcated within us a concept about democracy and rights: perhaps we do not treat them properly sometimes, but the total concept is there-could be better trusted to show concern about the rights and freedoms of Canadians than any police force in the nation.
One would have to look at the legislation, naturally, to see what it contained, but we have experience of the way in which the Prime Minister thinks and should take that into consideration. I am not talking about the Minister of Justice, because knowing him I am sure he was very reluctant in cabinet the other morning to agree with the war measures provision. The Minister of Justice has a tremendous concern about the humanities, much more concern than the Prime Minister, who is a theoretician, a technician and a mechanic when it comes to dealing with the human rights of people. But generally speaking, with an understanding of the way in which the Prime Minister operates, thinks and treats human beings, even Parliamentary Secretaries, I am, at the moment, not disposed to vote for any specific legislation in this field but, rather, to leave it the way it is.

October 17, 1970

[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
The moment we put this authority into the Criminal Code, it becomes part of the criminal law. We have enough trouble in this nation with blanket search warrants-they are not called search but writs of assistance-which the police forces are entitled to use in certain circumstances. I do not know what those circumstances are, but I think they include smuggling, customs infractions and narcotics offences, among others. Even those blanket powers of search and arrest give us quite enough concern, without giving the police forces the right to invade privacy and restrict the liberty of people. My concern arises simply as a result of the distorted attitude that a policeman may have toward whether or not a certain thing is happening in a certain house.
When the vote comes on Monday, I am not sure as of this moment whether I shall vote for or against the motion. It is a matter that requires a great deal of reflection. The first reason for invoking the War Measures Act has come and gone-the element of surprise. Surprise is not needed any longer because everybody knows what has happened. If that were the only question, we could revoke the War Measures Act right now.
Authority to search, arrest and detain may still be required. There are two factors involved here. One of the most important from the humanitarian point of view is the lives of Mr. Cross and Mr. Laporte. Those two individuals are vitally important in the scheme of things. If some time before the expiration of ten days when, under the Bill of Rights, ten members can put down a motion to revoke the measure taken, these two gentlemen are found alive-I hope that is the case-that need for the War Measures Act also disappears. Indeed, if they are found dead-and that would be sad and regrettable-the need disappears. However, let us not speculate about that; it is a matter in the minds of everyone.
If we are able to locate the two tons or 20 tons, whichever it is of dynamite that is being driven around in a truck somewhere, plus all the other dynamite and guns that the former Minister of National Defence, Paul Hellyer, permitted to be stolen from his armouries a few years ago without showing any great concern-incidentally, I did not notice any French Canadian members getting very excited about that at the time-then once more the need for certain measures taken under the act disappears. I submit that in asking that the measure be in effect from now until the end of April the Prime Minister either has no faith, or very little, in the army, the RCMP and our police forces and their ability to tackle the problem during that time, or he wants this extended power because it is nice to have it.
There are a number of questions that must be answered and which in my own mind I have not answered. Some of them I have, but on balance a number of things have to be answered by each individual member. It is not a question whether or not I support what the government has done or whether I trust the Prime Minister. I have my own view about his capabilities and his concern for the well-being of individuals and
Invoking of War Measures Act humanitarian concepts in Canada. We are dealing with the much broader question that I described earlier, namely, to what extent we are going to participate in adding to, if nothing else, pockets of civil war in Canada.
The Minister of Justice has an intimate knowledge of just what is happening, but this knowledge has not been transmitted beyond the cabinet. I think that at least in a selective sense in terms of secrecy, the opposition should know what is going on in general. Because there is a distinct possibility of further outbreaks taking place here and there, the Minister of Justice knows that he cannot handle the problem by authoritarianism alone.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's time has expired, but he can continue with the consent of the House. Does the House give unanimous consent to letting the hon. member continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frank Howard: For a moment or two, Mr. Speaker, I want to list some of the thoughts I have. The Prime Minister is asking, for a period beyond the ten days permitted under the Bill of Rights, for absolute dictatorial, authoritarian power to do whatever the government pleases without any check or balance against it. The government says there is a check and balance at election time, but that is two years away. People have short memories, and in addition the Liberal party has a great propaganda machine. I am talking about granting authoritarian, dictatorial powers at this time. The government wants Parliament to trust it on the basis that it knows what it is doing, that it knows the situation. On the other hand, the government is not willing to take Parliament into its confidence, to trust Parliament. As I have said, no one has any edge on concern over anybody else in the matter of rights, freedoms and the well-being of Canadians.
The government wants to bring in a new law. As I have said, I am not disposed to let individual rights and freedoms rest in the hands of any police force in this nation. The place for protecting such rights and freedoms is Parliament, because Parliament consists of people who have some sense of responsibility. Police forces do not have the feeling for rights and freedoms that we have, because they are not trained to have that feeling.
The other consideration is this. The government knew that this insurrectionist movement in Quebec was being developed, and knew for many years. For at least four or five years the government knew it was growing, that training camps were being set up to turn people into experts on demolition, army activities and guerrilla warfare of the sort that takes place in other countries but never here. The government had available to it certain criminal procedures in this regard, but they either failed to follow them or ignored them.
The Prime Minister of Canada-admittedly, this is a political consideration-was elected a couple of years ago, as he said and as we thought, to bring unity to

October 17, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act Canada. All that has happened has been an increase in insurrectionist activities in one province in particular. There has been an increase in bombings, murders, bank robberies and all the other activities that may or may not be connected with the FLQ but which result therefrom. Hence, we are on the verge of disunity.
As was mentioned yesterday, the government has contributed immeasurably to social unrest by taking an indifferent attitude to the economic situation that exists throughout the nation. The government has stated it is a good thing to have 6 or 7 per cent, or whatever is the figure, unemployment in this country because unemployment is needed to keep inflation in check. There has been no indication whatever, not even a hope expressed, that the continuance in force of the War Measures Act will in any way detract from the development of the terrorist movement of the FLQ or a group by any other name in Canada. There has been no indication that the government is interested in bringing about a much better economic and social situation in Canada to deal with those who are underprivileged and poor. These are problems that plague my mind.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
At the moment, I am tempted to vote for the measure when it comes up on Monday, but I really do not know. If I do that, I hope at the moment of voting those over exuberant Liberals do not think I am endorsing the Liberal party or the government, because it is my own conscience that is involved.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In fact, I should be quite frank and say I have two points of order, but I shall raise them one at a time. My first point of order has to do with the hours of sitting for today. I know it is quite clear from the order agreed to yesterday that when we resumed the sitting at two o'clock this afternoon we were to continue to sit without a break until we finished this debate. I wonder, particularly to give the Hansard people a bit of a break, whether there would not be agreement to suspend the sitting from now until eight o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: My understanding is that we are to sit through. My understanding also is that there have been discussions about the matter. If there is agreement that we should suspend the sitting I am certain the Chair would go along with that, but I heard negative sounds from the right of the Speaker's chair. If it is the wish of hon. members, of course, there is no difficulty.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no agreement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on another point of order, and perhaps I shall be a
little more successful on this one. Earlier today, I had the pleasure of commending those at the table for the excellent way in which they had reduced to writing what we agreed to yesterday with regard to today's sitting. Perhaps that is my justification for now drawing attention to what I think is a rather serious error in Votes and Proceedings for yesterday having to do in fact with the very motion we are now discussing.
If you will look at the motion as now recorded in Votes and Proceedings, which after all is the official record of the House, you will find that toward the end of it in column two on page 27 of Votes and Proceedings for yesterday the wording is:
-that the proclamation invoking the powers as contained in the regulations will be invoked on or before April 30, 1971 unless a resolution authorizing their extension beyond the date specified has been approved by the House.
In Hansard that word was "revoked", not "invoked". Even the little bit of French I know permits me to say that in French the words at that place in the sentence are [DOT]sera revoquee*. I suggest that if the printing I have is the printing that everyone else has there is an error that ought to be corrected.


Mr. Speaker:: The advice I have received from the table at the present time is that this is obviously a misprinting, that the record is wrong and should be corrected. Of course, it is correct in the French text which reads:

-the proclamation invoking the powers as contained in the regulations will be revoked on or before April 30, 1971,-

From my understanding of French, I think that obviously would be the correct wording. There is a serious mistake in the English text. It should be "revoked on or before April 30, 1971". Perhaps, with the agreement of hon. members, the necessary correction will be made in the official documents of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, it is a particular pleasure to follow immediately a member of the House who has not firmly made up his mind on an issue. This is probably unique in this debate, and possibly even unique in the general experience in this chamber. It is indeed a pleasure to have a chance hopefully to reconfirm or reinforce the tentative intention of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) to vote in favour of this motion.
I should like also to allude to the remarks made earlier by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle). A very few months ago I had occasion, upon a matter of considerable personal conscience and feeling, to determine that I had to vote against the line of my party and against the majority of the members of my party. I sympathize with the hon. member, as I know it is a difficult decision he has had to make. I am sure his colleagues, as well as other members of the House, will appreciate the amount of soul-searching, and indeed the degree of courage,

October 17, 1970

which the hon. member has exercised in reaching this determination.
The hon. member for Skeena, in remarks he suggested were not exactly germane to the main topic of his speech, said that the reason we are debating this particular resolution today can be related to amendments made to the Bill of Rights. That is not precisely the case. The reason we are debating this resolution is the result of the anxiety of the government to have this subject debated and considered in this House and in the nation at the earliest possible moment. Had the government chosen to follow the letter of the law, as required in the Bill of Rights, it could have waited 15 days to table the Order in Council in the House of Commons and then, on motion of 10 members, a convenient date for the debate would have been selected. However, this course was followed on the initiative of the government, that is, seeking the unanimous consent of the House for a special debate. I think this is a significant fact and one that ought not to be ignored. The government has taken this course, and we are debating this not because the government was obliged to follow that course, but because it wanted the debate at the earliest possible moment.
I think there is common agreement amongst all sides of the House on a number of issues. Many people have spent a great deal of time reiterating these. Certainly, we have nothing but the utmost sympathy for the families of Mr. Cross and the hon. Mr. Laporte, and for them as individuals in this particularly trying time. We do hope that whatever action has been taken or will be taken will result in their safe release and return.
We are all in agreement I think that Canada, and the province of Quebec particularly, are faced with a very perilous situation. We have the assessment of the federal government, voiced by a number of members of the treasury benches, and most particularly the emphatic assessment of the very knowledgeable Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand). We also have the provincial assessment as set out in Prime Minister Bourassa's letter to the Prime Minister which appears as an appendix to yesterday's Hansard. We likewise have the assessment of the city of Montreal and the director of the Montreal police department. We have also had the assessments of numerous backbenchers on both sides of this House who are familiar with this situation.
I will not attempt to catalogue those from this side of the House who have spoken from their personal knowledge of the situation that exists. However, I would say that I have watched this debate throughout and I have noted the silence with which hon. members of the official opposition from the province of Quebec have greeted the speeches of their colleagues. It is indeed regrettable that in their caucus they could not have convinced their fellow party members that the situation is as it is, and that the reaction must have been as they have indicated.
The hon. member for Ste. Hyacinthe (Mr. Ricard) has not spoken in this debate, but I think he probably will. His other three colleagues, the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin), the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade) and the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La
Invoking of War Measures Act Salle) have all spoken, and certainly one would find difficulty in relating the content of their remarks to the speeches by their leader, and the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), or indeed any of the other members of their caucus.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
I think we are all agreed, too, that the government has taken a grave step. This has been admitted by the Prime Minister, by the Minister of Justice and by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion among others. There is no question of the seriousness of the step or that it was taken reluctantly. There is no question that information is not generally available to those on this side of the House who are not on the treasury bench any more than to those on the other side or to the general public, on which we are able to assess the government's decision to take this step. We can only accept that this government has been a responsible government, and that its record in the matter of civil rights is such that this is not something it would have done without the deepest soulsearching and without, as the hon. member for Skeena who spoke immediately before me pointed out, hedging very substantially in respect of the request for emergency powers that came from the government of Quebec and the city of Montreal. So, I think those of us on the backbenches on this side of the House must share the apprehension of all people who do not have the opportunity to know fully the facts that have been the basis for this decision.
We share that apprehension, but we also share the consensus, which is overwhelming throughout this nation, that it was a right decision. We share the opinion of the nation that this is not an act this government would be disposed to permit to continue beyond the time that is absolutely necessary. I believe there is general consensus on all sides of the House that the existing powers under the Criminal Code were inadequate. This appears to have been admitted every place. People ask: Why was action not taken on the evidence given by Mr. Saulnier before the Broadcasting Committee a year ago. Of course, the administration of justice is a provincial function. If Mr. Saulnier had the evidence he alleged he had, and the evidence which the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert read, I ask why did not the police force of the city of Montreal or the Quebec provincial police start the prosecution? The federal government had no right to exercise police powers competent to deal with the matter in the circumstances. It is as simple as that. If the evidence existed, and if in fact prosecution was desirable at that time, then indeed the onus was on municipal and provincial authorities to exercise their jurisdiction. They had not only the right but the obligation to do so.
Another area of disagreement here is something that was summed up by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) in four words, "Too much too late". The timing certainly has been challenged. Perhaps 100 years from now some historian, with access to all the information, may be able to second-guess that assessment and say that it should have been done a week ago, a month ago, a day ago or a day, a week or a month from

October 17, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act now. We here are only human. I am sure the members of the cabinet would admit to humanity, particularly in this grave situation.
There has also been disagreement on the method of obtaining the extra police powers. It has been suggested that the Criminal Code be amended. I am not too clear whether the people who have been suggesting amendment of the Criminal Code have been suggesting a general amendment to cope with situations now and forever more or a particular amendment which would deal with the situation as it is now. If it is to be a general amendment, I would tend to view it with the same degree of apprehension that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-way (Mrs. Maclnnis) and the hon. member for Skeena viewed the history of section 98 of the Criminal Code which remained in that piece of legislation for almost two decades. Are we to have a provision in the Criminal Code that is conceived in crisis circumstances with which we have to live indefinitely? I hope the circumstances in Canada will not require any such thing.
On the other hand, if there is to be a particular piece of legislation amending the Criminal Code, can we count on it that this is the last and only time such a situation will exist in Canada? I think the experience in other parts of the world would tend to render that judgment rather sanguine and foolish on the part of the government. I would ask members opposite who have urged the amending of the Criminal Code to consider seriously, on the basis of the information they have regarding this crisis, whether they would be prepared to rush through amendments to the Criminal Code that would establish police powers that were not clearly necessary. I, on this side, would not be prepared to do so. I would want to examine that very carefully. I would think they would also want to examine it very carefully.
The other item on which there has been disagreement is the length of time provided in the proclamation for which the War Measures Act would be in effect. This, again, must be related to the magnitude of the problem as conceived by the government. It cannot be related to anything else. If it had been more serious and more deeprooted in their assessment, perhaps they would have suggested a year. If it had been less deeprooted, perhaps they would have suggested a shorter period. Surely, a decision concerning the length of time this act will remain in force is a substantive decision, the same as the other substantive provisions in these regulations, such as the decision to invoke the War Measures Act as it relates to arrest and custody and not, for example, to censorship.
The length of time the act will be in force in this particular case is not a procedural or peripheral item at all. It is an item of substance. There has also been, I believe, a great deal of gross overstatement concerning the effect of this proclamation. Certainly, nothing I say here is intended or designed to in any way minimize the fact that this was a very serious and very grave move made in response to a very serious and grave situation. Nevertheless, it has been suggested that this amounts to a suspension of civil liberties or a suspension of the constitution, whatever that means, in Canada. Much has been

made of the suggestion that it was a law passed in the night and that Parliament was unable to comment on it. Parliament commented on the War Measures Act when it was passed. Parliament decided at that time, in a democratic manner in accordance with the rules of the House of Commons, that the government would have the power to do these things, in specified circumstances.
There is no merit in the suggestion that Parliament should have had an opportunity to debate this decision or comment on it before it was made. Within seven hours of the time it was made, we were given an opportunity here to commence debating its merits. That is more than the government was required to do under the law. The government brought it before us at the earliest possible moment.
Now, I should like to refer to the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald). It would seem that it is not necessary for one to be an old Tory any more in order to start preparing one's memoirs. I cannot but think that the speech given by the hon. member for Egmont last night and today must have been directed to posterity rather than to the situation today. It will read beautifully when his book comes out. But the suggestion that he is one of 264 Canadians still free to speak his mind rather overdramatizes the situation. I am one of them, too, and I do not feel I am that exclusive, I do not feel as exclusive as the millions of people in Quebec who are living in fear and who are not free to speak their minds. There are 17 million or 18 million Canadians in other parts of Canada who are free to speak their minds and will continue to be free to speak their minds.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)
The only advantage that the hon. member for Egmont has, as far as I can see, as a result of his status as a Member of Parliament is that he is not only free to speak his mind, a thing that most of us would wish to do, but he is also free, if he wishes, to advocate the use of force in the commission of an offence as a means of accomplishing a governmental change in Canada. If that is a freedom he prizes, he is welcome to it but every other Canadian shares the other freedoms to do everything except chat.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Some of the areas of disagreement of which I have spoken up to now involve value judgments, and I know that disagreements on these are honestly formed and honestly taken. However, there has been considerable disagreement on exactly what the government has done in proclaiming the War Measures Act and in enacting the regulations. These are questions of fact, not of judgment. Incidentally, the Ottawa Citizen did us a service yesterday by publishing the War Measures Act in full. It is unfortunate that they printed it unamended and did not include the change the Bill of Rights made a few years ago. Nevertheless, that is not particularly relevant to the discussion because the other sections of the War Measures Act are the ones that spell out the powers of the government in this situation.
October 17, 1970

The powers of the Governor in Council are set out in sections 3, 4 and 5 of the War Measures Act. Section 5 is not applicable to the case because it refers to the deportation of enemy aliens, and regrettably our enemies in this case are not aliens.


Mr. Forresiall:: Are you sure of that?


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: However, section 4 provides the penalties and sets the limits on them, a maximum of $5,000 and or five years in prison, and the government in drafting its regulations has chosen to go to the maximum in that respect.
So, we are concerned with the various items enumerated in section 3 of the War Measures Act which allows the government to pass regulations dealing with censorship and the control and suppression of publications, writings, maps, plans, photographs, communications and means of communication. The government has chosen to deal in its regulations with communications and means of communication. The government has not chosen to attempt to deal with censorship, in the broadest sense of the word, or with the suppression of publications, etc.
Subsection (b) deals with arrest, detention, exclusion and deportation. The government in its regulations has dealt with arrest and detention; it has not exercised any power of exclusion or deportation. Subsection (c) deals with the control of the harbours, ports and territorial waters of Canada and the movements of vessels. The regulations are silent on that one. Subsection (d) deals with transportation by land, air or water and the control of the transport of persons and things. The regulations are silent on that one. Subsection (e) deals with trading, exportation, importation, production and manufacture. The regulations are silent on that. Subsection (f) deals with appropriation, control, forfeiture and disposition of property and of the use thereof. To the extent that this relates to the people in the FLQ or any other association advocating the use of force and the commission of crime as a means or as an aid in accomplishing a governmental change in Canada, the government has applied it. Certainly there are some provisions therein regarding forfeiture and the disposition of property, but it has to be property which can be used as evidence.
So, really, the government has shown, I think, a very vigorous restraint and a great discretion in the application of the items under the War Measures Act which it felt were necessary to deal with the situation. This was dealt with at some length by the hon. member for Wind-sor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan), but I think it bears repetition.
Under the regulations themselves, section 1 is the short title and section 2 is the definitions. I have not heard anyone complaining about them. Section 3 designates the FLQ as an unlawful association, and also designates any group of persons or association that advocates use of force or the commission of crime as a means of or as an aid in accomplishing governmental change within Canada as an unlawful association. Does anyone in this chamber take exception to that in the circumstances?
Invoking of War Measures Act
Section 4 (a) to (f) of the regulations defines various criminal activities of overt members or supporters of the FLQ, the unlawful association. Does anyone in this chamber take exception to that? Section 4 (g) is not exclusive to the FLQ. It deals with a person who advocates, promotes, or engages in the use of force or the commission of criminal offences as a means of accomplishing a governmental change within Canada, and it provides that such a person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. Does anyone take exception to that?
Section 5 deals with accessories after the fact, people who, knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that another person is guilty of an offence under these regulations, or under Section 4 to which I have just alluded, and gives that other person any assistance with intent thereby to prevent, hinder or interfere with the apprehension, trial or punishment of that person for that offence, is subject to the same penalty. Does anyone take exception to that?
Section 6 creates a like offence with a like penalty for any person who knowingly permits the unlawful association of the FLQ or any branch or combination or any assemblage of persons who are gathered to advance their idea of overthrowing the government of Canada by violence or the commission of crime. Anyone who permits them to have a meeting and to congregate in a building which he controls is also guilty of the offence. Does anyone here take exception to that?
Section 7 provides that a person taken into custody for this type of offence can be held without bail pending trial unless the attorney general of the province consents to his release on bail. It further provides that once that person has been held for 90 days from the time he was first detained, he must be brought before a judge. This has been the subject of some comment and I would not, myself, be disposed, on the basis of what I know, to either strongly urge that the 90 days be maintained or that they be reduced. It seems to me that a shorter period of time might reasonably be expected in this case. However, again I do not know, and none of us here, except those on the Treasury benches know for sure, the basis on which these substantive decisions have been taken.
In section 8, again we are faced with a provision that shifts the onus of proof from the Crown to the accused. I think this provision gave the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville some trouble. Frankly, it does not give me that much trouble. People who have openly consorted with the FLQ and openly acted as their representatives, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, are deemed to be members of the FLQ. I think that Mr. Lemieux, if that is all he has done, is all right. He was retained in a professional capacity and with the full knowledge of the lawful authorities. I do not think this provision was designed to catch him or anyone whose relations with the FLQ have been lawful. But surely evidence in these cases is in the possession of the person who is charged. The reasons for his consorting or communicating with them is something that he can readily put forward and thus shift the onus of proof back to the Crown.
294

October 17, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act
Section 9 of the regulations deals with arrests without warrant, and further provides that the arraignment and charge after arrest must take place within seven days, subject to the right of the provincial attorney general to extend that period for a further 21 days. This is a serious infringement of civil rights. Whether or not it is justified in the circumstances, again is something that only future disclosure of the grounds on which this decision was made by the government will permit people like myself, who do not have access to the full information, to judge.
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
Section 10 provides for search without warrant. I do not think anyone can take exception to that one in the circumstances. Section 11 deals with retention of evidence, and section 12 provides that regular criminal procedure applies to the prosecution of these people, except as specifically altered by the regulations. That is a saving provision and I think again that under the circumstances and, with the knowledge we have, it is one that can be fully supported.
The government has admitted that this proclamation of the War Measures Act has given it more power than is needed in the circumstances. But it has also taken the minimum possible amount of power under that statute. It is the only statute that it had available to it. Hon. members opposite have said, "You should have done something else." What else could have been done other than amend the Criminal Code, and how many hon. members opposite would have been prepared to agree to the type of amendments to the Criminal Code that would be necessary, and for the debate on them to take place in short order? How would they have been better prepared for such a debate than for this one in which they are asked to endorse the proclamation of the War Measures Act? How would they have known a great deal more about the facts of the case?
We have seen some considerable confusion on the other side of the House. Some people have said that we have given unlimited power to the Prime Minister. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson), and most of the other Conservative party speakers, have objected to the action on that ground. Members of the New Democratic Party read the act and the regulations more carefully, and said we are giving unlimited power to the provincial attorneys general.
Whatever it is, Mr. Speaker, I contend that we are not giving unlimited power to anyone, but this does not denigrate from the fact that a serious curtailment of civil rights is taking place. The hon. member for Coast Chilco-tin (Mr. St. Pierre) complained to some extent about the work of the press. However bad it may be in his opinion, or in anybody else's opinion, I am glad that it is the press and not the Conservative party that is communicating to the public the situation under this particular act.
I would like to speak now along this same line on another subject. I have not always been entirely in sympathy with the various agencies for which the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) reports to Parliament. Allegations were made by the leader of the Ralliement Creditiste
and by others, in and out of this House-the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade) also spoke on this subject-suggesting that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and in particular its French language network, has in fact been harbouring people who have been active participants in the FLQ.
The Broadcasting Act passed by this House of Commons in 1968 provides among other things that the national broadcasting service, the CBC, should:
contribute to the development of national unity and provide for a continuing expression of Canadian identity;
I would be most reluctant to see any move taken in this House to give the government the opportunity of dictating to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I think that the Secretary of State is regrettably stuck with the very unsatisfactory job of reporting to this House of Commons for a highly contentious organization, and really all he can do is report. It would be out of the question, it would be a more serious move in the long run than the government has taken in invoking the War Measures Act, to require that a political officer of this government should have any direction over the policies and affairs of the CBC.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Mr. Speaker, consists of a board of directors. The board of directors is composed of a president and 14 other directors appointed by the Governor in Council. These directors spend a great deal of time flying back and forth across the country in the first class sections of Air Canada aircraft. Perhaps instead of junketing off to Yellowknife as they did some time ago, and to Halifax within the last month, they might just sit down and appraise just what is going on in their corporation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: This is where the responsibility lies to see just what is happening in the CBC, without involving political officers, cabinet ministers in the government, in a situation in which the government has no right to be involved. If the board of directors of the CBC-I am challenging them today-will just look at what it is doing, and stop taking the snow-job they are getting from that high-priced bunch of assistant vice-presidents that they have over there-


Thomas Miller Bell: What about the minister?


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: -then I think there is some hope that the CBC may return to fulfilling the objectives Parliament conceived for it in the Broadcasting Act.
The government has to govern. Another thing that has been largely forgotten in this debate by the people opposite is the fact that the government is accountable. The government has taken a very grave move. It will be accountable to the electorate for that move, not only for what it has done to date but for how it conducts itself as long as the War Measures Act is in force. I think I can assure this House that hon. members on this side, as well

October 17, 1970

as hon. members opposite, are going to be scrutinizing with great care the way this country is run under the provisions of that act as long as the government deems it necessary to maintain it in force.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: I said earlier that the government has a fine record, the Prime Minister has a fine record and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) has a fine record in the area of civil liberties. Members of the Liberal party are as alert to civil liberties as other members of this Parliament and as members of any political party anywhere.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the measure before us today is undoubtedly the most important ever to come before the Parliament of this country since the Second World War. Consequently, all of us here charged with the responsibility of representing the people of Canada must search our souls and consciences and ponder upon the action we are about to take. The vote on this measure, Mr. Speaker, without a doubt will be the most important vote ever taken by this House.
We meet this day and night in an air of crisis in Canada, at a time when our government has seen fit to impose the stringent provisions of the War Measures Act. We in this House have a particular responsibility to our constituents at this time. I think it is only right that this debate should continue today. I think it is only right that each member should have a chance to have his say because the measure before us is so important and is so broad in its impact that it places in suspension the constitutional rights and civil liberties of every man, woman and child in the country.
Hence, I feel it incumbent upon me to rise to my feet and speak, as do other hon. members and as did those who preceded me, because this measure affects everyone. It affects my constituents. It adversely affects the constituents of the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney) who just took his seat. It affects us all. So, it is only right that we should be here meeting in this extraordinary session and that we should stay here, all night if necessary, to explain our views and the way that we are reacting to this momentous measure.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)
Sir, this is an unprecedented measure on the part of the government. No government ought to bring in such a measure without, at the same time, giving the representatives of the people a chance to express their views. I think it is fair to suggest that before Parliament concurs in the measure, it ought to extract certain conditions from the government. I am not any more happy about this move, now that I have heard what the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney) had to say, than I was a few minutes before he spoke, even though he took great pains to explain to us the regulations the government has proclaimed under the War Measures Act and the provisions of the act with respect to which the regulations now in effect remain silent. What concerns me is
Invoking of War Measures Act
that the government can, at any time, change the regulations. The government can, at its discretion, bring in new regulations. It is asking us now to support a move that would give it carte blanche over our constitutional rights for six months.
I support the view that this is a most critical and emergent situation. This is a great crisis for our country. One would have to be blind not to see that. May I also say this, sir: there were signs from which we could see this coming. I will not repeat what has already been said by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Douglas, Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands) and others who have preceded me. It was obvious to me that the government was preparing itself for this move. They were, if you like, setting the stage when they decided it was necessary in their collective opinion to bring troops in full battle-dress to Parliament Hill and to the cities of Ottawa and Montreal. I knew then that the government was preparing Canada for this drastic move. The government was setting the stage for the proclamation of the War Measures Act.
At that time I thought the government was overplaying its hand. I thought then, and I still think in restrospect, that the government was over-reacting. It was overdramatizing the situation. It is only in the light of the proclamation of the War Measures Act that the dramatic move on the part of the government in bringing in troops makes any sense, in my view. There is always a great danger of over-reacting. This is something about which we should be very vigilant. That is what concerns me at the present time, although I do not diminish in any way the seriousness of the situation facing our country.
When we arrive at a moment when our constitutional and civil liberties have to be suspended, then I believe that we in this Parliament should take on the onerous responsibility of examining carefully the actions of the government and probing into the reasons for that action. This, hopefully, is the reason for this debate. Perhaps before it concludes a little light will be shed on the matter.
It has been said, and I think this bears repetition, that the government obviously had information at its disposal which it has not seen fit to make public. It had to have information at its disposal on which to base its decision. Surely, sir, no government would make such a move as this, no government would take upon itself such a responsibility, without having facts at hand which would clearly, in the collective opinion of government members, warrant the taking of such a move.
The government of course needed the element of surprise, and I subscribe to that view. Considering the situation that exists in Montreal, and considering the communications from that city and the government of Quebec that were sent to the Prime Minister, I can understand the government's position. I sympathize with the government; I can certainly rationalize the moves that took place yesterday morning. The element of surprise was obviously very important, hence explaining
23226-20^

October 17, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act why the act was proclaimed at four o'clock in the morning. It appears that the element of surprise within the context of this extraordinary move has had its effect. I have read in the press and heard in the House about the wholesale arrests that have been made. Mr. Speaker, the government is responsible to the people of Canada; it must take and is prepared, I am sure, to take full responsibility for its actions. Having imposed the stringent and extreme War Measures Act on us, it follows that the government had the responsibility of placing before Parliament in the time that had been bought, legislation which would take the place of the War Measures Act now in force. I think that is a reasonable expectation. I also feel that many of us are rather surprised the government has not, up to this time, made such a move.
The government has said that it will consider bringing in new legislation. On the basis of this vague undertaking, it asks Parliament to endorse this measure which would give it broad and sweeping powers until April 30 next. I think that is an unreasonable position for the government to take. I appeal to the government to reconsider that position before the vote takes place. We all wish to take a responsible attitude towards this measure. Indeed, we sympathize with the position in which the government finds itself. Nevertheless, in my view the government has made an unreasonable request of Parliament. It has asked Parliament to provide it with these sweeping powers unconditionally. As I say, that is an unreasonable position for the government to take.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
The government should have placed before Parliament legislation to give it the powers it so desperately needed under the War Measures Act, legislation that would have addressed itself more particularly to the crisis in the province of Quebec. Instead, we must continue to operate with our constitutional rights suspended, not only in Quebec but all across this country. That is the position we are in at the present time. This measure applies to every province and region of Canada from Newfoundland to British Columbia. I am sure once that aspect of this measure is fully appreciated by the people of Canada, they will react. At that time the government will be in a very awkward position to explain why it has found it necessary to ask for these broad, sweeping powers for such a long period of time.
I feel that the amendment placed before this House by the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates) is reasonable. It merely suggests to the government that it be granted these powers under the War Measures Act until October 31, 1970, instead of April 30, 1971. In the two weeks before the end of October, the government would have ample opportunity to give careful and studied consideration to whatever legislative means it feels would be effective in giving it the powers it now has under this measure to deal with insurrection and the crisis in the province of Quebec.
The members of this House, as the elected representatives of the people of Canada, have a tremendous and
onerous responsibility. It is probably the most momentous responsibility we shall ever have. Certainly, we have to exercise that responsibility. In my view this can be done in two ways. First, I suggest that we should exercise vigilance. We should be very vigilant of this government to make sure they do not abuse the powers they now have. We must watch carefully to ensure that these powers are exercised in the way in which they have been spelled out in the regulations presented to Parliament by the government. That is our responsibility as long as the War Measures Act is in effect.
Our second responsibility, which is concomitant with the first, is that while being vigilant over the use of these powers by the government we must at the same time continually press the government to introduce legislation that will replace this measure. These are the responsibilities that we now have. We must exercise them.
I find no problem in supporting the amendment before the House. However, I find it difficult to support the resolution asking Parliament to concur in granting these powers to the government for a period of six months. As we meet in this moment of crisis, I think it is only fair for us to expect the government to be reasonable. The government should not force us into a position where we have to take an extreme stand. I think most hon. members want to support the government. If the government wants to be reasonable, it will meet the provisions set out in the amendment. In my view, two weeks is ample time to prepare the necessary legislative measure to give the government the power it now has, but it must be specific and narrower in its application.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, at the very beginning of my remarks, I would like, though quite briefly, to extend to the families of Messrs. Laporte and Cross the assurance of our prayers. I also wish, that during this debate they will feel reassured because our thoughts are with them and their suffering is ours.
I now sincerely appeal to the kidnappers. I ask them to admit they have failed and to hand back their hostages, never forgetting that the safe-conducts offered by the political authorities are still valid. Let them remember that the French-speaking people of Quebec would never forgive them the death of Messrs. Cross and Laporte.
This should start them thinking, but I know they could not care less since they have already rejected the democratic process. Let them remember however that the people will have their day and when they do even those who are seeking today drastic political changes in the institutions of the province of Quebec through democratic means will, in the long run, be the first to feel the disastrous effects of the changes they seek.
To govern is to choose. Democracy is freedom for people to choose. The people of Quebec, of Montreal and of Canada have made their choice. Until proof to the contrary is available, the various governments are taking their power from those same Montrealers, those same Quebecers and those same Canadians. The exercise of

October 17, 1970

power therefore rests with them. The present crisis probably reflects the inadequacy of our legislation, since it has been necessary to resort to the War Measures Act and the relevant regulations.
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)
I therefore urge the government to call without delay a meeting of all political leaders in order that a series of measures likely to bring the present crisis under control may be introduced in the House. After all, in the eyes of the whole world, Canada is now on a war footing and this, I believe, is detrimental to the Canadian image and to the present situation.
I urge the government to repeal the proclamation of the War Measures Act with the least possible delay in the circumstances. However, whatever new legislation may be voted by the House should include interim provisions covering those already arrested, those to be arrested, and against whom a complaint will have been lodged. For these, the rigour of this act in order to maintain law and order in Canada, would continue to be exercised until their trial.
My reluctance to vote for the passage of such an act is in no way different from that of the Rt. Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand), the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier), the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) and several others. But the State must ensure for all its citizens peace, security and welfare.
There is fear in several quarters. I understand that. Our Quebecers, whatever their origins: French, British, Jewish, American, Greek, Italian or any other, are fearful. I want to reassure the people who are going through an extremely difficult period. The government has the situation under control and will keep it so because it has the support, up to this day, of the majority of the Canadian people and of almost all the people of Quebec.
If those who now hold these powers know how to use them without ill using them, the Canadian people will keep on supporting them.
The people of Quebec who have to live in a different way today, are, of course, the ones who have to fear the brunt of the action we are discussing today and this, more than all other Canadians. Let them understand clearly and also the police force that enjoy considerable powers, that the government is not embarking on a witch hunt. It is not a particular provincial party which is the object of the measure, nor its 600,000 members, but in fact those who pursue terrorist aims. Any abuse shall therefore be very severely repudiated.
It is not the government which is seeking violence but those who wish to overthrow the established order. Any action is aimed at them first and foremost. It is the duty of the government to pursue them to the confines of the province of Quebec and everywhere in Canada. It is against them and nobody else that the law applies in full.
I easily understand the indecision of the leader of the Progressive Conservatives (Mr. Stanfield) who still seems to pursue a double policy: he is neither for nor against
Invoking of War Measures Act the present measures. In view of the situation, these look quite reasonable to me.
With regard to the usual message of virtue of the New Democratic party members, I just want to say this: I remember when I attended the founding convention of the New Democratic party. In order to avoid the splintering of the new-born party, in a desperate move, one night, the two-nation theory was accepted so as to prevent Mr. Michel Chartrand from going out slamming the doors and returning to the province of Quebec.
Unfortunately, we needed a crisis to make Canadians realize how much we need to stay united and that, whatever language we speak, we have probably the same aspirations while remaining different. It is said that crises bring people closer. I hope that these events will be an obvious example that there is in Canada people with different goals but who nevertheless live together.
I wish that the crisis we are going through will make the hon. members and all other Canadians reflect on the nature of Canada, and on what are the Maritime provinces which suffer much more than the province of Quebec from the recession that might exist, and the provincial, municipal and federal authorities who work as hard as possible to get rid of it.
Before concluding my remarks, I should like to appeal energetically to the youth of the province of Quebec and ask them when they will start to think.
I am asking those young people when they will stop supporting the cause of those who want only one thing: to use them to attain objectives which are not theirs.
Young people must be completely free in preparing for their future, but they must think about the economic and social consequences that any move they will make in the next days will be reflected in their own future. They are the ones who will pay for the risks they will take and the aftermath of the present crisis.
Our young people should look around and compare their situation with that which prevails in other countries. They should compare their freedom with the freedom that exists in other countries and they will see that the real happiness to which we all aspire is relative.
Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat that no one in this House, is happy about having to vote for these exceptional measures. Unfortunately, they are necessary in view of the uncommon crisis we are going through. That is what we must understand.
I want to repeat, for the guidance of the people of Quebec, that they are not seeking peace those who, perhaps through means other than ours, want to bring about otherwise a political system. No one in this House, is pointing a finger at any particular political party.
As for the leader of the Parti quebecois, he claims there is no longer any government in the province of Quebec, probably in the secret hope that the people might appeal to his good services. I say, there is a government in the province of Quebec, that of the Hon. Robert Bourassa. There is, at city hall in Montreal, a

October 17, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act
municipal government now headed by Messrs. Drapeau and Saulnier. The Canadian government is ably led by the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Those authorities, legally chosen by the electors of Quebec, the city of Montreal and Canada must assume their responsibilities.
I cannot understand that in such circumstances the debate should last for so long, nor what are the reasons inducing our colleagues to oppose the measures. Are they as reluctant as we are or more so to adopt the measure before the House. If so, I should like to hear it, but I have carefully listened to their numerous interventions and nothing has been said along those lines. I thought that the members of the opposition, particularly those of the Progressive Conservative party, considered this a heinous measure. Up to now, I have found nothing in their speeches that would convince me that it is.
I call on them, and I urge them to listen, because their constituents are beginning to want to know more. There is no partisanship involved here. At the present time, there exists a crisis in Quebec whose effects seem ignored in many areas of Canada. The government had to resort to extraordinarily drastic measures because he had no other choice. When there is only one way to face a difficulty, one has the choice of taking it or not. If one does not, one can become the target of the harshest criticism. People would be saying without any hesitation: You had a means at your disposal, and you failed to resort to it.
In my opinion, it is imperative in such a crisis to support the government, because under democratic principles any measure considered improper could be revoked later on, if the government has really misused the powers it has been granted. If the government goes too far, I am sure that the people will have no mercy for the municipal government, and for the provincial government as well who will have appealed to the federal government; and I am sure that it will be even more unmerciful for the federal government because it could have rejected the pleas of the provincial and municipal governments.
And the people who have chosen these governments will be able, at time of the municipal, provincial or federal election, to express their disagreement through the democratic process. But it does not seem to be the case at the moment. This is why, under the circumstances and subject to my previous explanation, I think that the political leaders should meet as soon as possible in order to bring before us new legislation. Under the circumstances and however unbelievable as it may seem, it would be a sign of cowardness to deny our support to the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I will admit that I am somewhat reluctant to speak following the comments of my hon. friend, the member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) who was complaining about the length of this debate.
I thought, Mr. Speaker, that there was an understanding among the leaders of the different parties to the effect that any member wishing to express his opinions on the matter under discussion should be entitled to freely do so. However, it was only this afternoon that some members from Quebec asked me to state my opinion on the subject now under discussion.
I would like to remind the members of this House that, with my participation to this debate, every Progressive Conservative member from Quebec will have participated in this discussion whereas several Liberal members, through fear perhaps, refuse to voice their opinion before this House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I say to the hon. members from the province of Quebec who act as if they were martyrs to rise and speak so that they may frankly express their opinions instead of making constant interruptions during our observations. For goodness' sake, they should recognize us the same right they exercise so freely.
Mr. Speaker, the government has no lesson to teach us. If need be, we could trust the government, provided its past were not so much at variance with its present conduct. It must be kept in mind that its actions have been rather questionable: it has reversed its position on the matters of nuclear arms and the omnibus bill. Many members voted against their conscience. At a first free vote, they followed the dictates of their conscience, but when the measure was brought forward by the government, they voted as their leader told them to.


An hon. Member:: Order.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: That is the kind of interruption they can make. They are not able to exercise their rights and to express their views here. Once again I say that they should let those who want to speak do so in a moderate way.


An hon. Member:: The War Measures Act.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: The hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney) is shouting: "The War Measures Act".

The hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney) is one of those who chided me and invited me to take part in this debate. I am doing so. He has been trying since the commencement of this debate to lead us astray. I tell him that I have seen others attempt this, and this is not the night that he will lead me astray.

There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that we are presently going through a very difficult period of our history, especially in Quebec. The very life of peaceful people is threatened. Two kidnappings have taken place, a short while ago. Following the example of the hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), I should also like to extend my sympathy to those who have been stricken.

October 17, 19 7 0

The Cross and Laporte families can be sure of our deep-felt sympathy.
Such a chaos cannot last much longer in the province of Quebec. The authorities are responsible for restoring law and order. It is up to the municipal, provincial and federal authorities to enforce the law.
The Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) told us that at the request of the authorities of the city of Montreal and of the province of Quebec, assistance had been given to remedy a situation which threatened the lives of the citizens.
Early Thursday morning if I remember correctly-


An hon. Member:: Friday morning-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: -Friday, after consultations with his cabinet, the Prime Minister decided to apply the war measures. From his own admission, there are in these measures many more powers than needed by the government to deal with this situation.
We are asked to approve this measure and the government side blames us for not seeing things in exactly the same way as they do. It is the duty of the members of the opposition to find out what they are asked to do, in the best interest of the population of Canada and, in particular, of the province of Quebec and of Montreal.
Mr. Speaker, considering the position occupied in the House by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). I would have thought that he could have been given additional information by the Prime Minister. However, I am inclined to think that whatever additional information the Leader of the Opposition may have received, it was of trifling importance as compared to what we have in our possession.
Apparently, the right hon. Prime Minister has decided that the Leader of the Opposition should get all the information he needs from the newspapers rather than to trust him with information which in circumstances as serious as the ones we are now living would have been useful not merely to the leader of the opposition himself but also to all the members of the opposition and hence to the entire nation.
Mr. Speaker, I said it was our privilege and our right to criticize the government and to see that the measures it proposes are the best. Then we are not the only ones to wonder about the "full power" which the liberal government is now asking.
I have in hand an editorial from Mr. Claude Ryan of he Devoir, who surely may be considered as an unprejudiced man, as-


An hon. Member:: You are saying it.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) has always that benevolence of his. I think he admitted that while he was talking to union members in order to incite them to strike. I think that he is used to it and cannot change. He just told me that I did
Invoking of War Measures Act not know what I was saying. He once told me: You are not telling the truth and he has a peculiar way-


Jean Marchand: -to say stupidly stupid things.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: -of making himself known.
He misused his rights when he was making speeches to the workers to stir them against their bosses.


Mr. Boulanger:: Those are Ricard-style lies. This is you to a T. You are preparing your election, the same as when you are doing door-to-door canvassing.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, the interjection of the hon. member for Mercier gives us an idea of the kind of freedom and democracy these people want to give us. I listened to all the speeches made in this House and I did not interrupt anybody. I listened to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) as well as as to the hon. member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault).


Jean Marchand: We listen to you too.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: In short, I have listened religiously to all those who spoke on this subject because it is only polite to do so. I shall ask for the same politeness. I know that it might be asking a lot from the hon. member for Mercier; I believe that courtesy is beyond his reach and that he would not even recognize it if he met it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I should like first to remind hon. members that the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe has the floor. As for him, I would remind him that he must address himself to the Chair.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker I am under the impression that this is what I was doing.
In any event, to return to Mr. Ryan's editorial, I should like to quote this passage:
Faced with an unprecedented situation that no similar government in the Atlantic world has had to face experienced yet, the government of Mr. Bourassa had to demonstrate that it has the highest respect for life. It had also to find a formula that would constitute a first step towards the rehabilitation in the democratic process of elements temporarily outside it where methods of action are concerned, but whose political and social convictions match those of thousands of their fellow-citizens.
This double challenge was very exacting. It forced the government not to yield to pressures requesting a more impressive deployment of strength. It forced it to put considerations of pride and power in second place. It forced it to give a beginning of recognition to a movement whose objectives one may dispute and of whose methods one may disapprove, but that exist nonetheless. It was a hard, difficult and thankless approach. It was nevertheless the most generous and, in the long term, the most positive.
We are not alone in questioning what is being asked of us. We are, I hope, all in favour of the return to order. We will certainly support any measure for the purpose of

October 17, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act restoring order, but at the same time we have a responsibility to the people and we want to acquit ourselves of this duty to the best of our ability.
And Mr. Ryan's closing paragraph reads as follows:
We regret the choice that was made, for that purpose, of the framework of the War Measures Act, which has a potential scope completely out of proportion to the problem the authorities are now facing. We also regret that action under the War Measures Act should already have been initiated in a spirit and according to methods which invite the worst apprehensions. However, we can but assert anew the right of a democracy to defend itself and its duty to judge harshly those who injustly jeopardize the freedom and life of their fellow citizens, and to restrain them.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member talking about the FLQ or about the government?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I have read some excerpts from an editorial in order to show that there are others besides the opposition members who are wondering about this. If the minister had listened to my speech, it would probably not have been necessary for him to interrupt me once again.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will allow me, I would like to ask him what he means when he alludes to people who threaten the lives of citizens. Does that concern the members of the government or the FLQ?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to explain all the article to the minister. If he will read it himself, he will draw his own conclusions, as I did myself.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that the crisis through which we are going will be stopped as quickly as possible. However, I cannot let this opprotunity go by without recalling that this uneasiness has very deep roots. If we really want to solve that problem, we will have to grapple with the causes of the uneasiness which is grieving us now.
Nobody is ignorant of the fact that for many years the representatives of the government of the province of Quebec who succeeded each other came here to demand rights and went back home empty-handed. That has bred in the mind of the population insatisfaction and apathy towards the central government. That is one of the causes of the present uneasiness.
I would also like to take this opportunity to appeal to all my English-speaking fellow citizens, both in the House of Commons and outside, so that they make an additional effort in order to understand the aspirations of the people of Quebec.
They do not want any favours. They do not want to be treated like poor relatives. The province of Quebec is only asking for complete respect of its rights and prerogatives.
We, from the province of Quebec, want to be full-fledged Canadians and this is why I plead with my Quebec colleagues so that together we may build a better Canada in which our children will have to live. Unless there is
total understanding and agreement between the components of the Canadian nation, we will continuously be faced with emergencies such as this one. I am confident that my English speaking fellow citizens will also want to do their share for the good of the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to express my views on the resolution now before the House. Although I come from the province of British Columbia in the extreme west of Canada, I feel we too should speak on the current crisis which affects primarily a province in the eastern part of our nation. I believe I should officially place on record my views and my position on the action taken by the government yesterday when it invoked, by Order in Council, the War Measures Act and in effect suspended the Canadian Constitution, the BiH of Rights and the civil liberties of over 21 million Canadians.
At the outset let me say that I am totally and unrelentingly opposed to the terrorist activities of the FLQ. Their bombings, kidnappings and attempted blackmail of our democratically constituted federal and provincial institutions are methods which are alien and abhorrent to our Canadian way of life. I fully endorse the stand of our federal administration in its refusal to bow to the blackmail demands of the FLQ. I believe no democratic government could long survive if blackmail, threats, bombings and violence became the order of the day. Terrorist activities to achieve social reform cannot be tolerated in Canada. The FLQ terrorists cannot justify their actions on any moral, political or humanitarian grounds, because in our nation we allow them freedom of expression and of organization to plead for all the social changes demanded by them.
I fervently hope that the kidnapped victims, Mr. Cross and Mr. Laporte, will be released to their families unharmed. Any move made by the federal government, apart from submitting to base blackmail, should be pursued with vigour and, I trust, success.
I wish briefly to discuss the action taken by the federal government yesterday when it invoked the War Measures Act to meet the crisis in the province of Quebec. I realize the tenseness and seriousness of the situation in that province, and particularly in the city of Montreal. I recognize the need for immediate and substantial assistance to meet the crisis there. But in my frank opinion the suspension of the constitutional rights of 21 million Canadians was not the manner in which this crisis should have been handled. It is too late for us to have a voice as to whether the War Measures Act should have been invoked or not, because it is already here. It became law by Order in Council at 4 a.m. yesterday. It did not have the consent of the elected members of this House.
It is rather shocking for one to realize that measures of this nature can be brought in by Order in Council. One
[Mr. Ricard.)
October 17, 1970

can go to bed at night, wake up in the morning and find that his constitutional rights as a Canadian have gone and that he has been subjected to a new act. This worries me, although I realize that in certain circumstances legislation of this type must be on the statute books. I believe, however, that additional powers could and would have been granted by this House to meet the crisis in Quebec without the need in peacetime to take the unprecedented step of invoking the War Measures Act and depriving every Canadian of his or her rights and privileges under the constitution.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
The question I want to put here is-and it has worried me considerably since 1 first heard of the action which the government had taken and which I think is an indication of the lack of leadership in this nation-is what do we do when a crisis dealing with the very existence of government in Canada hits this nation or this Parliament. I will tell you what is happening here. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his cabinet devised a policy. On several occasions, I believe, they called the leaders of various parties into the office and indicated to them what they were doing, but they did not seek the advice of the opposition parties in this House. I say that in a national crisis of this nature there should be no party politics in Canada. We should have a national policy and a program laid down, not by one party but by all parties collectively. What worries me is that if this crisis is as serious as the members on the Treasury bench tell us it is, and the government has indicated that this is so by taking the unprecedented step in peacetime of invoking the War Measures Act, then the leaders of the opposition parties should have been brought into the picture to help advise on a policy that would be accepted from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
I am apprehensive that if a major international crisis took place tomorrow that the same type of treatment might be accorded the opposition parties by the government. If it did, I would say that this is not the sign of good leadership and it is not the sign that we have a statesman in control of the government of Canada. This is where I fault the government.
We are not given all the facts. Cabinet ministers have hinted that there is other evidence which members of this House have not received. I want to tell them that it is about time they learned to give to all members in the House, including the members of the opposition, all the facts, regardless of the consequences. We too should sit down and assess the picture with all the facts at our command and, I hope, in an impartial manner. It has been this aspect that has worried me more than anything as I heard the speeches from members on the government benches and on the opposition side. If there is a crisis-as I believe there is although I do not know whether it is national in scope-then surely we are part of the democratic process and just as proud to uphold democracy in this country as are the members of any other party.
I would like to say just a few words more. We have had lots of material written in the newspapers about the
Invoking of War Measures Act FLQ which has been outlawed. A number of members of that organization were rounded up in a surprise move which started early yesterday. I have here a report from the Ottawa Journal which, I believe, must have been a reprint from the Montreal Gazette. It is rather surprising to find that a confidential RCMP report which the Gazette apparently obtained this past Thursday says there are 22 active cells of the terrorist Front de Liberation du Quebec in the province, with a total membership of 130 persons. The newspaper says that the report estimates the FLQ has another 2,000 members not actively engaged in the work being carried out by the cells. Then, the story goes on to say that there are 130 activists in Montreal or in Quebec, and this covers the whole of the province. We are told that ostensibly the War Measures Act is needed to corral 130 active members of the FLQ who are known to the RCMP.
I realize the need for giving additional powers to the police to deal with the bombings and the blastings which must be stopped. We must give them the power to curb these terrorists. But if this is the extent of the activists in the cities of Montreal and in Quebec, it seems to me that perhaps clamping the War Measures Act on the whole of Canada was a move that might well have received second thought from the government. I am not trying to underestimate the damage that these people can do. I am not for one second trying to tell anyone that there is not a real problem in the province of Quebec, because there is. Whether it is the municipal, provincial or the federal government that is threatened, we must move and not hesitate to move quickly to make certain that democracy remains alive in this nation.
The thing that worries me is that I see several other groups mentioned in this report, and this is information which I do not have. In this apparently confidential RCMP report there is mention of the members of the Jewish Defence League, and a group known as the Student Anti-Pollutionists. I do not have information on these groups. I think the government should level with the members of the House of Commons. Are the members of these other organizations also classed as terrorists in this crisis? I think all members of the House would like to have an answer to this, and frankly I feel that we have a right to know.
I am not going to say much more but there are one or two more points I would like to make. I have watched and read in the last two days the results of the moves which the government has made. I have been astonished and upset to see that perhaps we made the wrong move; perhaps we should have taken a little more time to assess the results of what might have come out of the invocation of the War Measures Act.
When I see headlines in the paper to the effect that the statement of the FLQ aims is being cheered by 3,000 students, and I hear reports on the radio of rallies in many parts of Quebec and other provinces of students and others who are protesting, not only the move against the FLQ but the invocation of the War Measures Act; it upsets me immensely. I am led to wonder how wise has been the advice to the politicians who drafted the moves

October 17, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act
and brought about the situation in which we currently find ourselves.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I think we all learn lessons from history. I know I have learned a lot this last two or three days. There is no use ducking our heads in the sand and saying the crisis in Quebec does not stem from some of the social ills in that province. I am not going to stand here and blame this government for specific troubles which we have had, for example in Montreal, but I am going to tell you that politicians of all stripes down through the years have neglected the basic social reform problems that must be corrected.
You can say what you like, discontent can fester and fester over the years, based on bad housing, based on unemployment, based on a host of other social ills. We have to do something about correcting what I think is one of the basic problems not only in this country but in every country in the world. We must face up to this, and as elected members of this House we have to do a lot more thinking and decide to mend our ways.
In closing, I say that the War Measures Act is in effect. There is nothing I can do at the present time to stop its use. But I say to the government: you have talked about bringing in legislation which will take care of the situation, and which will give you an opportunity to withdraw the War Measures Act and carry on under that other legislation. I urge the government to do this with the utmost speed. Do not let us allow the War Measures Act to remain in force in this country in peacetime one day longer than is necessary. As one who really believes in civil liberties it hurts me to see us forced into this situation. The surprise element is over. If that is what you wanted with the War Measures Act you have had it. Let us get on with the job this coming Monday of removing the War Measures Act from current enforcement in this nation.


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, instead of doing as many of the other hon. members of the House have done, that is expressing a personal opinion-

-I thought that it might be advisable to get in touch with the people in my riding and ask them for their opinion. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I have received several telephone calls from people who gave me their opinion. All those people support the position taken by the government to settle the problem before it spreads elsewhere in Canada. The necessary measures have to be taken so that innocent people will not fall victims of criminals.
French-speaking Manitobans as well as all other Manitobans, particularly those of my constituency, are aware of the problems and fair claims of Quebecers.
However, we believe that FLQ extremists do not represent the interests of Quebecers, only their own. They are
nothing but revolutionaries, trained in Maoist and Cas-trist camps.
We hope that Quebecers will rectify a situation that could reflect on the province of Quebec as well as on the rest of Canada.
Canadians and especially Quebecers wish to help the government restore order, justice and civil rights by democratic means.

I was very pleased indeed, Mr. Speaker, when someone mentioned this afternoon the number of premiers of the various provinces who have supported the policy of the government. I am more than pleased that the Premier of [DOT]Manitoba, even though he is not of the same political persuasion as mine, went on record positively, like other Manitobans, particularly those in my area, to the effect that he was in accord with the government policy.
We in Manitoba realize that these measures are drastic but we also realize that they are temporary. Perhaps this crisis will teach us a lesson and will awaken us to the problems of Quebec and of the nation as a whole. Let us hope, Mr. Speaker, that the result of the crisis will be to bind us together even more, and create better understanding amongst Canadians.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, there is very little left that can be said on the merits of this subject.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


J. Michael Forrestall: I am pleased that the members on the government benches agree with that. Each of us in his own way is trying to interpret what has happened, not only for the benefit of his constituents but for his own benefit. We are in a bit of a dilemma; we are in a quandary. These are very bad times in Canada. It is an awful thing to have to say, Mr. Speaker, but I hope that they are bad enough to warrant the drastic action that has been taken. God help us if they are not. In that case, what we have done would be far worse than what we are told is happening now.
[DOT] (8.40 p.m.)
The people I represent in the Dartmouth area and along the eastern shore of Nova Scotia are as concerned as I am about what has happened. I hold no brief for the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) but I do not in any way question the legitimacy of his action. I am in no position to question the urgency of his action. On those two grounds I can only support him; I have no hesitation in saying that. Indeed, I am repeating what my leader has already said.
Any action deemed necessary to rid the country of the forces of evil at work in Quebec is justified. But it is only justified if the situation is as serious as we are led to believe. My greatest fear, apart from my fear for the lives of people in public life in Quebec, is that between

October 17, 1970

40 and 50 per cent of the people living in Canada have never before seen this law invoked and they may not know its import. I am talking about the War Measures Act; it has not been invoked since the last world war. I wonder how many of our young people are aware of the seriousness of that which has been done in the last few hours.
I am concerned for the well-being of the country and of all Canadians. I want to put a few questions on the record, in the hope that answers will be forthcoming. The first question is the one asked by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), who opened the debate on behalf of the opposition. It is this: Why are we not working right now on legislation to amend the Criminal Code of Canada? If, in the opinion of the government, amending the Criminal Code would not meet the situation in Quebec, why have we not been told this? If it would, why has not somebody told us that the law officers of the Crown are at work preparing the type of legislation the House and country demands in order to preserve freedom?
The Canadian people would like to have answers to these specific questions. I hope the Prime Minister or a member of the government will answer them at the earliest possible moment. I think we in the House and the country as a whole are entitled to answers. I think it is regrettable that the Prime Minister did not take into his confidence other privy councillors. I am referring to the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenba-ker), former Prime Minister of this country, and former Prime Minister Pearson. He should also have taken into his confidence the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Douglas) and the leader of the Creditistes (Mr. Caouette). These men are honourable Canadians. They ought to have been trusted with the essential details which were the basis for the government's invocation of the War Measures Act. If this had been done, there would not be any serious question in the country about the matter.
Everybody trusts the Prime Minister; I am sure of that. I am not reflecting on him in any way; indeed, he has my sympathy. His task in the last few hours has been onerous. I think it will become even more onerous as time goes on. I believe he could have removed a tremendous burden from his shoulders if he had taken one step-that of advising the leaders of the parties, in the fullest manner possible, of the specific details of the plan submitted by the director of the Quebec provincial police to Premier Bourassa, to the mayor and the executive of the city of Montreal and, through them, to the federal government. The details of that plan may well have convinced the leaders of the parties that there was complete justification for the government's action. As matters now stand, we do not know that there was complete justification. We can only assume there was.
I am very curious as to the time the government first considered the necessity or advisability, as a result of certain contingencies, of invoking the War Measures Act. As I asked before: Is anyone in the government now at work amending the Criminal Code along the lines that
Invoking of War Measures Act have been suggested or, if not along those lines, along lines determined by the government? I also wonder, as do thousands of students in Canada, what the civic authorities responsible for enforcing and administering the law intend to do with respect to students who support the FLQ? Are they to be taken to jail? I wonder whether this measure also applies to groups which may for one reason or another feed on the insipient venom of the FLQ.
Why is the government asking for this power for six months? Why not for one year or two years? Why not for one month, as suggested by the hon. member for Cum-berland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates). Why should it not be for one week? All the Prime Minister has to do is stand in the House and say, "We want these powers for another week." Is it asking for six months because it means to inflict terror in the hearts of the terrorists? I suggest that that is already there.
I ask, too, Mr. Speaker: On what date did the Premier of Quebec first express concern to the government of Canada about the inadequacy of the existing law? Was that 11 days ago, 12 days ago or two months ago? Did the former Premier of Quebec communicate such concern? Did he voice such concern? I think the people of Canada are entitled to know. They have been asked to accept tremendous limitations to their freedom and they are prepared to accept this. Because they are so prepared, they are entitled to have answers to these questions.
I wonder how often the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) has in the last few days, weeks or months communicated to the office of the Prime Minister his concern about the situation in Quebec. It would be interesting to know how many communications have passed between the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister in the past 12 months on the deteriorating situation in the province of Quebec.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Apart from social gossip and casual meetings in the hallways, I wonder how many hon. members from the province of Quebec have explicitly said to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) that they are concerned about what is happening in their province. I wonder how many have gone to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I think the people in the province of Quebec are entitled to know that. I have not heard too many of these members talk about this, except in a casual way. I would like to have this specific information. I want to support, as fully as I can, the Prime Minister of this country in any action he feels necessary to rid this country of terrorism.
I also wonder how many Canadians from the province of Quebec have written to the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice in the last 12 months to express their concern. How will we determine when the apprehended insurrection, real or imagined, comes to an end? Who will determine it? Will it be the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice, the Prime Minister of Quebec, the mayor and the executive committee of the city of Montreal or will it be done independently without consultation? We cannot assume the answers to these questions.

October 17, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act
The people of Canada are entitled to know the procedure that will bring this situation to an end.
The conditions in the country that will require revoking this drastic step should be made absolutely clear to all Canadians. I am a little surprised that the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) did not do this. We are left to assume when the act will be revoked. I wonder whether the government has taken the opportunity in the last several hours to advise, in an official way, the premiers of the provinces who are members of the privy council of the background which led to the implementation of the War Measures Act and the regulations under it? If not, will they be advised? The sooner they are advised, the better. Even at this late date, the privy councillors should be fully advised of the reasons behind this step.
The people of Canada, as well as the press, are curious. They want to know if there have been any bomb threats or any bombs found in public buildings. How many people have had their lives threatened by the FLQ in the last 14 days, apart from the two about which we know and which hopefully are still alive and in their charge? When will charges be laid against the approximately 300 people who have been arrested since early yesterday morning? When will they be charged and what will the charge be? Who is working on the charge? What will the information contain that is laid against these people? Who is drafting it? Is the federal authority involved or is it purely a matter of provincial administration? Will all the charges be the same or will there be different charges? If this were not such a serious situation, one might be tempted to ask when construction will begin on the penitentiary that is going to house these people.
Has the government given any thought in the last 12 days to the tremendous costs that are involved? Will the defence purse strings be loosened prior to 1973? Are there contingency plans? Will the Department of National Defence plans suffer as a result of this situation? I am not suggesting they should not suffer if it is necessary to make a change. Will any program be curtailed because of the mounting costs resulting from what is happening today?
If this situation continues for any extended length of time, where will the financial assistance come from to meet the tremendous administration costs in the city of Montreal? When will we learn whether the terror in Quebec has clear international implications? One minister of the Crown has hinted at this in this House and on television, yet denies full information to the people of Canada. As a result of this, we can only expect the Canadian people to be concerned.
I do not suggest that the government is attempting to stir up the feelings of the Canadian people. I am sure this is not what was intended. However, this is what has been done. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) earlier today made very clear that there are international implications. If so, those who have the detailed knowledge should communicate to the people of Canada how extensive these implications are.
I wish to reiterate my support of the Prime Minister and the government in any action to bring to a halt all the terrorist activity that exists today. These people are so cowardly they are really not worth talking about. There must be an end to the conditions that give rise to thoughts that lead men to react violently against their fellow man. If I am satisfied that the situation warrants the implementation of this drastic step, I will support it. However, I first want the answers to a few questions. As my leader stated, there might have been another way for the government to act. It is not enough to simply say this was not possible. If it was impossible, we should be told why. Answer some of these questions and I am sure the people of Canada will accept being deprived of certain of their freedoms for as long as is necessary to rid this country of the evil that exists in it.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I should like to take part in this debate briefly this evening for two reasons; first, to indicate to this House and the people of Canada the very high level of support for the action which has been taken by the government in that part of Canada from which I come, the Province of Alberta. I have spent many hours on the telephone today, and before today, with respect to this matter and I think I can say, without reserve, that the action which has been taken by the government along with the explanations which have been given has the almost unanimous support of the people of Alberta in all political parties. I want to say that this support has come from good Canadian citizens of all political affiliations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: My other reason is to argue that there is at least a degree of misunderstanding which is being perpetuated with respect to the legal base for the kind of action the government is taking. I think it should be known to this House and to the country that all the people to whom I have talked in Alberta recognize the gravity of the situation. Indeed, they regard this as a national problem, not as a Quebec problem. I might say I do not believe the people of Alberta who are not as close to the scene where these acts of violence have taken place have the same level of fear, because they are not as closely exposed to it, so I think there is some difference between their understanding of the situation and that of the people who are living with it in Quebec.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: But there is no difference in the views of the people of Alberta, nor indeed is there any difference in the underlying apprehension of the long term effects if the government had not taken action. I say this because the people from western Canada, and from Alberta in particular, realize that the kind of thing which has manifested itself in Quebec in the last few days is certainly not confined to Quebec. The people of Alberta are concerned lest it could be a condition which is contagious,

October 17, 1970

one might say, undermining the role of law and order in Canada.
Unusual steps have been taken not only by the Government of Canada but by the government of the United States in the last few days to deal with the kind of additional support which the police forces need in order to control acts of terrorism, bombings and that sort of thing. The people of Alberta are aware of this as well, so let there be no misunderstanding about the mood and the general support, as I said, the almost unanimous support, of people in other parts of Canada. They are concerned about this and they want the proper action to be taken. Not only that, but they regard the action which has been taken as being something which is more than a little distasteful to all of us, but necessary.
The other matter I wanted to talk about, and again very briefly, and I say this with a great deal of sincerity, is that there is some misunderstanding about what the War Measures Act is and the legal, consequential actions which must be taken to use the act in an emergency. What worries me is that there seems to be some feeling amongst some members, thankfully only a very few members of the opposition, that the government somehow is not acting on the instructions of Parliament. This is a very serious charge if there were one grain of truth in it, but there is not. I say that because the War Measures Act is in fact an act of this Parliament and the steps the government has taken to deal with this emergency are the exact measures which Parliament knew would have to be taken if a situation arose in Canada where it was necessary to use the War Measures Act.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: May I ask a question?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I shall be through in a few minutes. I will answer questions then. I say this because the War Measures Act was passed many years ago and it has been amended from time to time. The last time, as far as I can ascertain, was in 1960 when it was amended by the Progressive Conservative government of the day. Section six was repealed and another section was substituted. I have no complaint about that. I think it was a good amendment. The government has followed to the letter the provisions of that amendment. I commend both the people who made that amendment and the actions of the government today in complying with it.
Let us be clear about one thing and that is that the government of the day in 1960 not only amended the War Measures Act, but they must have been aware of all the provisions within that act when they amended it. At that time a special committee reviewed not only the War Measures Act but many other acts in an attempt to make the Bill of Rights consistent with those acts, and to take into account the need for meeting this situation. So, I say this argument that the government is doing something new which was not anticipated by Parliament when they passed and amended the War Measures Act is in my view simply a wrong argument which leaves a dangerously wrong impression with the Canadian public.
The War Measures Act reads, and I shall refer to it very briefly: "The issue of a proclamation by Her Majes-
Invoking of War Measures Act
ty or under the authority of the Governor in Council shall be conclusive evidence that a state of war, invasion or insurrection, real or apprehended, exists." Every government, every Parliament knew that these were the conditions under which the government was charged with the responsibility of bringing in a proclamation and making regulations which would be necessary to give effect to the act.
If in a situation where insurrection is apprehended the government fails to use the tools which Parliament has charged it to use in that connection, the government would have been remiss in its duty and in carrying out its responsibility. But this is not what happened. The government did what Parliament expected it to do in that kind of situation. Surely, if the War Measures Act is not to be used, even in a limited form when there is an apprehended insurrection, what in the name of common sense did Parliament put it on the statute books for and leave it there through all these years?
In this emergency it is incumbent upon all of us to avoid partisanship, to be honest with the people of Canada and not try to tell them that the government did not act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Parliament. As far as an apprehended insurrection is concerned I do not want to repeat the argument which has been advanced, but it goes with the argument I am making now. Surely, if proof of that is not sufficient with the letter and advice from the Prime Minister of Quebec and the Mayor and Executive Council of the City of Montreal, where all these acts are taking place, then what is apprehended insurrection?
[DOT] (9:10p.m.)
May I conclude by saying I believe those who argue that the government have taken an illegal or improper act, that in some way the government have violated the function of Parliament to make statutes, are not fooling the people one bit. In my view, since this measure was and is an act of Parliament and the act anticipated that the government should take certain action if the situation arose, then the government had to take the responsibility to act. Indeed, the government would have been remiss not to do what it did. In the situation we have today, the government has acted in accordance with the declared wishes of Parliament over a number of years.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the hon. member is rising for the purpose of asking a question.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister a question arising out of his statement that some hon. members appear to be questioning the legality of the government's action. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) made his position very clear at the beginning of the debate; he said he did not question in any way that the government had the legal right to take this action. I have been here for most of the debate, but not all, and I have not heard that suggestion made. I wonder whether the minister could enlighten us as to the sources from which this seems to have come.

October 17, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I would be very happy to do that, Mr. Speaker, and to do it very briefly. I was here when the Leader of the Opposition made his opening remarks. I was also here to listen to the remarks of the leaders of the other parties. I realize that the leader of the official opposition and the leader of the New Democratic Party did, in fact, say that at the outset of their speeches. But what concerns me is that in other parts of their speeches, in the press and in radio and T.V. broadcasts that they have made since, they have attempted-I think this is a fair statement-to lead the Canadian people to believe that this action should have taken a different form; that the government should have come to Parliament to get the authority that the police needed to do this job.
What I am suggesting is that Parliament some time ago made a decision as to what it expected the government to do in this kind of situation.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, I am not an expert on hair-splitting and I am not going to argue the legal points.


An hon. Member:: You are a lawyer.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: 
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I shall try to put forward in my own way a three-point program that we can now follow. The milk has been spilled and an effort has been made to bell the cat that spilled the milk. What can we do now? We have to close ranks. The War Measures Act has been invoked, so I am not now delaying the passage of any important bill. I am here to make a short, positive contribution in the shortest space of time possible. I intend to suggest three steps to which I think no Canadian could object.
Although the War Measures Act has been invoked, I think it is distasteful to Canadian people regardless of the fact that it must be used at the present time. It is time for those on the treasury benches to put aside any false pride they may have and admit that they did not hold the consultations for many reasons. The government is facing a situation which is so grave that it needs consultation with and the support and friendship of every hon. member in this House, particularly

October 17, 1970

experienced members who have had the responsibility of power and have not in the past abused that power to any great extent. These men can be trusted by every Canadian. These men could sit with the government, behind closed doors if necessary, and give the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) the benefit of the experience and wisdom they have gained over the years.
I suggest that a committee of this House be struck, composed of all Privy Councillors. That committee should sit as the custodian of our freedom and should ensure that the War Measures Act is used effectively, without abuse in fact or in spirit. It is not good enough that justice be done. The people of Canada should, and have the right to know that it is being done, how it is being done and when it is being done, so long as this knowledge does not prejudice the security of Canada. I am prepared to support the appointment of such a committee for this limited purpose. This is not a partisan problem. I do not intend moving a motion, but I should like every member of the House to think about my suggestion. Perhaps we should extend to Mr. Caouette the right to sit on that committee because he is the leader of a very large section of the population although his party does not have many members in this House. We would then have Mr. Flemming, a former Premier of New Brunswick-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interupt the hon. member when he is making such an interesting speech, but I am wondering whether he might not identify members by their constituencies. I think this is a very valuable practice, and I would not think it is in order to make exceptions even for the commendable valid purpose the hon. member has in mind.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry that my memory is not good enough to remember all the members by their constituencies. I will leave it at that: the members of the privy council are well known to the House and hon. members will realize who I mean. If this suggestion is adopted there will be no difficulty in identifying those persons whom I suggest be appointed to such a committee of the House.
My second suggestion is perhaps minor if the first one is adopted. The War Measures Act has been put into effect until the end of April, 1971. Perhaps it should be reconsidered by the government and by this House month by month so that the people of Canada would know whether we, their elected representatives, are in favour of everything that is being done. I am sure the government will have the unanimous support of the House as long as the committee I suggested is operating as a committee of surveillance in respect of our rights and freedoms.
My third suggestion is that instead of just talking, we should take active steps to see that the security of Canada is enhanced internationally, nationally and locally. By that I mean we should take a very good look at our foreign policy and our immigration policy. We should also take a good look at our commitments to NATO.
Invoking of War Measures Act These three matters are tied in with external security, without which internal security is a joke.
We should as soon as possible call upon all the young men in Canada, and in some cases anyone under the age of 70 who is physically fit and wants to serve the country in whatever way he is needed. They might be invited to volunteer for service during emergencies such as the one which now exists. Members like myself who are veterans of the mounted police could make themselves available on very short notice for point duty. If they are too old to go out on the beat, ride a motorcycle or bear arms, they could relieve the more active young members for that kind of work while they handle the keys to the cells and perform administrative functions of one sort or another. We should also take a good look at the manpower situation in our armed forces. It has taken a shock like this-a kind of baby Pearl Harbour, if you like-to remind us that we are probably incapable of defending Anticosti Island, let alone the largest coastline in the world and about 3,500 miles of border.
If we are to accomplish these things there must be no talk of partisanship. We must accept the responsibility of dealing with this little spot-fire in Quebec and seeing that it is put out. Anyone who has ever fought a fire, particularly in dry bush, knows how dangerous a spot-fire can be. Only by putting out little spot-fires can you avoid losing a whole territory. We can act firmly now. Nothing will frighten the enemies of Canada more than the knowledge that 265 members of this House put their lives, property and loyalty 100 per cent behind the government.
If the government want this kind of co-operation and loyalty-and I am sure they do

they too must drop any suggestion of partisanship. If we call this non-partisan committee together, it will be seized with the responsibility of securing our borders and securing peace and good will within the country. It will be responsible for making sure the people of Canada not only have this security but know that they have it, how they get it and why they are getting it.
This motion is not spelled out in black and white. I wish I could vote for it in its entirety, but I have reservations. I should like the government to at least consider these three suggestions. If they undertook to consider them, I could perhaps in some way accept the War Measures Act. When there are loopholes in respect of these very great and unnatural powers in peacetime, it is our duty to adopt whatever safeguards we can.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
It is not in the nature of politics to pat your political opponents on the back. It is our job to criticize. In spite of the fact that tempers perhaps have flared a little, I think this debate so far has been mostly constructive. Members in this House with whom I have not agreed on other matters throughout the years have stood up and, I am proud to say, have put to one side their personal views concerning how Canada can best be run within our democratic framework. I detect a great unanimity about the fact that we want to restore law and order in our

October 17, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act country. I hope the government will lean over backwards, as I hope I shall do, to see that from now on the FLQ will have 265 enemies, not people who are obviously their enemies but people who are forced into this position. I, for one, will go a long way with the government, with my own party and with other members of this House to see that law in Canada is restored to normal.


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. speaker, at the outset I wish to commend my good friend the hon. member representing Pembina (Mr. Bigg) for a very constructive and positive contribution to this debate. I believe he deserves the commendation of all of us. He has expressed very well the feeling of all members of all parties in this House that, while we may differ in our approach to what is a very serious problem, we are all deeply committed to keeping Canada united and to fighting as diligently as is possible threats to national unity by any forces which would destroy this country.
I have had the honour of serving in the opposition in another House. It is not an easy task to be in opposition. An opposition has a responsibility to set forth a diversity of opinion on the range of issues which may exist in the country. I believe the views of an opposition should be considered, listened to and pondered well. I espouse, the cause of a strong opposition because that is the only way to keep our parliamentary system strong.
In this debate in the past two days, we have listened with interest to a great many valuable opposition speeches. There has been vigorous opposition here to some of the remarks made from the other side of the House. Some members there have expressed serious concern about certain aspects of the War Measures Act. If we are a responsible government on this side, we will do our best to allay those fears which, in some cases at least, may appear to have partial basis in fact. I agree with my hon. friend across the way in opposition who just spoke when he suggested that perhaps we should attempt to gather together as much unanimity of opinion as possible in the House. It seems to me the most damaging blow to the FLQ, and to other groups seeking to destroy Canada, would be an opinion from this House that we disapprove of what they are attempting to do and condemn them with one voice.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Raymond J. Perrault: If in order to achieve that degree of unanimity it may be necessary for certain assurances to be provided from the government side to our friends in opposition, then I think we should provide them. I did not hesitate, when I was in opposition, to suggest that there should be more consultation particularly on important matters among the leaders of the parties in the House. On the rare occasion when it was done in my previous forum of activity, I believe the people benefited by the sharing of knowledge among the party leaders. In matters relating to the security of the state it is not possible, of course, to open every file and dossier. My friend who vas formerly a member of the RCMP I believe realizes
this. All security files cannot be opened to a wide range of people. But in so far as it is possible I hope the government does share with the other party leaders as much information as possible about the nature and the extent of the challenge facing Canada at this hour.
In the sort of oratorical snowstorm which has taken place in the past two days, perhaps some members on that side have overlooked some relevant facts. Many have said in this debate that the action of the government is unnecessary. They have said that we are guilty of over-kill. But really, in the final analyses, how is the urgency of a situation to be determined? When we are told by the leader of one of the major provinces in Canada that after consultation with authorities directly responsible for the administration of justice the Quebec government is convinced that the law as it stands now is inadequate to meet the situation satisfactorily, when a communique of that kind is received by the federal government and immediate action is requested, and when the mayor of the largest city in Canada, a great disciple of Canadian unity, suggests as he did that society is being threatened by seditious action-


Mr. Alkenbrack:: He told you that a year and a half ago.


Raymond J. Perrault: When such information is communicated urgently to the government of Canada, that government must act immediately in the manner requested by those other levels of government. When the head of the police department of the city of Montreal states, as recorded at page 245 of Hansard, the following,
An extremely dangerous subversive organization has gradually developed in Quebec over the last several years with a view to preparing the overthrow of the legitimate government by seditious means and eventually armed insurrection.
no government, Conservative, Liberal, NDP, Social Credit or anything else can remain supine and silent. The government must act and it must fully seize the only legislative weapon, the only statutory piece of machinery available to it, to act in the immediate fashion that these governments crying out for action demand.
The Prime Minister certainly did not defend the War Measures Act as being a perfect piece of legislation. I hope some members will re-read his statements. He said that the measure was too wide-ranging. It should be repeated that the regulations which have been proclaimed permit the exercise of only a limited number of provisions under the act. As well, the Prime Minister, as recorded at page 194 of Hansard, said:
-I wish to make it clear today that the government regards the use of the War Measures Act as only an interim and . . . somewhat unsatisfactory measure.
And in all the oratory we have heard during the past few days, I wonder whether the members of the opposition parties have ignored the request made by the Prime Minister to them. He said this:
-it is my firm intention to discuss with the leaders of the opposition parties the desirability of introducing legislation of a less comprehensive nature. In this respect I earnestly solicit

October 17, 1970

from the leaders and from all members constructive suggestions for the amendment of the regulations. Such suggestions will be given careful consideration for possible inclusion in any new statute.
Yet, you know, some members of the opposition have portrayed the Prime Minister of this country as a despot who has been plotting for years to seize power. It is not worthy of any Member of Parliament to make such a charge. Since this crisis arose how much time has been spent by the opposition sitting down in caucus drafting the proposals they believe should be enshrined in the alternative legislation to come before the House to meet this emergency? How much time has the opposition spent? The government is working on it. I guarantee that.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


J. Michael Forrestall: You are the first person to admit it.


Raymond J. Perrault: And let me say to you that the offer the Prime Minister made on October 16 is a sincere offer to the opposition to join in the kind of all party unity referred to so eloquently by my friend, the hon. member for Pembina.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Raymond J. Perrault: The question arises: when is the draft of your proposal going to be received by this side of the House? When are the eloquent members of the NDP going to send over their views?


William Arnold Peters: As soon as they get back from
Saskatchewan.


Raymond J. Perrault: When will the members of the opposition send in their proposals? The Prime Minister said here he wants to meet the leaders of all parties to discuss legislation. Are you ready to meet?


An hon. Member:: Of course, we are ready to meet.


Raymond J. Perrault: Let there be no baseless charges bandied around the House that the Prime Minister has refused to consult and to meet the opposition. The members of the opposition know very well that prior to the proclamation of the limited powers which are in effect under the War Measures Act, all party leaders were informed about this pending action. Indeed, consultations were held with the former prime minister of this country. Is this the action of a Prime Minister dedicated to a new type of dictatorial rule in Canada? Had there been more consultations when the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was prime minister, Canada might be in a better condition today.


An hon. Member:: Even in his own party.


Raymond J. Perrault: Yes, even with his own party.


J. Michael Forrestall: Stop preaching about unity out of one side of your mouth.


Raymond J. Perrault: I say that the statements by the Prime Minister earnestly soliciting all party co-operation,
Invoking of War Measures Act and the ideas of other parties, have been advanced in all sincerity. I hope that his invitation is accepted by the Opposition.
There has been a suggestion that there should be a greater sharing of information. At these sessions, which hopefully will take place with respect to a measure to replace the War Measures Act-and I hope as quickly as possible-this exchange of additional information can take place.
I think that the events of the past two days point to a serious deficiency in the Criminal Code of Canada. It has been said in this debate that the government has been aware of a growing danger in the province of Quebec in recent years. The government has been accused of failing to act. Yet, within its ambit of responsibility and power, the government certainly has acted. There have been intensive RCMP activities in the province of Quebec, as hon. members are aware, but, tragically, the enforcement of the Criminal Code, including the section relating to sedition, rests at present with provincial attorneys general. The responsibility for the administration of justice as presently defined in the Criminal Code lies with provincial attorneys general. It may be that all of us can be critical of the failure of the attorneys general in the province of Quebec to act more vigorously. In this regard, I believe that the federal government must be invested with power, through amendments to the Criminal Code, to deal with national crimes such as sedition and treason.
Surely, we have learned our lesson after watching a major situation develop over recent days. Organized crime is operating on such a vast scale, it has become so mobile and so sophisticated in its perverse way, that the Attorney General (Mr. Turner) should be invested with power to act beyond that which he possesses at the present time.
It is not my intention to prolong this debate. Many speeches have been made and all of the ground has been covered. I suggest to members of the House that at this time a demonstration of solidarity, and of agreement, would be the most positive sign possible of the fact that despite our political differences we want Canada to remain free and strong, that none of us will tolerate sedition and anarchy in our midst. If additional assurances can be given by the government that new legislation is being prepared and will be introduced shortly, and that the War Measures Act will be withdrawn as soon as that measure has been dealt with, and if we can have more sharing of information with the opposition with fair consideration given to their proposals-and we have heard some good ideas in the past two days-perhaps we can achieve that level of unity which is so desirable at this time. A united Parliament will demonstrate to the people of Canada that when the fate of the nation is at stake we will not permit partisan politics to dominate our activities in this House. Let us demonstrate the same kind of solidarity on this issue that the provincial governments of Canada, regardless of political stripe, have demonstrated in support of the federal action. Almost without exception they have said "yes, it is an undesirable situation but the action is necessary. We, too, would welcome an alternative to the War Measures Act,

October 17, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act but we support the necessary decision of the federal government". We should strive to speak with one voice on Monday. We should say "No" to those who would destroy Canada.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I will say at the moment that I will be brief. However, I want to express a few words in support of the amendment now before the House. I am in agreement with the War Measures Act being invoked, but with the restriction that it be invoked for a short period up to the end of this month, October 31, and with the understanding that at that time it be replaced by less comprehensive legislation which will take care of the situation that exists in Quebec. I do not think there is anybody in the House that would not vote for that. The only thing between the government and us in that amendment is the time factor. The motion before us sets the time limit at April, 1971. We say that is too long. All we are asking the government to do is to change course a little and narrow the time. We will then all be in agreement and could speak with one voice, as the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault) has just asked us to do.
As a member of this chamber I never thought I would find myself in the position of having to debate the War Measures Act in peacetime in this House. I have always felt, living in a democratic society, that we would have the necessary goodwill and the judgment to help us to resolve the problems as they occurred in our country. However, we are faced with this situation, and I can assure hon. members that we cannot deal with it perfunctorily.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
How are we to vote on this motion and on the amendment to it? We find that peace, order and good government seem to be only a cliche now. We have arrived at a rare juncture in the history of Canada. We have had to declare a state of war in time of peace. Suddenly, we realize that all the freedoms we have enjoyed have been taken away. We find now that the Prime Minister comes to the House of Commons in a bullet-proof car; there are troops on Parliament Hill, troops around the capital; the largest city in Canada, Montreal, is under the control of troops and the police force, and the two year old son of the Minister of Justice of Canada is playing in the backyard under the shadow of a submachine gun to protect him. This is the situation in which we find ourselves in Canada today. It is a sorry state of affairs. I feel badly that I even have to speak about it.
In retrospect, Mr. Speaker, the government has failed us badly. It has allowed certain things to continue, things it knew about and had been told about. I do not propose to take up the time of the House reiterating all the things that have been so eloquently discussed previously. The right hon. member for Prince Albert, a former prime minister, brought many things very forcibly to our attention yesterday. However, there are one or two other aspects that have been overlooked and that I wish to bring to the attention of the House.
First, I want to talk about the Company of Young Canadians. This house approved a budget of approximately $2 million for the operations of the Company of Young Canadians. On November 27, 1969, after about two years of operation and after the matter had been brought to the attention of the government by the opposition and other people, a committee called for an investigation of this Company of Young Canadians. Mr. Lucien Saulnier, chairman of the executive committee of Montreal, and Montreal Mayor Drapeau appeared before the Committee. What did they tell that committee? I would like to put on the record one or two things. I reiterate that this was last fall, in 1969. Mr. Saulnier said:
We know that in Canada individuals and groups are working actively to implement a plan which will carry the destruction of freedom, of our form of democratic government and, in this plan, the people's will, as expressed in the ballot box, is excluded.
He went on to list a number of things that he had noticed, and then said:
We also found on the premises officially occupied by the Company of Young Canadians and paid for by the Canadian taxpayers, newspapers and pamphlets showing how to fabricate Molotov cocktails, paint bombs, flasks and vials devised to disrupt police work in the maintenance of public order.
These are the things he brought to the attention of the committee. He also said that these were:
-things I know and of which I have privately informed the Prime Minister of Canada a few times in the past year.
That means he privately told the Prime Minister in 1968 what was happening in Montreal, and the great dangers involved. What was done? The only thing that happened was the Company of Young Canadians was revamped and a new person put in charge. However, it was allowed to continue in existence. It was not scrapped. It was allowed to continue even after the very devastating observations which I have just brought to the attention of the House.
I also wish to mention the Algerians who came to Canada. In April, 1964, in this House the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) asked several questions about the Algerian people who were allowed to come to Canada. He was told there were 114 of them. I think the House realizes what troubles and problems they have caused in Canada. On July 31, 1964, I was speaking in this House on interim supply, dealing with the budget of the Immigration Department. At that time I brought this matter to the attention of the late Hon. Rene Tremblay when I said:
There is another matter which is, I think, of interest, and it concerns the proposed immigration to Canada of a large number of farmers of European descent who were formerly farming in Algeria. . . these people had a reputation which was not of the best.
That was written up in all the newspapers but still we allowed them to come into Canada. Look at the trouble they caused. What about Hal Banks? We had quite an interesting debate with the late minister of immigration of that day who allowed Hal Banks to come here and cause all the trouble on the St. Lawrence Seaway.

October 17, 1970

What about these draft dodgers we have been allowing to come into our country? I am sure they have not contributed anything to our country or to the peace, order and good government of Canada.
Let us consider the training of the red militants who have been allowed to get into the United States by way of Canada. These people come up here as so-called sugar harvesters. They cannot come directly from Cuba to the United States and so they come by way of Canada. Why should we make it possible for these people to use Canada as a stepping-stone, and to sow their seeds of discontent?
What about the Canada Council? Reading the Ottawa Citizen tonight, I noticed that one of those arrested in Montreal was Stanley Gray. The Canada Council, under the direction of the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier), offered a grant to this man of $5,500. I received many letters about it at the time.
To review the matter, the Canada Council was launched in 1957 by the St. Laurent government. The first chairman was Mr. Brooke Claxton, a very respected Liberal politician. Its purpose was to promote the arts and the humanities. One hundred million dollars was provided for its principal funding, and it has been subsidized each year. Last year the government gave $20 million to it. I repeat that the Canada Council offered a grant to Stanley Gray who was arrested yesterday in Montreal. I wrote to the minister about this and received a two-page letter from him under date of May 12, 1969, from which I wish to quote one paragraph:
Another point had to be discussed by the Council and that was whether there was evidence that Mr. Gray's non-scholastic activities reduced or would reduce his scholarity performance or could in any way put into question his qualifications as a scholar. The Council decided that in this case, Mr. Gray's scholastic qualifications were not in question.
No, they were not in question, but his other subversive activities were certainly in question. The Canada Council did not look into that aspect of things and so offered him the money. Perhaps the director of the Council would not have had to prepare a statement to justify the award to Stanley Gray if all the other implications had been considered instead of just the scholastic aspects. These are some of the things that have been happening.
I would have thought the Prime Minister could have performed his duties much better as the head of this country, if he had remained at home and looked after some of the things that were happening in this country about which he had been told over two years ago. He was told what was happening, yet he found time to fly all over the world and let things slip at home. Now, the government that was in office while these conditions were developing must be prepared to answer for the condition in which the country finds itself today. I said I would be brief, Mr. Speaker, and so I must hurry on. Now, we find that the government has gone all out, in fact, it has gone overboard and brought in the War Measures Act.
Invoking of War Measures Act
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
I was pleased to note that in the Prime Minister's opening remarks he said, as reported at page 194 of Hansard for October 16:
Following the passage of enough time to give the government the necessary experience to assess the type of statute which may be required in these circumstances, it is my firm intention to discuss with the leaders of the opposition parties the desirability of introducing legislation of a less comprehensive nature.
The Prime Minister says he wants to do this. All our amendment asks is that he do this by the end of this month. The government has gone overboard and brought forward a measure giving it almost unlimited power. I put myself in the shoes of my good friends who live in the province of Quebec. I know how I would feel if my wife and family were in the danger that exists there. I daresay that under those conditions I would think the War Measures Act was not a bit too severe.
When we are told that there are 3,000 members of the FLQ and that they have 2,000 pounds of dynamite and can set it off with methods that are difficult to discover, and when we are told how those people operate with a code system, and so on, it is not hard for me to realize how concerned people must be in the province of Quebec generally and in Montreal particularly. Mr. Speaker, I do not think too much will be cured by this measure. I do not think the trouble in Quebec, or in all Canada for that matter, will be remedied by crushing the FLQ. These troubles can only be resolved if we transform the lives of alienated Canadians whether they be in Montreal or in any other part of Canada. The best way to deal with people who feel they have nothing to lose is to give them something to conserve. I think we have conserved much in this great country of ours. We have tried and tested values which have been handed down to us over 2,000 years and have stood the test of time pretty well. We have conserved many principles and ideals which must be looked at and used again.
In conclusion I say this. The fact that this action has been taken at the request of the Premier of Quebec and the mayor of Montreal cannot be overlooked and overemphasized. The mayor of Montreal, in the letter which the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault) read, said that an extremely dangerous, subversive organization has gradually developed in Quebec over the last several years. There is nothing new about the situation that developed and which required the government to invoke the War Measures Act at four o'clock yesterday morning.
Secondly, I agree that action had to be taken and I also agree that the action ought to have been taken sooner. I think we all realize that the action ought to have been taken sooner. My concern is that the government has overreacted. I am glad to know that the Prime Minister has said emphatically that he will revoke this legislation and replace it with less comprehensive legislation. I am, therefore, prepared if necessary to give up a little of my freedom for a short period of time in order to preserve

October 17, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act
democracy for the whole country and, hopefully, to save Quebec.
This morning's edition of the Globe and Mail carried an editorial which read in part as follows:
Mr. Trudeau has said that this is his intention, that he recognizes that 'the act is much broader than is required in the present situation', that he will be working to produce 'legislation of a less comprehensive nature'. He has asked the leaders of the opposition, and all members of the House, to make constructive suggestions for new legislation.
We make one now. Limit the legislation to what is needed, yes: but make it no easier for a government to impose or maintain. Keep it a shocking thing, which no government can impose without a drama that penetrates all and frightens all.


Mr. Andre Ouellel (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the words spoken by the hon. members from both sides of the House who since yesterday have addressed this House on the important motion submitted by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to invoke the War Measures Act.
In my capacity as member for one of our Montreal constituencies, in my own right as a Quebecer anxious to assure the security and welfare of the citizens of this province and as a Canadian proud of this country and wishing that it remain unified and flourishing, I want to thank all the members in this House who rose in favour of the prime minister's motion.
Those of us who live in the province of Quebec and who have lived through the events of these last few days, those of us who took trouble to enquire about the situation, know very well that the government's decision was neither untimely nor exaggerated.
Let us recall all the events. First there were the kidnappings, then the threats to life and private property. There were FLQ communiques of an inflammatory and seditious nature. There was a systematic use of the communication media by these criminals. For a long period of time already there had been bombings, thefts of dynamite and acts of violence of every kind.
Was it necessary to wait for the heart of Montreal to blow up with dynamite? Was it necessary to wait for selective assassination before taking action? 1 think the government proceeded wisely and I am sure that most Canadians agree with this decision.
After listening to a large number of conservative members, I realize that, on final analysis, this party did not, still does not realize what is going on in Quebec. We are told about the activities of the Company of Young Canadians a few years ago. We are told about subversive elements in the CBC. We are told about some scholarships granted several months or even several years ago to individuals who have become revolutionaries.
I think that the important point now is not what has taken place a year or two ago, but the events of the last ten days. In this regard, I find that the Progressive Conservative party, through its spokesmen in the House, displaces in an odd way the subject of this debate.

[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
Many of those who spoke have indeed seemed to me to ignore the facts completely. They would have been better to ask their colleagues from Quebec, in particular the member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin), or again, the member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), because really, with the attitude taken in the House by the Progressive Conservative party and its leader, I am certain that this party will never have more than three or four Quebec representatives in Ottawa.
I would have thought however, Mr. Speaker, that the honourable member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Ricard), who spoke to-night, would have shown himself up to the situation.
Not only did he deal a particularly dirty blow at the Minister of Reginal Economic Expansion, but he did not even want to say whether or not he supported the war measures taken by the government to protect the population. His tirade against the minister was totally uncalled for, since the minister is one of the great champions of the citizens' rights in general, and especially of the workers and of underprivileged people in Canada. I think that the work he is doing within his department to eliminate regional disparities should cause admiration and should be commended by all members.
The member for Saint-Hyacinthe has left the House even though he said he would remain here to listen to all the speeches the members would make. Before leaving he had urged the Liberal members from Quebec to voice their opinion. His leaving the House rather gives me the impression that he was here not to hear members' speeches, but just to wait for an opportunity to take the floor. I deeply regret his absence, as I would have asked him some questions. I want to refer to the part of his speech where he spoke of the editorial published in this morning's Montreal paper Le Devoir, outlining certain views expressed by editorialist Claude Ryan.
I would specially refer to a paragraph of that editorial which the member for Saint-Hyacinthe carefully refrained from mentioning and which reads as follows:
Going back on former impulse, Mr. Bourassa, all things considered, chose to resort to the authority of Ottawa. By his voluntary request for implementation of the War Measures Act, the premier accepted the principle of subordinating his government to that of Mr. Trudeau. He thus sanctioned, in the eyes of the rest of the country, an old recollection according to which Ottawa is the seat of the true national government and Quebec, finally, a province a little more turbulent than the others.
I should like to know if the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe endorses those words. It is often said that words exceed one's thoughts. I am really wondering if Mr. Ryan, in his writings, has not exceeded not only his own thought, but what he really hopes for, what he has been concealing for a number of months, his real thought on Canadian politics and the true place that Quebec should have both in Canada and abroad.
When I hear an editorial writer from Montreal say such things, I find that he is going too far. We are living in a country called Canada, under a Canadian govern-
October 17, 1970

ment, and I do not believe Mr. Ryan is right when he says that the events happening in Montreal come exclusively under the jurisdiction of the provincial government.
In my opinion, what he said in his editorial ties in quite well with the remarks made recently in Montreal by the leader of the Parti Quebecois, Mr. Rene Levesque, who spoke of the federal government as of a foreign government. This is very unfortunate from an editorial writer such as Mr. Ryan who enjoyed, however, the admiration of many people.
I am under the impression that during the last few months, following a series of lead articles more or less well thought out and, in particular, after this article, he is much less popular not only in the province of Quebec but elsewhere in Canada.
I think that the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe was much too vague in his remarks. Yet, his three Progressive Conservative colleagues from Quebec had said that they supported the position of the government and that they would vote for the motion. I am wondering if the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe will be here Monday to vote, and if he does not vote, I think that he will be shirking his duty.
Mr. Speaker, I think that this crisis does not only concern Quebec. Too many hon. members have seemed to look at what is happening in the province of Quebec as if it were strictly a Quebec matter. It is really a Canadian matter. It is not only a crisis affecting Quebec only but Canada as a whole.
Our country has changed in ten days. I would like tonight to express the wish that our present trials will make us grow up, will enable us, as Canadians, to tighten the bonds that tie us together and will teach us to co-operate in the best interests of the nation.
That is why I deeply regret the comments made in the House by certain members of the NDP. It is all very well to speak in the name of freedom. I do not believe that there is anyone here who is against individual liberties. Because of the NDP's weeping and wailing, I am tempted to repeat the well-known sentence: "O liberty what misdeeds are done in thy name!"
Under the circumstances, the attitude of the NDP is completely irresponsible and unacceptable. Obviously, that party does not have any elected members from Quebec and will not have any for a long time yet, considering its totally unrealistic mentality.
Judging from what the New Democrats say, one would think that they were living in limbo, that they have no knowledge whatever of the serious situation prevailing in Montreal.
Mr. Speaker, it is dishonest to pretend as some have done that the extraordinary legislation proposed by the government will deprive Canadian of all their freedom.
These emergency measures adopted by the Canadian government are exceptional measures meant exclusively for terrorists, revolutionaries, in short those who would
Invoking of War Measures Act
overthrow legitimate authorities by violence, crime, murder.
The vast majority of the population, well meaning citizens whose conscience is at peace have nothing to fear from these emergency measures and should not let the members of the NDP convince them that their liberties are at stake. The Army and the police will not bother them. On the contrary the task of the armed forces is to protect the population and to maintain peace.
I trust that by using such powers the government will be able to put an end to intimidation and terror and to ensure peace and security for all.
I pray that the lives of Mr. Cross and Mr. Laporte will be saved. I pray that their wives and children may see them home again safe and sound.


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, it is rather late. All of us are tired. The problem is serious and I have no reason to speak now.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)

While I do not approve of what the government did on Friday morning, I am willing to support it. I was willing to support it on Friday; I thought the element of surprise was necessary. But I do not know whether I am willing to accept it today. I was willing to accept it Friday morning.


An hon. Member:: That was a fish day.


Louis-Roland Comeau: I think the government should come forward very soon, as promised by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) last night on television, with legislation so that we may revoke the War Measures Act and bring in a bill which will deal with the situation more closely.
[Translation\
I am not from the province of Quebec but I think that the current problems there have become much worse since last week. There is no one in Canada who is not disgusted with what is going on in the province of Quebec. Those events have consequences for Frenchspeaking Canadians throughout the country. The FLQ matter is serious, there is absolutely no doubt about it. This clandestine movement must be crushed. I really wonder if machine guns and guns will be enough. But this is not the way to solve the situation once and for all.
We all know that in the last few years, society has become-I do not blame anybody-much too permissive.

Protests have been encouraged in the last seven years. Young people, although in a minority, have made a lot of noise. Some people have been allowed to break every rule in the book across the country, the police watching them. The unrest we sense today in Canada has to do mostly with young people. This is unfortunate, because not all young people are for this type of measure.

October 17, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act
I suggest one of the reasons a minority of young people is disturbed is that there is just no challenge today for our young people-no challenge in our schools, no challenge in our universities, no jobs to give them in the summertime. I am not saying that this is a cause of the situation we have today, but it is a cause of unrest. It is something that has to be tackled. We have allowed situations to develop, which I shall not deal with, in the province of Quebec and elsewhere and now we are in a state of civil war or at least on the verge of it, we are told. This scares me. I am relatively young, but it scares me to see soldiers and these measures being used. I know they are probably necessary, but it scares me to see people being arrested without bail. It scares me to think that if one belongs to an association, one can be arrested by the police. It scares me that it is not what you do but what you think that makes you liable to punishment.
I know very well that tonight, and since four o'clock yesterday morning, the Prime Minister has the support of 99.9 per cent of Canadians for what he has done. I know it, but I say we can still have our objections. I hate members of the government criticizing us because we raise questions. Surely we can raise questions, we can have doubts. We are not bound to accept everything per se. Even knowing that 99.9 per cent of Canadians accept what the Prime Minister has done, we can still raise questions.
What really scares me about this situation, what really makes me think about what is going on in Canada today, is that if in this passage in the Canada Gazette the words "Parti Quebecois" had appeared in place of "Front de Liberation du Quebec", 99 per cent of Canadians would still support the measure. I say, also, that if the Prime Minister had stated at this moment in time, "Let Quebec separate", 99 per cent of the people of the nine other provinces would still approve.


An hon. Member:: That is right.


Louis-Roland Comeau: That scares me because, by God, if that is the case, what is Canada coming to? It is not only against the FLQ that the people of Canada are supporting the Prime Minister today; it is not only what happened yesterday...


Mr. Corbin:: Explain.


Mr. Paproski:: Be quiet.


Louis-Roland Comeau: I have explained. If words other than "Front de Liberation du Quebec" has been inserted, the rest of the people of Canada would still support this measure. Maybe they would not support it to the same extent because there are some in the nine other provinces who still believe in Canada and in the province of Quebec. But there are very many people who are completely fed up with what is going on. It scares me that if the Parti Quebecois had been named in that document, the people would still support the Prime Minister. There is nothing wrong in belonging to a political party, no matter what it is. I am not a friend of the separatist movement but there is nothing wrong in a country like
Canada, where we have free speech, in belonging to that party. Members of the FLQ are probably members of the Parti Quebecois, but members of the Parti Quebecois are not automatically members of the FLQ.

I represent a constituency that is 30 per cent Frenchspeaking and about 60 per cent English-speaking. It was the English-speaking people who elected me here. The people in my riding do not care whether one is a Catholic or a Frenchman; they know you for what you are, Mr. Speaker.
I support what the Prime Minister did on Friday morning, but I do not support his action on a continuing basis. I plead with the government to revoke the War Measures Act and to bring in legislation to deal with the situation. The word "War" in "War Measures Act" scares people. An incident was referred to this afternoon concerning what happened to a 20-year old girl at the hands of the FLQ, or someone, in Hull. It would probably not have happened if the War Measures Act had not been invoked. Although it appears to have the support of the Canadian people, this does not make the measure any more justifiable.
As an opposition member my job is to ask questions to make sure that things are done correctly. I listened to the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) this afternoon criticizing us for being against this act, criticizing us because we had a different opinion. He gave my leader hell for having a different opinion from his own. Six months ago when my leader supported the B and B Commission, the hon. member praised him. Today, because he does not agree with him, in his book my leader is no good. I say, let us revoke this measure soon. I hope hon. members will accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates).


Mr. Guay (Si. Boniface):: How will you vote?


Louis-Roland Comeau: I will support the amendment. Hon. members opposite accuse us of playing politics, yet I cannot find one of the 155 members opposite who is not going to support the Prime Minister. They are not going to question this measure. What kind of country is this?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I ask the hon. member-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Just a bunch of sheep.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. We should have order in the House. The hon. member for South

October 17, 1970

Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) has the floor. If this debate is to carry on peacefully, hon. members should refrain from making remarks from one side of the House to the other.


Louis-Roland Comeau: All the amendment provides is that instead of keeping this measure in force for 6J months, we do so only till October 30. This will give the police all the authority they want for another two weeks. The government can come back to Parliament at the end of October and ask for another debate on this important matter. Then if it is necessary to extend the measure, we can do so. But I do not believe the government should have this power for too long.
I make no apology for raising objections to the measure even though some government backbenchers do not approve. I hope the government is right and that this is the last time the War Measures Act will be used. I hope we will be able to cure the ills of this country in the near future.


Mr. Arthur Portelance (Gamelin):: Mr. Speaker, when I was elected a member of Parliament, on June 25, 1968, I did not think that we would have to vote on a matter as delicate and as important as the one now under consideration.
I know that several members of the opposition agree with the decision taken by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his cabinet. Certainly, they did not arrive at such decisions without due consideration. They simply answered the call of the premier of one of the Canadian provinces, the hon. Mr. Bourassa, as well as the call of responsible persons, such as the mayor of Montreal, Mr. Jean Drapeau, and the chairman of the executive committee, Mr. Lucien Saulnier.
Members of the opposition seem to believe that a dictatorship has just been implanted in Canada. If such was the case, the government members would be the first ones to object to it.
However I do not believe that such is the situation now. I am convinced that all my constituents entirely support the decision of the federal government to help Quebec restore order.
The province of Quebec is not the only province in Canada, and Canada is not the province of Quebec. This country includes ten provinces all equally important.
I was surprised to hear the former leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) say that the citizens in his province would be deprived of certain liberties for some time.
The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) made similar remarks. Yesterday, I heard him on television refer to some freedoms of which citizens other than Quebecers would be deprived.
Now, if I were in their shoes I would be ready to do without some freedoms if I knew that problems similar to those now prevailing in Quebec might develop in my province.
Invoking of War Measures Act
Being a Canadian does not merely mean being a Quebecer. We, Canadians, are privileged, for the whole world looks at us today. Many people would be happy to come and settle in Canada if it were possible.
We must be proud to be Canadians, and to safeguard that freedom I am happy to be part of a government headed by the present Prime Minister.
A few days ago, Mr. Cross was kidnapped in Montreal. His mission in Canada was to help Quebec and the rest of Canada to secure foreign capital to help the underprivileged by creating employment. I believe that was one of the projects of the Quebec government. In fact, the premier of that province spares no effort these days in order to secure foreign capital. Mr. Cross's main responsibility was to interest his government in investing in Canada. How strange that Mr. Cross, by coincidence, should disappear from view.
Later, another personality, and not the least important, the Hon. Pierre Laporte was kidnapped. From the time he entered politics, Mr. Laporte was the one who fought the most zealously for freedom in Quebec and in Canada. He wanted a free press and he fought for it vigorously in the province of Quebec. Mr. Laporte also wanted freedom in the labour movement. He has nothing to blame himself for with regard to freedom.
Mr. Speaker, those coincidences are strange. In the same time, the FLQ speaks of liberty, endoctrinates the students, devotes a lot of time to the universities, the CEGEPs and high schools to win over our young people. What did it promise? We do not know, because it had nothing on which to base its promises. Its members did not have the courage, every four years, and at times oftener, to try to be elected democratically.
The Quebec government is aware of the problems it must face and does everything possible to help the underprivileged but, as the member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) said yesterday, it is not only the underprivileged who are members of the FLQ.
It seems to me that some young people attending university, take a rather active part in such groups.
At the present time, in Montreal, the situation is untenable. Everyone knows that. Several members have mentioned that, last year, one of the committees of the House, of which I was a member, considered the problems concerning the Company for Young Canadians whose offices were located in Quebec. The chairman of the Montreal executive committee provided us with the proof that a revolutionary movement had developed in Quebec. If it had been conclusive evidence, if the arrests of some of its members had been possible, the Quebec authorities held the necessary powers to make the required arrests. But this has not been the case. However, some arrests have been made since the FLQ, with its blackmail, asked the government to release some of its prisoners.
The Montreal police, in spite of its efficiency-and I know personally several of its members who are honest and hard working people-has difficulty in controlling a movement which seems to me rather well-organized.

October 17, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act
Last week, visits were paid by people who, apparently, are members of the FLQ. Besides, some of them have already been arrested. Indeed, some had been recently liberated, and the opportunity had not been missed to have them on the CBC television network so that they could give their impressions to the viewers. Those same persons were then visiting CEGEPs and universities, and intended to visit still more this week. Fortunately, an end has been put to those activities.
Last Thursday, one of my daughters, who attends the University of Montreal, was present at one of those meetings where there were political agitators inviting the students to hold public demonstrations. All the students of Quebec are invited to do just that, Mr. Speaker. I wonder what those agitators have to gain by having our students hold demonstrations. Is it planned that next week or later, all the students of Quebec will take to the streets? Are there special reasons to wish straight thinking students to act in that manner? Is there something to hide? Is it because some could not attend the lectures? Are some professors busy doing something else? Is it difficult to justify one's absence, at the university, either as a student or as a teacher?
In particular, I call upon those students within my constituency who are attending CEGEPs, high schools and universities to make it their duty to be present on time in their classrooms. Perhaps they will assist us in exposing some of the agitators who belong to their groups and encourage them to behave as they should so that there might be some success in restoring order in the province of Quebec.
This afternoon, the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) was expressing his concern about separation by the province of Quebec. He said he had the honour of spending five weeks in Quebec this year. So, after a stay of five weeks in Quebec, the hon. member suggests he knows about all the problems of the province of Quebec.
No hon. member of the Quebec region, of Montreal or of any other part of the country would think to tie in the parti quebecois with the FLQ. I quite agree with the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau). However, the hon. member for Egmont should not lose any sleep because a government was democratically elected in Quebec on April 29 last. For the information of the hon. member, there were then 76 per cent of the electors who did in fact vote against separatism.


Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (10:50 p.m.) tEnglish]


J. Michael Forrestall: He was out one per cent.


Arthur Portelance: Well, it is one per cent too much probably. But 76 per cent voted against separation. The majority of the people of Quebec do not agree with it, and I am one of them.


J. Michael Forrestall: But do not be critical of them for trying.


Arthur Portelance: No.

Mr. Speaker, last night, the right hon. Prime Minister addressed the nation and today I had a chance to get in touch with several of my constituents. Moreover, I had to decline an invitation to a function which I really wanted to attend and it would have been an occasion for meeting many of them. But as the member for South Western Nova so eloquently said, I assure him that 99.9 per cent of all Canadians are supporting him. The others assuredly are neither Conservatives nor Liberals but I know that they still are conscious of the present situation. I am convinced that the people of the constituency of Gamelin have full confidence in the government of the day and again I would ask the students to help us save democracy in Canada and I pray all of those who will some day want to become part of the Canadian government to stick with our present system, for if ever they join the system which is being offered to them as a substitute, I cannot promise that they will ever have the honour of being elected as representatives of the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to contribute a few remarks to this debate. Certainly, in my experience in this House, it is an occasion of momentous import and one which I am sure all members of this House hope they do not have to experience again, certainly in peacetime, that is to be debating the War Measures Act and the proclamations under it. This is something I never thought I would see in this Parliament of Canada. Even though we have been debating this resolution for two days, because of the very nature of the proclamation under the War Measures Act, no one so far has mentioned that great parliamentary word "filibuster". Action has already been taken under this measure. Men are in jail. Women are in jail. Certain rights have been suspended and this Parliament, instead of legislating, as the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) said earlier, is really philosophizing and meditating on the steps the government took when certain information came to its attention. We are discussing whether the government should have taken more or less steps, whether it moved too fast or too far.
It has been a long day and I realize that other speakers wish to add their thoughts to this debate which is unprecedented in the parliamentary life of Canada. I quite agree with most speakers I have heard-and I have been here most of today and yesterday-that the great majority of Canadians do not really appreciate the complexity and seriousness of this debate. Although this has been a long day, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, it has been no longer than the dark cloud which has covered Canada since this debate on the War Measures Act commenced in this Parliament. This day has been no longer for anyone here than it has been for the families of those who have been kidnapped. We have heard some very fine expressions today, especially in the recent remarks of the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) who

October 17, 1970

articulated a thought to which I think we should all hearken, including the hon. member tor Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) and anyone else who comes from the western provinces.
I am apprehensive because I believe many English speaking Canadians are ready to delegate their authority to the Prime Minister, and not just because of the FLQ. This bothers me. I could not begin to try to emulate the sincerity of the hon. member for Gamelin (Mr. Porte-lance) who, as did other members today, told us of his personal knowledge of matters within his province. But that province is part of Canada and this is a Canadian problem, not just a Quebec problem. This is the reason I have no hesitation in speaking tonight.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Per-rault), in what I thought was the most constructive contribution made tonight, wanted to know how we could unite. I say to him that there is no doubt on any side of this House so far as the FLQ is concerned. Members on this side of the House, on his side of the House and in the legislatures of Canada stand unalterably opposed to the FLQ. So far as I am concerned, the actions of the FLQ, the recent kidnappings, the terrorism and the ransom requests, as well as the question of whether or not the government should have acquiesced to them, is not the point of this debate.
[DOT] (11:00 p.m.)
This debate comes down to one issue alone. That is whether the application of the War Measures Act as set out in the proclamation, which applies to this country from coast to coast and outlaws associations of certain political parties, was the proper move for the government to make in response to the request of the authorities in Montreal and Quebec; and whether the 6J months within which the government can exercise this power is the sort of authority which this or any Parliament should delegate to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or any prime minister. That is the issue.
We have heard many sincere expressions of thought from those who have become personally involved in what is happening and who, because their domicile is in the province of Quebec, feel a real apprehension about what is happening in their province. But I put it to you, sir, that coming from Nova Scotia and having practised law for six years in British Columbia, I was horrified when I came back from that pastoral land, that province by the sea, to see three armed soldiers across the street from where I live in Ottawa. The only thing that brought a sense of reality and a sense of humour-which is lacking in this debate because this is a serious issue-to the situation was when my four year old boy went over to cross-examine the soldier, who was in his teens, and there was a humorous exchange between them as the boy was trying to find out whether the gun was loaded.
The only facetious question I wish to put in this debate-it has something to do with the amendment moved tonight and with where we are going in Canada- is that if the amendment to limit the government's extraordinary povrers to October 30 does not carry, what
Invoking of War Measures Act will the children of Ottawa do on Hallowe'en? I ask the question because I say very seriously that there are houses in Ottawa to which I do not want my children to go for trick or treat, and there are houses to which they would not be allowed to go because of things that have happened. Some children in Canada are talking about that. I know that what I am saying is light and frivolous and that it is potentially facetious. A minister fives close to me. I do not know what he will do.
I agree in part with what my friend, the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau), said. I have no doubt that the Prime Minister-who disappointed me in many ways last night, not because of his lack of sincerity but no one has a monopoly on trying to do the best thing for Canada in this hour of crisis-did not give us all the facts. As a politician and a parliamentarian I thought I was entitled to hear the facts. If I am not entitled to hear the facts, I think at least the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), as one of the three officers of the House- mentioned in the BNA Act-the other two being the Prime Minister and you, Mr. Speaker-could have been taken into the confidence of the Prime Minister and could have been consulted so that we would not have to give a blank cheque on a proclamation under the War Measures Act which gives special powers to the government for 6 months.
There is no doubt in my mind that because of the fear, tension, consternation and apprehension that all Canadians feel at this novel and disgusting development in our political history, the people are instinctively and emotionally with the Prime Minister with regard to the proclamation under the War Measures Act. The hon. member for Coast Chilcotin (Mr. St. Pierre), to whom I usually listen with a great deal of interest and with expectation, disappointed me today because he suggested that under the War Measures Act the press gallery should be banned. While there may well be complaints about the press gallery from time to time, I was hoping he would give a constructive point of view, of the kind that I have always heard him give in this chamber, with regard to the basic problem under discussion, rather than lead us down the trail with the red herring of the press gallery.
After saying that the Canadian people are prepared to give instinctive, emotional support to the Prime Minister, let me say that this was the proper move. There is, for example, the incident mentioned today by the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) concerning the girl in Hull. Whether this was done by the FLQ or was a result of the hysteria that has developed in Canada, I do not know. The fact that there are troops in the streets makes people prone to look to the father figure and to delegate our responsibility and duty to someone who we believe and hope can resolve the problem.
I do not suggest that the test of the War Measures Act is whether it is popular tonight or whether it will be popular next week because I, like the hon. member for South Western Nova and others, question some of the facts and the reasons behind the invocation of the act. I question where it will lead us. That is not the test of the
318

October 17, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act most unprecedented parliamentary move that has ever been made in this country. Is it right, and will it work?
I agree with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) when he said in this debate on Friday that it was a matter of value judgment. The government has the responsibility of exercising their judgment in this very difficult situation.
In anything I say tonight I do not want it understood that I do not appreciate-having been exposed to people in high office at a time when they had to make decisions of state-the tension and strain under which our leaders have lived these last few days. It is a matter of value judgment; I do not argue with that. I suggest that it is much easier to agree with them tonight and hope they are right, than to question and be misunderstood, as I am afraid many of us may be. I stand here tonight prepared to question because the pages of history are full of questions. There is no monopoly, on the government or on the opposition side, on men who question the easy path and do not accept the easy way. Because of the judgment factor I feel very ill at ease about granting the Prime Minister these special powers in response to the letters of the Premier of Quebec and the authorities in Montreal.
Another point on which we are all united is this. We do not doubt that there had to be a response. I am directing my attention to the kind of response the government has made. It is ironic and sad that the matter of the constitution and the Bill of Rights, involving all the components of Canada-a matter on which the Prime Minister, because of his alleged expertise in this field, has been given a mandate-is becoming an albatross around his neck. I have to confess sadly tonight that I do not have faith or confidence in my Prime Minister in this very difficult period.
[DOT] (11:10 p.ra.)


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: And for anyone who laughs or smiles, I will recite why I do not have confidence. I do not intend to take too long but I go back, as other hon. members have done, to this whole problem of insurrection, of terrorism, of revolution, and of the FLQ. It did not come about last Thursday. It came six or seven years ago when the first bomb exploded and injured or killed, I forget which, someone. That was when the FLQ was born. If it had not been the FLQ as such it might have been some other organization because, at the moment, the world is full of revolutionary organizations. But what happened?
In October, 1969, Mr. Saulnier, the same man who wrote the letter that was supposed to be one of the catalysts for the Prime Minister's decision to invoke the War Measures Act, wrote the Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister was asked about this letter, because it was produced at a committee meeting, he had paid so little attention to it that he did not remember receiving it. This was the letter indicating there ought to be a security commission to investigate what was going on in Montreal. To his credit, and to the credit of his advisers, he was informed before the day was out that his answer was wrong. He came back into the House and apologized.
But, Mr. Speaker, this was a letter from Mr. Saulnier, from an important individual to an important individual about an important subject, and I found it difficult to appreciate fully the memory lapse the Prime Minister had.
You, Mr. Speaker, and all other members of the House know that after that letter was sent other events occurred. Just about a year ago, close to Hallowe'en
night, there was the Montreal police strike. There were fires in the city of Montreal, and a policeman was killed. Other events occurred that brought a parliamentary committee into being to investigate the CYC. The right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert has reviewed all that for us. Earlier today the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) gave some evidence of his attempts to attract the attention of the government to some affairs going on in Montreal as far back as 1963. Then, there was Expo '67 when the Cuban embassy or pavilion was allegedly giving out pamphlets dealing with terrorism revolution and insurrection. But nothing was done.
As a member of the committee that investigated the Company of Young Canadians, the committee to which Mr. Saulnier and Mr. Drapeau gave evidence, I well remember that from some of the press, and certainly from the majority of the members of this House, came the allegation that we were witch hunting. Government members indulged in white-washing, trying to cover their own administrative mistakes and to point the finger at somebody else. That left things up in the air, and the request for a security commission went unheeded. That is point No. 2.
Now, I come down to a political area where I would expect that the judgment of the Prime Minister, and of the members of his party from Quebec, would be far superior to mine. It was only about a month and a half before the provincial election in Quebec that the Prime Minister said certain things, in that colourful phraseology that he uses. He said that the Parti Quebecois had miniscule support in Quebec. He used other objectives about the people who supported that party, all of which gave me the impression that it was a pretty small unit and that the election would take care of it.


An hon. Member:: It did.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Some one is saying it did, but look at an analysis of the voting and you will see that one out of every three French-speaking Canadians voted for the Parti Quebecois. I say the election did not take care of the problem in Quebec or in Canada, and the problem in Canada vis-a-vis Quebec will not be taken care of as long as the Prime Minister tries to use, as a dose of castor oil for the terrorists, those constitutional policies he is applying unilaterally across Canada. We are all a little different in the different parts of Canada. The hon. member for Coast-Chilcotin (Mr. St. Pierre) and I who come from two different coasts are a little different. I say that difference stems from the collective way of life of the respective societies we have in the provinces.
After that I was a little perturbed at the Prime Minister's underestimation of the political support for this

October 17, 1970

separatist party. Then, when I was back in Nova Scotia, involved in some other events, I read in the newspaper that the Prime Minister had been talking about bleeding-hearts on Parliament Hill and weak-kneed legislators. I did not think that was quite the type of remark to make about a serious subject. What did not help me either was a picture on the front page of the Montreal Gazette the day after showing his bullet-proof 1 mousine, and his big fist sticking out of the window at the reporter's camera. Perhaps it was just one of his gestures, but when there had already been blood on the streets of Ottawa not to ment.on Montreal, it is no joke. My faith was shaken, but I was still prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Then, the Prime Minister bawled out the press for giving free publicity to the FLQ. He asked, "What are you trying to do" or words to that effect, yet within 48 hours we had the War Measures Act introduced which gave the FLQ a status internationally that it never had previously. I am not going to go into what has happened since the proclamation was issued, but there are other matters that make me ponder about the judgment of the Prime Minister in these areas of his supposed expertise.
I could not understand why it was the Quebec Minister of Justice who answered to the world about the kidnapping of the diplomat, Mr. Cross. I though it should have been the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp). But we all heard Mr. Cho-quette, and his very first words were, "I am instructed by the federal government to say..." This is a little thing, but the whole bundle bothers me, Mr. Speaker.
I come now to the use of the powers given by the War Measures Act. I do not know all these individuals in Quebec who have been arrested. I have not read that the kidnappers were captured, but some of the Quebec intellectual elite, some of the entertainers, some of the union leaders were picked up and are now held somewhere relatively incommunicado. Certainly, while they are being held their rights have been suspended.


An hon. Member:: What about Vallieres and Gagnon?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Yes, I am aware of those two. They worked for Cite Libre at one time, as I understand it. I did not mention that until you did.
I listened to the Prime Minister on television last night, and there was a part of his statement that I just cannot rationalize with much of what has gone on today. I have not got the text of his speech and I may be misquoting but I heard him say, no doubt to re-assure Canadians, something to the effect that the situation was under control. The seizures, Mr. Speaker, have taken place. The surprise moves of the police and the army have taken place. I guess the majority of people who could be apprehended have been apprehended. If the situation in that sense is under control, then I ask why does the Prime Minister need the open-ended powers that the War Measures Act gives to him completely across Canada? When we talk about it being revoked in six months, or six months and a day, we all know that according to the regulations it can be extended at any time. I believe that in his statement the Prime Minister was kind enough to
Invoking of War Measures Act say he would come back to this House if that were done and lay the proclamation on the table for study. That does not leave me too satisfied.
Then there was the investigation of the B and B Commission leak, when the RCMP were called in. That by itself was perhaps nothing. The statement made in London two years ago about the crummy press, and that he would sic the police on the reporters if they investigate certain private lives perhaps was nothing by itself. But when you put all these incidents together you ought to become a little apprehensive and concerned.
o (11:20 p.m.)
I have sat in this House for five years and heard the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbak-er), and other eminent gentlemen who have been in the House longer than I have and who have served longer than I will, talk about democracy and liberty. I have heard it said that if we do not pass this measure, the walls of Parliament will fall and the people will not respect Parliament.
I am a young member, as is the hon. member for South Western Nova. Quite frankly, I appreciated the rhetoric but I do not necessarily agree that the institution of Parliament has reached the stage some have suggested. We are all men of good will. We are debating the War Measures Act; the liberty of some is at stake and the liberty of many others may be at stake. No one can deny that. Yet it seems passing strange to me, Mr. Speaker, that his should be the first debate I have been involved in wherein liberty really has been the kernel of the dialogue in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: That may be a sad commentary on our society. It is also sad that the one Canada in which many Canadians believe has become the armed Canada for many of us, that the just society has become the armed society and that the flower power of the Prime Minister has become soldier power around Parliament Hill. These are not all troubles of the Prime Minister's making. Expectations were raised, some have not been realized and the inevitable frustrations have set in. We must have conciliation and not confrontation in order to resolve conflicts between people.
The Prime Minister's Achilles heel is that he utilizes logic and textbooks in attempting to solve the problems of people. You cannot resolve problems with logic and textbooks alone; you must realize that the human element is also involved. That, I am afraid, is where the Prime Minister has overstepped the mark.
Some of the people, quite logically, stand behind the Prime Minister tonight in the implementation of the War Measures Act. But will they be behind him three months or six months from now, especially if we find out that there was no real basis for these stringent methods and that proper procedures in the police courts and jails have not been followed? Is it not a painful paradox that a man such as the Prime Minister, who thought the World War II was a war of imperialism, should now use the power of war to fight a perverted nationalism?
320

October 17, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act
It is also a passing strange paradox that the discussion of the Bill of Rights and its underlying philosophy that was the highlight of a federal-provincial conference, should now have shifted, and that we should be debating a proclamation which gives the government almost absolute power over all of us. The government has panicked because of the actions of a few.
I listened with a great deal of interest, as I usually do, to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey). I was appalled by some of his analogies, by some of his red herrings and the smokescreen he tried to lay. I was not appalled at his sincerity because I fully accept that. When he talked about our Prime Minister and his contribution to civil liberties in Quebec, I wanted to ask him whether in his heart of hearts he thought that if the powers under the War Measures Act had been invoked at the time of the asbestos strike, the Prime Minister would have ended up in jail.
I ask two questions about this measure. Is it right to invoke it? Will it succeed? Some tried to leave with us a pretty clear inference that underlying the all-encompassing powers under the War Measures Act which has been invoked is information that is available to members on the government side but is not available to members of other caucuses-the caucus I belong to, the NDP caucus and the Creditiste caucus. If that is so, it makes a mockery of our unity. That will not unify us.
[DOT] (11:30 p.m.)
Another question is this: Will the measure succeed? I put this question to all members of the House and especially to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner). Has the knock at night, or has repression by day in any jurisdiction in the world solved the political problems of the society concerned? Such action might divert people's attention. It might put a damper on them. It might put them behind bars for awhile. One should take off one's blinkers and look around at the world to appreciate that people no longer want a strong father figure to govern them. The knock at night, whether at four o'clock or two o'clock, and continuing repression by day on the part of any government with unique powers will not resolve political problems. Such action will defeat their solution. After all, fear breeds fear and force answers force; and power without persuasion and belief is about as permanent as quicksand.
I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, not because I want to alienate anyone but because there may be some in Quebec tonight who have supported the Parti Quebecois but who subsequently thought there was a federal option and were prepared to opt for it: these people may be alienated. Some people may have had friends in the FLQ; they may not have thought them such bad fellows. I am not talking about people like Vallieres; I am talking about some others. For instance, two good friends of mine went to see Chartrand speaking in Montreal. They were not very impressed by him. But by imprisoning some of these people are we not in danger of making martyrs of some and heroes of others?
Will not the task of those who like the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) opted for federalism be made more difficult? Unfortunately, I was not here to listen to the minister's speech but he, on behalf of the French-speaking Canadians he represents, opted for federalism. Will these repressive measures not confirm some of the misleading propaganda and literature that has been prostituted by the FLQ? That is what bothers me, Mr. Speaker.
I will spend little time answering the argument put forward by the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher). Some have asked whether the implementation of the War Measures Act is legal. There is no question but that the Prime Minister can quite legally invoke the War Measures Act, but that is not the test we should use. The test is whether it is right and whether it will work. There was a man in Munich who created legal tribunals and appointed judges to be the dispensers of justice meted out by those tribunals. He headed a parliament that passed laws and made certain people criminals. He was interviewed by a British correspondent, Sefton Delmer of the Daily Express, on March 3, 1933. I am referring to social history. These facts are contained in Alan Bullock's book, "Hitler, a study in tyranny".
Mr. Delmer made inquiries about certain powers that had been assumed after Hitler had asked for them following an unfortunate incident involving the burning of the Reichstag on February 27, 1933. I am not trying to suggest that anything like that is happening here. I am only trying to meet the argument that this action is legal, and therefore good. Because of the fact it is legal, it should be carefully scrutinized by every member. Look at the answer given to the correspondent, a member of the fourth estate, with reference to these changes in civil liberties. The correspondent from the Daily Express asked him what truth there was in rumours of a projected massacre of his political opponents Hitler replied:
My dear Delmar, I need no St. Bartholomew's Night. By the decrees issued legally we have appointed tribunals which will try enemies of the state legally, and deal with them legally in a way which will put an end to these conspiracies.
This interview with Hitler appeared in the Daily Express on March 3, 1933. I would like to put something else on the record with regard to legality. It is a statement of a politician, and it reads:
The streets of our country are in turmoil. The universities are filled with students rebelling and rioting. Communists are seeking to destroy our country. Russia is threatening us with her might and the republic is in danger. Yes, danger from within and without. We need law and order.
If I asked some people who said that, I might get the answer "Spiro Agnew". However, this is what Adolf Hitler said in 1932. This is the serious aspect of what we are debating here tonight. I am unalterably opposed to the War Measures Act being invoked at this time, unless the Prime Minister can take my leader or the members of Parliament into his confidence and tell us what happened in the last seven years that makes last Thursday any different from the six and a half years before that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

October 17, 1970


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: As far as the powers are concerned and the argument that they are only for six months with the option to renew I point out that in Greece, the foundation for the western democracy, a junta there some years ago passed extraordinary emergency powers on a temporary basis because of insurrection. I forget all the names, but that junta is still in command and these extraordinary emergency powers are still in operation. This happened in a country where they said it could not happen.
We should not be concerned about what is happening because of the soldiers on the streets and the bombs, but because of what Parliament is doing. We should look to the south where they have had selective assassination. They have had more bombings than Quebec and Montreal have had. Several years ago 40 blocks of the city of Chicago were burned. There were more blocks burned in the city of Los Angeles than in any city in this country. The government, be it state, congress or the president, have done nothing more than call out the national guard to put out the fires and to shoot the snipers. Have they taken away the civil liberties by due process of law? I say no.
When talking about the White Paper six months or a year ago, the Prime Minister and some ministers of the government smugly talked about the difference in social values between this country and the United States. If we move ahead with this War Measures Act for six months with an option to renew, no longer will a politician or any Canadian be able to stand smugly and suggest that social values in this country are far superior to those south of the border. With all their stress and strain, selective assassinations, bombings and killings, that country has not done what we propose to do on Monday when we vote on this.
I conclude, Mr. Speaker, by coming back to where I began.
Mr. Mahoneys You have not gone very far.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I urge the member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney) to get off his rear end and contribute something from his head instead of his seat.
Is it right and will it work? I say that it is not right as presently drafted. Even more serious, it will not work. It will be a sad day for the Liberal government or anyone who pretends he is Liberal in spirit or in thought if this passes unamended. It will be a pathetic day for this Parliament if it passes without some restrictions. More important, it will be a sorry day for Canada and for Canadians from coast to coast if it passes unamended.


William Arnold Peters: It is a long time since I have had the opportunity of speaking on Sunday morning. I was quite willing to wait for that opportunity.
In the years that I have been here there have only been four or five debates that have deserved the attention of all Members of Parliament in the way this debate has. I wish to comment on the calibre of the speeches that have been made. Most of the people I have listened to have been very sincere in the arguments they
Invoking of War Measures Act advanced. Very little time has been spent on defending the government's position, but rather they have spoken about the position of the individual and his role.
I was interested in the speech of the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau). He indicated that the Prime Minister has the support of most of the people in this country. He used the figure of 99 per cent. I do not think that is correct. We must discount the FLQ and their supporters. We must also discount other people for various reasons. I agree that the majority of Canadians are in favour of this resolution. However, it is for a totally different reason than the one stated in the House today.
These people believe that the Prime Minister has suddenly said "To hell with Quebec. We are putting the army in Quebec to straighten out these people. They are going to be just like other Canadians when I finish with them."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Arnold Peters: The people from Quebec, on the other hand, are saying that the army was put in to keep things the way they are. There are some very distinguished people in this House from Quebec, but they always refer to themselves as Quebeckers. I never refer to myself as an Ontarian. The only other people in this House who refer to themselves by a provincial name are the Newfoundlanders, but there may be others who use a fancy name. Sometimes the people from Alberta use the designation Albertan. Ever since I have been in this House, the people from Quebec have called themselves Quebeckers. Since I have been in this House people who have come here from Quebec have always said, "We are different. We want to run our own affairs. We do not want legislation passed nationally because it may hurt us provincially. We will not let you play a role."
The leaders we have had, with rare exceptions, have been provincial first, and then come to Ottawa for various reasons later. Most members will agree that in this debate many of the members from Quebec have considered their own situation. I do not blame them for this because the situation there is very bad. If the action of the Prime Minister is going to work, those cabinet ministers who are provincialists will have to give up some of the things that they think are essential to the province of Quebec. They must work to make it more like the other provinces. There must be a Canadian atmosphere rather than "What can we get and what can you do for us?". What they should be asking is, what they can do for the rest of Canada. Most members from other provinces have always been sympathetic toward Quebec.
Some speakers from the Liberal party have referred to the two party policy of the New Democratic Party. I agree that we have had that. The same people I am speaking of have advised us many times about the type of policy we should have. We listened to them because we did not know what was going on in the province of Quebec. We could not speak the language. The adherents to my party have been limited in Quebec. We were sold

October 17, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act all kinds of ideas. People who have been in the party for a long time have sold us many ideas. It is very surprising tonight, but I am not unhappy to see, that one them is in gaol and the other one is in the Senate. These are people who have been giving us ideas from that province for many years. Maybe that is not the way they should end up. Some of those who have given us advice are in the cabinet today. I make no apology for the mistakes that we have made. We have made them with the best of intentions. We agreed to everything they asked for and they asked for various things over the years. We got ourselves into one hell of a position, and if you ask me what the policy of the New Democratic Party was for the Province of Quebec I haven't the faintest notion, Mr. Speaker.
[DOT] (11:40 p.m.)
I believe, however, that there are a lot of people in the Province of Quebec who do believe they should have the opportunity of participating. You can remember, Mr. Speaker, when we passed the Trans-Canada Highway Act and other acts-you can name them by the dozen-and Quebec said: Not us, don't run the highway through Quebec because it costs federal money. We got around to a state in which whatever was done for Quebec it could not be said the federal government had done it. For example, in the case of a technical school, we do not say that the federal government put up 75 per cent of the money. We only talk about the 25 per cent the Province puts up and we allow the Province total control. Rightly so, Mr. Speaker, because Quebec asked for it. The people of Quebec should consider the reason the majority Canadians today support the Prime Minister's actions. I think they will find that many Canadians are totally fed up with the machinations that go on in the Province of Quebec, totally fed up with the idea that they are different in each and every case. Most Canadians think that today we are making a last ditch stand to keep Quebec in confederation by force and they are supporting the Prime Minister because he is doing this.
The debate which is taking place in the House tonight, Mr. Speaker, is not on that issue. But I come from the Province of Ontario. I am not unfamiliar with the French fact in other provinces, since there are probably 25 or 40 per cent French speaking people in my constituency. But they are in Ontario and they do not feel the same way. Not long ago a totally French community in my area asked me for assistance to get them a CBC satellite from Montreal directly off the CBC. I asked them why. I said they had two stations 30 miles away, one in Ville Marie and another in Noranda. They said they were tired of listening to local politics from these stations and wanted straight programming from the CBC. So, the problems of these French speaking people are not necessarily the same and I think we should look at them in that light.
There is another problem, Mr. Speaker. Every problem has been discussed, so I don't intend to take up much time, but there is another problem that I think we could look at in terms of what is right and what is wrong. I agree with the previous speaker that this act will not solve all the problems that we think it will solve, but if it can solve some of them we shall have accomplished
something. It has been suggested, and it has been suggested by members of my own party, that we pass a statute. Let me say right now, Mr. Speaker, that I would much prefer to support the War Measures Act which I know will disappear eventually because public opinion will find it repugnant than to add a section to the Criminal Code or a new statute to our statute books which would enable the Prime Minister every time he gets a letter from the head of a municipality to invoke substantially the powers contained in the War Measures Act.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault) made an eloquent speech tonight. Just let him think about what would happen if the mayor of his community were to ask for this kind of power. I think it would be the most amusing, the most disastrous and probably the bloodiest arrangement you could have. I think he would agree it would probably be less than desirable. I am not interested in providing this kind of power by means of a statute. Whatever we do, surely we will consider it to be an emergency beyond any normal requirement and this kind of power will only be granted on very rare occasions, and only after a great deal of consideration has been given to it and public opinion taken into account.
I hope the police will now have power to do something about those people who are engaged, in my opinion, in assassination and in total destruction. I am not too sympathetic toward many of the other people in that province because they have sure encouraged these people. The Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) is one I single out. But I think every time we try to put the unilingual fact in a bilingual nation difficulties will arise. Unless we are willing to make some compromises with the Province of Quebec, unless there is willingness to co-operate, these difficulties will continue.
We cannot blame the young premier of that province. He must be under terrific strain. He is probably scared to death by the enormity of the situation. In my opinion, in his election campaign, he set about trying to do something about the basic problems, to supply jobs, to improve the economy in Quebec just as one might attempt to do in any other province rather than worry about whether an ambassador to France should be appointed, or whether only French-speaking people should be brought in, even if it was necessary to get them from Algeria. He has embarked on an economic program which will eliminate many of the problems of that province. But I believe he is in serious difficulties and I hope considerable assistance will be given to him by those from that province who will be obliged to reorient their thinking.
Then, I remember Michel Chartrand. I can remember the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. I can remember when they were talking to the CNTU. They were talking about having it only for Quebec, having it strictly in the province. I agree the position changed after a period of time, but I can remember the syndicates as well. I can remember Michel coming into northern Ontario and telling the people there how they had to unite with their brothers in the Province of Quebec or

October 17, 1970

their whole heritage would disappear. I have listened to Michel for 30 years. I don't think he has become any milder now than he was then. I did not understand him any better then than I do now. His language was always that of a miner or a bushworker. It really hasn't changed. I do not think of him as a bomb-throwing revolutionary-the bombs he throws are words, and I think this will be found to be true of many of the other people who are involved.
There are members of this House who are totally committed to trying to help solve the problems which have created this situation. I suggest, however, that all the members of this House are not blameless. When I first came here we did not have simultaneous translation. The only time members from Quebec participated in our debates at all was when the subject affected their own province, and then they spoke in their own language. I say, with shame, that the rest of us were not bilingual and the debates at that time were like running two Parliaments. This has been overcome, and I think many things which have stood in the way of greater co-operation have been removed.
In the minds of many people-and many in the Liberal party do not seem to realize it-this is probably one of our last chances. This Prime Minister, with his mandate, offers probably one of the last chances to unify the country. All of us will have to work to this end and for this reason I hope we will give every assistance we can to get rid of the problem. I hope we will receive every assistance to fight the problem facing us today; that we will recover those who have been kidnapped and eliminate those who are obviously bent on a course of assassination.
[DOT] (11:50 p.m.)
I remember listening on the radio to the story of the kidnapping of the Lindberg child and I well remember all the problems that arose as a result. These people in Quebec, the terrorists, not only kidnapped one person; they kidnapped two in the city of Montreal. Supposing five or six were abducted; how would you feed them? Would you send round to a Chinese restaurant for takeout dinners? These people do not seem to see anything wrong in what they have done.
One member yesterday accused the NDP of not knowing anything about the province of Quebec. It is true; we do not. But I think the hon. member would be very dishonest if he were to say that we in this Parliament, certainly in my term of 13 years, have not on numerous occasions granted practically anything asked for in order to help maintain unity in Canada. When Quebec has made a request we have acquiesced. When they asked to opt out of something, we allowed them to do so. When they asked to opt in, we likewise agreed. The same thing goes for the building of highways, and so on.
The history of co-operation between Members of Parliament from other parts of Canada and their fellow members from Quebec is fairly good as far as our party is concerned. At the same time, it behooves the members from Quebec to look at the problems in the rest of
Invoking of War Measures Act Canada as well. I realize the Prime Minister has been supported by the majority of Canadians; but the people of Quebec might be shocked to find that that reason for choosing the Prime Minister is the exact opposite of the reason the people in other provinces gave their endorsement of the Prime Minister.
I do not know whether this problem can be solved. Certainly there is a long piece to go. I am sure there is great misunderstanding between the Francophone and Anglophone cultures. I have listened to most of this debate, to every special broadcast on radio and television, I have heard interviews conducted on the street and have been very interested in the matter, as I think all Canadians have. In this time of catastrophe in the province of Quebec there lies an opportunity for some outward-looking on the part of both sections of Canada. If the will for unity in Canada exists at all, it exists today. I think each section of Canada can see how the one can help the other. Together we can solve the problem in Quebec. If it is not solved, then many of the faces we see here today will not be in the House in a few months' time.


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, I especially want to reply to one of my colleagues, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Ricard) who has left the House about three hours ago. He had been asking the government members from the province of Quebec to express themselves as clearly as he claimed to have had the courage to do so. It is easy to meet this challenge. For this reason, I shall express my own opinions which are very much in accordance with others expressed here tonight.

I listened to the remarks of the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) and I also heard what was said by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan), who has now left the House. If I were to open a theatre and needed a comedian, I would call on that hon. member right away because he really is a good actor and could make quite a show. If I needed a lawyer, perhaps I would use him too, so long as I had a cause that was not too important. Having listened to the debate for two days, it strikes me as funny when members on the other side say they know that 90 per cent of the population agrees with the government's action and are in favour of its decision. Yet they stand up and try to defend what they call the civil rights of the people.
I have received telephone calls from people in my riding, and I have also made a few. But let me tell the Tories tonight that there are only a few Tories left in Quebec. If an election were held tomorrow, there would be even fewer: in fact, I do not think there would be any. All hon. members are doing is trying to get their names in the newspapers; they just want to have something to say. Hon. members are losing their credibility when they say they are trying to save the unity of the country.

-national unity. Where is the merit in all this?

October 17, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act

If I asked one of the Socialists, an NDP member, to make a political speech such as I have heard here, I would have to ask what was the difference between the PQ and the Socialists. I see the hon. member for Timis-kaming looking at me when I say that.


William Arnold Peters: I think Levesque would be looking at you, too.


Prosper Boulanger: What is the difference between a Quebec Socialist and the PQ? There is none whatever. Let me tell you why 1 say that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I would ask the hon. member to address his very interesting remarks to the Chair.


Prosper Boulanger: Before I sit down-and I said I would not be very long-let me say that people should stop saying, right now, they are trying to save Quebec. The Quebec members here are trying to save Quebec. Many of us wore uniforms during the war. We were together as Canadians in the first world war and we were together as Canadians in the second world war. We will be together for many years to come, because the idea of separatism in Quebec will not get through. Some people are using the extremist way and they call themselves FLQ. Some groups use the so-called democratic way. When you read newspapers such as were referred to by the hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), particularly when you read the words of the leader of the party, you see

No government in Quebec!

What does he mean? That man has been disappointed because of the small success he has had so far. Before it came to be called a party it had many names. Some hon. members know how many names it has had, because the Socialists have had many names. It was called many different names. Once it was RIN, and so on. I hope hon. members are not trying to tell us they agree that we should stick together because they want to save the province of Quebec. Why are the Socialists in Quebec such close friends of these other people? These members surprise me. 1 heard the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) and others speak. You are lucky. As we say in French:

The members of the New Democratic Party always try to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. But, in 1970, it does not work so well. Thus, the socialists in Quebec will not go far.
I do not want to be humorous during such a serious debate. Earlier, I listened to the news. New proposals were made to the abducters of Messrs. Cross and Laporte. The Quebec government has given explanations has to how to save the life of a Canadian and an Englishman who, I think, are men of great value.
This is serious business. There has been enough talk. We should now wait until Monday to know how the opposition will vote.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in listening to the hon. member for Merrier (Mr. Boulanger) who has just finished his remarks, because he portrayed by his comments the typical Liberal arrogance that we see here every day. He said that just because he had made a decision, nobody else had the right to talk about it.


An hon. Member:: You should have put your earpiece on.


Paul Yewchuk: The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) said something similar. He put forward a complete fabrication which he attributed to some member of the opposition, and then denied it himself. In spite of the fact that the hon. member for Mercier feels that the government's

October 17, 1970

decision is correct and does not deserve comment from anybody, we should be given the courtesy of making comments whether he feels they are useful or immaterial. It may be that the comments made from now on will not cover anything that has not been mentioned. Nevertheless, we wish to make comments and perhaps in some way contribute to this debate.
Terrorism in the world is not something new; it has been going on for some time. In the past ten years there has been a wave of terrorism in most countries of the world and, lately, through South America and the United States. Canada has not been immune. Kidnappings have occurred in South America for the past year. When we heard about the events in South America, most Canadians felt, I am sure, as I did-that we were really glad to be living in Canada because that sort of thing could never happen here. Now, just a few months later, exactly the same thing has happened here. This indicates that something very serious is happening in our world. It indicates that there is a good deal of satisfaction with the system as we know it and as it is operating.
Perhaps it indicates a little more than that. According to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey), it indicates that an international organization is involved in all these revolutionary activities around the world, including those in Quebec. I suppose this is a possibility. If we look at the manifesto the FLQ put forward, we find it resembles the manifesto put forward by certain groups in the past, groups associated with either Marxism, Maoism or some other "ism," usually on the left of the political sphere although further to my left than by hon. friends here. We should try to find out why this sort of unrest is happening in our country. I should like to put forward some ideas which may or may not be acceptable to members of the House. They do not have to listen to them if they do not accept them, but I will make them anyway.
I think this unrest results partly from a trend, or fashion, in this country to glamorize change. Change has been a god in this country over the past few years, particularly under the leadership of the Liberal party which is dedicated to change. I do not think change in itself is bad, but when change is made for the sake of change it does not necessarily improve conditions in the country. Change has been falsely equated with progress, and I suggest this is not necessarily the situation. There is a rash of change in this country and in our crowded environment there are those who feel that things are not changed as quickly as they should be. With the desire to bring about change in everything with which we are familiar there is a tendency to mock and scoff at established institutions. There is a tendency to adopt ways of doing things in order to speed up the desired change. I see this as the way Liberal principles-I should change that wording because they have no principles. I see this as the Liberal mechanism of doing things, or that is the way it has been portrayed to us.
[DOT] (12:10 a.m.)
Many members have mentioned that the FLQ is not something new; that it did just happen two or three
Invoking of War Measures Act weeks ago and certainly not last Friday morning. It has been operational since about 1962 or 1963. During the past two or three years this situation has been referred to by members of the House during the question period. On each occasion the ministers who were questioned simply scoffed at these suggestions. They adopted the attitude of sticking their heads in the sand in the hope that if they did not recognize the problem it would disappear. However, while they were holding their heads in the sand in ostrich-like fashion, the FLQ came along and gave them another push so that their heads went further into the sand. Then, their heads popped out of the sand long enough for them to realize that something serious was going on in the country.
Following the kidnappings of a British diplomat and a Quebec minister, they suddenly recognized there was a problem. I wonder whether either minister present, the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) or the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) can keep their heads out of the sand long enough, and keep the sand out of their eyes, ears, nose and mouth, to tell us why they waited for this dire emergency to occur before taking action since the first bomb blasts occurred in 1963 in several major areas of the country. Now, the crisis has reached the stage where it is necessary to invoke emergency measures, including the War Measures Act. Actually, this is the first action that has been taken against this organization which has been operating in this country since 1962 or 1963.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is not correct.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I think it is correct.


Paul Yewchuk: Today, several members on the government side stressed over and over again what great guys they are because they are living up to their responsibility as members of the government. I think they really have been neglecting their responsibility for a long time. This responsibility has been neglected by the government since 1963, when the first bomb went off in Montreal. This government has not done anything about the situation. The members of the government have been guilty of gross negligence in not attempting to deal with the situation before it reached crisis proportions. This is very typical of the way in which this government, and the government which preceded it, have been dealing with the problems of this country since 1963.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: How did the FLQ members get in jail?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You don't really believe that.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, a private conversation is being carried on right beside me.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member resume his seat. I wonder whether we might hear the hon. member I think he has something of importance to contribute. It is difficult for the Chair to hear him while there is a private conversation being carried on across the chamber.
326

October 17, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act


Paul Yewchuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do not speak very loudly and I know how much you want to hear what I have to say. We heard the Prime Minister speak yesterday. I was quite impressed by his television appearance. He did a fine job. He mentioned how fragile our democratic system is, and how fine a line there is between stability and democracy. I agree with him. It takes a crisis of this magnitude for the government to realize that it must act. I believe one of the greatest blows democracy in this country received was when this government came to power.
First, this government whittled away at the democratic rights of Parliament during the last two years. Second, we have lost our civil rights completely for a period of six months with no real explanation concerning why such a measure was necessary at this time. We have not heard very much since Friday morning, other than what has been happening for the preceding two or three weeks or even for a long period. Yet, suddenly this very severe measure is introduced. I should like some sort of an explanation for that if anyone should care to give it.
Just lately we heard that Premier Bourassa had made another offer to the kidnappers. Apparently he has offered them immunity from punishment if they deliver the two victims unharmed. I can appreciate the sort of anguish he must have experienced in making this kind of offer because, in considering the safety of two persons, he had to yield a little to what we consider to be blackmail. I do not envy him his position. I think we should ofEer some alternative to the action the government has taken. This has already been mentioned on several occasions by members of the opposition. The War Measures Act is in force but it is not really necessary that it be in force for a period of six months or even longer.
I support the amendment moved by one of our members to the effect that the act be in force only for a period of a couple of weeks or long enough to give the government ample opportunity to bring in another statute or an amendment to the Criminal Code which would allow the government to deal effectively with the crisis which exists. I suggest that if such a statute should be brought in, it should contain a time limit just sufficient to meet this crisis situation.
It is likely that a new bill or an amendment to the Criminal Code to deal with this situation could be quite severe. We must be sure that such severe legislation would be limited only to the time of the crisis with which we are dealing. If it should be brought in, there should be an understanding that it would be reviewed within a certain period during a cooler time in our history, whenever that might be. In the circumstances, and considering all the factors involved, I consider it possible that invokement of the War Measures Act was the right thing to do because there may not have been any other way to handle the situation after the decision was suddenly made to take action. My only hope is that this exercise will lead to greater freedom rather than less freedom.
No one is very happy to see armed soldiers, guns and bullet-proof cars around our capital city, in the province

of Quebec or anywhere else for the purpose of protecting our citizens. It is an unusual sight and one that we have difficulty accepting. I hope that in a year or so this whole scene will become only a relic in the museum of Canadian history. In order to ensure that this happens one might try to determine why these problems have arisen and why the FLQ has flourished. Personally, I know a couple of reasons, but I believe we should also examine the basic discontent with our social structure and recognize that in many areas of our country, including Quebec, poverty is a very great problem. Unemployment, too, is a major problem and the economy in general is in a poor condition. The people of Quebec have had some difficulties with their language and some cultural problems. There are many other problems which have been plaguing the country. All of these have to be tackled in earnest, along with any new proposed legislation that will be brought in, if the solution to this crisis is to be of a lasting nature.
[DOT] (12:20 a.ra.)


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, as most hon. members, I feel a little tired, even exhausted at the end of such a long debate.
However, I do not want to miss the opportunity to speak as a member coming from a minority Frenchspeaking group outside Quebec, because I feel it is my duty to do so.
The events now occurring in Quebec were a great shock to my fellow citizens of Madawaska-Victoria whom I represent in the House. I must say that my area is right next to Quebec. My constituency lies south of that of Temiscouata, in the lower St. Lawrence, and the newspapers we read as well as the television programs we watch come for the most part from Quebec.
We live in New Brunswick, but it is not superfluous to say that we maintain cultural and other relations with Quebec. Most of our professionals have received their training in Quebec. Even today a great number of the teachers in our schools come from Quebec where they have also had part of their training. This goes to say that Quebec's influence is greatly felt in my region in the north-west section of New Brunswick.
As most Canadians, my fellow citizens have been upset by the developments of the last few days, but they were quickly relieved to see that Canada was in such good hands and that the federal government had not shirked its responsibilities. They therefore support the government's decision as I do myself and this is the reason why I have stayed here this weekend. My constituents did not expect any less from me even though they would have preferred to see me take part in the electoral campaign under way in my province at the present time.
My colleagues in the Liberal Party, even some opposition members, have condemned the attitude of the mass media in this whole affair, and especially the manner in which they have interpreted the events taking place and
October 17, 1970

the statements of the government. I have applauded such comments. I agree with their authors. In such serious circumstances, the press has not been quite up to it. I note, however, that it seems to be amending its ways and that it now sticks to the facts more than it has done in the previous days. This undoubtedly betokens greater strength on the part of newspapermen than was first assumed.
I said a while ago that the greater part of the information which in New Brunswick reaches the French-speaking audience comes from Quebec and we in New Brunswick are nonetheless far from being satisfied with the media through which this information is fed to us.
We also depend on Quebec because of our lack of news media. Our area is served by the CBC national radio and television network. We believe we are entitled to know what is going on in Canada. We agree that the majority of the CBC French network listeners reside in Quebec but this is no reason why we should be kept in the dark as to whatever goes on outside Quebec. For the past five years we have been flooded with separatist propaganda. Whenever a separatist did something, he was shown to us on television. That is no reason to keep us unaware of what goes on outside of Quebec.
The CBC French network is not exclusively reserved to the province of Quebec, and yet what else can we conclude when we look at its programs. They can stand a great deal of improvement. I hope events will give CBC authorities a little push because our young people have been brainwashed by what is being broadcast by national networks. That is a crime against youth, which does not always know the whole truth.
I am not a television fan, but when I do watch it, news bulletins are really what interests me and God knows how many times we have been deprived of sound and objective information.
Not only have we been flooded for a few years by separatist statements, either in a so-called democratic way or not. What is more serious-as I mentioned a while ago-is that we were not informed about the other side of events. We were refused systematically and regularly a real image of events. We were cheated. We never had our chance, Mr. Speaker. Now, we demand it.
I could say many other things in fact, but as it is late, I will spare the House. I could have taken advantage of this debate to talk about a particular situation, and come back to the events of New Brunswick. I could have spoken of a separatist training camp developping at Moncton's CBAF radio station. The CBC staff of Moncton is now occupying key positions of CBC commentators in Montreal. I shall not speak any more about this but I just wanted to convey my dissatisfaction about the service provided until now by the CBC.
The condition of the French-speaking press in New Brunswick is also rather interesting; I want to speak particularly of the daily newspaper Evangeline. In fact, the situation of this newspaper was not specially interesting until a short time ago. Some separatists, maybe members of the FLQ or rather strong supporters, had infiltrated it. Some Frenchmen also. They were little soldiers 23226-22J
Invoking of War Measures Act of general de Gaulle refusing to do their military service and they were sent here like that, to teach us a lesson, it is said. Their mission was to awaken the Acadians, to introduce them to protest methods and to organize demonstrations. This situation lasted for a few years. The alleged leaders in Acadia were surprised in their sleep. Fortunately, they awoke before it was too late. They kicked those intruders out and since then things are much better in Acadia. They are better in New Brunswick and I am sure that they will stay that way.
[DOT] (12:30 a.m.)
Nonetheless, this does not mean that there are no more agitators within the confines of New Brunswick. I could not tell what their political affiliation is. All we know is that they are there to stir up strife and spread confusion in the minds of our young people.
Mr. Speaker, as I said a minute ago, it is getting late and I would have much more to say. However, I do not intend to inflame this debate further. I only wish to reiterate my complete faith in the government, and I must say that I will support it with my vote on Monday.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: Mr. Speaker, it is with some reluctance I stand here on Sunday morning at 12.35 a.m., having been here since eleven o'clock on Saturday morning, to take part in this debate in a period of our history which, to say the least, is most disturbing. To even take part in this debate is perhaps a little bit presumptuous of me in view of the fact that I come from Canada's newest province, Newfoundland, which has been part of Canada for only 21 years.
It is also perhaps presumptuous of me to take part in the debate for the simple reason that I am not able to stick my thumbs in my lapels and stand here as a great statesman like many other hon. gentlemen, the leader of my party, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) of Canada, and the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker whom I have admired for years. I doubt that there are many members of the House who want to listen to the remarks I have to make; they having been here for many hours, and I am aware of the fact that there is little anybody can add to the remarks of great statesmen.
It is very encouraging for me, as a young Canadian, to see that the House of Commons has responded eminently to one of the most critical situations in our history. I have been privileged to sit as a member of this House for the last two years. Perhaps I will not be sitting here for many more years, since I have no aspiration to become a professional politician. On many occasions during those two years I was disillusioned because the House of Commons seemed to be a place where parliamentarians played a political role, a political game, where people became involved in political discussion just because they thought it was the thing to do. I have frequently felt that the inclination of members to play a role, and on many occasions to express hypocritical attitudes, dominated their instincts and inclination to be great Canadians. But in the last two days I have been encouraged at the ability of Members of Parliament to put aside their political

October 17, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act motivations and to offer to Parliament and the Canadian people some leadership, some advice which might help Canadians toward a better life in the future.
It seems to me that it takes a crisis like that which we are faced with today to bring out the best in Canadians. Perhaps as Canadians we have had it too easy. We have been willing to go along with the tide, to adopt a lax, lackadaisical attitude, to allow ourselves to be lulled into a sense of false security. I believe that the present crisis may elevate our parliamentary system to a level that is more respectable, and that will be admired more by Canadians.
I am a little at a loss, Mr. Speaker, to understand the sudden confusion and disturbance that has developed in the chamber. However, I have just been informed that there has been a break in the situation as it pertains to the tragedies that have befallen our country. I do not know if it is in order for me to pose a question to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) but, with the unanimous consent of the House, may I ask has he anything of a significant nature, to indicate to Parliament, which the Canadian people may want to hear before I continue my remarks?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would think the hon.
member should pursue his remarks.


John Howard Lundrigan: 
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member. There are conversations in the gallery which make it very difficult for the Chair to follow what the hon. member who has the floor is saying. I think there should be respect for the hon. member who has the floor.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Howard Lundrigan: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, there is no one in this chamber with stronger feelings than mine about the fact that in the last two years the Canadian nation has not been given the leadership it deserves. In Canada, we need someone to stand out there in the distance, elevated over the great heights, to be a beacon to show us the way and to show that we have values and attitudes which ought to be admired. We must have a beacon, Mr. Speaker, a man who will stand up and say, "This is the way of progress for Canada." This is the most disturbing period in Canadian history. I am not concerned about myself. I have thought that perhaps I should not have entered Canadian politics if I wanted to make a living. I am fairly content-


An hon. Member:: The hon. member should get out of politics.


John Howard Lundrigan: Please do not interrupt. Mr. Speaker, would you ask the hon. member to allow me to speak without interruption for a few more minutes? It is possible for one to get by in Canada, yet I have great concern for the tens of thousands of school children in our nation who want the opportunity to make a living. They want to carve out a small place in our society which gives people freedom to be themselves. Mr. Speaker, it seems that these little niches on our very small globe have become very few and far between. I thought Canada was the place where Canadians could feel free to progress and to advance if they had the leadership which is so necessary. I am disappointed in what has happened in the last couple of years.
Someone has said that the Irish in me is coming out. Perhaps it is. Perhaps I am a bit sentimental. Perhaps we are not sentimental enough because too many of us speak from a political standpoint and tend to say that which is necessary and will appeal to our constituents. I urge all Members of Parliament, including our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who has grave responsibilities, and the leaders of the various parties, to exercise from now until we get Canada back on the proper track the greatest discretion, and to provide the best leadership that has ever been had in Canadian history.


Mr. Robert Borrie (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to participate in this debate, but after hearing the comments of some hon. members in this chamber I felt my position should also be put on record. My reasons for not wanting to participate in the debate were these. I felt the views of my colleagues from Quebec would have greater import and impact than mine with regard to the reason for the proclamation issued yesterday. I believe they know conditions in the province

October 16, 1970

of Quebec much better than I know them, and having listened to the comments of some hon. members I think they would agree.
Prince George-Peace River is a long way from the heart of the problem that required the Prime Minister to make the proclamation yesterday. Even though separated by distance, Mr. Speaker, we are no less sensitive than others to the anguish the FLQ has brought to the citizens of the province of Quebec. We are not faced with the physical presence of violence. We do not have to concern ourselves with the safety of our families. Our businesses and social activities have not been interrupted or challenged by terrorism.
Some hon. members who oppose the government's action suggest that the measure is too broad. They ask: What need is there for other provinces to be covered by the same legislation, when the cancer is rooted in only one province? Mr. Speaker, I feel that the federal responsibility is to all provinces, to all citizens. When we start considering legislation to ensure law and order for citizens in one section of our country, we are tending to balkanize Canada. We will not contribute to the balkanization of our country; legislation passed in this chamber is for all Canadians.
My friend opposite, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding), insisted this afternoon that the government make the information that led to the proclamation yesterday available to Parliament. Surely, Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend and others who advocate complete disclosure and revelation of facts must know that the divulging of those facts may be of greater value to the FLQ than to hon. members. Confidential information and discussions, even in caucus, oftentimes turn out to be the day's headlines. I am not implying, Mr. Speaker, that all members are loose of tongue. If I were a law abiding citizen who supplied information to the police or the government, I would start looking for a haven if I knew that my reports were being discussed in this chamber or in committee. Our intentions may be of the highest order, Mr. Speaker, but it does not require a high degree of intelligence to know that informants may be found when the type of information sought is known.
[DOT] (12:50 a.m.)
The suggestion has also been made that the act be revoked Monday, and that this House consider special legislation. With all due respect to the process of providing legislation, I hesitate to turn that responsibility over to this chamber. In my few years here I have seen and heard the verbosity that goes on and on in the preparation of refined legislation. Debate is a necessary part of democracy, but in a time of urgency and emergency I would not want to see law enforcement agencies working in limbo, working without the support of the lawmakers of this land.
Concern has also been stated time and again in this debate that this War Measures Act gives too much power to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I think I speak for a good many Canadians, Mr. Speaker, when I say the power could not be in better hands.
Invoking of War Measures Act


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert James Borrie: This is a pretty gloomy day, Mr. Speaker. No Canadian in full possession of his faculties wants to see the act in use. However, the response that 1 have received from my own constituents indicates that we have support for the type of regulation in the proclamation.
I have just learned, and I suppose it is general knowledge in the House, Mr. Speaker, that a news bulletin reported that a body has been found in one of the cars used to abduct one or the other of the kidnap victims. A further news report confirms that it is Mr. Laporte. I think that this news firmly entrenches my opinion, views and conviction that this government has acted in a proper way. We are not dealing with political dissenters; we are dealing with organized murderers.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, anyone rising to say anything at this point, in view of the news that has reached us in the last few minutes, cannot but speak in sadness and with restraint. I assure hon. members that I shall exercise restraint and that I shall be as brief as I can. Indeed, apart from the news that brings a special sorrow to our hearts at this time, one would not want to indulge in any repetition at this stage of the debate. Neither do I think there is need for any recrimination at this time.
It is still my view that using the War Measures Act was a mistake. I shall express that by my vote on Monday. But I am prepared to admit that a verdict on that action which perhaps will be more valid than the judgments we try to make here will come later. That verdict will come when all the facts have been made public, maybe a few months from now. If at that point those facts justify the action, we who now feel otherwise will have to admit it. If at that point the action is not justified, the people of Canada will be able to express their opinion when they get the opportunity to do so.
The reason I would like to say a few words, even this late in the debate, is that the question we should now be facing is very simple: Where do we go from here? I have three brief suggestions to make.
The first relates to the question as to what we should do in view of the general feeling of repugnance regarding the use of the War Measures Act, a repugnance expressed not more forcibly by anyone else than it was yesterday by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
This evening I listened with interest to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) when he suggested that because Parliament had put the War Measures Act on our statute books, it was anticipated that it would be used. I do not read our history that way. This evening I again read the statement made by the then minister of justice, Hon. Mr. Doherty, in August 1914, who when moving the bill the first time it was presented, assured Parliament that it was a temporary measure.
I also read this evening the words of Mr. St. Laurent in 1946 when we were in the process of getting rid of the proclamations under the War Measures Act. He said to this House that he hoped it would never be used again. It

October 17, 1970
Invoking of War Measures Act seems clear to me that an act that in 56 years has never been used in peacetime is the kind of act that really was not intended for such use. Even so, I confess that I am not happy about the suggestion that has been made repeatedly-indeed, some of my own colleagues have made the suggestion-that instead of dealing with this matter by the War Measures Act that we should amend the Criminal Code.
What bothers me about that is that the Criminal Code is a permanent piece of legislation. If we put into it measures strong enough to deal with a special situation, we may find ourselves with permanent law that goes beyond our concepts of civil liberties and should not be on our statute books.
I make the suggestion that maybe there is room in our statutes for a piece of legislation that could be known as a civil disturbances act. I have in mind an act something similar to the War Measures Act in that it would come into effect only on proclamation, but it would be a special piece of legislation for disturbances or difficulties inside the country. When proclaimed such an act would provide much narrower powers than the War Measures Act, in other words only those powers actually needed. I make this suggestion as one that might be considered. It was my intention to develop that more fully, but obviously at this hour of the morning one shortens his remarks.
Secondly, I feel we have to work very hard to show that in our kind of society we still think there is a better way than to use force or repression to deal with ideas that we do not like. Let it be clear that I am not confusing the FLQ with those other people in Quebec who would like to have independence. The FLQ is the violent expression of that idea. Because the two have got confused, we are in the position of trying to cope with an idea we do not like by use of force.
We have to cope with the idea of separatism or of Quebec being independent in a much better way, by a determined effort to make it clear that it is a better Canada, both for Quebec and the rest of us, if we remain united. I do not want to live in a Canada without Quebec.
I agree with the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger) that what we are concerned about in this debate is not just saving Quebec but saving Canada.
[DOT] (1:00 a.m.)
I think that in order to do this we must rely, not on force, not on repression, not on laws or regulations which go beyond the concepts of civil liberty, but we have to work in all parties in Canada on the proposition I am sure all of us believe in, namely, that this Canada united is better for all of us than a Canada divided in any way whatsoever.


Marcel Prud'homme: Enough.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A sentence or two more, if the hon. member will permit me. I think we have to face the fact that the terrible experience we have been through has put a strain on relations between French Canada and English Canada. This crisis will pass away, all of us hope, and when it passes away the old conflicts, the old disagreements will come up again. They are submerged at the moment. When they do come up again it will be partly because of what we have been through. We must work very hard, harder than we did before, at understanding each other.
Let us not be surprised if the problem is more difficult because of what we have been through. I think the goal is still worth achieving, the goal of a united Canada, and-[DOT]


Some hon. Members:: Enough.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I recognize how strongly people feel, and I am prepared to recognize the fact that those who knew Mr. Laporte more intimately than did some of us, feel very sad. This is a sad moment not only for Quebec but for all of Canada.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Saint-Denis on a question of privilege.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances, the best thing the hon. member could do would be to offer his silence for a better united Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not quarrel with the hon. member. I was in the midst of my last sentence. I shall say no more. We are all very sad, tonight.


Mr. Speaker:: It appears to the Chair that all hon. members who desired to do so have spoken to the motion now before the House. Accordingly, pursuant to the special order, a recorded division on the motion and the amendments thereto is deemed to have been demanded and ordered deferred until Monday, October 19.
This House stands adjourned until Monday at eleven o'clock in the morning.
At 1.05 a.m. the House adjourned, pursuant to special Order.

Monday, October 19, 1970