1970-11-04

QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
LEGISLATION DEALING WITH ROYAL AND/OR NATIONAL ANTHEMS
['Agreed.']
Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: See Hansard, November 2, 1970, page 780.



Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	What was the estimated cost for the refit of HMCS Rainbow?
2.	What are the total expenditures to date for the refit?
3.	On what date did the refit commence?
4.	On what date was it completed, or is it due to be completed?
5.	Were tenders called for the refit?
6.	What companies bid for the work?
7.	Who did the work, or was awarded the contract?
8.	Was the contract awarded on a cost-plus basis?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: 1. In March 1969, $1,940,000.
2.	$2,490,000.
3.	September 8, 1969.
4.	The refit, including trials and inspection, was completed July 17, 1970.
5.	No.
6.	Not applicable.
7.	The Canadian Forces Ship Repair Unit, Pacific, in HMCS Dockyard, Esquimalt.
8.	Not applicable.


NUMBER OF MERGERS OR TAKE-OVERS RECORDED
Mr. Saltsman: 1.	For each year 1963 to 1969, how many (a) foreign (b) domestic industrial mergers or take-overs have been recorded by the Combines Investigation Branch of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?
2.	Do the figures cover the Canadian service sector and, if not, to what extent are they understated regarding the extent of merger activity in Canada?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minisler of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. The number of mergers recorded by the Office of the Director of Investigation and Research under the Combines Investigation Act for each of the years 1963 to 1969 inclusive is set out below:
Foreign1	Domestic2	Total1960 	
93	110	2031961	
86	152	2381962 	
79	106	1851963 	
41	88	1291964 	
80	124	2041965 	
78	157	2351966 	
80	123	2031967 	
85	143	2281968 	
163	239	4021969 	
168	336	5041	Acquisitions involving a known foreign owned or controlled acquiring company (the nationality of the controlling interest in the acquired company prior to the merger could have been foreign or Canadian).2	Acquisitions involving an acquiring company not known to be foreign owned or controlled (the nationality of the controlling interest in the acquired company prior to the merger could have been foreign or Canadian).
This table both updates and revises the figures reported last year. The compilation is based upon information published in the major financial news media including daily and financial newspapers, trade journals, business magazines and other publications of Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom. When similar information was tabled in the House of Commons on December 15, 1969, certain companies involved in mergers drew attention to inaccuracies they found in the table. Accordingly, a review of the information recorded in the register, which depended upon the accuracy of press reports, was undertaken, but not to the extent of mounting a substantial research effort for which resources were not available. The examination of the recorded information revealed a number of problems. In some instances a division or group of assets capable of sustaining an independent firm in business had been acquired rather than the listed company itself. In others, the reported acquisitions of voting shares of a company, although substantial, did not necessarily amount to control. Some consolidations reported in the press as mergers were actually a reorganization of companies previously associated with one another by way of common ownership. Reported multiple acquisitions sometimes involved com-
864

November 4, 1970
Questions
parries that were already associated with one another by way of common ownership and sometimes the acquired companies were, prior to the acquisition independently owned. The extent of the foreign ownership in some Canadian acquiring companies was less than a majority of the voting stock. Certain acquired companies turned out to have been foreign controlled before the reported acquisition. Finally, in many instances there was no factual evidence available to indicate whether the particular acquired company was, prior to the reported merger, Canadian or foreign controlled.
This examination of the evidence indicates that although the register does reflect a fairly comprehensive coverage of published sources of information there is a great need of more adequate continuing sources of information about mergers. The register should, therefore, not be regarded at present as more than an initial review of public information, with no guarantee of its accuracy.
2.	No. The Director of Investigation and Research has sought to record all reported mergers that have taken place only in those sectors of Canadian industry which are subject to the Combines Investigation Act. Accordingly, firms in the service sectors of the economy, except for transportation (of articles) are largely excluded, e.g. financial institutions, most utilities, advertising agencies, real estate companies, etc. The Director of Investigation and Research is therefore not in a position to estimate the extent of merger activity in the service sector of the Canadian economy.


PRICES AND INCOMES COMMISSION PERSONNEL
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Who are the present members of the Prices and Incomes Commission and what are their respective annual salaries?
2.	In each case, what are the specific functions of each member of the Commission?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I have been informed by the Chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission as follows: 1 and 2: (a) Mr. J. H. Young, Chairman, is paid a salary in the range of a D.M. 3, $37,000-$40,000. (b) Mr. P. Gerin-Lajoie, Vice-Chairman, is paid a salary in the range of a D.M. 3, $37,000-$40,000. (c) Mr. B. G. Barrow, who is responsible for the Price Review Program, is paid a salary in the range of a D.M. 1, $28,000-$33,000. (d) Mr. G. E. Freeman, who is responsible for the Research and Current Analysis Programs, is paid a salary in the range of a D.M. 1, $28,000-$33,000. (e) Mr. G. V. Haythorne, who is responsible for the Information Program and relations with Economic Interest Groups, is paid a salary in the range of a D.M. 1, $28,000-$33,000.


CANADIAN COMPANIES EXEMPT FROM LIABILITY FOR CUSTOM DUTIES ON IMPORTS FOR MILITARY CONTRACTORS IN UNITED STATES
Mr. Broadbent: 1.	What companies in Canada are presently exempt from liability for custom duties on imports used in making components for military contractors in the United States?
2.	In each case, when did the custom remission order become effective and for what period of time?
3.	In each case, what is the estimated value of the remission of custom duties?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minisler of National Revenue):: 1,
2 and 3. Order in Council P.C. 1960-1600, November 25, 1960, provides for duty and tax remissions for goods that are or will become the property of the United States government and will be used solely and exclusively in joint Canada-United States projects. The Order remains in effect until formally revoked. Companies extended the benefits of the Order are:
Estimated annual
value of
Name of Company	remittance

Abbey Electronics Co. Ltd.,	13,400
Rexdale, Ont.
Atlas Polar Co. Ltd.,	5,000
Toronto, Ont.
Canadian General Electric Co.	Ltd.,	18,000
Toronto, Ont.
Canadian Marconi Co.,	34,000
Montreal, Que.
Canadian Westinghouse Co. Ltd.,	315
Hamilton, Ont.
Garrett Manufacturing Ltd.,	2,300
Toronto, Ont.
Genaire Ltd.,	5,000
St. Catharines, Ont.
ITT Canada Ltd.,	14,000
Montreal, Que.
Litton Systems,	30,000
Toronto, Ont.
Motorola Electronic Sales,	129
Rexdale, Ont.
Prelco Electronics,	1,100
Montreal, Que.
Radio Engineering Products,	1,200
Montreal, Que.
Raytheon Canada Ltd.,	4,500
Waterloo, Ont.
Spar Aerospace Products Ltd.,	6,600
Malton, Ont.
Standard Coil Products (Canada) Ltd.,	1,400
Toronto, Ont.
Valeriote Electronics (Guelph) Ltd.,	13,000
Guelph, Ont.
Varian Associates of Canada Ltd.,	2,000
Georgetown, Ont.
Order in Council P.C. 1970-1404, August 5,
1970, the Canadair Limited Defence Development Remission Order, grants remission of Customs duties on parts and material imported during the period January 1,
1968, and ending December 31, 1971, by Canadair Limited, Montreal, Que., under defence development and production-sharing programs.	20,000

November 4, 1970


TASK FORCE ON INFORMATION RECOMMENDATION
Mr. Mather: Has the government accepted the Task Force on Information recommendation regarding government advertising and, if not, is the government giving consideration to establishing a Crown corporation or agency for all government advertising?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister without Portfolio):: Cabinet has approved in principle the major Task Force Recommendation on agency selection procedures for government departments and agencies and is now considering the best means of implementing that recommendation.


MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY REGULATIONS
Mr. Mather: On what date does the Minister of Transport, under Canada's Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations, intend to announce standards regarding (a) front and rear bumper construction (b) rear window defrosting standards (c) trunk penetration, side-impact and door crash resistance standards (d) standards limiting the horse-power of vehicles made in or imported into Canada?


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: In relation to (a), (b) and (c), research on these aspects of vehicle safety is currently being undertaken but, until such time as the results of these studies can be translated into safety standards, it is impossible to forecast the date on which they will be covered by the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations.
With respect to vehicle horse-power, (d), the question of power/weight ratio for vehicles is under review.
In accordance with Section 9 of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, all regulations will be published initially in Part I of the Canada Gazette as proposals so that manufacturers and other interested persons shall have a reasonable opportunity to make representations. In all cases, publication of the proposed regulations is the initial announcement of the Government's intention to issue and enforce standards.


INFORMATION CANADA
Mr. Mather: Have any private consultants undertaken any study for Information Canada and, if so, in each case (a) what is the nature of the study (b) was there a competitive tender for the contract (c) what is the name of the firm undertaking the study (d) what is the dollar expenditure of the contract (e) when is it anticipated that the study will be completed (f) is the study expected to be made public?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: 1.
(a)	citizens' advisory bureaus; (b) no; (c) Mrs. G. Stewart and Miss K. Starrs; (d) $100 per person daily not to exceed $5,000 each; (e) early next year; (f) yes.
2.	(a) A study of federal department and agency logos;
(b)	yes; (c) Communication Arts Centre Inc., of Montreal; (d) $24,000; (e) the study is complete; (f) yes.
3.	(a) A survey of public opinion on design in relation to the federal identity program; (b) yes; (c) Contempor-
Questions
ary Research Centre, 18 Grenville St., Toronto 189, Ontario. (d) $1,250; (e) the study is complete; (f) yes.


SNOWMOBILES-SAFETY REGULATIONS
Mr. Skoberg: 1.	Were public tenders called by the Minister of Transport throughout Canada to conduct a detailed examination on snowmobiles from a safety point of view and, if not, for what reason?
2.	If public tenders were called, how many bids were received and from whom?
3.	What were the terms of reference given to the successful firm?


Gérard Duquet: 1. As the work involved expert professional services normally provided at established rates, public tenders were not called. The contract was awarded to Hovey and Associates Limited, Ottawa, as this was the only independent firm known to the Department possessing the required expertise and facilities to undertake the required study in an acceptable time period.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Terms of reference specified a two-phase program. Phase I required the purchase and detailed examination of vehicles to identify potentially hazardous features which must be rectified at the point of manufacture and and to evaluate the engineering and economic impact on the industry of proposed safety regulations. Phase II of the program will entail rigid testing of vehicles under actual operating conditions to identify problems for which additional standards may be necessary.


HIGHWAY SAFETY
Mr. Skoberg: 1.	Were public tenders called by the Minister of Transport for an inventory of research in highway safety and the organization and conduct of a seminar to discuss safety research in Canada on future programmes that should be organized and, if not, for what reason?
2.	If public tenders were called, in what way, and in what locations in Canada were they tendered?


Gérard Duquet: 1. Public tenders were not called by the Department for executing the inventory of highway safety research as public tenders are not considered an acceptable means of engaging professionals to provide expert services. In this case, five engineering consulting firms, known to possess the capability to undertake this project, were invited to submit proposals. The successful firm was selected by a committee within the Department on the basis of the firm's appreciation of the problem, the proposed methods of investigation, time scheduling, costs, and experience of personnel in similar work.
2. Although public tenders were not called, proposals were received from firms located in Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg and Fredericton.

November 4, 1970
Questions


RESEARCH ON TRAFFIC SAFETY WARNING AND CONTROL DEVICES
Mr. Skoberg: 1.	Did the Minister of Transport call for public tenders throughout Canada for a contract into research on traffic safety warning and control devices and, if not, for what reason?
2.	If public tenders were called, how many bids were received and from whom?
3.	Were public tenders called throughout Canada for the evaluation of the effectiveness of safety campaigns awarded to Peat, Marwick and Company, of Toronto and, if not, for what reason?
4.	If public bids were called, how many bids were received and who made the decision on the successful tender?
5.	What firms, individuals or associations make up the Traffic Inquiry Research Foundation of Canada, Ottawa, that is preparing a study to review the type of knowledge in Canada concerning the role of alcohol in road vehicle safety?


Gérard Duquet: 1. Public tenders were not called by the Department for providing ; esearch on traffic safety warning and control devices ai public tenders are not considered an acceptable meuns of engaging professionals to provide expert services. In this case, five engineering consulting firms, known to possess the capability to undertake this project, were invited to submit proposals.
2.	Although public tenders were not called, proposals were received from firms located in Montreal, Toronto, Willowdale and Edmonton.
3.	Six consulting firms, known to possess the capability to undertake an evaluation of the effectiveness of safety campaigns, were invited to submit proposals. Proposals were received from five of those firms.
4.	The successful firm was selected by a committee within the Department on the basis of the firm's appreciation of the problem, the proposed methods of investigation, time scheduling, costs, and experience of personnel in similar work.
5.	Traffic Injury Research Foundation of Canada is a non-profit chartered foundation supported by donations including grants from the Department of National Health and Welfare and several Provincial Governments. Founding members include, among others, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons, Defence Research Board and Medical Research Council. Individual members include professionals from many disciplines.


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE-MAN-HOURS SAVED BY UTILIZATION OF COMPUTERS
Mr. Robinson: How many man-hours have been saved as a result of the utilization of computers by the Department of National Defence during each year since computers have been used?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It has not been possible to maintain meaningful estimates of the man-hours that have been saved as a result of the utilization of computers by the Department of National Defence during each year since computers have been used.


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE-LAY-OFFS DUE TO UTILIZATION OF COMPUTERS
Mr. Robinson: As a result of the use of computers by the Department of National Defence, how many employees have been (a) laid off (b) hired?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No employee has been laid off as a direct result of the use of computers. Records are not maintained in a manner which would indicate the number of employees hired as a result of the use of computers.


HALIFAX AND YARMOUTH HIGHWAY SERVICE MAIL SERVICE
Mr. McCleave: 1.	What tenders have been received for the Halifax and Yarmouth H.S. mail service, by name and amount?
2.	To whom was the tender awarded?
3.	Who held the contract previously, for what length of time and for what amount?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister without Portfolio):: 1.
Howard L. Lowe, $22,875; Charles W. Giffin, $30,936; Peter Werenka, $31,954; Casino Taxi Limited, $34,183; Donald L. Lutz, $35,400; John R. Fletcher, $36,000; Arthur W. Armitage, $37,156; Donald Sprott Smith, $68,000; Robinson Bros. Express Ltd., $73,489.
2.	Charles W. Giffin.
3.	J. R. Fletcher, five years, $36,459 per annum.


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE-MONTREAL EXPOS' BASEBALL TEAM
Mr. Saltsman: 1.	Has the Department of National Revenue ruled that the Montreal Expos' baseball team can depreciate the value of initial player contracts over a ten year period?
2.	Is the total estimated cost allowed by the Department of National Revenue for deduction purposes estimated to be $9 million and, if so, will the Montreal Expos' baseball team pay no tax each year on the first $900,000 of their profit?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: 1 and
2. This information is confidential and cannot be divulged.


HALIFAX AND PORT HAWKESBURY HIGHWAY MAIL SERVICE
Mr. McCleave: 1.	What tenders have been received for the Halifax and Port Hawkesbury H. S. mail service, by name and amount?
2.	To whom was the tender awarded?
3.	Who held the contract previously, for what length of time and for what amount?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: 1. James Hubert Beck, $22,000; Peter Werenka, $23,444; Edward N. Smith, $23,972; Casino Taxi Ltd., $25,080; John R. Fletcher, $26,400; Arthur W. Armitage, $27,261; Denton Roney Ehler, $28,375; J. S. Culligan, $29,265; Donald L. Lutz, $33,000; J. E. San Cartier, $36,000; J. S.

November 4, 1970

Culligan, $39,235; Joseph MacDonald, $39,300; John J. Grace, $47,652; Harry Heckman Trucking Ltd., $49,500; Robinson Bros. Express Ltd., $54,249; James Clement Ryan, $58,769.
2.	Peter Werenka.
3.	Peter Werenka, five years, $24,645 per annum.


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE-LAY-OFFS DUE TO UTILIZATION OF COMPUTERS
Mr. Robinson: As a result of the use of computers by the Department of National Revenue how many employees have been (a) laid off (b) hired?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: (a)
No employees have been laid off as a result of the use of computers. Normal retirements, resignations, and transfers have reduced staffs where clerical and other tasks have been eliminated or reduced through computer use. (b) As at October 26, 1970 the department employed 207 computer systems analysts, programmers, and computer operating personnel in its permanent staff involved in all areas of activity using computers. Very few of these were hired from the outside because of the introduction of computers. Most were transferred from other duties and trained in computer technology. In addition, several hundred temporary key-punch staff are hired each year to provide necessary input for systems involving the department's computers. The number employed at any one time varies widely with the season of the year. Many permanent staff, as well as temporary key-punch staff, are employed on computer work for departments other than National Revenue, Taxation.


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE-MANHOURS SAVED AS RESULT OF UTILIZATION OF COMPUTERS
Mr. Robinson: How many man-hours have been saved as a result of the utilization of computers by the Department of National Revenue during each year since computers have been used?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Records of man-hour utilization are not kept in the detail which would be required to give a precise answer to this question. In general reply, it can be stated that the use of computers has eliminated or reduced the man-hour requirements for certain kinds of clerical and returns examination work but has increased them for other activities in the area of enforcement. The computer system's ability to detect errors in returns, disclose cases of unreported income, and find instances of non-filing, has generated substantial extra work of an enforcement nature which can only be resolved by people. On balance, it can be said that the use of computers has required more man-hours of staff utilization but the resultant extra costs have been far less than the extra revenues generated. Also inhibiting comparisons of man-hour requirements before and after computers is the fact that the department has had to undertake several new, major
Motions for Papers
programs since it acquired its first computers in 1962. Examples of these are the collection of tax for nine provinces and the provision of their statistics and other data and the collection of contributions to the Canada Pension Plan. These programs, to be effective, required the use of computers and imposed additional demands for both manpower and equipment.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Notices of Motions Nos. 5, 10, 16, 21, 27, 28, 32, 33, 34, 35, 80, 132 and 137.


CORRESPONDENCE, ETC., BETWEEN DR. LLOYD BARBER AND INDIAN ORGANIZATIONS ON TREATY CLAIMS AND ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 5-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between Dr. Lloyd Barber and the Native Indian peoples organizations across Canada regarding the matter of Indian land and treaty claims and aboriginal rights.
Mr. Barney Danson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, this rather interesting motion is identical to motion No. 370 by the hon. member in the last session. The position taken at that time, as reported in Hansard of March 11, 1970, at page 4665, has not changed. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Howard (Skeena):: Nothing else has changed either, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate?


Frank Howard: Not on my request, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. MacEachen:: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


REGULATIONS OF THE OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL OF THE URANIUM INDUSTRY IN CANADA
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 10-Mr. Saltsman:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, memoranda, etc., between the Government of Canada and industry in Canada since January 1, 1970, regarding regulations on the ownership and control of the uranium industry in Canada.
James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources that correspondence received from uranium producing and exploration companies contains information specifically requested by the government and given with the assurance that

November 4, 1970
Motions for Papers
it would be treated as confidential. In view of this, I trust the hon. member will agree to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Salfsman:: That is not acceptable, Mr. Speaker.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


INTERIM REPORT OF TASK FORCE ON OIL POLICY
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 16-Mr. Salfsman:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the interim report of the Task Force on Oil Policy (Northern Development), 's mentioned by the Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Reources in Hansard on April 25, 1969, at page 7956.
James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources that the task force on northern oil development is an interdepartmental group of officials reporting on an interim basis directly to ministers on developments as they take place. It is not customary to release such communications but when a final report is made consideration will be given to making it public. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Max Saltsman: That is acceptable.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)


SUBMISSIONS TO ECONOMIC COUNCIL ON COMPETITION
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 21-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the nearly forty submissions presented to the Economic Council of Canada for its review of Canada's competition policy, as referred to in the Council's report of July 1969 at page 4.
Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, this very thoughtful motion is similar to motion No. 10 by the hon. member in the last session. I am informed by the Economic Council of Canada that the stand taken by them in response to that motion, as reported in Hansard of December 17, 1969, at page 2084, has not changed. I would therefore ask that this motion be withdrawn.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, my views have not changed. I still believe in open government and the tabling of reports, and I would like to have them.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


DISCONTINUANCE OF PUBLICATIONS DUE TO INCREASE IN POSTAL RATES
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 27-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all letters received by the Postmaster General from churches, professional

organizations, trade unions, co-operatives, credit unions and private organizations, indicating that as a result of the increase in postal rates they intend to discontinue or curtail their publications.
Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, I think this is the third time this motion has been presented, and the reply to it will be the same as on the last occasion, namely, that the motion is not acceptable as the information requested would necessitate a review of over 5,000 files. It is estimated that several hundred man hours would be expended in drawing files and searching for the desired correspondence without taking into consideration the time expended in copying such correspondence.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Cole (Longueuil):: I would therefore ask that the motion be withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I take the liberty to bring to the attention of the minister, and of other ministers and parliamentary secretaries responding on behalf of the government, that there should be an indication given as briefly as possible on the part of the government whether a motion is accepted or whether it is the wish that it be transferred for debate. I gather that the minister has asked that the motion be dropped.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree to that. Since the Post Office does not seem to be delivering the mail it might do this instead.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is transferred for debate.


PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND CAUSEWAY-REPORT BY C. B. HAVER
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 28-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the report by C. B. Haver of Montreal for Northumberland Consultants Limited regarding a review of the cost-benefit evaluation by Stanford Research Institute for a Prince Edward Island causeway as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,832 reported in Hansard July 21, 1969 at page 11374.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the Minister of Public Works that as stated in reply to question No. 1832 reported in Hansard on July 21, 1969, at page 11374, this report was prepared for internal use only and is therefore a privileged document. Under these circumstances I would ask the hon. member to consider withdrawing his motion.


David Orlikow: I cannot agree to that. I thought Information Canada would help us get reports and not deny them to us.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is transferred for debate.
November 4, 1970


STUDY BY PIUS DENIS FOR DEPARTMENT OF MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 32-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study of Pius Denis, Regina, undertaken for the Department of Manpower and Immigration regarding the "Analysis of the information derived from the Longitudinal Study of the Economic and Social Adaptation of Immigrants".
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Pius Denis did early research work on the first questionnaire for the longitudinal study but he did not produce a written study or report. As there is no report, the hon. member may wish to withdraw his motion.


David Orlikow: I will do that, but I will try to find out how much he got paid for doing nothing.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion is dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


STUDY BY FARIZA HASAN FOR DEPARTMENT OF MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 33-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study by Fariza Hasan, Ottawa, undertaken for the Department of Manpower and Immigration regarding the "Analysis re the development of cost-benefit models and other studies conducted by the Quantitative Methods Group".
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration: Mr. Speaker, Miss Fariza Hasan provided consultative services to the department. She was engaged on a contractual basis to carry out statistical analysis and no written report was produced. Since no report exists, the hon. member may wish to withdraw his motion.


David Orlikow: I will agree.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


STUDY BY LEO MES ON ANALYSIS AND PREPARATION OF COST ESTIMATES ON PROJECTS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 34-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study by Leo Mes, Ottawa, undertaken for the Department of Manpower and Immigration regarding the "Analysis and preparation of cost estimates on projects".
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Leo Mes of Ottawa was engaged as a consultant by the department to provide specification and programming services for computer work being carried out in the Planning and Evaluation Branch. No written report was ever produced. In view of this, the hon. member may wish to withdraw his motion.


David Orlikow: I will agree.
Motions for Papers


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


STUDY BY PAUL MOREAU REGARDING ANALYSIS AND PREPARATION OF COST ESTIMATES ON PROJECTS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 35-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study by Paul Moreau, Ottawa, undertaken for the Department of Manpower and Immigration regarding the "Analysis and preparation of cost estimates on projects".
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Parliameniary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration: Mr. Speaker, this motion asks for a copy of a study by Mr. Paul Moreau of Ottawa who was engaged as a consultant by the department to provide specifications and programming services for computer work carried out in the Planning and Evaluation Branch. A written report was not produced. The hon. member may therefore wish to withdraw his motion.


David Orlikow: I will agree at the moment.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


CONSULTANT REPORT REGARDING INFORMATION MEDIA RELATIVE TO WAR ON POVERTY 1967-68
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 80-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report by Hewart, Newman and Associates and Julian, Hebert and Associates, Montreal, regarding information media relative to the war on poverty undertaken in the year 1967-68, for the Privy Council Office, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1323 of the first session of this Parliament.
Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, this quite challenging motion was dealt with in the last session as No. 212 in the name of the hon. member. The reasons stated at that time, as reported in Hansard of January 14, 1970, at page 2378, still pertain. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Skoberg:: We cannot fight the war on poverty in the Privy Council office, Mr. Speaker.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


CONTRACT REGARDING SALE OF A NUCLEAR RESEARCH REACTOR
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 132-Mr. Gilbert:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the contract between the Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd. and the Atomic Energy Council of Taiwan regarding the sale of a nuclear research reactor.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, Atomic Energy

November 4, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
of iiada Limited advises that the contract between Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and the Atomic Energy Council of Taiwan is a commercial contract and it has not been customary to make public documents of this class because of the confidential nature of their contents. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Question.


Mr. Gilbert:: Question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


STUDIES REGARDING CONSIDERATION TO CONVERTING PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT INTO CROWN CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 137-Mr. Gilbert:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all studies, reviews, etc., that have been undertaken by the Government of Canada regarding the consideration being given to converting the Public Works Department into a Crown Corporation.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I am advised by the Minister of Public Works that as stated when an identical motion was called during the previous session, all studies on this subject are of a confidential nature and intended for internal use only. Therefore the hon. member might agree to withdraw his motion.


John Gilbert: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motion stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday I asked the Solicitor General a question relating to the surveillance of one Rose, a prime suspect in Quebec, and why he had not been picked up. Has the Solicitor General had an opportunity to review the answer he gave, which was to the effect that there was not sufficient evidence to arrest Rose at the time, inasmuch as a report has since come out of Montreal that
the Montreal police believe there was sufficient evidence to arrest Rose and, in fact, at that time a number of people were, I believe, being picked up without very much evidence in any event?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, after hearing about the CBC broadcast last night I first of all tried to procure a transcript of it and its references to this question. I was advised by them that it would take at least two days before they could give me the transcript.


An hon. Member:: Call the CRTC; they will get it for you.


George James McIlraith: In any event, this morning I carefully reviewed the question asked by the hon. Leader of the Opposition on Monday and my reply to it. I have no changes whatever to suggest to that answer.


An hon. Member:: You never have.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, to avoid any misunderstanding, does the minister mean to suggest that he consulted again with the people on the spot to ensure that the information on which he based his opinion was correct?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the minister consulted the authority whom he normally consults on this type of question in the House, the federal authority, the only authority we have, and his answer given today is made after detailed consultation with them on this point.



WAR MEASURES ACT-ARRESTS, RELEASES, CONTINUING DETENTIONS AND CHARGES

Robert Lorne Stanfield: have a question for the Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker. Is he now able to give me the information which I have sought four times, I believe, namely, how many of those who have been detained under the War Measures Act have been detained for longer than seven days at the request of the Attorney General of the province concerned?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I hope there is no implication in the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition that I did not try to get the information for him and for the House as quickly as possible. The number of persons arrested and detained as of 11.40 this morning under the regulations pursuant to the War Measures Act is 424, the number of persons released, 359, and the number of persons still in custody, 65. Of the 65 persons in custody 46 are in custody in Montreal and 19 are in custody in other parts of the province.
A total of 228 orders were issued by the Attorney General of Quebec pursuant to subsection 2 of section 9 Of the emergency regulations authorizing detention beyond seven days. The breakdown is as follows: Montreal, 148; Quebec City, 54; Rimouski, 8; Sherbrooke, 2; Hull, 11; Victoriaville, 3; St. Jerome, 1 and Thetford Mines, 1, for a total of 228.

November 4, 1970

Of the 65 persons presently in custody, 43 have been held beyond seven days. The breakdown is as follows: 30 in Montreal and 13 in other parts of the province.
With respect to the question, how many persons were arrested, released and then arrested again, the answer is one, and that person is still in custody. The number of persons still being sought is 43. I expect, from my conversations with the office of the Attorney General of Quebec, that further charges will be laid today, tomorrow and on Friday.



WAR MEASURES ACT-CHARGES AGAINST THOSE DETAINED OF BEING MEMBERS OF FLQ

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: In
view of the statements made in the House by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion to the effect that there are about 3,000 FLQ members in vital posts in the province of Quebec, can the Minister of Justice say how many of the 65 who are still detained have been charged under the War Measures Act regulations with being members of the FLQ?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, none to date.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask how many will be charged?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



REPORTED REDUCTION OF RCMP PERSONNEL ENGAGED IN SEARCH FOR KIDNAPPERS AND MURDERERS

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Solicitor General a question regarding reports from the Montreal police that 150 men of the RCMP Intelligence and Security Division have been withdrawn. Can he tell the House why this number of men has been withdrawn from the search for persons who are aUeged to be responsible for kidnapping and murder?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I cannot possibly accept the premise on which the hon. member bases his question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister then whether he will - confirm the statement by Montreal police sources to the effect that the number of RCMP members attached to the Intelligence and Security Division who are at present engaged in the search for the persons being sought has been reduced from 200 to 50?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I will not confirm any such rumour or statement, nor will I deny it. If the hon. member is prepared to ask a substantive question, I will immediately try to obtain the information as to what, if any, number has been withdrawn from that work.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a substantive question. Has there been any reduction in the number of RCMP personnel engaged in the search for the persons responsible for the crimes of kidnapping and murder in the Montreal area?


George James McIlraith: I believe not, Mr. Speaker, but I will verify that before the end of the question period.



WAR MEASURES ACT-PRESENCE OF CYC MEMBERS AMONG THOSE ARRESTED

Mr. Roland Godin (Porlneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Justice.
Could he tell the House if any former or present members of the Company of Young Canadians were among the persons arrested under the War Measures Act?


John Napier Turner: I do not have that information, Mr. Speaker.



CHARGES UNDER WAR MEASURES ACT AND CRIMINAL CODE

Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: In order that the House may continue proper surveillance over the powers granted under the War Measures Act, will the minister indicate, whenever he can, how many charges under the Criminal Code will be laid, with respect to the people detained, how many will be charged in respect of alleged infractions against the regulations under the War Measures Act and, possibly, how many confessions were made while these people were being detained in jail?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to furnish the hon. member and the House with the details of the charges as, if and when they are laid. The discretion as to whether they are to be laid rests with the Attorney General of Quebec.



WAR MEASURES ACT-REASONS FOR DELAY IN INTERROGATION OF THOSE DETAINED

Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Justice a question. Since a great many of those arrested were kept in jail for quite a number of days and in many cases were not interviewed until the second last day of their stay in jail, on the sixth, twelfth or fourteenth days, and so on, and were then interviewed for a very short time, ten to fifteen minutes, may I ask the minister whether he has discussed with the Attorney General of Quebec the reasons for the delays in interrogation while persons were kept in prison incommunicado? If he has not done so, is he prepared to discuss it with him?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to accept the various preambles, allegations and insinuations in that question.
872

November 4, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I will say, however, that of course there were delays because of the great number of people arrested at the same time and the necessity of carrying out this process by skilled interrogators. In certain cases that did result in delays. As for the rest of the preamble, Mr. Speaker, I do not think I need to deal with it.


David Lewis: Is the minister prepared to inquire and report to the House, as to how many of those arrested were kept for many days in jail incommunicado before even being interrogated, how long the interrogations lasted and what kind of questions were asked?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



WAR MEASURES ACT-INDEPENDENT COMMISSION OF REVIEW

Robert Lorne Stanfield: have a question for the Minister of Justice. In view of the number of detainees-185, I believe-held longer than seven days and then released without a charge being laid, will the minister take some steps-to allay any concern in the minds of the public-such as urging the government of Quebec to appoint a commission of review, not necessarily to make a public report but at least to assure those in authority and this House that there were no abuses of due process within the limits of the intention of the measure?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General of Quebec has already appointed a committee drawn from members of the Civil Rights Association of Quebec, the staff of the Archbishop of Montreal and other members. I would imagine that might be within their terms of reference. I see no point in going further in that regard at the moment because I think that committee is well qualified and I am sure it will pay due attention to the factors raised by the hon. member.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: In view of the answer of the Minister of Justice, what authority do the members of the committee in question have to enter the places where these people are detained and incarcerated?


John Napier Turner: Under the authority of the Attorney General of Quebec, Mr. Speaker.



WAR MEASURES ACT-NON-PROSECUTION FOR ACTS COMMITTED PRIOR TO PROCLAMATION

Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Can the
Minister of Justice inform the House whether or not the federal government has requested the Attorney General of Quebec not to prosecute under those sections of the War Measures Act regulations which make actions which were not criminal before the implementation of the Act criminal offences?


John Napier Turner: I have
confidence that the Attorney General of Quebec will exercise properly the discretion given to him by law and by the authority vested in him properly.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Real Caouelte (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister on my favourite subject, namely the CBC.
On May 1, 1970, the Prime Minister gave me the following reply:
For my part, I am busy dusting my Chinese vases.
Today the journalists' union of the CBC is requesting a public inquiry into the news service in order to shed some light on the Corporation's information policy.
Does the Prime Minister intend to carry out this pious wish so that we may know exactly what goes on within the CBC?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I was not
aware of this request, Mr. Speaker, but I will be pleased to discuss the matter with the Secretary of State to see whether it is in the public interest to initiate such an inquiry, as requested by the people concerned.



BROADCASTING


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: My question is also directed to the Secretary of State. On November 2 I asked the hon. gentleman if he would inform himself, through the CBC, whether special regulations or instructions were issued by the CBC respecting news coverage both on Radio-Canada and on the English-speaking network. Is the minister now in a position to reply?
While I am on my feet, may I ask whether the Secretary of State was able to take notice of a question I directed to the Prime Minister yesterday about the CRTC and the telegrams which were sent to various private stations?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Secretary of State might answer one question at a time. I think it would cause confusion if he attempted to deal with two different questions at the same time. The Secretary of State might refer to the first question asked by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, from time to time ministers take the opportunity to answer two questions while they are on their feet. I foUowed a similar practice because yesterday I directed a very cur-

November 4, 1970

rent question to the Prime Minister involving the communications media of Canada, and I was hoping that the Prime Minister had referred that question to the Secretary of State so he could reply to both at once.


Mr. Speaker:: I still abide by the ruling I made a moment ago. I do not wish to be unfair to the hon. member, but I am suggesting it complicates the question period when two or three different questions are asked at the same time.


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is that at the beginning of the Cross-Laporte matter, the directors of the news service of the French network were issuing oral instructions to senior editors, producers and reporters asking them to show continuous and increased vigilance over news on that matter, to check and double check any information on the subject before releasing it, in order to avoid creating a feeling of panic, and to always show restraint.
After the emergency measures were adopted, the authorities gave the people in charge of radio and television news programs a copy of the regulations passed by the federal government and they were in constant touch with the legal advisers of the Corporation about the interpretation of the regulations.
The English network has instructed its agents to observe moderation and caution when releasing information related to the crisis, particularly when dealing with conjectures. It has also issued directions as to the legal aspects of reporting under the War Measures Act. Such instructions are usual in cases of serious crisis.
Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether I would be transgressing the rule you have just laid down-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It might be in order to determine whether the hon. member wants to ask a supplementary question related to the Minister's reply.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do. Would the Secretary of State be kind enough to obtain these directives and have them tabled, if possible? Would he also tell us whether he has been informed by the CBC, either the English-speaking or the French-speaking networks, that pursuant to this directive certain news reports were, in fact, changed before they were broadcast?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has missed an important word in my reply. I did say "oral instructions", which means obviously that I cannot produce any document.
As far as the second question is concerned, it was not contained in the first one. I shall therefore inquire from the Corporation and prepare a reply for the hon. member.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer the question asked yesterday when I was not
Inquiries of the Ministry
here in connection with the tapes requested by the CRTC. The hon. member is well aware that, according to Section 4(5) of the CRTC Regulations issued under the Broadcasting Act, radio and TV program tapes or transcripts are to be kept by the stations for 30 days. It happens quite often that the CRTC, as a result of a complaint or on its own initiative, asks a station for tapes or transcripts of certain programs.
In the case referred to by the hon. member for Annapolis-Valley, I am told that the CRTC sent this request to broadcasting stations because the 30-day period is about to expire and the tapes concerned may be destroyed.
The CRTC thought it had the responsibility of recuperating and preserving those tapes for reference, study and research purposes. Indeed it is a well known fact that newspapers covering the lifetime of many generations are available in libraries and archives but such is not automatically the case with electronic news media.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I thank the Secretary of State for his answer regarding the CRTC. Is the House to understand that this request by telegram, which went out to some 20 stations across Canada without explanation, was sent on the initiative of the CRTC? Or was it done on the initiative of the government, or of the RCMP?


Gérard Pelletier: The CRTC took this initiative, Mr. Speaker, and I should like to point out to the hon. member that if any police service had wanted any tapes, they could have asked for them without going to the CRTC.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State relating to the remarks made by the Solicitor General a few moments ago about the difficulty in getting a tape of last night's news broadcast. Inasmuch as CRTC regulations require such tapes to be held, why should the Solicitor General experience difficulty in getting this tape from Montreal today?


Gérard Pelletier: I believe the answer to this question is quite simple, Mr. Speaker. When requesting information of this type, you don't ask for a piece of tape, but for a transcript. The transcript has to be made from the tape and that requires a certain amount of time; therefore, a delay is inevitable.


Donald MacInnis: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order arises from the fact that the minister is not well informed about CRTC regulations or about what he, as the minister, can do. The fact remains that these tapes can be made directly available from the station which makes the broadcast. For that matter, I have a tape made by the President of the Privy Council-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is a debate between the hon. member and the minister.

November 4, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry INFORMATION CANADA



SUGGESTED DUPLICATION OF SERVICES-REDUCTION IN DEPARTMENTAL PUBLIC RELATIONS BUDGETS

Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I wish to direct to the Minister without Portfolio who answers for Information Canada. Can the hon. gentleman say whether representations have been received from the Public Libraries Trustees Association of Canada objecting to the duplication of its public information services which would be caused by the establishment of additional public Information Canada offices?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: No
such representations have been brought to my notice, although I have received expressions of strong support from librarians for the concept of Information Canada and for the plan to establish, as recommended by the task force on government information, regional inquiry centres which librarians see as a valuable complementary element in a public information system. We are anxious to co-operate with libraries and I think libraries are anxious to co-operate with us.
While I am on my feet I might refer to a question which was asked yesterday by the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster indicating that Information Canada would be taking over programs of departmental information branches. As I think the hon. member knows, this is not the case, and there was no such announcement.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, while the minister is in an expansive mood-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have just seen illustrated, for the benefit of hon. members, the difficulty which arises when two questions are asked or answered at the same time. The hon. member for Surrey has a supplementary to the first question and the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster has a supplementary to the second. The hon. member for Surrey.


Barry Mather: Would the minister check with Information Canada to make sure that no such representation as I mentioned has been made?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Miller Bell: Will the minister give the House an assurance that there will be definite reductions in the information services and budgets of individual departments now that he has taken over, in the way he has explained, a $150 million budget?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: As the hon. member knows, I am sure, there is no budget of $150 million. If he reads the report of the task force on government information he will see that the figure he mentions includes such things as application forms-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Since the Quebec Minister of Justice is greatly concerned because Quebec could be compelled to pay the cost of the armed forces stay in that province, could the Prime Minister answer that question to-day?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr, Speaker, I do not know whether the beginning of the question is true, but if it is I will simply say that the Quebec Minister of Justice has no reason to be greatly concerned.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday I asked the Secretary of State a question concerning three or four members of Radio-Canada who are news broadcasters. I asked the minister whether or not they, having been picked up, had been released, and he said that he would find out the answer to the question.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I said to the hon. member-certainly not yesterday, since I was not in the House-that I did not have any such information and that I would try to get it. I have not yet obtained it; as soon as I have it, I shall transmit it to the hon. member.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion gave to the minister the information that he himself made public, namely, that several members of Radio-Canada who were broadcasters apparently had a code which they used to communicate with the FLQ? Did his colleague give him that information and did he make any investigation in regard thereto? Can the minister give the House some information on that matter, because at the time the information was given by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, he was still free to speak?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, this piece of information, whether it is accurate or not,-I have not checked it- is one that I have read also in the newspapers, like the right hon. member. But the right hon. member for Prince Albert has had a tendency in the last few weeks to repeat constantly the same mistake. He seems to believe that the Secretary of State is the minister in charge of a specialized police force. I want to inform him that such is not my role. I have no jurisdiction over any police
November 4, 1970

body as the right hon. member for Prince Albert seems inclined to think.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that is scarcely an answer to the question. I never took the minister to be other than a nonentity.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Ian Watson (Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General.
Does he intend to issue a stamp in memory of Pierre Laporte?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, even though the 1971 commemorative stamps program has already been published the department is considering the possibility of issuing in 1971 a stamp in honour of Pierre Laporte, which would mark Mr. Laporte's 50th anniversary.



IMMIGRATION


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In light of the conflict arising from the statement of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion equating the FLQ and the Black Panthers as fellow revolutionary terrorists, and in light of the permissive attitude expressed by the Minister of Immigration yesterday with reference to the visit of Black Panther Ray Hewitt to a university campus in the province of Manitoba, would the Prime Minister clarify the government's position on this matter to allay the concern of many responsible citizens in the keystone province?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration stated the government's position perfectly adequately yesterday.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Do I take it from the Prime Minister's statement that it is the policy of the government to detain under the War Measures Act visitors to Canada who belong to movements committed to the overthrow of law and order by terror and violence, or does the policy apply only to Canadians?


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question which is similar to the question the Prime Minister did not answer. When the government considered this matter of the Black Panthers, did it take into consideration the new statements made by the fugitive Black Panther leader, Eldridge Cleaver, contained in the New York Times for
Inquiries of the Ministry
November 1, wherein he openly advocated political assassination, the killing of Richard Nixon and encouraging people all over the United States to kill police? If so, why did the government make such a decision?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, my reading on terrorists is not as adequate as that of the hon. member-


Donald MacInnis: That is your problem.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -but I am glad his party is at last getting around to realizing that the government did right in invoking the War Measures Act.
With regard to the previous question, which I did not answer because I did not understand the last words of the question, even though I am being asked for a legal opinion I think I can be permitted to state my opinion on the matter. We would treat aliens in the same way as we treat Canadians if they fall under the definitions in the War Measures Act regulations or the new law. If the hon. member reads the regulations he will find they were directed at a special circumstance, but were not limited in regard to the nationality of people who might be accused under the regulations.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A further supplementary question to the Solicitor General. Could the minister inform the House whether any aliens fitting into the category of revolutionary terrorists have been detained up to the present moment?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I would have to get more information to answer fully on that point, but there is one such case with which I am familiar.


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Solicitor General give serious consideration to having everybody wearing a pink shirt arrested?



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Taking into consideration the well received stand last week by the Minister of Labour in connection with payment by the CNR of less than the federal minimum wage, would the Minister of Labour inform the House what action has now been taken in this regard?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have not changed my opinion that Crown corporations should pay minimum wages, as should all industries that come within federal jurisdiction. I expressed this opinion two weeks ago and gave my department the authority to proceed in the matter in the usual manner. I refer to the application of the rules and regulations under which the Department of Labour normally proceeds in such cases. I presume that advice is now being

November 4, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
sought from the appropriate department in regard to proceeding further.


John Leroy Skoberg: A supplementary question to the minister in connection with CNR labour-management policy. In view of the present wage and rules movement now going on with the CNR, and in view of the unanimous report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications in regard to the CNR pension plan, would the Minister of Labour tell the House whether or not he is interested in intervening in this particular case and drawing the attention of the CNR to the importance of settling this dispute?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I do not make a practice of interfering with the principle of collective bargaining. The hon. member has referred to the report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications pertaining to pensions. I think this is required reading not only by the CNR but also the unions since there are some very far-reaching recommendations in the report applicable to both parties to this dispute.

[Translation\



NATIONAL SECURITY


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, my question follows from the answer given earlier by the Prime Minister to the hon. member for Shefford, in which he said that payment for the services of the Armed Forces in Quebec should not "greatly" concern the Justice Minister of that province.
Does the Prime Minister wish to indicate thereby that the central government has decided to pay the whole cost of such services?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, no, Mr. Speaker. The detailed answer I gave the other day to the hon. member for Shefford was based on the fact, which had, I think, given rise to his question, namely, that the Canadian press had spread the rumour lately that I had stated that Quebec would definitely have to assume the cost in full, whereas it is not at all the position I have taken. It is possible that Mr. Choquette in saying that he was afraid Quebec would have to pay based his assumption on this position which is not at all ours.
I have repeated to the House what I have said today, Mr. Speaker-you are impatient and I am too-that Premier Bourassa and myself had decided to deal with the question in due time as it is not the most urgent matter at the present time.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
Did the Premier of Quebec request that the federal government pay the entire cost of troops stationed in the province of Quebec?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL REVENUE


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I wish to address to the Minister of National Revenue. Is he in a position to reply to the question I posed yesterday?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to tell the hon. member that the department is not giving consideration to closing the Sydney district taxation office.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct to the Minister of Justice the question I asked him on October 26. It is one I have been asked about a great many times. Has the green car that was used in the kidnapping of Mr. Laporte been identified and the owner of the licence number established? Is this information in the hands of the provincial and federal governments, or was the licence number changed on the green car in which the body of Mr. Laporte was unfortunately found?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to give the evidence in the hands of the police concerning the criminal charges which will be laid and the warrants that are out.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance and arises from the speech to the British Columbia Federation of Labour by the chairman of the Economic Council of Canada about employment and unemployment forecasts. Does the government agree with these projections?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen them at this point. I will take a look at them.


Robert Jardine McCleave: When the minister answers that question, will he also say what the government expects the unemployment situation to be if he differs from the chairman?
November 4, 1970



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, this question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Is it the intention of the minister to appeal the order of His Honour Judge Kelly who stated that the Crown had no legal right to proceed against Stafford Smythe by indictment with regard to charges under the Income Tax Act?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have instructed the department to take mandamus action against that judgment.



PUBLIC WORKS


Mr. A. D. Alkenfcrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works which I hope is in order because I gave him notice of it. What progress is being made by his department on the project for a new federal building in the town of Eganville?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would think this is a question which normally should be on the order paper. I regret I have to suggest that to the hon. member. If there is urgency the matter could be debated at the time of adjournment.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, this question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that the Minister of Labour has every intention to bring in legislation regarding the Unemployment Insurance Commission by July, 1971, in light of the fact that witnesses had difficulty presenting briefs and pointing out their position because they did not know where the government was going on social policy, and in light of the fact that the committee will probably have that same problem in presenting a report, can the minister give us any indication when he expects the government's white paper on social policy will be brought forward? If not, could he assure the House if this white policy-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: This white paper on policy. Mr. Speaker, it has never been my policy to say that white is not beautiful.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I wonder whether the minister can possibly assure the House that he will bring his policy down before the end of the year because that would certainly assist the committee.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I would say to the hon. member, as has been stated several times in the House, that the matter is under active consideration by the government and when a decision has been made it will be announced in the House.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kootenay West.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I have been patient in that regard-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I will allow the hon. member a supplementary, but we have only a few minutes left.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Could the minister be more definite in that regard and assure the House that there is a possibility he might have the policy before the House before the end of the year?


John Carr Munro: I would like to accommodate the hon. member, but I cannot add anything further to what I have already said.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. Randolph Harding (Koolenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. Has any move been made to have the photographs and fingerprints destroyed of the 359 individuals who were arrested under the War Measures Act and released without charge?


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker, not that I know of.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abiiibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Labour.
Is he in a position to reply today to the question I directed to him on October 29, and I quote in part: -whether the Unemployment Insurance Commission has the authority to issue social insurance cards to individuals who are not recognized as Canadians, such as American Army deserters, or to other classes of individuals who have entered Canada illegally?


Mr. Speaker:: I think such a question should be put on the order paper. I apologize to the hon. member if, so to speak, I lost the question since it was asked earlier. On thinking it over, however, I think it would be better to put it on the order paper.

November 4, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry TRANSPORT



FREIGHT RATE LEVEL IN PRAIRIE PROVINCES-ACTION TO REMOVE DISCRIMINATION

Mr. R. R. Soulham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the very high freight rates prevailing in the Prairie provinces and particularly in northern Alberta where the freight rate structure is now at the peak for North America, what plans, if any, has the government in mind to rectify this discriminatory situation?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I could answer that question without more definitive information.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I had some doubt as to the question. Perhaps the hon. member might make it more specific. It seems to me he is inviting the minister to make a statement of a very general nature. If he could make the question more specific it might be easier for the Chair to allow it.


Richard Russell Southam: Then, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister if he would consult with his colleague the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs with a view to looking into what appears to be discriminatory rates in a captive freight rate area since this is a matter of deep concern to the people of western Canada?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I would go further than that. I might advise the hon. member and the House that I have initiated talks with the officials and the premiers of the prairie provinces with a view to obtaining their general reaction to the current freight rate situation and to see what recommendations they might have for improvement.



NATIONAL SECURITY


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I would like the permission of the House to supplement a reply I made earlier to a question asked by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands concerning the number of RCMP in the Montreal area working on the current case. There has been no reduction of manpower working on this matter by the RCMP.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order affecting the business of the House for tomorrow. It is the intention of the government, if the item of business now to be IMr. Speaker.]
called is not completed today, to continue with it tomorrow. Therefore we will not call an opposition day tomorrow.


Gerald William Baldwin: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether he has given any thought, if the consideration of the bill which we are to consider today and possibly tomorrow should not be completed, to whether or not the government is prepared to sit throughout tomorrow until the business is concluded?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, we would be happy to consider that.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


John Napier Turner: that Bill C-181, to provide temporary emergency powers for the preservation of public order in Canada, be read the second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
He said: Mr. Speaker, we are beginning the debate this afternoon upon a bill which fulfills the commitment given by this government and made before the final vote was taken upon the resolution of this House which endorsed the proclamation by the government of the War Measures Act. The commitment given by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), the government House Leader, was that within a month of that date, October 19, we would bring in the bill. We have brought in the bill within two weeks of that time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: This bill is designed to replace the regulations made pursuant to the War Measures Act on October 16. It is directed toward meeting the continuing threat of the Front de Liberation du Quebec in Quebec and to the relationship of Quebec within Canada. It is a temporary measure designed to meet what we hope will be a temporary phenomenon. The measure before the House is precise in its terms. If adopted by Parliament, it will revoke the proclamation which activated the power of the War Measures Act, a power that, I hasten to add, was not totally exercised under that act but was exercised only in a limited way.
The burden of what I have to say today will relate to the reasons for this bill and the threat that the bill is intended to meet. The purpose of the bill is to replace the regulations passed under the War Measures Act. During the two-day debate on October 16 and 17, the House of Commons debated whether or not the government had reason to invoke that act. This House has already, by an overwhelming vote, endorsed the proclamation of that act.
November 4, 1970


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Subject to conditions.


John Napier Turner: I submit that the debate on this bill should not be a mere resurrection of the previous debate but that we should concentrate upon the nature and terms of the bill now before the House and the purpose that the bill is meant to achieve.
During the past two weeks the government has repeatedly been asked by members opposite to reveal the factual basis upon which the government acted. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stated on Friday, October 23 in this House, and as he has reiterated on several occasions since then in the House, the country already knows the facts upon which we based our decision. We received written requests from the government of Quebec and from the civic administration of Montreal for immediate assistance in the face of what they called apprehended insurrection. A Quebec minister and a British diplomat had been kidnapped and governments had been held to ransom. Large amounts of dynamite had been stolen, were ready for use and had been used before. Arms and ammunition were in the possession of terrorists.
All this was against the background of an erosion of public will and confidence in the ability of the institutions of government and law enforcement agencies in Quebec to respond to this crisis. We do not have to explore plots or allegations of provisional governments to appreciate the acute sense of apprehension and fear in Quebec in those days preceding the proclamation of the War Measures Act.
Those who still continue to suggest that our decision had to be based upon some sort of tallying up, some sort of mathematical summary of the number of sticks of dyanmite that had been stolen, or the estimate of the number of terrorists involved with the FLQ and the number of specific instances of violence that had taken place, operate, I submit, from a misleading premise. Let there be no mistake: the government recognizes that the decision involved a value judgment, it involved an assessment by the government of all the available facts, but the decision of the government must be viewed against the total background of events in Quebec, events that form a continuum of change in the social fabric of that province.
I submit, Your Honour, that the state cannot be reasonably required to measure danger in the "nice balance of a jeweller's scale". These are words used by a Chief Justice of the United States, pronounced in the case of Gitlow v. New York in a statement that was later approved by Mr. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. The Chief Justice went on to say:
A single revolutionary spark may kindle a fire that, smouldering for a time, may burst into a sweeping and destructive conflagration. It cannot reasonably be required to defer the adoption of measures for its own peace and safety until the revolutionary utterances lead to actual disturbances of the public peace or imminent or immediate danger of its own destruction; but it may, in the exercise of its judgment, suppress the threatened danger in its incipiency.

The government recognized and, from the beginning, expressed the opinion that the War Measures Act was
Public Order Act, 1970
"too blunt an instrument", to repeat words I used
previously.
We recognized the need for more definite but flexible statutory instrument and we must review exactly what was involved when the War Measures Act was invoked.
Some of the criticisms aimed at the government in some circles were absolutely irresponsible and irrelevant. When the government invoked the War Measures Act, it changed the law of the land only to the extent of the change brought about by the regulations made under the act. Nothing else was law. The War Measures Act is only an enabling statute giving the government the power to make orders and regulations dealing with various number of matters.
But only the regulations are law and those defined by the government increased the powers of authorities charged with the application of the law or reduced the common rights of citizens to a very limited extent.
As a result of the regulations, arrest and investigation powers of the police have been extended in very specific circumstances and for a very limited period. These extended powers are solely procedural: the power to arrest without warrant, to detain for a limited period without indictment, to search without warrant and to suspend bail upon request of the Attorney General.
I am not underestimating these powers, nor will I deny that they restrict some of the procedural guarantees embodied in our regular criminal law. However, these powers have been vested in the authorities responsible for application of law, under control of a provincial Attorney General, with a specific purpose. They were created for a specific objective and aimed at the FLQ, which has been declared an illegal association, in regard to which new crimes have been defined as coming within the provisions of the law. But the other laws which, in Canada, govern other areas of activities have not been suspended.
After the horror, shame and disgust that Canadians experienced last month when confronted with the acts of the FLQ came a period of deep reflection on the part of millions of our fellow countrymen. We have witnessed the deep attachment of Canadians for Canada and their affection, their faith in a very special social order which is part of the Canadian soul.
This feeling of solidarity first revealed itself in the massive support given to the government and in the endorsement of its policy by this House. Others expressed a feeling of sadness and bitterness that in our country our most cherished liberties had to be suspended, even temporarily. I appreciate all these tokens of support such as the Prime Minister has foreseen them in his statement to the House on October 16.
[DOT] (3:10D.m.)

This deep concern of Canadians everywhere is proof that we have in Canada a sensitive yet resilient society, a society capable of defending itself, yet not unaware of the costs that are associated with this defence, a society which does not permit itself to confuse the illness with

November 4, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
the symptoms. I am proud, as a member of this House, that the expressions of steadfastness, of sadness and of questioning which have been heard in this chamber during the past two weeks have largely reflected the attitude of most Canadians. The vote recorded on October 19 makes it clear how responsive and basically reflective of public opinion is Parliament-as it should be.
But, Mr. Speaker, there have been a few other voices as well. Not confident voices. Not sad voices-hysterica] voices, shrieking voices. We have heard them in this House, we heard them from Winnipeg, we heard them from Toronto. They said that the government acted out of emotion. They said this, and they shouted it emotionally. They said that the government acted for base political purposes. That is what they said, and they shouted that, again, emotionally. These voices, I submit to Your Honour, are yelling for their political lives.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I say to Your Honour that this shrillness is a hollow shrillness and that their thesis is preposterous. They say the government of Canada was wrong, the government of Quebec was wrong, the government of Montreal was wrong, that 190 members of this House were wrong and that every member of this House, of whatever party, elected from a Quebec constituency was wrong. They say we all overreacted.


Mr. Peters:: Is this not possible?


John Napier Turner: I leave it to Your Honour and to this House to decide which party overreacted and which parties have been acting responsibly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Fortunately, the hysteria, the forgetfulness-the forgetfulness of the facts that brought the train of events into motion-and the attribution of base political motives by these persons are not widespread nor have they the agreement of two many people. They did not even convince the Premier of Manitoba on Sunday and they certainly will not convince the millions of Canadians and people everywhere who have applauded Canada for standing up against terrorism and making terror a less credible device in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, to say, as these gentlemen have done, that the proclamation of the War Measures Act amounted to a suspension of all civil liberties in this country, as the leader of the NDP (Mr. Douglas) has said, is just not true. He talked of censorship, he talked of deportation, he talked of the wide powers of expropriation, he recited all the potential powers in the War Measures Act as if they had all been brought into force. Yet he ignored the fact that only the regulations have the force of law. He and the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) talked of the totalitarian powers invoked by the government. By describing the potential in the War Measures Act instead of directing criticism, which might have been construc-

tive, to the regulations that alone have the force of law, they were misleading the Canadian people and I suggest to Your Honour they were being intellectually dishonest.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: We have all read the reports of what went on in Winnipeg. The leader of the NDP drew a parallel between the implementation of the War Measures Act in Canada and the rise of the Nazis in Germany.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


John Napier Turner: I do not know what interpretation to place on that parallel. I shall place as charitable an interpretation as I can on it. Perhaps he was comparing the terrorist tactics of the FLQ with the terrorist tactics of the Nazis in the thirties. But one thing is sure-history has recorded what happened to the Weimar republic. That republic, that democracy, did not know how to protect itself. I suggest that the Canadian government does know how to protect the people of Canada and we do know how to protect democracy in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: The people of Canada understand and the people of Canada will remember.


William Arnold Peters: Oh, shut up.


John Napier Turner: This government, Mr. Speaker, accepts responsibility for what it has done. I submit to the House that to have refused a request from the government of Quebec, in the terms in which it was made and under the circumstances in which it was made, would have been gross irresponsibility. The action of the federal government was in response to written requests from the government of Quebec and the administration in Montreal. The army is deployed in Quebec because Quebec called for the army. Increased powers of apprehension and investigation are operating in Quebec because Quebec called on the federal government to equip it with these extra powers to deal with the FLQ. The three governments, federal, provincial and municipal, were acting in concert, acting within the respective mandates given to them under the Constitution by the people who elected them, and acting properly within the contours of a federal state.
This government has the confidence, and I believe in the last two weeks has enhanced the confidence it enjoys, of the Canadian people. The Premier of Quebec and his government recently received an overwhelming mandate from the people of Quebec. The mayor of Montreal won an overwhelming victory at the polls a week or so ago. To say, as the hon. member for York South has said, that this government acted for political motives is an insult not only to the members of this House but to the people of Montreal, the people of Quebec and the people of Canada.
Some hon. members may feel that the circumstances did not warrant that request from Quebec or that
November 4, 1970

response from Ottawa. That is within the legitimate range of argument. That is their right and I submit that if they believe it, it is their duty to express that feeling. That I respect. But I believe that it is worth noting that to date not one of the members of this House from the province of Quebec has challenged either the necessity for what was done by the government nor the way in which it was done.

The legislation that we have presented in the form of this bill is intended to meet the present threat of the FLQ.
The events we went through make us aware of the vulnerability of our democratic institutions. To the extent that violence breaks out in a democracy, it indicates the failure or weakness of that system. But, as members of the House, w.e cannot accept the suicide of democracy by remaining passive before violence. Rather we should act-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: 
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: The FLQ is a revolutionary conspiracy. We do not have to read extensively to learn what men like Vallieres and Gagnon really stand for. We need examine only brief passages from "Les Negres Blancs d'Amerique" and copies of the publication of the comite central of the FLQ to understand what their tactics are. This FLQ literature lays out a pattern of revolution, escalating through different levels of action, violence and confrontation to the ultimate overthrow of the established order in Quebec and Canada. By their actions they deny the legitimate means of reform available to the political process. By their words and deeds they repudiate the rule of law. And as they do so, they seek its protection and seek to take advantage of it.
I have heard people say, "Don't overreact; you'll drive the FLQ underground."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: We heard that two weeks ago.


John Napier Turner: Drive them underground? They are already underground. This is already a clandestine movement of terror and anarchy.


An hon. Member:: But you cannot find them. [Translation]


John Napier Turner: Some revolutionaries like Vallieres and Gagnon have rather strange attitudes as was noted by Hon. Justice Brossard of the Quebec Court of Appeal, in the case Vallieres vs. Regina. Vallieres had lodged an appeal to the Quebec Court of Appeal in connection with his conviction for manslaughter following the death of a woman killed in a Montreal bombing. The court granted him a new trial, because wrong instructions had been given the jury, but Justice Brossard said, and I quote:
I take the liberty of pointing out the contradictory nature of the situation created by this appeal. The appellant owes those days of grace to legislation which, as can be seen from his writings, he looks down upon and which could remain a dead letter should the use of violence he is advocating in his writings be followed. It is so to speak without his co-operation and in disagreement with some pernicious ideas that he seems anxious to spread around that the principles of justice, the administra-

November 4, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
tion of which he puts in jeopardy, assure him the benefit of a nonsuit with respect to his conviction for manslaughter, his lawyers having appealed in his favour.

The regulations under the War Measures Act, Mr. Speaker, and the bill now before you and the House provide that their provisions shall be enforced by the provincial authorities. This is consistent with what is now, and what has been since confederation, the basic position in this country with respect to the enforcement of the criminal law. The enforcement of the Criminal Code, which embodies the largest part of our criminal law, is left to the provinces. The regulations which were brought into force on October 16 are in their nature criminal law, as are the provisions of this bill.
It has been suggested by some in this House and outside the House that the enforcement of the regulations and these special laws should not have been left to the provincial authorities. I disagree. In large measure, the police resources in the province of Quebec are provincial and municipal resources. In the main, the crown attorneys in the province are employed by the provincial government. Furthermore, the FLQ is largely and peculiarly a menace within Quebec. To hear some who object to provincial enforcement of these laws, one might be led to think that the government of Quebec is an irresponsible government rather than a government elected by the same electorate and by the same democratic processes as are 74 hon. members of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I say that kind of talk and that kind of mentality is calculated to sow and nourish seeds of distrust and disunity in this country. What I have said applies to the province of Ontario and the province of British Columbia just as it applies to the province of Quebec. It is a fundamental principle of the enforcement of our criminal law.
In the course of the preparation of the bill now before the House, consideration was given to including in it legislation of a permanent nature that would permit the government of the day to deal with emergencies of the kind which we are now facing without having to resort to the all-embracing authority of the War Measures Act. As hon. members know, the War Measures Act confers upon the federal government the broadest powers to enact laws.
There is, I believe, some feeling that special laws should be enacted so as to permit the government of the day to deal with lawlessness or violence of an organized nature which extends beyond the ambit and the control of the ordinary criminal law. After a good deal of thought and consultation across Canada, within this House and within the caucus which supports the government, it was decided that the government should defer action on proposed permanent legislation in the hope that it would speed up consideration of the measure now before the House, so that the War Measures Act might be withdrawn as soon as possible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: Why?


John Napier Turner: Because we wanted to introduce this bill which was more precise in its provisions than one that circumstances forced us to introduce in a time of emergency and crisis.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: We also had the-thought in mind that proposals for permanent legislation might receive better and more mature consideration on another occasion because, Mr. Speaker, a climate of crisis; does not nourish the calm deliberation that the delicate balance between collective security and individual liberties and rights requires.

Hon. members have had a chance since October 16 to familiarize themselves with the Regulations which because of their significance they certainly examined at length. In view of the circumstances, I do not wish to take too much of your time in going back over them. I merely want to point out a few differences between the Regulations and this bill.
The bill was phrased in such a way as to limit further its application. It deals specifically with the Front de liberation du Quebec and its attempts to resort to force and crime as a means to operate a change in government in Canada, and especially with regards to the province of Quebec or its relationship to Canada.
The bill is aimed at reducing to some extent the presumptions of affiliation with the illegal association as compared with those provided for in the Regulations; furthermore, the periods of detention pending the filing of an indictment have been reduced significantly as compared with those specified in the Regulations.
On the other hand, we have clarified the way the Canadian Bill of Rights will apply to persons who have been arrested, held in jail or convicted under the new law, and it is provided that the rights stated in paragraphs (a) to (g) of Section 2 of the Canadian Bill of Rights will apply with two exceptions. Among the rights which will still apply to arrested or detained persons is the right to retain counsel without delay.
I have to mention also that this bill, like the Regulations, provides for expediting the trial of a person charged with an offence and detained in custody without bail. Indeed, this is a special legislation because it is not generally offered to persons charged with an offence under the ordinary provisions of criminal law.
I should like to make another remark about this law. Once it is implemented, the government intends to repeal it as soon as the threat to freedom and to the constitutional government of this country is brought to heel and settled.
Hon. members will see that the last clause of the bill gives much freedom and flexibility in that field. The government very much hopes that circumstances will soon allow such action.
November 4, 1970

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

Why the need for special legislation, Mr. Speaker? What are the inadequacies in our existing criminal law? The existing criminal law is not designed to cope with a group or groups of persons organized on a continuing basis with a fanatic dedication to achieving governmental change by resorting to the commission of crime which, of course, is the nature and purpose and organization of the FLQ. While the Criminal Code deals with treason and sedition, it does not do so in relation to an organized group of the kind mentioned. It deals only with the criminal conduct of individuals, which is not necessarily related to the existence of an identifiable group such as the FLQ.
It follows that no matter how criminal in nature an organization might be, membership in itself may not be unlawful. For obvious reasons, the government would not under ordinary circumstances seek to make membership in any organization a crime in itself. There must be severe limitations on that kind of approach because it is one that can easily lead to unwarranted abuse. We recognize that. On the other hand, it must be self-evident that a point can be reached where that course of action is both necessary and justified-and in the view of the government it has been reached with respect to the FLQ. I say that because unless an organization like the FLQ is made illegal, its ability to exist and function is largely unimpaired. The reason for this is that the FLQ can and does, in addition to the criminal behaviour of its membership, pay lip service to causes that are perfectly legitimate; causes such as unemployment, inadequate housing, grievances of taxi drivers, and so on. In the result, persons can with impunity identify with and support the FLQ financially or otherwise by simply pointing to legitimate causes of the kind just mentioned.
Unless, therefore, it can be shown beyond reasonable doubt that an FLQ supporter has stolen dynamite, committed robbery, murder or some other crime, he is beyond the reach of the ordinary law. That is why the organization itself is being made unlawful. When the conclusion is reached that society must defend itself against the very existence of an organization like the FLQ, then that group and support of it must be outlawed. This is what the emergency regulations did, and that is what this bill proposes to do. The aim of outlawing the organization is to render it ineffective to the greatest extent possible by placing its membership in jeopardy, eliminating sources of support, crippling its ability to make propaganda, making communication on its behalf criminal, and so on.
There are two other special measures in the emergency regulations and in the bill which do not exist in the ordinary criminal law. The first is the authority to arrest without warrant where there is reason to suspect that a person is a member of the unlawful association or has committed, or is about to commit, any of the offences prescribed in section 4 of the regulations or clause 4 of the bill. This requirement is less stringent than that contained in the Criminal Code, which requires the exist-
Public Order Act, 1970
ence of reasonable and probable grounds to believe that an indictable offence has been committed.
Secondly, under the provisions of the bill, law enforcement authorities will be allowed a maximum of seven days-which is a reduction from the 21 days in the regulations-to develop any leads they may acquire against a person arrested on suspicion. Under the ordinary rules of the criminal law, a person who has been arrested and detained must be charged and brought before a justice within 24 hours.
Mention should also be made, Mr. Speaker, of the special provision regarding search and the provision relating to the refusal of bail. These special measures undoubtedly facilitate investigations into suspected violations of the emergency laws and, just as important, suspected violations of other offences under existing criminal law. They permit law enforcement authorities to detain suspected FLQ members and supporters who would otherwise be completely out of reach. They also give law enforcement authorities more time to develop a case against a suspect who by reason of his detention is not in a position to take steps to frustrate the investigation. There are risks involved. There are potential abuses. We have weighed them carefully and we have attempted, in so far as we can, to be of assistance to the Attorney General of Quebec and to ensure that these abuses are kept to a minimum. Those are the main arguments I wanted to submit for Your Honour's attention and the attention of the House.
October, 1970, was a watershed for this country. Canada changed. We have experienced what Toffler might call "future shock". It is not easy for a people unaccustomed to violence, seemingly secure in the belief that "It can't happen here", to sense that finally it has happened here. We are no longer immune from the contagion of violence that plagues parts of the world. Canada, someone said, has lost its innocence-and that may well be true. But it is a sad and even tragic commentary on our times that the experience of violence seems to be regarded as the final entry permit into the family of nations.
If Canadians were philosophically unprepared, if we were psychologically complacent, so was our law. After all, the law of a nation is the measure of its civilization. Our laws were moving, and will continue to move, toward giving individuals in this country more personal options, more equality and more appeals against those who govern. In a time of peace and tranquility, the impetus of law reform holds forth great promise; but I suppose it tends to leave us vulnerable in a time of violence or insurrection. Our criminal law was unprepared, both in substance and procedure, both operationally and philosophically, to deal with the kind of terrorist activity and violence which we have witnessed in recent weeks. It was not meant for a society wherein terror and violence suddenly became synchronized.
The criminal law, as we have it now, assumes that a crime is primarily an individual act or is committed by a single individual. Our criminal law is not equipped fundamentally to deal with organized group violence or

November 4, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
organized terrorism. Extra powers were needed to deal with this new phenomenon in Canada. The invocation of the War Measures Act and the present bill in more precise form represent the first and second response, by a society determined to protect itself and determined to preserve a climate in which individual liberty can flourish, to this new threat of violence.
I say to Your Honour that those of us in the government did what we had to do with great reluctance. We did what we did because it had to be done. Some of the measures we have had to adopt in the short run and for a short term are philosophically abhorrent to us. We intend as soon as we can to turn once more to the road of law reform and the continuing enhancement and protection of civil liberties. Perhaps this experience will prompt us to accelerate our priorities in social and economic justice, to humanize our institutions and to democratize the process by which our decisions are made. We have become aware of the fragility of a democratic order. The very strengths of democracy are also its weaknesses. The very liberties we strive to enshrine can become, by excess, the licence that can destroy. There is no freedom without order under law, and there can be no order under law without freedom.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
The causes of violence run deep. The sources of the alienation that provokes such violence run deeper still. What we did to meet violence in the short run, which we do now with continued determination, must not deter us from what we need to do in the long run; rip out the social and economic abuses that breed the frustration and anger that brings out the worst violent streaks in men and women. Only if we pursue diligently the search for a new social and economic order will we achieve the fundamental purpose of this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner). In his opening remarks he stated he hoped that all members who participate in the discussion of this bill will keep their minds focused on the bill and not spend too much time on the events of the past. He then launched into an inflammatory attack on some members of the House, not members of my party, who disagreed with the position he took.
This bill will replace the reliance the government has placed upon the War Measures Act. It is undoubtedly a vast improvement. From the beginning we demanded temporary legislation to provide the necessary powers to fight terrorism, but limited to that purpose. To say the least, the government was very reluctant to commit itself to such legislation. With all due respect to the Minister of Justice, I tried to get such an assurance from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).


An hon. Member:: That was the first day.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The Prime Minister made a very general statement that meant very little and which did not commit the government to anything. The second day, when I asked the Prime Minister whether he would make a firm commitment, he refused to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It was not until over the weekend that the government House Leader gave assurance that such a bill would be introduced within a month. The government has now in effect accepted our leadership in this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: This party will support the bill on second reading although we will be introducing amendments to improve it. I remind the government that this does not absolve it from its responsibility to take the people of Canada into its confidence, and that government by rumour must stop. I accept the need for special measures of a temporary nature, as long as there are proper safeguards, to fight terroristic revolutionaries in Quebec. However, I wish to emphasize one point the minister dealt with but in my view did not bring into close focus, and that is that this bill will not stamp out threats of future terrorism. I believe the great majority of the people of Quebec realize this only too well. It is only through long-range attacks upon fundamental problems, including those of law and order, that we can hope to do this.
I believe that during the last two or three weeks we have seen Parliament react in an appropriate manner in showing its wares in a time of crisis. We believe there has been a demonstration of responsible opposition in attacking this crisis.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: As a consequence of opposition insistence we have now before us a bill, although admittedly imperfect, which has unusual powers. However, they are certainly very restricted compared to the vast powers which the government had when it invoked the War Measures Act. These new powers will be much more limited than the excessive powers given to the authorities under the regulations of the War Measures Act, where there was no provision for an effective review of the exercise of the very extensive powers given under those regulations.
The minister again raised the question of the provinces exercising responsibility. I do not want to go over that ground again, but I do want to say that a federal government which creates exemptions from the traditional procedures of the criminal law must surely accept some responsibility in connection with the exercise of those exempted powers.
There were some faults in the initial regulations adopted by the government. First, they were in force through-
November 4, 1970

out Canada. Second, they provided for long periods of detention without a charge being laid. This afternoon we learned that 228 people were detained for more than seven days, of whom 180 were eventually released without a charge being laid. This is too lengthy a period of detention without a charge being laid. There was no provision for review and no provision has been made except for a group of persons interested in civil rights who have been authorized to visit the prisoners. I have not yet seen a report by that committee, but I understand they were not too pleased with the conditions in one city where persons were being detained. It was found that the only person still detained, although he tried to see his lawyer and to communicate with his family was refused that permission. Apparently, the group that visited him was able to make the necessary arrangements. But that is a very far cry from an independent review board authorized, really, to review everything that is going on in connection with these detentions.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Fourth, there is the broad definition of illegal association in the initial regulations which has been very substantially narrowed in the new bill. Fifth, there is provision for retroactivity in the regulations: one can be convicted on the basis of evidence related to a time before the regulations came into effect. Unfortunately, this provision prevails in the bill, although its rigour has been lessened to some extent, and this constitutes an improvement.
So, with regard to the new bill there are a number of improvements. The definition of illegal association has been narrowed, a substantially shorter period of detention has been authorized in the absence of a charge being laid, there has been some improvement with regard to the provision about evidence and, as I understand it, there is a clearly assured right to counsel. These represent substantial improvements.
When we reach a later stage it will be more appropriate to talk about the specific defects of the bill, though I might ment on one or two now. There is still no provision for a judicial or independent review. There is still provision for retroactivity to prevail, and there is still provision for a prisoner against whom a charge has been laid being detained for 90 days before there is any requirement to appear before a court and have a date set for trial, perhaps at some distant time in the future. It is not very obvious why such a provision, as it now stands, is essential to an effective fight against terrorists.
It is important to bear in mind that this bill is not based upon any assumption of apprehended insurrection. It is based, rather, upon recognition of the existence of an organization of ruthless terrorists whose purpose it is to try and change the government, or certain relations between governments, by force or criminal acts. We should all understand that this bill is not based upon an apprehended insurrection. I think it is now clear that the sooner a bill like this one was brought down, the better- a bill designed to provide the powers necessary to fight terrorists, but powers limited to the extent required to do the job which needs to be done.
Public Order Act, 1970
The horror resulting from the kidnapping of James Cross, and from the kidnapping and murder of Pierre Laporte, was overwhelming. Not only was there horror but, obviously, real fear as to where the terrorists might strike next. There can be no doubt about this. There can be no question as to the necessity of tracking down these terrorists. There can be no question as to the authorities being given the tools necessary to do that job. This bill, in my view, provides those powers, although as I have suggested it lacks a few safeguards of a kind which would in no way impede the authorities in the effective prosecution of their duties.
I said a few minutes ago that government by rumour must end. This bill, as I have pointed out, is not based upon any apprehended insurrection, but the government invoked the War Measures Act on the basis of apprehended insurrection. While the Minister of Justice said he would concentrate on the future in the terms of this bill, he spent a good deal of time-and I do not object to that-going over the ground with respect to apprehended insurrection. However, I do not think he said anything new. I believe it is clear that when the government invoked the War Measures Act, the vast majority of Canadians put their trust in the government. I do not dispute that for a moment. They believed the government had facts which justified the action which it took. Indeed, they clearly applauded the government for taking this action, especially after the murder of Pierre Laporte. Clearly, the vast majority of the people of this country were fed up after years of terrorist activity culminating in the horror of that week or ten days. There is no question at all as to the need for vigorous action against the terrorists. Indeed, many of those who applauded the government for its action asked why more effective action had not been taken earlier.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Certainly, as the Minister of Justice has reminded us this afternoon, the plans of the FLQ did not flower overnight; the Minister of Justice and his associates did not discover these revolutionary documents just on the eve of invoking the War Measures Act. There were warnings, Mr. Speaker. I believe there were abortive attempts to kidnap diplomats in Montreal on two occasions earlier this year, and a great many people in Canada have been seriously concerned that no effective action was taken earlier. They were concerned as to how effective our security service is; concerned whether the government was warned, or not warned, by our security officers.
Unquestionably there was kidnapping, unequestionably there was murder, unquestionably there was terrorism and the most profound feeling of personal insecurity in the province of Quebec but, as I say, none of this amounted to grounds for apprehended insurrection. But the act having been invoked, the ministers of the Crown immediately began to create confusion as to exactly what constituted the insurrection which the government apprehended. The Minister of Regional Economic Expan-

November 4, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
sion (Mr. Marchand) started it of? on the Friday afternoon of the debate by talking about all sorts of dangers which existed in Montreal and Quebec.
The Minister of Justice, either then or shortly afterwards, said the government might never be able to disclose all the facts which moved it to act. Then the Prime Minister began the process of insisting that the public knew all the facts which had motivated the government's action, as the Minister of Justice repeated here this afternoon. Then, of course, came the intervention of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion in the Montreal election, an intervention which, however one might regard it and however charitable one might feel toward that particular minister, can only be described as a catastrophe of the first order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: As a result of this confusion created by conflicting statements made by ministers, journalists and others, people in opposition began to have doubts in their minds as to what really had motivated the government. This uneasiness was not restricted to those outside the government or outside the ranks of those supporting the government. It is clear that people in high places spread the rumour of a plot to overthrow the duly elected government of the province of Quebec. Mr. Speaker, I say categorically it is very obvious now that no such plot ever existed. I want to say to the Prime Minister in his presence that I am very disappointed he should have allowed the impression to continue that such a plot might have existed when he knew perfectly well there was no such plot in existence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Whether this was designed as a distraction, or whether someone was out to get Claude Ryan, I do not know and I express no view. But when there is no solid information and when conflicting statements are issued by ministers, what we have is government by rumour. There is a very ugly aspect to this business, Mr. Speaker, because on Monday, in Toronto, after I am sure it must have been apparent to every member of this House that no plot existed, the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn) is reported in the press as follows:
Mr. Wahn said the question facing the government then was whether the FLQ was moving into the fourth stage. He maintained that the government had then some evidence to indicate that it was.
He cited "the evidence of treason or near treason of certain intellectuals in the province of Quebec".
"A group of 16 or 17 leading intellectuals urged the government to accept all the terms of the FLQ," Mr. Wahn continued. "The object was to destroy the democratically-elected government of the province of Quebec".


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What is wrong with that?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Did the Prime Minister ask me what is wrong with that? I disagreed with the opinion expressed

by that group, including Claude Ryan, which urged that
there should be some arrangement worked out involving the release of prisoners from Canadian jails, and I agreed with the stand being maintained by my right hon. friend and his colleagues. But to describe in that way the suggestion made by this group of men in Quebec, or to suggest that the editorial conference in the offices of Le Devoir or the conversations between Mr. Ryan and Mr. Saulnier are "treason or near treason" is-I was going to say McCarthyism, but I think it goes even beyond McCarthyism.


Mr. Fairweaiher:: Unworthy of the Prime Minister.


Mr. MacEwan:: It is Trudeauism.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: No, it is not Trudeauism but it is unworthy of the Prime Minister and I hope he will do all he can to see that that sort of thing stops. As a result of all this and as a result of the rumours that have been spread, it is clear that there is an increasing demand for unequivocal information in regard to the apprehended insurrection. It is clear that some feel they have been taken in by the government, but I am not yet in that category. As far as I am concerned, despite the confusion created by conflicting statements made by ministers, and despite the red herrings about plots to replace the government of Quebec, I am still prepared to accept on trust that the government apprehended insurrection. However, like the people of this country I am still waiting to get the facts.
I expect the government before long to produce evidence, or at least indications, not of terrorism, not of kidnapping, not of murders, not of revolutionary plans, not of an intense feeling in Quebec of individual insecurity-all of which clearly existed-not simply to say that it has the confidence of the majority of the people of the country and that the majority of the people accept the fact that the government did apprehend insurrection, not merely to ask the people to continue their confidence in it, but to take the people of Canada into its confidence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: As I shall explain in a minute or two, I think this is particularly important as far as young Canadians are concerned. I repeat, there is no question about the need for action in connection with terrorism in the province of Quebec. The extraordinary thing to most of us here and to most of the people of the country is why this massive drive, this apparently massive effort against the terrorists seems so far to have produced so little in the way of results. I think Canadians are seriously disturbed about this.
I think we still need to know why Rose was not arrested when he was under surveillance before the Laporte murder. The Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith) says there was not enough evidence to arrest him, and I have to accept his word for that. But why was no reward offered until nearly a month after the kidnapping of Mr. Cross and nearly two weeks after the invocation of the
November 4, 1970

War Measures Act? Again, the Solicitor General says there was good reason tor not doing so. All I can say is that there had better be good reason. At the proper time the people of this country are due for a full accounting in this regard.
The bill we are now considering is not based upon an apprehended insurrection, though I dare say the government would be quite happy if everybody forgot about the apprehended insurrection. The bill is based upon the recognition that the FLQ is the kind of organization that the Minister of Justice described-and I will not take the time of the House to go over that. Some may say that the special procedures referred to by the Minister of Justice and as set forth in this bill, special procedures that are much more restrictive than those in the regulations, are not necessary and will not be effective. At the moment we do not know whether this kind of measure is effective; we have to take a certain amount on faith. Certainly we have no evidence at all that terrorism in the province of Quebec is under control, even for the moment.
Some may say that the measures adopted in the bill will not stamp out terrorism in Quebec, and I very much agree with that. However, I hope they will help to catch the people involved in these atrocities and will help catch others who are actively engaged in FLQ activities. But these provisions will constitute no remedy for terrorism, no assurance that terrorism will not continue after the bill expires on April 30 next, or earlier if the government terminates the measure earlier. I believe that is a correct statement, and as I understand it, so do the people in the province of Quebec to whom I have talked. To say that the present threat of terror in Quebec justifies measures of the sort contained in the bill, provided that they are subject to adequate review, I think is only to state the obvious. These measures are required.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I believe the powers in the initial regulations were excessive, but I say there is sufficient insecurity in Quebec today to justify something along the lines of what is proposed in this bill moved for second reading by the Minister of Justice. However, I repeat again that the bill will not, and cannot, be expected to root out further terrorism in that province. Something like the present bill is necessary because the situation was allowed to get out of hand, but certainly something more is required for a solution in the longer term-perhaps better detection, perhaps better police work, perhaps a redefinition of crimes such as sedition.
Certainly, measures are necessary which are designed to remove serious social conditions and serious causes of dissatisfaction. One way in which the government could show the good faith the Minister of Justice was talking about earlier is by trying to do something real about the unemployment anticipated in Quebec this year, which may run as high as 15 per cent. This is the way the government can show it means some of the thoughts it has been expressing through the mouth of the Minister of Justice.
Public Order Act, 1970
The point to emphasize today is that we cannot expect measures like those in this bill to be anything more than a temporary method to deal with terrorism, the threat of which is very likely to continue. When we deal with and consider this bill we cannot feel for a moment that we are solving the problem of terrorism in Quebec. We must consider what is necessary to ensure a reasonable degree of law and order in the province of Quebec in the future. Anything the government has done under the War Measures Act, or anything that may be done under this bill when it is enacted into law, will not guarantee that there will be no threat of terrorism in the future. If we are not careful, indeed we may increase that threat.
I do not support this bill because I believe it will root out all actual or incipient terrorists. I support it in principle because terrorism in Quebec is surely out of control, and to preserve the balance of security and democracy to which the Minister of Justice referred. This certainly requires a measure of this sort with some safeguards. The people of Quebec surely deserve this emphasis upon security, perhaps especially because those in authority seem to have been hardly competent in coping with terrorists to date. But a bill of this nature is not a permanent solution; it will not root out terrorists. I say that this government, this Parliament and the government of Quebec have to face that fact. There is no simple solution, but there is an old-fashioned virtue that might be helpful and the absence of which will do a lot of harm: I refer to the virtue of frankness and good faith.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I say this because it is important and it is necessary in avoiding the sort of disillusionment that can lead to radicalism and slippage into terrorism. We have not had that degree of frankness and openness from the government. The government resorted to the War Measures Act. I am quite prepared to accept the fact that the great majority of the people in Quebec do not question the rectitude of the government in invoking the War Measures Act and do not question that there was an apprehended insurrection. They do not care whether there was an apprehended insurrection; I am quite prepared to believe their main emotion was relief that the government acted. I fully accept that.
On the other hand, I say that many people, especially the young who tend to question the good faith of governments in any event, will ask questions. The claim of apprehended insurrection was a striking and dramatic move that evoked a fervour of approval in Quebec and throughout the country. But I suggest there are a great many young men and women in Canada, perhaps in Quebec especially, who question the establishment, especially after the sort of thing the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion did just before the election in Montreal. These young men and women will ask whether there was an apprehended insurrection or whether the establishment has once again put something over on them.

November 4, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
Mr. Speaker, I dare say the Prime Minister is quite entitled to believe that most Canadians accept his explanation. But that is not the main point for consideration when we are discussing this bill. This is a bill designed to deal with terrorism, and when we are talking about terrorism we are interested in trying to increase security within the rule of law. I say that the Prime Minister and the government therefore cannot be content today with the number of those who are content.
I say the government must remove the confusion and produce the evidence to clearly justify the finding it made, a finding not of terrorism, not of kidnapping, not of murder or intense insecurity but of apprehended insurrection. The government must produce that evidence. It has an obligation to the country, in the fight against terrorism, to make an honest effort to convince those who doubt, especially the young, that the government really did act with good faith and did not invent something. The government has this obligation particularly to those who might well become disillusioned and embittered toward the democratic process. Many of them readily become convinced that the establishment has perpetrated some sort of fraud, particularly, I say again, after the unfortunate intervention of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Unless there is frankness and such an attempt to convince, the government may well increase the fertility of our soil for future terroristic activity for more than this bill will reduce the likelihood of future terroristic activity. So, I support this bill on second reading. I am pleased the government has introduced the bill, but I suggest the government will not have discharged its full responsibility to Quebec and to Canada until it not only asks the people to have confidence in it but takes the people fully into its confidence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Is the right hon. Prime Minister rising to ask a question?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would ask the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) if he would answer a question that I wanted to ask him, but did not want to interrupt his speech. He stated that he would support this bill-I believe I am quoting him-because terrorism in Quebec is sufficiently out of hand to require extraordinary measures. I ask the Leader of the Opposition if, in his opinion, it was sufficiently out of hand on October 15 or thereabouts to require extraordinary measures. If his answer is in the affirmative, could he tell us what extraordinary measures he means, and

how would they have been brought about if he had the
choice?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I think there clearly was evidence involved in the kidnapping of Mr. Cross and Mr. Laporte of a need for extraordinary measures even before that. I am not aware of what intelligence the Prime Minister had prior to that time.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Let us assume I had none.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I think there is pretty good reason to believe that the government should have taken some extraordinary measures, perhaps something of the sort introduced here today, in anticipation. I do not know what information the Prime Minister or his associates had.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am sorry the Leader of the Opposition
did not understand my question. He said that today he will support this bill because today terrorism in Quebec is sufficiently out of hand. He is not doing so on the basis of rumours or of anything the government may have said; he is doing it today on the basis of his knowledge of the situation. I am asking him, on the basis of his knowledge of the situation-nothing the government might have said or believed, secretly or otherwise, on the basis of rumours, but on the basis of his information on October 15-does he think terrorism in Quebec is sufficiently out of hand to justify the introduction of this type of measure?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I certainly would.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He said that in his speech.


Donald MacInnis: It is not that the Prime Minister cannot answer the questions, but that he cannot ask them.


An hon. Member:: He should have done it two years ago.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the legislation now before us, to place on the statute books the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act, 1970, represents another chapter in a series of events that began with the kidnapping of the British diplomat James Cross on October 5, followed later by the kidnapping and obscene murder of labour minister Pierre Laporte.
At that time the members of the New Democratic Party in the House recognized the government's predicament. We gave it our support in refusing to accede to attempted blackmail by the FLQ, and we concurred in the federal government's decision to give to the provincial authorities all the help necessary to apprehend the guilty and to bring them to justice. Our quarrel with the government was when, in our opinion, they overreacted, panicked and invoked the War Measures Act and enacted public order regulations for which the government asked the approval of the House on October 16.
November 4, 1970

In his opening speech today the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) appealed to the House to forget past events and to deal with this measure, and then he spent three-quarters of his time defending the government's decision to invoke the War Measures Act and attacking those of us who had dared to vote against the government's motion presented to the House on October 16. I have no hesitation in saying that those of us who voted against that motion did so for two reasons: first, because we have not been given any evidence that there was a state of apprehended insurrection in this country and, second, because we could not approve the regulations enacted under the War Measures Act because they deprive Canadian citizens so extensively of basic civil liberties.
Let me deal briefly with those two questions. I said that we voted against the motion because we had no evidence that a state of apprehended insurrection obtained in this country. I want to say that now, more than two weeks since the war Measures Act was invoked, the government has not produced one shred of evidence, either publicly or privately, which would lead me to the conclusion that a state of apprehended insurrection existed in Canada on October 16. This is the kind of situation in which one cannot be dogmatic. It may be that when the government some day produces information which we do not now have, they may prove to be right; but as a Member of Parliament standing in my place I have no right to restrict the liberties of 21 million Canadians without adequate proof that a state of apprehended insurrection exists in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The
Minister of Justice says that we have not managed to convince anybody. I tell my friends on the government side that they have not been able to convince their party. I wonder if they have read the statements of Professor Pauline Jewett, a former Liberal member of this House. I wonder if they have read the statements of Hon. Judy LaMarsh, a former member of the Liberal cabinet.


An hon. Member:: Who is she?


An hon. Member:: Rumours, rumours!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I
wonder if they have read the statements of the Canadian Civil Liberties Union which has stood for years in this country as defenders of civil liberties. I wonder if hon. gentlemen opposite even take the trouble to read the daily press-


An hon. Member:: We even listen to you.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -and
particularly to read the press which normally supports the Liberal Party. I wonder if they read the Toronto Daily Star, the Ottawa Citizen and the other papers across this country which normally support the Liberal Party but which have been extremely critical of two things: first, the government's refusal to give any infor-
Public Order Act, 1970
mation to the people of Canada which would substantiate their conclusion that there was a state of apprehended insurrection and, second, the severity of the regulations which they passed under the War Measures Act.
When the government introduced this motion asking the House to approve the invocation of the War Measures Act, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) hinted darkly that the government possessed information which they could not give us at the time but which, when disclosed, would justify their action. Later, on October 21, I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) if we could have some of this information either publicly or, if it could not be given publicly at the moment, privately. The Prime Minister said the country has all the information there is. This, of course, seemed to contradict the statements of the Minister of Justice, and being an obedient servant the Minister of Justice told the House today that the country has all the information, that the House knows that there were kidnappings and a foul murder and that there was an anticipation of civil disorder. But that is not what the minister said to the House on October 16.


An hon. Member:: You are a real doubting Thomas.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What he said appears at page 215 of Hansard. The Minister of Justice said:
It is my hope that some day the full details of the intelligence upon which the government acted can be made public, because until that day comes the people of Canada will not be able fully to appraise the course of action which has been taken by the government.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Where is this information which is some day going to be made known and which will fully justify and vindicate the government's action?


An hon. Member:: Stanbury has it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We certainly do not have it. The people of Canada do not have it. All that the minister tells the House now is only, of course, what is common knowledge. There were these tragic kidnappings, and murders.


An hon. Member:: And bombings.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: And
some bombings, not only going on for the last few weeks but for the last few months. All of these were situations that could have been dealt with under the Criminal Code of Canada. If the government required more extensive powers under the Criminal Code, it could have come to this Parliament, which is the proper place to come, for the necessary powers to deal with the situation which it felt it could not deal with under the existing criminal law of Canada. The minister is only coming to do now what he should have done weeks ago or months ago, if

November 4, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
the situation is such as he has described to the House today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Government members are still struggling vainly to find some answers for the press who almost daily have been asking the government, "Where is the evidence of this apprehended insurrection?" The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion tried to help out. He went on a Vancouver radio program. He had told the House that there were between 1,000 and 3,000 supporters of the FLQ who had worked their way into vital posts in Quebec, and that the FLQ possesses thousands of machine guns, rifles and bombs. Yet, Mr. Speaker, after nearly three weeks and having all the powers under the War Measures Act, so far as we know they have not found any cache of arms. They have arrested only 424 persons, of whom 359 have been released.
If the government knew there were these thousands of guns, bombs and machine guns, if they knew there were
1,000	to 3,000 FLQ people in high posts, they must have known who they were and where they were. But what has happened? Was the minister simply drawing on his imagination? Are the forces of law enforcement in this country so incompetent that they have not been able to apprehend any of the people referred to by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion?
Then the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion went one further. In order to explain this unusual procedure of invoking the War Measures Act for the first time in Canada's history in peacetime, he said this was done to prevent bloodshed on the eve of the Montreal municipal elections, and he linked the FRAP municipal political organization with the FLQ. Not to be outdone, the mayor of Montreal next day described FRAP as being a haven for terrorists, criminals and revolutionaries. Mr. Speaker, this is Canadian McCarthyism. This is guilt by association. All Canadians abhor the things which have been done by the FLQ, and so a minister of the Crown and the mayor of Canada's largest city immediately smear some political opponents by linking them in the public mind with the FLQ.


Mr. Pepin:: Some of them linked themselves.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This is the worst kind of McCarthyism. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) had another alibi. He said that the reason for invoking the War Measures Act was that there were several stages to revolutions in other countries and that in Canada the final stage of a planned revolutionary timetable was about to begin. Revolution was about to break out in this country; the fourth and final stage was at hand. I ask, where are these revolutionaries? The combined police forces of Canada, of the province of Quebec and of the city of Montreal have been at work now for almost three weeks. Where are these revolutionaries? The Minister of Justice tells us today that out of 424 people who have been detained, 65 are still being held. If these 65 can start the revolution,

they must be supermen or the government is trying to mislead the House and the people of this country.
Then, of course, in desperation the government found the final explanation for their unprecedented action, a plot for a coup d'etat in Quebec. They said there was a plot to set up a provisional government in the province of Quebec. When I asked the Prime Minister about this, he said these were rumours started by the opposition and the press. But, Mr. Speaker, members of the press on television the night before last said they were told these stories by people very high up in the government. I asked if we could have an invest!gat:on to see who was telling the truth, but the Prime Minister did not seem to take kindly to that suggestion.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) has already quoted from the speech made in Toronto by the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn), a supporter of the government. He is not in the opposition; he is not in the press gallery. I will not quote all of it because the Leader of the Opposition already quoted it, but I quote the last paragraph of what the hon. member said:
As we now know, there was some evidence of a parallel government waiting in the wings, including members of elite groups such as the Estates-General.
Surely the government has a responsibility to produce such evidence. There is a hint of treason here. If the government knows those in Quebec who were planning unconstitutionally and illegitimately to take over the government of Quebec, it has a duty and a responsibility to apprehend them, bring them before the courts and charge them with treason. But if the discussions were about the possibility of forming a coalition government to meet a crisis, surely this is within the purview of the members of the National Assembly of Quebec. Are we to take it that the federal government invoked the War Measures Act in order to make sure that only a Liberal government continued to rule in the province of Quebec? If so, that represents a major intervention in the political affairs of a province.


Jean-Luc Pepin: You will be quoted on that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We
have been trying for nearly three weeks to get the government to give us some evidence of the apprehended insurrection. We shall continue to try to get that evidence. I think the fact that the government has dropped any reference to a state of apprehended insurrection in this legislation is proof positive that it is not prepared to substantiate its contention of October 16.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I think they have found that the Canadian people cannot be fooled about this.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: They have found that the newspapers cannot be fooled.
November 4, 1970


An hon. Member:: You have been trying to do that for 30 years.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This government should either put up or shut up. On the question of apprehended insurrection the government apparently has decided to shut up. I suggest that the government has failed to demonstrate that kidnappers and terrorists could not be dealt with under the wide powers now contained in the Criminal Code. Perhaps the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion can explain why the government did not consider the criminal law adequate. On the program to which I referred a few moments ago he said:
It is not the individual action we are worried about now. It's this vast organization supported by bona fide organizations who are supporting, indirectly at least, the FLQ.
That is a serious statement, Mr. Speaker, and one which gives rise to many questions. Has the War Measures Act been used to settle political scores and to intimidate groups like the CNTU and the Quebec Federation of Labour? I think it is significant that to date most of those detained seem to be members of either FRAP or the Parti Quebegois. Although I disagree with the separatists, it is not a crime to be one as long as they do not seek to use violence and unconstitutional means to advance their objectives.
The fact that the government felt it necessary to invoke the War Measures Act rather than come to Parliament and ask for any additional powers needed under the Criminal Code leads one to feel, from the statement made by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, that the motive is a much more serious one than we had appreciated on October 16. The second reason for our opposing the motion on October 16, Mr. Speaker, was that we considered the regulations enacted under the War Measures Act deprived Canadians of some of their most cherished, basic human rights. This afternoon the Minister of Justice said I had spoken frequently about the potential of the War Measures Act. Wherever I have discussed this matter I have spoken exclusively of the regulations which the government had passed under that act. In my opinion they are horrendous regulations, taking wide and sweeping powers.
As the persons who have been released get an opportunity to tell their story, I think it will become increasingly apparent that this wide net which the government spread under its regulations gathered in a great many more innoncent people than guilty people. We in the New Democratic Party recognize the need for prompt and energetic steps to stamp out terrorism, but we have insisted from the beginning that in the process of stamping out terrorism we must not abridge the freedoms that our people and our forefathers have won for us over the years.
One of the things that concerned us when the government brought in these regulations was the fact that while the government drafted them, the administration of them would be in the hands of the provincial Attorneys General and local police officers. What has been the result? The result is that day after day the Minister of Justice
Public Order Act, 1970
stated in answer to questions that this matter is under the jurisdiction of the Attorney General of the province of Quebec. When we asked whether the detainees were being held incommunicado, whether their families will be notified, whether they will be given the right of counsel, he said that he would be glad to take up this matter with the Attorney General of the province of Quebec.
I say to the Minister of Justice, through you, Mr. Speaker, "You cannot wash your hands of this responsibility. You drafted these regulations and you must accept responsibility if they were so all-embracing that they allowed those administering them to violate basic freedoms of the Canadian people."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We
need to know, and we are going to find out, how many persons were wrongfully arrested and detained. Will there be any compensation for those who have lost time from their employment? How many have lost their jobs as a result of being arrested? How many were held for days and then questioned for only a few minutes? How many were held incommunicado throughout the entire period of their detention?
The minister told us today that none of the 65 still detained have been charged. When we asked how many will be charged, the minister said he did not know because any charges will be laid by the Attorney General of the province of Quebec. This government has nothing to do with that. That is why it is such a serious matter for a government to pass regulations of a sweeping restrictive nature such as those now in effect, when the administration is in the hands of those over whom the government has absolutely no control. That is why the New Democratic Party opposed the sweeping powers contained in these regulations.


An hon. Member:: Some of them opposed.


An hon. Member:: Not all of them.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I
say to my friends in the backbench of the Liberal party that they may not understand but our members are allowed to vote according to conscience.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We do
not have a regiment of trained seals who just get up when the Prime Minister does. This is something that my friends across the way may find difficult to understand.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Quiet, seals.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We
recognize the need for the government to deal with this

November 4, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
serious crisis but, as I have already said, we believe it could have been handled under the Criminal Code. We believe that Parliament would readily have extended the powers of the Criminal Code to deal with the emergency. When the government failed to do so, we pleaded with them to bring down specific legislation and, as members know, on October 17 the Prime Minister wrote to party leaders with two suggestions: first, that the government was considering a new statute that could be used in the future if civil disturbances or an apprehended insurrection were in prospect and, second, proposed legislation which would deal with the present specific situation arising out of the terrorist activities of the FLQ.
I agree with the Prime Minister's decision that the proposal of permanent legislation ought to be left until the excitement has abated so that such legislation may go to the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee. At that stage, all kinds of organizations should have an opportunity to present their views. When that legislation is put on the statute books of Canada it will be permanent legislation which can be invoked at any time, so it ought to be carefully considered.
On October 22, in reference to this bill I had delivered to the Prime Minister's office a letter setting forth our views on what we thought ought to be contained in permanent legislation. It also set forth our idea of the protection of civil liberties that ought to be incorporated in any emergency legislation to deal with the present situation.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
In view of statements that have been made by the Minister of Justice on television and elsewhere, that there have been consultations with authorities across Canada and with parties in the House, I want to make it clear that the only consultation that has taken place-if it can be called a consultation-is the letter which I sent to the Prime Minister's office. We have not been consulted with respect to the legislation that is now before us. I am not saying that we should have been; I am simply making it clear that we were not consulted, to prevent any misunderstandings which might arise out of the statements made by the Minister of Justice.
I now wish to say something about the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act, 1970. It represents a very considerable improvement over the War Measures Act regulations. In the first place, it is much more precise; it limits the powers contained in the legislation to the FLQ, to any successor of the FLQ or to any organization which advocates or promotes the means adopted by the FLQ. It is an improvement in that it reduces the length of detention before a charge can be laid from 21 days to seven days.
I think the greatest improvement, however, is that it brings within the ambit of the legislation section 2 (a) to 2(g) the Bill of Rights, with two minor provisos. This means that it guarantees the right to counsel, that it guarantees a fair hearing and that evidence secured by coercion in the period during which a person is detained cannot be used as evidence against him. It preserves the right of habeas corpus. All this is important. But what I

wish to say to the minister is that the improvements which he is introducing now could have been in the regulations which were enacted under the War Measures Act on October 16. The fact that he has had to change these regulations when bringing down this bill is proof positive that we were right when we said the regulations under the War Measures Act were too sweeping, too restrictive and abridged too many of the basic freedoms of the Canadian people.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member is aware that as the regulations were and are drawn, the Canadian Bill of Rights is not excluded, except in the way I mentioned, and that this bill merely clarifies that situation. It is quite clear that the right to counsel and other rights were always maintained. I have said this in the House.


David Orlikow: Tell that to the people who are in jail.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Then the law was broken.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If those rights were retained, the minister ought to tell that to the Attorney General of Quebec, who said at a press conference that persons to be detained were to be held incommunicado. Surely, that was a violation of the Bill of Rights.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Why were injunctions needed when some persons wanted counsel?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If the
minister is correct and the Bill of Rights was in force even under the War Measures Act, the Attorney General could not have held people beyond 24 hours. Nevertheless, he has been holding them for about 21 days. Surely, the minister is not now telling us that the Bill of Rights continued to be operative despite the regulations under the War Measures Act? Certainly, if he does tell us that, he took no steps at all to make sure the provisions of the Bill of Rights were fully recognized and lived up to.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Don't blame the Attorney General of Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We
approve the changes which the government has effected, Mr. Speaker. We say this bill is an improvement over the War Measures Act regulations. Yet the bill is still an arbitrary and repressive measure and we view it with some misgivings. It still allows for 90 days of detention before the trial date has to be set. Bail can be denied if the Attorney General of the province decides to intervene.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Not for Hal Banks.
November 4, 1970


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: One of
the worst features of the bill is the retroactive provision that makes a person liable for punishment by reason of his membership in an unlawful organization even when that organization was not unlawful. This means that a young man who five years ago attended meetings of the FLQ but who has had no association with them since can, under clause 8, be arrested-and the onus would be on him to prove that he was not a member of the FLQ. He may be liable for five years imprisonment.
This retroactive feature I submit, Mr. Speaker, is in complete contravention of the declaration of human rights passed by the United Nations, a declaration to which Canada is a signatory. In article 11 of that Declaration of Human Rights, clause 2 says that no one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, in view of the editorial comments which have been made in newspapers right across Canada, that the minister would be well advised to re-examine this retroactive feature in the legislation. I can assure the minister that if he does not, we in this party will bring in amendments to give the House an opportunity to express itself on that question.
The legislation still retains the reverse onus which requires a person to prove, under certain circumstances, that he was not a member of an organization. That is in violation of the customary legal provision that everyone is considered innocent until proven guilty. This legislation-let us face it-provides for detention without charge, custody without bail and search without warrant. These are serious abridgements of civil liberties. We have asked repeatedly in this party, as have other members, that there be some provision for a commission of nongovernmental people who would have the right to see those detained, make sure that their rights were being safeguarded, that they were obtaining the services of legal counsel and that they were not being ill treated or subject to coercion or duress.
I think we have to question whether such restrictive legislation is required in a situation which the government itself contends no longer constitutes an insurrection. I think Parliament should grant the police the powers necessary to apprehend terrorists and kidnappers, but I do not think the government has shown us that it needs powers as wide and as repressive as those which are contained in this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, we recognize the need for legislation to deal with the situation arising out of the terrorist activities of the FLQ. We are prepared to vote for second reading of this bill, for three reasons. First, it is the only way to revoke the War Measures Act. After all, we are not faced with the choice of this legislation or no legislation; we are faced with the choice of this legislation or continuing under the War Measures Act and the regulations enacted thereunder.
Second, although this legislation still contains some features to which we object strongly, it certainly is an improvement over the regulations under which we now
Public Order Act, 1970
operate. Third, we are prepared to vote in favour of this bill on second reading so that it can be dealt with in Committee of the Whole. We hope at that time the government will be prepared to accept amendments that will modify some of the more arbitrary and restrictive provisions of the bill.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I appeal to the Minister of Justice not to take an adamant position. Bearing in mind the comments that have been made by reputable writers across Canada, the law faculty of Osgoode Hall and by civil liberties organizations, I hope the minister will be prepared in Committee of the Whole to at least look sympathetically at any amendments which may be presented. In our opinion this measure should be of short duration. It will not do anything to resolve the basic problem which is posed by the existence of the FLQ. The sooner this kind of legislation is revoked, the better for Canada and for relations between the people of Quebec and the rest of Canada. Canadians have an uncomfortable feeling that these powers have been abused.
The Prime Minister said "repressive measures can be a dangerous trap". I fear that the government has fallen into that trap by lumping the FLQ, FRAP and separatists in the public mind. These groups may well have been lumped together in their own minds. How many young separatists who believed that separatism could be brought about peaceably now agree with the FLQ? How many members of FRAP who sought the Prime Minister's invitation to indulge in participatory democracy in Montreal are now disillusioned and convinced that the democratic process will not be allowed to operate? I think that the late Maurice Duplessis, the father of the padlock law, would laugh if he could see his former critic producing the legislation which is now before this House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that the hon. member be permitted to conclude his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I thank the House for its indulgence. I will take just another few minutes. I believe that extra powers are necessary to ensure public security, but neither police nor troops are the final answer. Terrorist groups like the FLQ cannot flourish in societies where social justice and economic equity hold sway. Revolutionaries flourish where unemployment, social discontent and poverty degrade human life to the point of desperation.
There is an old saying: You can do anything with a bayonet but sit on it. The answer to the problem of the FLQ lies in prompt and effective measures to remove the frustration and sense of hopelessness that holds the alienated and disadvantaged in their grip. The test this winter will be what the government does about unem-

November 4, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
ployment. If the government sits on its complacent assumption that all is well, then I believe that more police and more stringent laws will do little to prevent the spread of revolutionary movements.
This bill is designed to safeguard public order, but public order cannot be protected by force alone. The nation most secure is the one whose citizens are enabled to live useful and meaningful lives and to enjoy the benefits of their collective endeavours.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This government and Parliament have the responsibility to deal with the causes of social discontent. The government must not content itself merely by passing repressive measures to restrain those who resort to unlawful means to express their frustration. To date there has been no indication that this government is going to remove the causes of social malaise which are prevalent in the country. Unless it does, we shall have more crises than we now have. They will become prevalent, not just in Quebec but in other parts of Canada.
[DOT] (5:10p.m.)


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great attention to the explanations of the hon. minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) regarding Bill C-181 which gives the government temporary emergency powers for maintaining public order in Canada.
I have also listened carefully to the comments of the hon. leader of the official opposition (Mr. Stanfield) as well as to those of the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Douglas). The three hon. members, without exception spoke about the need to protect order in Canada, to prevent a repetition of actions such as those we have been witnessing for three weeks. The three of them concluded their speech in the same way.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) spoke for 46 minutes and 30 seconds, of the merits of the legislation and for 1 minute and 30 seconds, towards the end of his speech, he told us about the need for economic and social reforms so as to prevent a repetition of what is happening now. The Leader of the Official Opposition said the same thing as well as the leader of the New Democratic Party.
Therefore, let us begin at the beginning. Let us establish the necessary economic and social reforms and then let us pass laws to protect public order. When there is no security and no liberty within the social order, the political order or the economic order, how can we protect the public welfare and order?
And, Mr. Speaker, I do not agree at all with the point of view of the NDP's leader, who just said: It is because there are poor people that we have to face the present situation. Let us look at the ones we are looking for today: Is Paul Rose a poor man? No, he is a professor

who taught in Montreal and in Hull, a well-educated man rebelling against any established order.
Whether the country is governed by a Creditiste government, a tory government, an NDP government or the present Liberal government, there will aways be unruly people like Rose, Chartrand, Vallieres, Gagnon, Lemieux and company. We must protect ourselves from such people. They are not destitute people, Mr. Speaker, but scoundrels, which is different. Only this does not prevent us from realizing that social ills exist.
A while ago, I saw government members from Quebec applauding the minister. It is all very well to applaud a statement to the effect that we need social and economic reforms, but they should also be implemented. For thirty years now, I have been clamouring high and low in the province of Quebec: The present system will be reformed by people of order, or else it will be destroyed by the others.
When I said that, 30 years ago, I was laughed at. To some I even sounded revolutionary. But today the revolution is with us. The ministers must be accompanied by soldiers to move about in Canada and in Quebec. Even the leader of the Ralliement creditiste has soldiers at his door, and that, in the province of Quebec!
Mr. Speaker, that is fine, but let the reforms be introduced! What reforms are needed in the province of Quebec where there are over 200,000 unemployed and over 100,000 families on social welfare, living off allowances of $125, $130, $140, or $150 a month? This year, some 300,000 students asked permission to earn a living, in their own country, but they could not find jobs. Employment was found for 300,000 of them but not for the 300,000 others; if those young people cannot find a place in Canadian society, what will they do? They will revolt. They will hitch-hike, drop in at the "Maison du Pecheur" in Gaspe where they will meet Mr. Paul Rose, Mr. Vallieres or Mr. Gagnon who will tell them: Get your bombs ready, get this or that ready, and go ahead.
Mr. Speaker, we deeply regret the kidnapping of Mr. Cross and the vicious murder of Pierre Laporte. However, I will say one thing: if last year, the government had acted when Mr. Lucien Saulnier disclosed to them not rumors, but facts which were taking place in Quebec, Mr. Laporte would still be alive today.
But no, they waited. They waited until there had been six deaths, bombs, assassinations. Indeed, until there had been violent demonstrations and, finally, they said: This time, the government of the province has asked us to act. One year ago, the federal government could have suggested to the province of Quebec and the city of Montreal to ask for assistance. In fact, the Montreal municipal authorities got help from the armed forces at the time of the policemen's strike.
You cannot forever refuse to assume your responsibilities. It has been a month since all the police forces of Canada have been put into action, and nothing has yet been found. They do not know who kidnapped Mr. Cross or who murdered Mr. Laporte. What is happening?

November 4, 1970
A Toronto Star newspaperman found Gerda Munsinger in Austria when all the police forces of Canada could not find her. That newspaperman had met Mrs. Munsinger. Would it not be a good idea to use that newspaperman to find those who have kidnapped Mr. Cross and who have murdered Pierre Laporte? The same newspaperman spent an evening on Hal Banks' boat in New York, but we could not find him when he was here. Indeed, we have a well organized judicial system! Not much is being found, and some say that to improve society, we must dry up the sources from which dissatisfaction springs.
Mr. Speaker, I voted wholeheartedly for the application of the War Measures Act. I do not regret it, for if I had to do it over again, I would do exactly the same thing. When the Prime Minister asked us leave to introduce his motion to revive the War Measures Act, I agreed 100 per cent and I do not withdraw my agreement. However, following some research, I think that we could well have had recourse to the Criminal Code.
Section 4 of the bill now before the House reads as follows:
A person who
(a) is or professes to be a member of the unlawful associationis guilty of an indictable offence-
Mr. Speaker, there are five or six paragraphs in that respect.
No provision refers to vicious murders such as that committed against the person of Pierre Laporte. Which punishment shall we impose to the offenders: life imprisonment or 20 years? Bill C-181 does not mention it. I believe that we should impose capital punishment in such circumstances.
We do support the bill, although we do not agree with all its provisions. This does not mean that we are proud of this government, since it waited until two political personalities had been kidnapped and held by revolutionary elements before doing something. Also it was very slow to act.
Mr. Pierre Laporte, Quebec Labour Minister and House Leader in the Bourassa government, has been viciously murdered by FLQ revolutionaries. Revolution in Quebec did not start yesterday. The revolutionaries have been known to the police forces for several years. They have proof of the existence of revolutionary movements since at least 1963.
It was the time of Pierre Bourgault and company and the time of the RIN. Violence also existed. When we talk of revolutionaries and revolution, we are not starting on a witch hunt as maintained by some people. This is no McCarthyism as said this afternoon by the NDP leader an expression which originated in the United States and which is abundantly used here by NDP members.
0 (5:20 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, I heard those people say that the War Measures Act deprived us completely of our liberties. I
Public Order Act, 1970
do not think any member, not even of the New Democratic Party, has been arrested, questioned or has felt his rights or liberties have been denied since the implementation of the measures.
Although Montreal has been held up as an example because of the last municipal election, I say that it is the first time in years that the people have felt secure enough to go and vote for the candidate of their choice.
Was any FRAP supporter molested or prevented from voting? They all went. However, Montrealers said no to the FLQ, to those of their kind, to those whom they have reason to doubt. That is what the people of Montreal did. Those in favour of FRAP, voted for it. If not any more voted for FRAP, it is because they did not hit it off. It is as simple as that. Fifty-two per cent of the people voted, more than ever before in the past 30 years. People felt secure. Not one voter was molested by any soldier, member of the RCMP or the provincial police. No telegraph. Usually, in peace time, when people enjoy freedom, baseball bats are used to keep voters away.
Nobody mentions that. No. They talk about the security of the people to vote. They claim it is a denial of individual freedom. How sensible! It is enlightening sometimes to hear people argue! They sound like an empty drum. And then, they wonder: How is it that people don't understand? It's simple.
In Montreal people who understood have shown it. They had the courage to stand up and get going. I do not very much appreciate the attitude of the 48 per cent who stayed home quietly and who will then say: Well, democracy is going to the devil. Of these 48 per cent some could not go to the poll, they had valid reasons for abstaining, but there are also cowards and others easily frightened who sit in their easy chairs at home because they do not have the courage to express their opinions. But 52 per cent of the voters-which was nevertheless a 30-year record in the history of Montreal-exercised their voting right giving a pat answer to agitators.
The revolutionaries have been publishing manuals since 1963, they publicly incite people to revolt and distribute literature expounding their revolutionary strategy. Everybody knows that.
During the last provincial election, I read a newspaper published by the students of the Limoilou CEGEP, in which they blamed the students of the Sainte-Foy CEGEP for not following in their footsteps. They did not mince their words.
Under the present legislation, those people could be arrested, because there was nothing to prevent it. Besides, the Prime Minister himself admitted it the other day, when he said that two phases of the FLQ revolution had been carried out and that some action was now needed to prevent the third phase, the one now in progress, from turning out to the advantage of the revolutionaries.
The first phase was aimed at stirring up social agitation. Social agitators first attempted to capitalize on the
896

November 4, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
distress of the unemployed. It is always in the name of the workers, the poor and the destitute that such people operate. They always emphasize the labour power. It does exist throughout the world. In Cuba, it is in the name of the labour power that Castro made the revolution. Just go and see if the worker lives much better down there.
I went to Russia, where six million workers live in fear of the police. So much for the labour power! It is applied and controlled by those who stir up the workers, and then they are shamelessly exploited.
In Moscow, which has six million inhabitants, there are not as many cars as in Rouyn-Noranda. It is true, however, that there are no finance companies in Moscow. But the people in Moscow do a lot of walking, believe me. I saw it for myself.
Mr. Speaker, there are people who would want to enforce that system in Canada, people like Michel Char-trand, Marcel Pepin and Laberge. The other day, I heard Messrs. Pepin, Laberge, Charbonneau and Claude Ryan- the wax figure from he Devoir-speak against violence and say they are afraid of violence.
During 1970 there has been a strike in the building industry in the province of Quebec. At a certain time, Montreal bandits were paid to come in my area, Rouyn-Noranda, Val-d'Or, Malartic, to cause trouble among workers, ordering them to stop working on the construction site or else they would be murdered! They were people from the CNTU and the QFL: Laberge and Pepin! Have you heard them speak against violence? That is why I said in Quebec and I repeat in the House that Pepin, Laberge and Charbonneau are hypocrites, people who take advantage of the workers in Quebec and in Canada.
Socialists, Communists, whatever they are, they lie to the workers. They are the ones who at a certain time met with Mr. Ryan to see whether it would not be the right time to set up a provisional government. They can't get themselves elected through a democratic poll, so they hold little in camera meetings where they say: "Should Mr. Bourassa not be able to hold out, don't you think it would be well for us to form a government. Rene Levesque, just like the others, hurriedly disavowed the FLQ as soon as things got out of hand in the province. There's one thing for sure: on April 29 last, all the FLQ members in Quebec voted for Rene Levesque's party and worked for it.
Mr. Speaker, we know those social agitators. They were the "animators" of the Company of Young Canadians. Those fanatics even came into my region, and not only in one area. What did they sow? Hatred! Well paid by Ottawa-we were footing the bills-they sponsored telecasts at Rouyn-Noranda entitled "Le bloc". It will blocks, because they are there yet. I believe they still get money from the federal government, not in the name of the Company of Young Canadians but under some such scheme. Again this year taxpayers are forced to give two million dollars to subsidize programs such as that where people try to arouse workers against the more affluent, the "bourgeoisie" as they are called. Even people from the New Democratic Party call that bourgeoisie. A small
shopkeeper at the corner of the street can make from $10,000 to $12,000 a year. One says: "This is a little bourgeois; let us crush him!" But if the member for York South (Mr. Lewis) earns $75,000 a year, that is fair enough, he is not a bourgeois. But the small wage earner who gets $10,000 or $12,000 a year is a bourgeois who must be crushed.
Others earn more than $10,000 or $12,000 a year within the New Democratic Party. People rise against the petits bourgeois, against the capitalists, saying they must all be downgraded so that poverty can be everywhere and the poor be given power to administer poverty in the country.
Mr. Speaker, the despair of young people unable to find adequate employment today is a ground for their upsurge, as everybody acknowledges it. They become members of organizations that will take extreme ways to change the present system.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
This first stage, which began in 1963 with the explosion of FLQ bombs, continued with bloody manifestations organized by the Front de liberation du Quebec, by the Front d'action populaire and by the Mouvement pour l'integration scolaire, headed by Mr. Lemieux, in Montreal. These groups specialized in propaganda, agitation, the ideological indoctrination of militants, and the creation of cells, citizens' committees, workers' committees, committees against the war in Viet Nam, committees for strike action, and underground and armed FLQ cells.
The government could not help knowing about what was going on. The Canadian government can not pretend it was not aware of this situation. During the famous Montreal police strike, the newspaper Le Devoir of October 14, under the heading "Police continues raids and search", said this:
Messrs. Paul Rose-
-that is the one who is being sought now-
-and Jacques Beaulne, who set up La Maison de Pecheur, stated that their organization was in the process of setting up several such houses in various places in Quebec so as to continue their Perce experiment and that on Sunday-
-that is, the following Sunday-
-eight organizers from different areas of the province had met to talk about the future houses. These eight organizers have been arrested, said M. Rose, and we have not heard from them since.
We could say the same thing about what happened this year. The first messages received from the FLQ were typewritten. Have you noticed that since the first FLQ leaders or suspects have been arrested, typewritten messages have given way to handwritten notes? That means that those who used a typewriter were arrested and are now in jail. Those who can not type write by hand.
The same Paul Rose who talked to reporters of the newspaper Le Devoir is actively being sought by the police forces of Canada in connection with the killing of Pierre Laporte. As for the eight directors of the Maison du Pecheur, they were undoubtedly leaders or founders of FLQ cells throughout the province of Quebec.

November 4, 1970

Moreover, the chairman of the Excutive Committee of the City of Montreal, Mr. Saulnier, made pathetic appeals to the central government last year, urging that it stopped financing the FLQ through the Company of Young Canadians. Here is what Mr. Saulnier had to say on October 11, as recorded on page 124 of the proceedings of the Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, dated 27 November 1969. What are the avowed aims of the organization, of the Company of Young Canadians and the FLQ? I quote:
1.	To agitate and organize marches in the educational institutions which bring forth-
-no desire in young people to study, no, but to skip classes.
-the interruption of academic pursuit:
Once the pupils have been delayed, let us stir them up so that teachers and the educational system will take the blame! Well thought.
2.	To publish and distribute the names, addresses and phone numbers of industrial workers, thereby identifying them as targets;
A worker was told: Old boy, if you don't follow us, look out for your eight or nine year old kid; he may be kidnapped. Constant threats and intimidation. And those facts were well known in 1969!
3.	To infiltrate situations which can develop into major conflicts;
-Stir up conflicts, hate, pit people against one another! If someone owns something and another has a little more, pit the former against the latter.
4.	To promote social and political strife by teaching the methods of defining inaccessible demands with the admitted purpose of shaking the present social system from its roots;
5.	To promote methods of action, and I quote, "which quickly bring about a revolutionary showdown";
6.	To encourage the occupation of plants during strikes, in order to create "confrontations"-
by workers. We witnessed this last summer, during the construction strike. Workers fought against one another. Some were called "scabs" because they did not want a strike. Pepin, Laberge and others are ths ones who say: "Respect the minority. Respect us, we are the minority." And how do they deal with the minority of employees who do not want to strike? Sometimes it is the majority who do not want to strike. They force a strike however with a majority obtained by working up union members. Pepin and Laberge know the trick. These people accuse me on television. They accuse me because I tell them in the face what their workers are afraid to tell them. These workers think exactly as I do and the union leaders know it.
When a strike is called, people who usually work together start fighting each other. One group wants to strike and the other does not. In the meantime, the
Public Order Act, 1970
leaders keep drawing their pay. They say: This is democracy, we have to protect our union rights. Then the rank and file are punished in the name of the union movement because they did not want to strike. Neither big Pepin nor Laberge actually suffer from a strike. It is the workers who must bear for months the consequences of a costly strike.
I continue with Mr. Saulnier's statement:
7.	To distribute written information on Communist action in other countries.
After all that I was not surprised by the proclamation of the War Measures Act. Among I do not know how many hundreds of letters I received there were two letters of protest one of which bore the signature of the Communist party of Toronto whereas the other one was signed by the labour leaders Laberge and Pepin from Montreal. Two others were unsigned: one from Montreal and one from Quebec, which makes altogether four protests.
However, I received letters of congratulations from everywhere. I even received letters which I could show to my hon. friend, the leader of the New Democratic party. One of them came from a former member of his party who ran three times as an NDP candidate in British Columbia. He has just sent back his membership card because the leader of the NDP would not take a stand to maintain law and order in the province of Quebec. He says it bluntly in his letter. Moreover, the leader of the NDP has certainly received this letter and also the membership card!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: Last year, Mr. Saulnier called for a royal investigation in this respect so he would be able to state all the facts and provide names. He was denied this opportunity. I directed questions to the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) and to the Prime Minister but both replied that they could see no reason for it. A parliamentary committee was set up which established beyond all doubt the existence of seditious and subversive activities and of a terrorist movement operating in the province of Quebec. There was no reaction on the government's part. They waited until the terrorists had abducted Mr. Cross and murdered Pierre Laporte before introducing appropriate legislation.
Mr. Speaker, the government obviously could very well have invoked Section 46 of the Criminal Code to deal with the terrorists.
Let us see now what punishment is provided under the Criminal Code for acts of treason. Paragraph (b), subsection 1, Section 44 of the Criminal Code reads as follows:
47. (1) everyone who commits treason is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable-
(b) to be sentenced to death or to imprisonment for life if he is guilty of an offence under paragraph (d) -

November 4, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970 -that is if he-
- (d) uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province;
So, it was the Criminal Code that was in question and not some provincial legislation, if Ottawa could take a stand without consulting anyone.
That is why we do not understand why the federal government has not invoked the sections of the Criminal Code concerning treason to carry out its fight against FLQ terrorists. It was treason since they resorted to violence to overthrow the government and destroy the established order.
The FLQ manifesto said among other things:
The Front de Liberation du Quebec wants the total independence of Quebecers.
Further on, the FLQ appealed to the workers asking them to revolt, to take over plants, machines, schools and universities. Here is what the manifesto said and I quote: "Workers in production, in mines, in the forests; workers in services; teachers and students; take what belongs to you-
It seems to me it was obvious enough:
Workers of Quebec, start from today to take what belongs to you.
That is what the members of the FLQ are shouting. But instead of trying to destroy what belongs to others, why have they not tried to start building something themselves? They were too lazy to build anything. They are only interested in destroying what others build, what others have built. That was known, it is included in their manifesto. And I quote the FLQ:
Make your own revolution in your districts, at your places of work-
Revolt, club, kill! That was known, Mr. Speaker. But did the provisions of section 47 not enable us to arrest those people? This is what the manifesto said:
-an appeal to overthrow governments, to destroy the established order, an appeal to set up a revolutionary government in Quebec.
The government of Canada should have acted swiftly and used the powers granted by Section 46 of the Criminal Code.
We feel, Mr. Speaker, that the government had the necessary means to meet the emergency that prevailed in Montreal.
We recall previous situations when the terrorists, in October 1969, launched attacks in various places in the city of Montreal, and especially used violence against private property and the Murray Hill drivers, when a man lost his life.
More recently still, there was the Lapalme affair in Montreal. Who stirred up the Lapalme workers, who prevented them from reaching an agreement with the
Postmaster General here, in Ottawa, when they were offered more security than they had ever had before? As I said not long ago in the House, Lapalme Inc. is unwilling to renew its contract. However its employees are losing their jobs. The union leaders tell the government: You should hire them. If I were to close my garage tomorrow morning, the union leader of my employees would say: Listen, Caouette has closed his garage, Ottawa is going to hire you! People would say that is ridiculous! In the circumstances, I feel that the government was quite generous when it offered all Lapalme employees a job in the civil service. They would have enjoyed greater security. But no! They would rather be driven to rebellion against the postal administration, the minister, G. Lapalme Inc. to the point of destroying postal trucks, beating truck drivers, breaking windows, slashing tires and destroying public property.
Did you hear Michel Chartrand, Pepin or Laberge protest against violence? No! Instead of advising the employees to join the public service-this would have been normal-they again used hatred to save face. But it did not help the workers, in fact they are still looking for jobs. Are those people defending our country? I doubt it.
The government had the necessary means to deal with the emergency situation in Montreal. Speaking of Murray Hill and Lapalme drivers, it was at the request of Montreal and Quebec authorities last year that our armed forces intervened and got the situation back to normal. This year, the armed forces were called in to deal with the situation. They were not told to go everywhere. No scandal arose because 400 out of six million people in Quebec have been questioned and detained. Not even 100 of them are still in jail. Some will be charged by the end of this week. They cannot all be charged at the same time. However, all of them have been questioned. We find unfortunate that it takes so long. We know that innocent people have been arrested. Quite so. But did anyone think that when Pierre Laporte was kidnapped he too was innocent? He had done no harm and he was viciously murdered. Mr. Speaker, Pierre Laporte did not ask to be killed!
Why then weep for those who are questioned? I do not like to see innocent people being arrested. No! But let us remember Mrs. Laporte and her children. Did anyone ask them permission to kidnap the head of the family? Was Mrs. Laporte's consent sought before the kidnapping of her husband? Was Pierre Laporte brought to trial before being so viciously and abominably killed? Was James Cross brought to trial to be kept in captivity? Is anyone commiserating with those families? Are we only going to talk here of those who have been arrested, did nothing and had nothing in common with the FLQ, etc.? No!
If those people were questioned, arrested, it is because there was something in the wind. It does not mean they are killers. I think that it is all right to question them.
What did the CBC do in those circumstances? I hope there is a CBC reporter in the press gallery. What were

November 4, 1970

we shown on TV, in the evening, after a few suspects were released at Quebec? Two young girls, I think, were introduced to say that they had been arrested in the most shocking way, that they had only been questioned on the third day following their imprisonment! How shocking! Was the CBC seen to interview either Mrs. Laporte or her children? Did the CBC interview Mrs. Cross, or still, those in favour of the search for the bandits responsible for the kidnappings and the murder? No. They call upon the poor victims, those who have been spending four days in jail, questioned on the third day and realeased on the fourth, fifth or sixth. That is terrible.
Mr. Speaker, I say that there is still a clean-up to do in that field. And it has not started yet! This goes to prove that last year at this time the government had the necessary powers to intervene efficiently, yet nobody blamed the government or started a debate in the House, as was done during the last weeks by the two parties sitting on my right.
The government could also have availed itself, besides the War Measures Act recently enacted, of other acts which are part of our defensive weapons against those who would destroy our institutions, who attack public figures elected in a democratic way, who defy established order and attempt to overthrow existing governments.
I am referring to sections included in our Criminal Code under the general title of "Offenses against public order". I mean section 46 pertaining to treason, section 51 and 52 covering prohibited deeds and finally section 60 and 62 bearing on sedition.
About treason, section 46 states:
Every one commits treason who, in Canada,-
(d) uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province;
In paragraph (f), the legislator has added:
Every one commits treason who, in Canada,
(f)	conspires with any person to do anything mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (d);
-that is-
- (d) uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government

So, such an act already existed! Finally, paragraph (g) of the same section 46 states that every one commits treason, who:
(g)	forms an intention to-
-overthrow	governments, through violence, and
who-
-manifests that intention by an over act;-
We have had such manifestoes, such overt acts by the FLQ people and others before them.
Mr. Speaker, the sections of the Criminal Code I have just mentioned could have been immediately applied during the troubled period we are unfortunately going through.
Public Order Act, 1970
Sections 51 and 52 of the Criminal Code which deal with prohibited acts, did enable the government to intervene more promptly and crush the revolution. Section 51 reads as follows:
Every one who does an act of violence in order to intimidate the Parliament of Canada or the legislature of a province is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for fourteen years.
Mr. Speaker, the FLQ manifesto which the authorities received, that was published in newspapers and broadcast over some radio stations were actually acts designed to intimidate and to fool the Canadian and the Quebec governments following the kidnapping of Messrs. Cross and Laporte and finally after the murder of Pierre Laporte.
Finally, the federal government and the Quebec government, who must enforce the provisions of the Criminal Code, had also other means of thwarting the moves of the terrorist elements, namely, all the sections of the Criminal Code dealing with sedition.
Sub-section 4 of section 60, of the Criminal Code gives the following definition of "seditious intention". Every one shall be presumed to have a seditious intention who:
(a)	teaches or advocates, or
(b)	publishes or circulates any writing that advocates the use, without the authority of law, of force as a means of accomplishing a governmental change within Canada.
In some of our colleges and universities, there are professors who are teaching revolution to our students.
The FLQ manifesto was surely a document of this type and it would have been reason enough for the governments to intervene quickly. All the more, Mr. Speaker, as the federal government, the RCMP, the Quebec government, the authorities of the city of Montreal, following raids conducted last year in the quarters of the FLQ and of the workers' committee of Saint-Henri, in the homes of some terrorists who were later indicted and convicted, had in their possession documents which clearly set forth the revolutionary policies of the FLQ and of the workers' committee of Saint-Henri, as well as their desire to overthrow the established order by force, and which provided technical information on the manufacture of bombs, Molotov cocktails and other weapons to fight police forces, police horses, etc. The Canadian government knows all about those documents, copies of which are actually in the hands of some hon. members.
Now, Mr. Speaker, section 62 of the Criminal Code-
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I do so to advise the House that his time has expired. Does the hon. member have the consent of the House to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

November 4, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


David Réal Caouette: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I will need only a couple of minutes more. I am grateful to my colleagues for their courtesy and will continue my remarks.
Mr. Speaker, section 62 of the Criminal Code provides the following penalties in cases of sedition:
Every one who
(a)	speaks seditious words,
(b)	publishes a seditious libel, or
(c)	is a party to a seditious conspiracy,
is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for fourteen years.
It can therefore be said that the federal and Quebec governments had the necessary powers to deal with the FLQ revolutionaries and should have resorted to them earlier, last year, or two or three years ago.
We now have before us Bill C-181 purporting to grant emergency powers for the preservation of public order in Canada. I will say only a few words about this bill.
Our party would like that the provisions relating to treason, prohibited acts and sedition be incorporated into the new bill and also that the penalties for revolutionary elements be more severe and even that the death sentence be applied to those who will kidnap, seclude or murder people who do not share the revolutionary ideal of the FLQ or a similar group.
But that is not the most important thing. As I said at the beginning, in spite of our use of the army, the police and adoption of restrictive laws in order to maintain law and order, the same consequences will appear again if we tolerate the causes of the present bills.
These ills have an economic as well as a financial aspect. The Canadian government must propose bills tending to eliminate the misery produced by unemployment and poverty. And, by the way, I am saying that this will not yet eliminate completely the dangers which are threatening us. It is not because fellows like Rose and company are living in poverty that they rebel; it is because they wish to resort to violence as a substitute to the democratically elected governments.
It is all they want, it is all they aim at, regardless of the type of government we may have here. Let us put them in Eden, Mr. Speaker, and I think they would do exactly as Adam and Eve did: they would rebel against God, and would start to play with the apple.
Mr. Speaker, those ills have economic and financial causes, as I have said. The Canadian government must come up with legislations that would eradicate the destitution created by unemployment and poverty; the Canadian government must enable all the segments of the population to be properly housed, fed and clothed. The whole population, and not only the priviledged ones, must share in the assets and the riches that Canada and our economic system are in a position to supply to each and everyone.
Each and every Canadian citizen should feel free in his own home. Freedom is independence, freedom from want, and financial security.
We ask the Prime Minister, the government, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) and all members of this
House to please consider frankly whatever reforms are needed and not merely beat about the bush and try to put poultices on wooden legs by stealing from those who own something to help those who own nothing because this is no solution to the problem.
And let me quote these words from a former President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson, and I think they would apply today just as they did in his own days:

I believe the banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.

Mr. Speaker, the people of the province of Quebec did not ask for Pierre Laporte's death. The people of the province of Quebec, our poor, our destitute, our unemployed did not ask for the kidnapping of Mr. Cross and Mr. Laporte. They do not want their neighbour's death, no! They do not ask for the right to kill but for the right to live peacefully in their province and their country. These people, our poor in Montreal, for instance, who live in downtown slums and who are literally devoured by rats, do not ask to kill their fellow citizens, but to live decently in such a country as ours.
And at this stage, Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that for the last two years the government has been telling us, for the sake of inflation and the financial system, but not for the sake of the human person, the right to live, the poorer Canadian, the housewife, the unemployed: Tighten your belt, accept privations. At the same time, it tells financiers: Raise your rates, keep exploiting misery, poverty and even man. The government is responsible for this situation. And we hear, in the name of inflation: We have no money to carry out this work, to erect these buildings or to provide services to the people. Then an emergency situation builds up in the province of Quebec: two abductions, bombings, etc. The Army is called up immediately and occupies the province. I approve this move. However, I wonder why inflation has not been invoked when it came to sending troops to Quebec. Have we heard the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Justice or even the Prime Minister say: We cannot afford to send you the Army, this is a time of inflation, we must tighten our belts. No! Once the Army pulls out of Quebec and the new legislation is in force, these people will keep on shouting, with reference to inflation: Tighten your belt. When the government says that, the government members applaud. That is logical. And then, when the members from the Montreal area return home, they are escorted by the Army, because they are afraid. Oh yes! They tolerate the causes of what they are afraid of. They say they are scared, and yet they tolerate the reasons for their fear. That is a little too much!
Mr. Speaker, the Creditistes have this to say: Instead of trying to reform individuals and institutions, how about beginning with a reform of the financial system of our country. Let us put money in the pockets of the citizens. That is what the poor people of Montreal

November 4, 1970

want in order to buy food, clothes, a decent house where they could be happy, feel they are important, human beings. And when we will have tamed finance, we will put ah end to revolutions, we will prevent revolutionaries from destroying a country like ours which I consider as one of the finest in the world. But let us try at least to recognize it and to act accordingly in order to save not only our country but the people who live in it and build it.
Public Order Act, 1970


Some hon. Members:: Hear. hear.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
903

Thursday, November 5, 1970