1970-11-16

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. H. A. Olson (for the President of the Treasury Board) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-190, respecting the Auditor General of Canada.


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

Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: for leave to introduce Bill C-191, to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the Small Businesses Loans Act and the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act.


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


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Solicitor General) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-192, respecting young offenders and to repeal the Juvenile Delinquents Act.


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


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: for leave to introduce Bill C-193, to amend the Northern Canada Power Commission Act.



FISHERIES ACT


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-194, to amend the Fisheries Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the fact that in September of 1969 the Prime Minister rejected the idea of Indians having hereditary or aboriginal rights, Parliament unanimously recognized one aspect of such rights during the last session when it amended the Fisheries Act to provide that the right of Indians to harvest marine plants for food would not be infringed upon. This bill seeks a further and similar declaration by Parliament and asks Parliament to recognize the hereditary and aboriginal rights of the Indians to catch fish for food.


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

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

Mr. Rowland: _ 1. Has the government provided a regional development grant in 1968 to Daniel Gasbarrini, Peter Sinicrope and George Buscemi regarding the establishment ol a plant of the Atlas Reels Ltd. and. if so, what funds were provided and over what period of time?
2.	Was the grant later terminated and, if so, for what reasons?


Mr. Martin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1. No, but
under the Area Development Incentives Act, a payment of 31,382.40 was made to Atlas Reels Ltd. on September 26, 1968.
2.	Yes, because the plant was closed and the assets were seized by the Industrial Development Bank.
1172

November 16, 1970
Questions


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION-HIRING OF PART-TIME EMPLOYEES
Mr. Godin: 1.	Does the government hire part-time employees in rural ridings to help workers in preparing their applications for unemployment benefits and, if so, what are the names and addresses of these persons in the constituencies of Portneuf, Champlain and Quebec-Montmorency?
2.	How are these persons remunerated?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: 1. Yes.
Name
Mrs. Jacqueline Grosleau
Address
St-Tite,
County of Champlain.
Mrs. Louis Kupfer Nil
Beaupre,
Quebec-Montmorency. County of Portneuf.
2.	The rate of remuneration is $1.50 for each application completed.


BARLEY SALES 1969-1970
Mr. Thomson: 1.	What countries purchased barley from Canada in 1969-1970?
2.	What were the amounts?


Mr. Bruce Howard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: The Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports: 1 and 2. Exports of barley by country as reported in DBS catalogue 65-004 "Trade of Canada-Exports by Commodities" are shown on the following table for the calendar year 1969 and January through August 1970.
Exports of Barley (DBS class 61-19) for the calendar years 1969 & 1970 (to date)
Year-1969
Country	Quantity (Bu.)1	Value ($'000)United Kingdom	14,369,797	13,960Israel	2,729,863	2,637Tunisia	421,300	408Japan	4,318,108	3,729Korea, South	3,333	8U.S. Oceania	249,467	247Brazil	1,534	4Colombia	551,150	632Peru	147,000	132Venezuela	4,394	8Trinidad-Tobago	42	aPanama	2,293	3United States	7,383,397	8,659Total	30,181,678	30,427
J anuary-August-1970
	(cwt.)1	($'000)
United Kingdom	5,214,936	10,540Belgium-Luxembourg	461,052	982Germany West	2,650,870	5,043Italy	4,643,596	8,835Netherlands	66,970	124Switzerland	13,056	19Poland	2,897,874	5,192Israel	1,247,851	2,321Tunisia	252,934	473Japan	6,511,004	11,747Taiwan	689,830	1,254New Zealand	552,288	965U.S. Oceania	204,996	360Colombia	594,272	1,449Peru	59,584	152Venezuela	940	3Panama	840	2United States	3,520,118	8,352Total	29,583,011	57,813
'Note that quantity was reported in bushels in 1969 and in hundredweight in 1970. Conversion factor-bushels to cwt.: per bushel-barley .48 cwt.
"Value under $500.


CANADA COUNCIL GRANTS TO JOHN C. LEGGETT
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Has the Canada Council awarded a grant or grants to John C. Leggett of Vancouver?
2.	What is the total amount of Canada Council grants awarded to John C. Leggett to date?
3.	For what purpose were Canada Council grants awarded to John C. Leggett?
4.	Was the said John C. Leggett, at the time of the awards, an assistant sociology professor at Simon Fraser University?
5.	Is John C. Leggett still teaching at Simon Fraser University and, if not, for what reason?
6.	Was he ever suspended from his teaching functions and, if so, for what reason?
7.	Is the said John C. Leggett a Canadian citizen and, if not (a) what was his country of origin (b) at what institutions did he teach prior to coming to Canada and for how long?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Canada Council as follows: 1. Yes.
2.	$24,500 over three fiscal years.
3.	To pay the direct costs of research assistants, interviewers, coding information and clerical assistance for survey research on class consciousness of blue collar workers in Vancouver area electoral ridings. (The Council's research grants do not include any remuneration of the researcher.)
4.	Dr. Leggett was associate professor at Simon Fraser University when he was awarded an initial grant in 1968. However, his contract with the university had expired by October 1, 1970, when he was awarded a terminal Canada Council grant of $5,000 to enable him to complete the project in which the Council had already invested $19,500.

November 16, 1970

5.	See 4.
6.	Yes. While aware of the suspension of Dr. Leggett from his teaching duties, the Canada Council was satisfied that the research was proceeding according to the terms of the grant.
7.	No. (a) the United States, (b) Before Prof. Leggett took up his teaching position at Simon Fraser University, in August, 1966, he had held full-time teaching positions at the University of Michigan and at the University of California at Berkeley continuously from September, 1961.


GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT
Mr. Mather: 1.	What is the current gross national product?
2.	What is the current gross national product in 1949 dollar terms?
3.	What was the gross national product in 1949?


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: The Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports that: 1. In the second quarter of 1970, the gross national product, seasonally adjusted at annual rates, is $83,192,000,000.
2.	The constant dollar estimates of gross national product have been rebased to 1961 and therefore estimates in 1949 dollar terms are not available. In constant 1961 dollars, the gross national product for the second quarter of 1970, seasonally adjusted at annual rates, is $62,664,000,000.
3.	In 1949, the gross national product was $16,300,000,000. In 1961, the gross national product was $39,080,000,000.


REMOVAL OF COAT OF ARMS FROM MINISTERIAL STATIONERY
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	How many Ministers of the Crown (a) have had (b) are in the process of bringing about the removal of the Coat of Arms from Departmental or Ministerial stationery?
2.	What are the portfolios of such Ministers?


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the stationery of the Ministers of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Industry, Trade and Commerce, Labour and Regional Economic Expansion, have their own departmental symbols on their letterhead. The stationery of the President of the Treasury Board has the official seal of the Treasury Board as granted by the Queen. All other Ministers of the Crown at present have the Canadian Coat of Arms on their letterheads. There will be changes in the stationery as described by the Hon. Robert L. Stanfield in his statement in the House of Commons on October 23, 1970, Hansard page 507.
Editor's Note: See Hansard Nov. 18, page 12 75 for correction by Hon. Robert L. Stanfield.


LEASE OF LAND IN CAUGHNAWAGA INDIAN RESERVE
Mr. Howard (Skeena): 1.	Since January 1, 1970, has any land of the Caughnawaga Indian Reserve been leased and, if so, with respect to each such
23568-4f
Questions
lease, what is (a) the name and address of the lessee (b) the acreage of land (c) the use to which the land will be put (d) the term of the lease (e) the rental or lease fees payable?
2.	Is the government prepared to table the said leases in the House?


Mr. Judd Buchanan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is yes. However, further information in this regard cannot be revealed without the express consent of the Caughnawaga Band Council and their lessee. Since lease arrangements constitute a confidential landlord-tenant relationship, it would be a breach of confidence to divulge the terms of such agreements.
The answer to the second part of the question is no.


HOME IMPROVEMENT LOANS
Mrs. Maclnnis: 1.	For the fiscal year ended March 31, 1970, how many Home Improvement Loans were made under Section 24 of the National Housing Act?
2.	How many applications for such loans were refused during the same period?
3.	What are the terms under which the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation guarantees such loans for the banks who make them?
4.	Is it a requirement of CMHC that such loans can be guaranteed only if the combined mortgage and loan payments of the applicant do not exceed 27% of his income?
5.	What is the rate of interest to the borrower for such guaranteed Home Improvement Loans?


Hon. Roberl K. Andras (Minisler without Portfolio):: 1.
For the year 1969, 9,142 Home Improvement Loans were made under Section 24 of the National Housing Act (the calendar year is the Corporation's fiscal year).
2.	Applications for Home Improvement Loans are received and processed by the branches of the chartered banks. The number of applications of such loans which were refused during 1969, is therefore not available to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
3.	The terms under which Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation guarantees such loans for the chartered banks are provided in Part IV of the National Housing Act, 1954 and Sections 70-97 inclusive of the National Housing Lending Regulations.
4.	No.
5.	Effective October 1, 1970, the maximum rate of interest for guaranteed Home Improvement Loans is 10 J per cent per annum.


YUKON ELECTRICAL COMPANY AND WHITE PASS AND YUKON CORPORATION
Mr. Howard (Skeena): What action is being contemplated by the government regarding the Yukon Electrical Company and the White Pass and Yukon Corporation in Canada's northland?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: No action is contemplated by

November 16, 1970
Questions
the government at this time with regard to the Yukon Electrical Company.
No action is contemplated by the government at this time with regard to the White Pass and Yukon Corporation.


LABELLING OF AMPHETAMINES
Mr. Howard (Skeena): Does the Food and Drug Directorate of the Department of National Health and Welfare allow amphetamines to he labelled as "appetite depressants, mood brighteners, and pep-pills, etc." and, if so, is the Directorate giving consideration to curbing the above labelling similar to action recently taken by the Food and Drug Administration in the United States?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Claims for amphetamines currently permitted by the Food and Drug Directorate of the Department of National Health and Welfare are limited to their use as adjuncts in the treatment of obesity, as anti-depressants in mild depressive states, and in the treatment of narcolepsy (uncontrollable sleepiness).
The Food and Drug Directorate is represented on a Committee of the Canadian Medical Association which has recently been established to conduct a national review of the current use of stimulants and sedatives in medicine. If the report of this Committee indicates a need for greater restrictions on the labelling of amphetamines, manufacturers of these drugs will be required to limit their claims even further than at present.


CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Howard (Skeena): 1.	For the years 1968 and 1969, how many applications were received by the Department of National Revenue regarding registration of charitable organizations in Canada?
2.	For each of the above years, how many applications were approved by the Department?
3.	For each of the above years, how many charitable organizations missed their annual deadline for filing a report of their operations with the Department?
4.	What action has been taken by the Department of National Revenue to enforce complaisance with the law?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minisler of Naiional Revenue):: 1.
4,322 applications were received in 1968 and 2,236 in 1969.
2.	3,213 applications were approved in 1968 and 1,040 in 1969.
3.	It is not known how many charitable organizations were late in filing their annual returns but 10,300 organizations have not yet filed a 1968 return and 18,800 have not filed a 1969 return.
4.	Requests to file returns were mailed to all registered organizations that had failed to file a return for either 1967 or 1968. Those that are still delinquent are being advised that their registration will be revoked if a return is not filed. Similar requests and warnings will be issued soon to organizations that have not filed returns for 1969.


LABELLING OF VAPONA
Mrs. Maclnnis: 1.	Does the Food and Drug Directorate of the National Health and Welfare intend to take action similar to that in the United States by requesting that the manufacture of "VAPONA", Shell Oil Company, include warnings on labels that the strips should not be used in kitchens, dining rooms, or food preparation areas?
2.	If no similar action is contemplated, what are the reasons?


John Carr Munro: 1 and 2. The labelling of pesticides is controlled under the Pest Control Products Act which is administered by the Canada Department of Agriculture.


REPORT BY JOSEPH SEDGWICK, Q.C., ON IMMIGRATION LAW CHANGES
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	When is the report, being prepared by Joseph Sedgwick, on problems developing from immigration law changes which have created a backlog of appeals against deportations, expected to be completed?
2.	What is the total cost of the preparation of the report to date?
3.	What is the anticipated total cost of the report?


Hon. Olio E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. The completed Report has just recently been received and is now under study. I would hope to be able to make a further statement as to the Report's contents at an early date.
2 and 3. There are no figures yet available as to the cost incurred to date or to the total cost involved. However in accordance with the normal charges incurred by the Government, when experts of Mr. Sedgwick's eminence are required, it is expected that the costs involved will be in the neighbourhood of $15,000.


FISCAL AID TO IDIKKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT IN KERALA STATE, INDIA
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	How much fiscal aid has been allotted, to date, to the construction of the Idikke hydroelectric project in Kerala State, India?
2.	What is to be the total allotment to this project?
3.	Is this project behind schedule and, if so, how far?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. $25.0 million, comprised of $19.5 million in development loans and $5.5 million in grant aid.
2.	$27.0 million, comprised of $19.5 million in development loans and $7.5 million in grant aid.
3.	The original plans for this project called for completion by 1971. Relevant aid allocations are being rescheduled to support the project into 1975 when it is expected that completion will have been achieved.


CRASH OF DC-3 AIRCRAFT AT TIMMINS, ONTARIO
Mr. Forreslall: 1.	What was the altimeter setting given to the pilots of the DC-3 aircraft by the Aeradio Station operators at Timmins, Ontario, before it crashed on November 10, killing its crew of two?

November 16, 1970

2.	Did the Aeradio Station operators at Timmins, Ontario, receive confirmation from the crew of the DC-3 that the altimeter setting information was received?
3.	When was the barometric pressure recording instrument, that was used by the Aeradio Station operators at Timmins to ascertain the current altimeter setting, last checked or calibrated to prove its accuracy?
4.	Was the DC-3 aircraft carying a Radar Altimeter and, if so. was it functioning at the time of the crash?


Mr. Gerard Duquel (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. Altimeter setting as given to the DC-3 before the crash was 30.01 inches of mercury.
2.	No confirmation was received by the Aeradio Station operators at Timmins from the crew of the aircraft that the altimeter setting information had been received.
3.	The barometer at the Aeradio Station had been checked and its accuracy verified on June 3, 1969. Error was found to be .0042 which equals four feet.
4.	The DC-3 aircraft was not carrying a radar altimeter at the time of the crash.
Questions
7. The observation given to the pilot was taken by a Meteorological Technician, Grade 2. He has two years, 10 months experience working as an observer and has been classified as competent.


APPLICATIONS FOR ASSISTANCE UNDER SPECIAL AREAS PROGRAM
Mr. Burion: 1.	How many applications for assistance were received from Regina and Saskatoon to October 7, 1970, under the special areas program of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion?
2.	How many applications were approved for Regina and Saskatoon to October 7, 1970?


Abram Ernest Epp: 1. Regina 15; Saskatoon, 16.
2. Regina, 4; Saskatoon, 6.


CRASH OF DH-125 JET AT WABUSH, NFLD.
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What was the altimeter setting given to the pilots of the DH-125 jet by ground personnel at Wabush, Newfoundland, prior to its crash on November 11?
2 When was it relayed to the crew?
3.	What party or what authority gave the altimeter setting to the crew?
4.	When was the barometric pressure recording instrument that was used by personnel on the ground to ascertain the current altimeter setting at Wabush, last checked or calibrated to prove its accuracy?
5.	Was the jet aircraft concerned carrying a Radar Altimeter and, if so, was it functioning at the time of the crash?
6.	What weather reporting information as to ceiling and visibility was relayed to the crew just prior to its crash?
7.	What are the qualifications or what experience did the observer have who informed the crew of the jet as to weather conditions that existed at the time the aircraft made its approach?


Gérard Duquet: 
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE OFFICE, ST-GEORGES, BEAUCE CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Rodrigue: 1.	How many (a) permanent (b) temporary employees are there in the federal Unemployment Insurance Office at St-Cxeorges m the constituency of Beauce?
2.	What is the total of their salaries?
3; I;LthiSv.0ff!Ce.fented and, if so (a) what is the annual rental cost (b) who is the owner?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: 1. (a) (b)
one permanent employee: Mr. Jean-Noel Poulin, Ville St-Georges, County of Beauce.
2. $8,626.
3. (a) $1,800 per annum; (b) Mr. Marc Roberge.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE CLAIMS 1968-69
Mr. Laprise: 
LIVERPOOL, NOVA SCOTIA HARBOUR-DREDGING OPERATIONS
Mr. Crouse: Is it the intention of the Department of Public Works to carry out dredging operations in Liverpool harbour. Queens County, Nova Scotia, in the vicinity of the marine railway and and, if so (a) what is the amount of funds set aside for this' work (b) when will this dredging be carried out?
Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works)- Yes
(a) $4,000. (b) This work has just been completed". '

November 16. 1970
Questions


LIVERPOOL,, NOVA SCOTIA, HARBOUR-DREDGING OPERATIONS
Mr. Crouse: Is it the intention of the Department of Public Works to carry out dredging operations in Liverpool harbour, Queen's County, Nova Scotia, to increase water depths in the channel which crosses the harbour bar and, if so (a) what is the amount of funds set aside for this work (b) when will this dredging be carried out?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: No
additional dredging is planned in this location at the present time. However, during the present fiscal year the mooring area behind the public wharf was dredged to a depth of 14 feet L.W.O.S.T. and the approach channel to the mooring basin to a depth of 11 feet at L.W.O.S.T. The total cost of this work was $43,694.


DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE-NUMBER OF 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 Finance during each year since computers have been used?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: The provision of computer facilities in the Department of Finance has greatly increased the volume of analysis carried out on the national finances and the national economy. The work of compilation, storage, retrieval and analysis now being done by the computer would, if done by hand, require the services of a very large number of clerical staff, together with desk calculators, filing facilities, stenographic support and supervisory personnel. The computer permits the use of new and more advanced techniques of analysis, and provides a constant flow of up-to-date information of a kind which could not be provided by traditional means. No estimate of the man-hour equivalent provided by computer services is possible owing to the wide variety of new methods of data processing made possible by the use of the computer.


DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE-CHANGE IN NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES RESULTING FROM USE OF COMPUTERS
Mr. Robinson: As a result of the use of computers by the Department of Finance, how many employees have been (a) laid off (b) lured?


Edgar John Benson: (a) Number of employees laid off, nil; (b) Number of employees hired, 7.


COST OF YOUTH HOSTELS IN CANADIAN CITIES
Mr. Nyslrom: 1.	What is the estimated cost of providing youth hostels in twelve Canadian cities during the summer months?
2.	In each city, how many young people used the youth hostel?


Gérard Pelletier: 1. $155,000 to operate hostels in 12 D.N.D. armouries plus $45,000

to operate hostels in an additional 11		private facilities
in other centres.		
2. St. John's	(approx.)	476 bed nightsMontreal	(approx.)	15,000 bed nightsKingston	(approx.)	1,170 bed nightsThunder Bay	(approx.)	2,564 bed nightsCalgary	(approx.)	7,600 bed nightsEdmonton	(approx.)	6,337 bed nightsVancouver	(approx.)	20,000 bed nightsCharlottetown	(approx.)	1,000 bed nightsHull	(approx.)	2,473 bed nightsLondon	(approx.)	1,089 bed nightsWinnipeg	(approx.)	10,000 bed nightsRevelstoke	(approx.)	1,493 bed nights[English]


VALUE OF IMPORTS FROM SOUTH AFRICA 1963-70
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 178-Mr. Rowland:		
What was the total value of imports received in Canada from South Africa in each year 1963 to 1969 inclusive and what is the projected total figures for 1970?
Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: The Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports: Total value of imports from South Africa, as published in "Trade of Canada-Imports by Countries", are shown below for the years 1963-1970 (to date).
Year	Imports ($'000)
1963	31,548
1964	28,777
1965	27,113
1966	27,641
1967	37,060
1968	39,315
1969	45,944
January-August 1970	27,333


INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LOANS
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Have any Industrial Development Bank loans been made to any companies and/or individuals involved in the Mafia?
2 Is any investigation carried out by the RCMP or other policing authorities in Canada to determine if the aplpicants for Industrial Development Bank loans have, in fact, any connection with crime, or criminal organizations and, if not, will this be considered in the future?


Edgar John Benson: In so far as
the Industrial Development Bank is concerned: 1 and 2. In examining loan proposals, all reasonable efforts are made to investigate the credit-worthiness of applicants to determine whether they meet the criteria laid down in Section 15(1) of the Act.
November 16, 1970


FINANCIAL GRANTS UNDER NORTHERN RESOURCE AIRPORTS PROGRAM
Mr. Harding: 1.	What was the total federal financial contribution for airstrip or airport construction under the Northern Resource Airports Program for the years 1964 to 1969 inclusive?
2.	How many companies or individuals received grants under this Program?
3.	What was (a) the name of each company or individual receiving a grant (b) the amount of the grant received (c) the

Questions
type of mining operation in each case (d) the total cost of each project (e) the percentage of the cost contributed by the federal government?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. The total federal financial contribution during the period amounted to $64,307.20.
2.	Eight applicants received financial assistance during the period.
3.	The details are:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Applicant	Grant Received	Type of OperationBaffinland Iron Mines	$ 8,200,00	Mineral ExplorationCoppermine River Ltd.	17,249.00	Mineral ExplorationGlenyon Mines Ltd.	1,497.75	Mineral ExplorationGreat Bear Trophy Lodge	12,500.00	TourismPacific Giant Steel Ores	7,835.45	Mineral ExplorationNordex Exploration Ltd.	7,500.00	Mineral ExplorationBanff Oil Ltd.	7,500.00	Oil ExplorationStan Reynolds Guide & Outfitter	2,025.00	T ourism
Cost of Project


CANADA'S NATURAL GAS INDUSTRY
Mr. Harding: 1. What were Canada's estimated natural gas reserves for the years 1961 to 1969 inclusive in terms of (a) volume (b) number of years supply?
2. For	the years 1961 to	1969 inclusive, how much	natural gas
	(a)	Question 1	
		(b)	(a) Produced
			
Years	Volume	Years of	(Bcf)	Supply	(Bcf)1961	30,519	51.3	5951962	32,248	39.1	8261963	33,261	36.9	9011964	39,580	38.6	1,0271965	40,605	36.3	1,1201966	43,747	36.3	1,2051967	46,090	35.2	1,3121968	48,289	32.1	1,5061969	51,951	29.8	1,742


INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT-PUBLIC RELATIONS CONTRACTS
Mr. Howard (Skeena): 1. What is the name and address of each company in the public relations field under contract with, or employed by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and on what date did each such contract or term of employment become effective?
was (a) produced in Canada (b) consumed in Canada (c) exported?
3.	For the years 1961 to 1969 inclusive, what percentage of possible maximum capacity was produced by Canada's natural gas industry?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: 
J. Judd Buchanan: Name of Firm	Effective Date Amount Paid
Williams & Wilson Ltd.,
1161 Melville Street,
Vancouver 5, B.C.	April 1, 1968	$70,200.04
November 16, 1970

Questions
Name of Firm	Effective Date Amount Paid
Crockett Writers Public Relations Consultants,
3-590 Roseberry Street,
Winnipeg 12, Manitoba.	Dec.	1,	1968	12,058.67
Berger, Tisdall, Clark & Lesly Ltd.,
Public Relations Consultants,
Box 61,
Toronto-Dominion Centre,
Toronto 111, Ontario.	Dec.	1,	1968	22,000.00
Jacques Guay and Associates, Inc.,
2612 Blvd. Rome,
Brossard, Quebec.	Oct.	1,	1968	13,574.30
Profile Ltd.,
Public Relations and
Communications Counsel,
2745 Dutch Village Road,
Halifax, N.S.	Feb. 1,	1968	6,796.08Hopkins Hedlin Ltd., 95 St. Clair Avenue West, Toronto 195, Ontario.	Oct. 1,	1969	21,004.00Steiner Public Relations Limited 1330 Eight St. S.W., Calgary 3, Alberta.	April 1,	1968	31,606.35CANADA COUNCIL GRANTS-INDIANS AND/OR ESKIMOS EDUCATION OR RESEARCH


Mr. Hales: 1.	What funds have been distributed by the Canada Council during the past five years to (a) Indians and/or Eskimos for education or research (b) non-Indians for studies dealing with Indian or Eskimo problems?
2.	Does the Canada Council have any special regulations or policies dealing with the awarding of money to (a) Indians and/or Eskimos for education or research (b) non-Indians for studies dealing with Indian or Eskimo problems?
3.	Is the percentage of rejections of (a) applications for grants from Indians and Eskimos higher than that of non-Indians (b) applications for grants to assist studies dealing with Indian or Eskimo problems higher than that of other types of research?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Canada Council as follows: 1. (a) and (b) Information not available because applicants are not required to show their racial origin.
2.	(a) No. (b) No.
3.	(a) Information not available because applicants are not required to show their racial origin, (b) To provide the information required, the Canada Council would have to review at least 10,000 individual files of doctoral and of research grants applications and awards for the past five years as the present information retrieval system was designed to collate information by
discipline rather than by topic of research. The Council is developing its information retrieval capabilities to include collation by research topic in the future.


CONTROL BY BANK OF CANADA OF INTEREST RATES
Mr. Robinson: 1 What can or will the Bank of Canada do to limit the interest charged by the Chartered Banks and that paid to depositors by the Chartered Banks?
2.	How can the Bank of Canada control the interest rates charged by (near banks) trust companies and finance companies?
3 What changes in legislation would be necessary to make the Bank of Canada more effective in curbing inflation?
4.	What control is exerted by the Bank of Canada over advertising by the Chartered Banks?
5.	What would be the estimated results if the Bank of Canada limited the interest rate chargeable by the Chartered Banks and lending institutions?


Edgar John Benson: In so far as
the Bank of Canada is concerned: 1, 2 and 3. The Bank of Canada exerts an important influence on the general level of interest rates and other credit conditions by using the powers which Parliament has given it in the Bank of Canada Act, mainly those powers which allow it to control the cash reserve base of the chartered banks as a group, and in this way to control the rate of expansion of the banking system. Additional powers would require further amendment of the Bank of Canada Act. Competition between banks and other financial institutions and in financial markets generally for the available funds causes this influence to spread through the whole system. The Bank of Canada has no statutory power to fix or to limit directly the interest rates charged or paid by the chartered banks or other institutions.
4.	None.
5.	This is a hypothetical question and not answerable.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION-POLITICAL ACTIVITIES OF EMPLOYEES
Mr. McCleave: 1.	What political activities, if any, are permitted to employees of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?
2.	What directives are issued to employees in that regard?
3.	When did the CBC last re-examine its policy and with what result?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporaiton as follows: 1. Corporation By-Law 7 (3) states: "No officer or employee of the Corporation employed on a full-time basis shall be a candidate for any public elective office or actively support any candidate for any public elective office, but an officer or employee of the Corporation may, subject to the permission of the President be, or actively support, a candidate for a municipal or civic office provided that the acceptance of or the support of the candidature for such office does not interfere with the proper

November 16. 1970

and regular performance of his duties with the Corporation."
2.	It is normal procedure to notify employees of the foregoing as required.
3.	The by-laws of the Corporation have been reviewed since the promulgation of the Broadcasting Act (1968) and By-Law 8(3) is still in effect.


NATIONAL PARKS-GOLF COURSES
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Which national parks have golf courses?
2.	Which national parks are large enough to contain golf courses but do not have such and for what reason or reasons?
3.	What are the green fees charged, what total revenue was realized, and what were the amounts charged to maintenance and upkeep in 1970?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. Prince Edward Island, Cape Breton Highlands, Fundy, Riding Mountain, Prince Albert, Elk Island, Waterton Lakes, Banff, and Jasper National Park.
2.	Terra Nova, Kejimkujik, Point Pelee, Yoho, Kootenay, Mount Revelstoke, Glacier and Wood Buffalo.
In accordance with national parks policy golfing is acceptable to a reasonable degree in recreational oriented parks. However, it is not considered an essential, desirable or compatible activity in those parks which are basically scenic or nature parks-wilderness parks- parks established to preserve unique species of fauna and flora, and areas of special historic, geological or geographical interest. In developing the above parks, the provision of golf courses was assessed in relation to the overall concept of national parks. In each case careful consideration was given to the fundamental purpose of the individual park, its category or type, terrain conditions, location, accessibility and the visitor need for such a facility.
3.	The green fees charged are:
9 hole course 18 hole course
1 round	$ 2.00	-Daily	3.50	$ 4.Weekly	17.50	20.
Season
Senior men and ladies $ 80.	$ 90.
Married Couples	105.	115.Junior boys and girls	20.	25.
The total revenue realized in the fiscal year 1969-1970 amounted to $294,048.
The amounts charged to maintenance and upkeep for the fiscal year 1969-1970 totalled to $188,145.
The golf courses in Banff and Jasper National Parks are operated by the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Railways and the national park fees, revenue, and operation and maintenance costs are not applicable.
Questions


PAYMENT OF FEDERAL INCOME TAX BY TELEPHONE COMPANIES
Mr. Fortin: 1.	Do the telephone companies of Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan pay federal income tax?
2.	Do the Quebec telephone companies pay federal income tax?
3.	If there is any difference in the tax payable, does the government intend to take steps to ensure that all provinces are dealt with on the same basis and, if so, which ones?


Edgar John Benson: 1, 2 and 3.
The Income Tax Act does not permit release of information obtained under that Act concerning the tax affairs of particular companies. There is no special tax exemption for telephone companies. A corporation 90 per cent of the shares or capital of which is owned by a province or municipality in Canada is exempt from income tax if it qualifies under section 62(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act. This section applies in all provinces.


MANITOBA-FEDERAL GRANTS FOR VOCATIONAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS
Mr. Stewarl (Marquelie): 1.	What is the status of federal grants to the Province of Manitoba for vocational education programs?
2.	How much is left in the program and what is the sharing proportions on future grants to Manitoba?
3.	What is the deadline for the Province to utilize this cost-shared program?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. Pursuant to Section 21 of the Adult Occupational Training Act of 1967, a federal-provincial Capital Expenditures Agreement was signed with Manitoba by which the Government of Canada is committed to contribute $56,646,400 in respect of capital expenditures incurred by the Province of Manitoba towards constructing and equipping occupational training facilities. By September 30, 1970 $26,201,948 has been paid to the Province.
2.	As of September 30, 1970 the outstanding balance of the Province's total entitlement was $30,444,452. The Federal Government will contribute 75 per cent of the provincial cost of approved facilities until $7,864,812 of this amount has been used. The Federal Government will then contribute 50 per cent of the provincial cost until the remaining $22,579,640 has been used.
3.	The Agreement does not specify any date for the expiration of the program.


CONSTITUENCY AREAS
Mr. Blouin: 1.	What are the three largest constituencies in Canada?
2.	What is their area in square miles?
3.	For each constituency, what is the population and the number of electors and according to which census?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Office

November 16, 1970
Questions
of the Chief Electoral Officer as follows: 1. Northwest Territories; Abitibi; Yukon.
2.	1,304,903; 267,322; 207,076.
3.	28,738 (13,807); 58,598 (27,335); 14,382 (7,559).
N.B. The population figures are based on 1966 census, figures in brackets are based on official list of electors for 1968 election.


DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND FORESTRY-CHANGE IN NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES RESULTING FROM USE OF COMPUTERS
Mr. Robinson: As a result of the use of computers by the Department of Fisheries and Forestry, how many employees have been (a) laid off (b) hired?


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: (a) None; (b) 46.


SECOND PROPOSED SITE FOR MAURICIE NATIONAL PARK
Mr. Matte: Have studies been made concerning a second proposed site for the Mauricie National Park and, if so (a) what was the nature of the studies (b) when were they carried out and by whom (c) what reasons did the Government of Quebec give for not selecting that site.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: (a) A combination of office and aerial field studies were carried out to review and corroborate existing publications and available data, (b) Initial studies were carried out in June 1968 and were followed by more detailed studies during the period July 1968 through February 1970. These studies were carried out by the National and Historic Parks Branch, (c) As in the case of all parks, surveys are made in broad areas to find the location offering the greatest potential, before the present area was designated.


TELEVISION-CANADIAN INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC OPINION POLL
Mrs. Maclnnis: Is the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs aware of the recent opinion poll by the Canadian Institute of Public Opinion in which 69 per cent of Canadians feel that television commercials use untruthful statements and, if so, what action is contemplated by the Department?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: I am not in a position to comment on the validity or accuracy of this report but my department investigates all cases of misleading advertising of which officials are aware. Any citizen can refer particular cases to us through our local offices or Box 99.


ENTITLEMENT OF QUEBEC STUDENTS TO SCHOLARSHIPS TO STUDY WILDLIFE BIOLOGY-IAND
Mr. Rondeau: 1. Are Quebec students excluded by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development from receiving scholarships to study wildlife biology or do they have the same entitlement?
2.	How are the students selected for such scholarships from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?
3.	If there is a selection committee for that purpose, who are its members?
4.	Who, in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, is in charge of studying wildlife in Quebec?
5.	How many scholarships has the Canadian Wildlife Service granted over the past five years to students from the Province of Quebec, and what was the total amount of money paid out in such scholarships?


J. Judd Buchanan: 1. No.
They have the same entitlement.
2.	Bilingual posters inviting applications are sent to all Canadian universities and colleges that have a faculty of biology or zoology. Applications are judged on the basis of academic level, academic achievement and relevancy of research to the aims of the Canadian Wildlife Service.
3.	The selection committee is composed of senior scientists of the Canadian Wildlife Service.
4.	The Director, Canadian Wildlife Service is in charge.
	Students	
	from	Amount
Year	Quebec	Received1970	nil	Nil1969	3	3,6001968	3	3,0001967	2	2,4001966	3	3,60011	12,600BEAUCE	CONSTITUENCY-NUMBER	OF VETERANS


Mr. Rodrigue: How many veterans are there in the constituency of Beauce and, of this number, how many are veterans of (a) World War I (b) World War II (c) Korean War?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minisfer of Veterans Affairs):: Statistics of the number of veterans are not maintained by constituencies.


BEAUCE CONSTITUENCY-RETRAINING COURSES
Mr. Rodrigue: 1.	How many residents of the constituency of Beauce follow retraining courses at the following levels (a) Grade VII (b) Grade VHI (c) Grade IX (d) Grade X (e) Grade XI (f) Grade XII?
2.	How many follow upgrading courses?


Otto Emil Lang: Trainees on course on November 2, 1970: 1. (a) 0; (b) 46; (c) 0; (d) 66; (e) 14; (f) 22.
2. Eighty-four.

November 16, 1970


LOTBINIERE CONSTITUENCY-NUMBER OF VETERANS
Mr. Fortin: How many veterans are there in the constituency of Lotbiniere and of this number, how many are veterans of (a) World War I (b) World War II (c) Korean War?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Statistics of the number of veterans are not maintained by constituencies.


GRANTS UNDER REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE ACT
Mr. Burton: For each province and Canada as a whole, what is the total estimated (a) federal government financial grants (b) new employment, under the Regional Development Incentive Act of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion from the Act's proclamation to the end of October, 1970?


Abram Ernest Epp: Regional Development Incentives Act
	(a)	(b)
	Estimated	Estimated
	Amount of	No. of
	Incentive *	New Jobs
Newfoundland	V 826,446	514Prince Edward Island	1,031,525	309Nova Scotia	20,252,918	1,348New Brunswick	13,015,772	2,077Quebec	39,230,254	8,621Ontario	10,590,277	1,548Manitoba	5,180,743	1,635Saskatchewan	1,360,690	342Alberta	3,491,518	744British Columbia	478,337	146Canada	95,458,480	17,284The parallel program	of incentives in	Special Areasadds the following:	(a)	(b)Ontario	3,161,232	401Saskatchewan	2,759,730	582Alberta	1,200,000	95Canada	7,120,962	1,078



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Howard (Skeena): 1.	Has a committee comprising federal government employees and the pulp and paper industry, been established relating to the water pollution by the said industry and, if so, when was the committee established and what are (a) the names of (b) the positions held by each member thereof?
2.	Has the committee held any meetings and, if so (a) where (b) on what dates (c) who was in attendance at each such meeting?
Inquiries of the Ministry
3.	Has the committee established any priorities, planned a program, made any review of progress, given any advice or made any recommendations on the allocation of funds and, if so, what are the details of each such decision?
Return tabled.


NORTHERN MINERAL EXPLORATION ASSISTANCE PLAN-FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION
Mr. Harding: 1.	What was the total federal financial contribution for exploration projects under the Northern Mineral Exploration Assistance Program for the years 1964 to 1969 inclusive?
2.	How many companies or individuals received grants under this Program?
3.	What was (a) the name of each company or individual receiving a grant (b) the amount of the grant received (c) the type of mining operation in each case (d) the total cost of each project (e) the percentage of the cost contributed by the federal government in each project?
Return tabled.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to address to the Prime Minister. In view of the statement made in the House on Friday by the Acting Prime Minister that "announcements will be made shortly which will have the effect of stimulating employment", is it the intention of the government to meet in the very near future with representatives of the provinces to discuss with them ways in which they can most effectively assist the government in putting these measures into operation so that unemployment may be combated in the most effective manner?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Well, Mr. Speaker, meetings at various levels are going on all the time. I know that officials of the federal government are meeting with provincial officials very shortly to prepare the December meeting of finance ministers. No doubt they will be talking about this problem. There have been meetings over the past many weeks between officials of various governments. Therefore there is nothing more to report on that.


George Harris Hees: Since this is a very important matter I naturally asked the Prime Minister whether special consultations would be taking place, and it seems that they will not. Can the Prime Minister advise the House when the government expects to outline to the country the nature of the measures mentioned by the Acting Prime Minister specifically on Friday, and how effective the government expects these specific measures will be in reducing unemployment.

November 16, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will realize that the second part of the question is not in order. The Prime Minister may wish to reply to the first part of the hon. member's question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the first part was perhaps in order but it was incorrect. The hon. member said there were no such meetings. I do not know what he wishes the House to infer from that, but I have just replied that there have been meetings and will be more.


George Harris Hees: Dealing with other matters but not this.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. The Chair will return to the hon. member in a moment.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement by the Minister of Public Works inside the House that new measures are being prepared to reduce unemployment and his statement outside the House that a number of new public works projects would be included in these new measures, could I ask the Prime Minister whether the minister in question was stating government policy and, if so, when does the Prime Minister intend to have an announcement made to the House regarding the extent and nature of these new measures?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the first part of the question, the minister was stating government policy but in reality it was a continuation of government policy. A few days before, I had occasion to enumerate to the House the series of measures which have been taken since the Minister of Finance's last budget in March, and last Friday the Acting Prime Minister was informing the House that the government was in the process of wanting to add to this series. When they will be announced is at the government's discretion. We will announce the measures when they are ready and when they have been discussed fully with the provinces concerned.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the urgency of the matter and the fact that public works projects must be undertaken very soon if they are to have any beneficial effect in reducing winter unemployment, can the Prime Minister indicate when there will be a statement about new public works projects either by the federal government or in conjunction with the provincial governments and municipalities, and will this statement include at the same time a mini-budget outlining some of the government's fiscal proposals with respect to dealing with the problem of unemployment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the first part of the question, I repeat that the timing is up to the government to decide, but it will be as soon as possible.
On the second part of the question, may I remind the House that apart from the last budget there was the Minister of Finance's lengthy statement very recently in the debate on the Speech from the Throne in which he put before the House the government's economic and financial position. As to whether there will be another budget needed and at what time, as the House knows this is at the government's discretion and it is something that we will announce in due course. I might say, by the way, that I am very glad that the opposition parties have been conscious of the need to do more and, indeed, have been pressing the government to do more, and we hope that when the time comes to pay for all this we will have their support.


Mr. Speaker:: This matter was raised originally by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings and he had a supplementary question which he did not ask. I would like to go back to him now.


George Harris Hees: As it has now become obvious that the government has no new policy to announce, is it not obvious that the Acting Prime Minister was misleading the House on Friday and that the Prime Minister was using double talk and giving us gobbledygook as he usually does when dealing with these matters?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret that I returned to the hon. member. I thought he had a supplementary question.



INCREASE IN PURCHASING POWER TO ALLEVIATE UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Real Caoueiie (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary to the Prime Minister.
Dealing with unemployment, the Prime Minister himself stated, as proven by a 1954 number of Cite Libre-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows that the question period only lasts 40 minutes and I do not think that he has to go back to 1954 to ask his question. Therefore, I invite him to ask his question immediately.


David Réal Caouette: Let us remain in 1970 then. The Prime Minister stated: "Happily, there is a remedy that can be applied instantly, at the first sign of weakness in the national economy: it is to stimulate purchases by putting more money into the hands of the consumers."
Is the Prime Minister prepared at this moment to hand over more funds to consumers as a means to fight unemployment efficiently?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had kept himself posted on monetary matters, he would have learned that Bank of Canada credit has been considerably increased in recent months, which means that much more money has been made available to consumers.

November 16, 1970



FINANCE MINISTERS' CONFERENCE-SUBMISSION BY PROVINCES OF PROGRAMS TO ALLEVIATE UNEMPLOYMENT

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask one further supplementary question of the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Minister of Finance is meeting with the provincial Ministers of Finance on December 7 and 8, I believe, has the federal government invited the provinces to submit at that time any programs they and their municipalities might have in the form of public works projects which might help to alleviate the unemployment situation to some extent?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I cannot answer that question, Mr. Speaker. I am not aware of the agenda in detail. In the past the provinces have felt free to make such representations and I am sure they will in the future, but I cannot say whether this is specifically on the agenda.



IMPLEMENTATION OF BAY OF FUNDY TIDAL POWER PROJECT AS MEANS OF PROVIDING EMPLOYMENT

Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchesier North):: In view of the heavy unemployment that always comes to us in the Atlantic area in the winter months, and in view of the lower interest rates that have been put into effect by the Bank of Canada, would the Prime Minister reconsider the proposal made by the task force that investigated the harnessing of the Bay of Fundy tides to see if that project, which would provide both short-range and long-range employment for people in the Atlantic area, could be implemented?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I know of no such review going at the present time within the government but I will communicate the representations of the hon. member to the responsible minister.



CONSTRUCTION GRANTS OR LOW INTEREST LOANS TO AGRICULTURAL EXHIBITIONS AS MEANS OF PROVIDING EMPLOYMENT

Mr. Len Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question I would like to direct to the Minister of Agriculture in connection with the governments program for combating unemployment. Would the minister consider making selected ex gratia payments to exhibition associations or similar organizations for the purpose of constructing much needed agricultural exhibition complexes, or the introduction of legislation to provide low interest financing for the construction of such facilities?


Mr. Speaker:: I will allow the minister to reply to the question but I would think the hon. member's question, much in the same way as the question asked by the previous member, is in the form of a suggestion rather than a question. I would not think a question in those terms is quite in order, but perhaps the minister might be allowed to reply to this one.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is aware that this kind of financing has been under consideration by the government from time to time for, I believe, about the last six years. However, the priorities in relation to the total amount of financing available have not been such that we have brought forward such a bill.


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Would he discuss with the Treasury Board the releasing of funds to the Minister of Public Works and his department in order that they may proceed with the many necessary projects that they are anxious to build?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's question is of the same nature as the two questions asked previously. I would think it is in the form of a suggestion, and the hon. member has to assume that his suggestion will be considered by the government.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. Before I ask it, I know I am speaking for all members of the House in expressing to him and Mrs. Mcllraith the deepest sympathy of all of us in the trying days through which he and the family are passing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there has been some argument over the question as to which police officers or which police force were doing what work in Montreal. The police officers who discovered the home of the Secretary of State showed particular cunning and ability, but they did not display the same when they picked up Lortie. According to press reports, in the home where he was picked up there were three of the other wanted FLQ criminals. Is the minister in a position to advise, so that appropriate decorations may be given to these policemen, who they were and what forces they represented when displaying such nearsightedness?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the right hon. gentleman for the reference preceding his question. I appreciate his remarks very much.
As to the question itself, the arrests, the subsequent search and the discovery of the alleged hiding place were carried out by the Montreal city police and the Quebec provincial police. Since that is the case I do not think it would be appropriate for me to make any comment as this is the responsibility of the Minister of Justice of Quebec.

November 16, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: I have a supplementary question for the Solicitor General, Mr. Speaker. Was any suggestion made by the other police forces or the directors in charge of the administration of the War Measures Act regulations that the KCMP should assist in these searches and arrests?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, there is an anti-terrorist squad comprised of representatives of the three forces working on these matters in Montreal. I do not think I can answer the question more specifically.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, would the minister consider having an independent investigation set up by the federal government so that we may ascertain the facts as to what did take place, because the arrests and detentions are being made under the War Measures Act implemented by the federal government?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I should point out that the responsibility for the administration of the criminal law in this respect lies with the provincial authorities. I do not feel that it would be appropriate for the federal authority to set up an investigatory body to examine the action of police forces under the responsibility of the provinces.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Solicitor General to make representations to those in authority responsible for the administration of the regulations to see whether it would help to look in the "clues" closet?



SUGGESTED COMMISSION TO EVALUATE EFFECTIVENESS OF POLICE WORK

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmonl):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to both the Prime Minister and the Solicitor General since it involves joint responsibility. In view of the increasing alarm over police effectiveness in the Cross and Laporte kidnappings and the Laporte murder, is any consideration being given to establishing some kind of commission in conjunction with the Montreal authorities and the provincial authorities of Quebec which would evaluate police effectiveness and the necessary steps to be taken so there will be appropriate security in this situation and with regard to any such problems in the future?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I know of no such review going on at the present time Prince Edward-Hastings recently I stated that this type of review and examination was under way at the federal level and that we are doing it in consultation with the other police forces involved.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, has the Prime Minister, in consultation with the other two levels of government, had the opportunity to explore the possibility of an independent commission sanctioned by all three levels of government in order that a full reading of the case can be made for the appropriate officials involved and for the public?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I misunderstood the first question. I was not indicating that this kind of investigation, to use the member's words, was required. I did indicate that an examination was required with a view to dealing with repetitions in the future, but there is no implication that we are investigating the past in the sense that it might have been the result of some gross negligence or other circumstance. There is no investigation in that sense, but we are preparing for the future. That is all I wish to indicate, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In light of what has happened and been disclosed, could the assessments and recommendations of the police which led to the invoking of the War Measures Act also come under review as to their competence?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the government is as interested as anyone in stacking up the results with the previous assessments but this has nothing to do with the principle of the invocation of the War Measures Act. I have given the House the reasons we had for invoking the Act and it would be unfair to say that we only acted because the police told us such and such. We acted because we were informed by all responsible authorities in Quebec of the situation and on our own assessment of the situation.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware of the reports over the weekend to the effect that despite our much smaller population Canada is now jailing twice as many people as the United Kingdom? Will the minister give some consideration to constructive action on this situation?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: It was good
of the hon. member to give me notice a moment or two ago that he intended to put this question to me. I should like to study the nature of the figures upon which the comparison is made and take whatever appropriate action or make whatever appropriate statement is necessary.



UNITED NATIONS


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.

November 16, 1970

In view of the refusal by the Israeli government to accept the UN's recommendation to the effect that Jerusalem should be considered as an entity separate from the Israeli problem, does the Canadian government intend to ask his UN representative to protest once more against the confiscations and expropriations which the Arabs have to suffer?


Mitchell William Sharp: Our purpose, and I am sure it is one which is shared by all hon. members, is to bring about a settlement of the Arab-Israeli dispute, and for that reason we are supporting the implementation of resolution 242 which includes other elements, but does include, of course, the question of Jerusalem.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Justice. Is his department planning to introduce any amendments to the Criminal Code, particularly to sections 659 to 667 dealing with preventive detention? What bothers me most is section 660 having to do with habitual criminals, and I should like to know whether there is any plan to change this section?


John Napier Turner: The law as
it affects habitual criminals and preventive detention was thoroughly dealt with in the committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Roger Ouimet. The Department of Justice, the Department of the Solicitor General and the government are actively considering to what extent the recommendations should be implemented.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Is there any plan to send this section-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister's reply earlier indicated that to some extent the decision to invoke the War Measures Act was based on information provided by the police and in view of certain events which have happened, with some reports indicating that some of the police have not been too efficient in apprehending some of the alleged suspects, will the Prime Minister reconsider his position now in regard to paying for the services provided by the Armed Forces as this might bring about greater efficiency on the part of certain-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN BROADCASTING COPORATION



TIME OF FRENCH INSTRUCTION PROGRAM

Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Since neither Postmaster General is present today I should like to direct this question to the Secretary of State and ask my good friend the Solicitor General to audit it. It concerns a petition received from Knox Presbyterian Church in Ottawa praying that a popular CBC language instruction program not be shown in prime kirk time. Can the minister advise the House what he has been able to do to avoid unnecessary competition between Presbyterianism and bilingualism?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question has been audited and found lacking.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Arising out of a report that the Minister of Justice of the province of Quebec is preparing a white paper including not only a proposal to establish a system of identity cards, about which I asked the minister some days ago, but also suggestions for amending the Criminal Code with respect to emergency measures, questions of censorship and the like, I should like to ask the minister whether he has been in discussion with the Minister of Justice of the province of Quebec regarding the work which is now being done in the latter's department?


John Napier Turner: I have not received any specific recommendations from the government of Quebec on the subject though I read the newspaper reports over the weekend. If and when such representations are received they will, of course, in accordance with the usual practice, be considered by the government and discussed, if necessary, with the other provincial Attorneys General. On the basis of a discussion I had with the provincial Minister of Justice it is my understanding that he was not outlining any program of action or manifesto but was recommending a reexamination of the role and efficiency of the police forces in Quebec.


David Lewis: In view of the fact that some of the suggestions he made, which no doubt he repeated to the minister in conversation, directly affect federal jurisdiction, and in the case of censorship affect federal jurisdiction in the field of freedom of speech and so on, can the minister assure the House that he will pursue this matter further with the Quebec authorities to avoid a conflict later between the two levels of government?


John Napier Turner: I am sure any conflict can be avoided, Mr. Speaker.

November 16, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry



QUEBEC-PROPOSED AUTHORIZATION OF WIRETAPPING

['Order, please.\n[Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) .1']
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg Norih):: I wish to ask the
Minister of Justice whether in view of his repeated expressions of opposition to wiretapping he will discuss with the Minister of Justice of Quebec the proposal there to implement wiretapping legislation?


John Napier Turner: I believe my views on this subject are fairly well known. I hope to be able to bring a bill before the House either prior to or after the Christmas recess.
* # *



Robert Carman Coates: have a question for the Secretary of States for External Affairs. Is the minister in a position to tell the House what action the Canadian government intends to take by way of assistance to the people of Pakistan in view of the terrible tragedy which has taken place there resulting in the deaths of possibly as many people as there are in the city of Ottawa?


Mitchell William Sharp: The Prime Minister sent today on behalf of the Canadian people a message of the deepest sympathy over the loss of life and destruction which has been caused in eastern Pakistan by the recent cyclone and tidal wave. He told the president that Canada was contributing $50,000 immediately to the International Red Cross appeal fund for cyclone relief and has instructed his officials to determine what additional relief assistance we can best provide.


Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: My question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell us whether agricultural products imported into Canada are being labelled for sale as products of Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: 1 doubt whether this question is in order. It seems to me to be a very general question and unless the hon. member can be more specific it should be placed on the order paper.


Cliff Downey: 
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It would be helpful if the hon. member could be a little more specific.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
[Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) .1



AGRICULTURE


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the possibility that despite the very serious slump in hog prices in recent weeks farmers will receive no deficiency payments from the Agricultural Price Stabilization Board due to the nature of the support formula under which the board operates, will the minister consider calling a meeting of the board and its advisory committee in order to consider ways and means by which hog producers could receive supplementary payments until such time as market prices recover?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, there is no problem in referring whatever data are now available to the Agricultural Stabilization Board. They can, of course, have a meeting at the request of the industry or, indeed, I can ask them to have a meeting to consider this. I am sure they would be willing to do so with a request from either direction.



NATIONAL SECURITY


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: My question is for the
Prime Minister. In view of the remarks yesterday on national television by former Prime Minister Lester Pearson with respect to not having sufficient details to judge the correctness or otherwise of the government's action with regard to the War Measures Act and now the temporary public order bill, will the Prime Minister indicate what steps are being taken to clarify what I think is a good deal of uncertainty, as expressed by the former Prime Minister?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the exact nature of the remarks attributed to the former Prime Minister. If they are as the hon. member says, apparently the former Prime Minister is in the same situation as the hon. member. However, this does not apply to other hon. members because they all voted in support of the temporary measures bill.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As the hon. member
knows, it is difficult to answer questions on statements made outside the House by persons other than members of the cabinet. Perhaps the hon. member might phrase his question differently.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: In light of the Prime Minister's response to my question, when we come to the vote on third reading of the temporary public order bill, is he willing to allow a free vote for all members of the House so that everyone connected-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
November 16, 1970



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. C. Terrence Murphy (Sault Sie. Marie):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. Considering that inflation is still a serious problem in the country-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Charles Terrence Murphy: I am glad hon. members opposite agree. In view of the fact the government is considering the introduction of measures to alleviate unemployment which may have the effect of nourishing the demand-pull type of inflation, is the government also considering the introduction of other measures which will have the effect of containing the cost-push breed of the inflationary animal?


Mr. Speaker:: I think this question is similar to one which was asked earlier in other terms.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I intended to address my question to either the Minister of Labour or the Acting Minister but I will address it to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour. Will the minister, at the first opportunity, make a statement in the House with respect to the labour negotiation situation regarding Canadian railroads, bearing in mind that the already depressed Canadian economy cannot stand the national disaster of a railroad strike?


Mr. Ray Perraull (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: The hon. member will be pleased to learn that Mr. R. A. Gallagher of Winnipeg has been appointed chairman of each conciliation board in matters relating to Canadian National Railways and Canadian Pacific Railway. Hearings of the board have commenced in Montreal. I know that we are all optimistic about the possible result. At the same time I would assure the hon. member that his suggestion will be passed along to the minister who is about his duties today in Montreal.



BROADCASTING


Mr. Rod Thomson (Ballleford-Kindersley):: My question is for the Secretary of State. Will the minister ask the CRTC to insist that the television satellite at North Batt-leford of television station CKBI, Prince Albert, perform according to its licence requirements?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has made his submission and he will have to assume it will be taken into account by the minister concerned.
Inquiries of the Ministry FINANCE



SUGGESTED REPEGGING OF CANADIAN DOLLAR TO ASSIST EXPORTERS

Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Souih Shore):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the employment opportunities provided in Atlantic Canada by the pulp and paper industry and the 8.4 per cent decline in newsprint shipments to the United States during the past three months, is the government contemplating any action to assist this industry to improve its competitive position in the United States market?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member realizes that he is now asking for a statement of a very general nature. This information should be given to the House by way of a statement on motions. Perhaps the question might be asked in those terms.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Perhaps I could ask my question in a different manner. Since the present value of the Canadian dollar now means that Canadian exporters selling in United States funds receive 5J per cent less for their goods than in the first half of 1970, can the Prime Minister indicate when Canadian exporters can anticipate some action being taken to stabilize the Canadian dollar?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: I have a question for the Acting Government House Leader with respect to Bill C-182 dealing with regulations and the bill introduced this afternoon in connection with the Auditor General. Will the government House Leader give consideration to having both these measures dealt with in Committee of the Whole? I ask this question in view of the fact that both bills received extensive discussion and detailed consideration in committee meetings, and it may be that the present unhappy experience of the Minister of Justice in connection with the bill with which we are now dealing will not be repeated if government backbenchers are properly briefed.



INFORMATION CANADA


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (St. John-Lancasier):: My question is for the minister in charge of Information Canada. Has the federal government entered into negotiations with the provinces in order that the information referral services to be provided by the planned regional inquiry offices of Information Canada can easily be co-ordinated with similar programs which the provinces may wish to establish in this area? If not, why not?


Hon. Robert Sianbury (Minister without Portfolio):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

November 16, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry CONSUMER AFFAIRS



FARM MACHINERY PRICE INCREASES PROPOSED BY WHITE MOTOR COMPANY

Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: My question is ior the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that farm machinery prices of the White Motor Company, formerly known as Cockshutt, are, as indicated by that company, liable to be increased by 7 per cent on all sales made in 1971, will the minister indicate whether he will refer this to the Prices and Incomes Commission, particularly in view of the fact that it includes profits for that company?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, that company would be expected to comply with the pricing criteria agreed upon last February. Should they raise prices in the manner suggested by the hon. member, the Prices and Incomes Commission will examine it.


John Leroy Skoberg: Will the minister tell this House and the people of Canada whether he is prepared to take the initiative of inquiring into the profits of these farm machinery companies?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I do not understand the question, Mr. Speaker. The Prices and Incomes Commission made it very clear that companies which increase their prices above the pricing criteria agreed upon will be investigated. There is no need for an initiative on my part or on the part of anyone else.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Robert Borrie (Prince George-Peace River):: I wish to direct my question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Can he advise the House if steps are to be taken to alleviate anticipated winter hardships of Indians known as the Long Grass people, residing on the shores of Lake Williston in central British Columbia?


J. Judd Buchanan: The
situation of the Long Grass people is being investigated, Mr. Speaker. I will be happy to draw the hon. member's question to the attention of the minister.



EFFECT OF W.A.C. BENNETT DAM ON LIVELIHOOD OF INDIANS

Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Have any other studies been undertaken on the effects on the livelihood of Indians living downstream from the W.A.C. Bennett dam where the water table has been seriously affected by that dam?


J. Judd Buchanan: It is my
understanding that other studies have been made concerning the situation. I will be happy to bring this to the attention of the minister.


Gerald William Baldwin: While the Parliamentary Secretary is having these interesting discussions, will he attempt to find out what success the minister is having with Premier Bennett regarding the matter of having more water released through the dam which would help the situation on both sides?


David Orlikow: Will the minister make a statement in the near future regarding the arrangements that were made when the dam was being planned with respect to compensation for the Indians who are being adversely affected?



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


John George Diefenbaker: My
question is directed to the Secretary of State. On a couple of occasions I have asked whether he could get information from the CBC, on behalf of which he reports to Parliament, concerning the three or four broadcasters or news distributors of Radio-Canada who, as reported by the Minister of Regional Economic Development, were using a code to communicate with the FLQ. They were picked up under the War Measures Act and subsequently released. Are they now back with the CBC?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. member wants to know whether I can give him that answer. The answer is no.



PENSIONS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. There being only 39 days to Christmas, has the Prime Minister yet decided in what way he is going to say "Merry Christmas" to Canada's old age pensioners?



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I too wish to direct my question to the right hon. gentleman. It has to do with the Prime Minister's visit this weekend to New York. Would he please inform the House whether he had a good time?


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.

November 16, 1970



PRODUCTION AND RECEIPTS POLICY-FARM CONSOLIDATION PROGRAM

Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday last I directed a question to the Minister of Agriculture asking for information relating to the government's policy respecting consolidation of prairie farm units. The minister replied that it was too large an area for him to reply to during the question period. Can the minister now advise the House whether he will be making a statement on motions outlining the government's policy on prairie farm unit consolidation, as referred to in the grains proposal, prior to the convening of the agricultural congress?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I have no plans to make a statement on motions in that context.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A supplementary question. I wonder whether the minister could explain to the House and to the farmers of this country how in the name of heaven-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is an argumentative supplementary.


Mr. Lundrigan:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is it in order for me to ask the House Leader where all the ministers are today? Five ministers are absent who, according to the roster system, should be here.


Mr. Speaker:: That, of course, is not a point of order. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, November 13, consideration in committee of Bill C-181, to provide temporary emergency powers for the preservation of public order in Canada-Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)-Mr. Honey in the chair.
The Chairman:: Order. House again in committee of the whole on Bill C-181, an act to provide temporary emergency powers for the preservation of public order in Canada. When the committee rose on Friday, November 13, 1970, clause 7, as amended, of the bill was under consideration, with an amendment proposed thereto by the hon. member for Broadview, which reads as follows: That clause 7(1) be amended by striking out all the words in the said clause alter the words "pending his trial" in the third line thereof so that the subclause would read:
"a person charged with an offence under section 4 shall be detained in custody without bail pending his trial unless an order for his release on bail is made by a court having jurisdiction under the Criminal Code"; and That subclause 2 be deleted.
Shall the amendment carry?
Public Order Act, 1970
On clause 7-Detention.


Mr. Gilbert:: Mr. Chairman, when I moved the amendment on Friday, I commenced by saying that prior to the implementing of the War Measures Act, and the regulations thereunder, and also prior to passing Bill C-181-


Russell Clayton Honey: Order. I wonder whether the committee would agree with my suggestion that we have a degree of quietness so we can hear the hon. member for Broadview speak to his amendment.


John Gilbert: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was saying that prior to the implementation of the War Measures Act and the regulations thereunder, and also prior to the passage of Bill C-181, the Minister of Justice was considered one of the more progressive reformers in this House. The reason I say that is that his handling of the languages bill and the amendments to the Criminal Code indicated not only that he was progressive but that he was a man who was conciliatory in the matter of amendments, one whose position was flexible and certainly possessed of understanding.
Thus far, the minister has refused to budge on any amendments proposed to Bill C-181, not only by members of his party but also by members of the opposition. I am sure the Minister of Justice does not want to mar his reputation as a progressive reformer, and doubtless he is concerned at the reaction of certain people to the War Measures Act and to this bill. I am sure the minister is aware of articles in the newspaper written by James Ayres and other writers, as well as some university professors. I hope that in considering not only clause 7 but some of the remaining clauses of the bill the minister will change his attitude to the amendments that will be brought forward.
In introducing my amendment to this clause, I could do no better than remind the committee of the words used by the minister in June of this year when he introduced a bill to reform bail procedures, particularly since the clause we are discussing relates to bail. Rather than giving an attorney general discretionary power, we feel that the judge before whom an accused appears should be given the power to make the decision as to bail. When he introduced the amendments regarding bail in June, the minister said that at present many people are unnecessarily subjected to arrest, though other means such as a summons might be perfectly adequate to secure the ends of justice. He also said that too many people who have been arrested are held in custody pending trial, and are thereby exposed to the various indignities of pre-trial detention.
I could not agree more with the minister. In addition, the 447 people arrested under the War Measures Act, of whom 283 were released, 64 detained and 41 charged, indicates the high proportion of those who were perhaps unnecessarily arrested, 283 of them, as I say, having been released. Perhaps this underlines the necessity for seriously considering the bill clause of this bill.
As the minister said in his statement, the criterion for granting bail should be based on the likelihood that an accused will turn up for his trial, as well as on the

November 16, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
secondary consideration whether a serious offence would be committed while he is out on bail. The minister will probably implement these criteria in his bail bill. He well knows the provisions of this clause which give the attorney general discretionary power in the matter of bail.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
I would remind the minister of his press release in which it is stated that the objectives of the arrest and reform bail bill are fourfold. The first objective is to avoid unnecessary pre-trial arrest and detention, for the initial decision to arrest is the decision which activates the criminal law process. It sets the administrative machinery in motion and is the citizen's first confrontation with the criminal law process. This initial confrontation may well have a determining influence on that citizen's reaction to the law generally and the criminal law sanction in particular. I cannot agree more, but I am just wondering what happened to the attitude and interest that has prevailed so far in respect of the 283 who have been arrested and released and the 61 who are still being detained.
The second criterion is to insure that in cases where arrest, with or without warrant, has taken place the person accused, whatever his means, is not unnecessarily held in custody until his trial. Again, when you read that it indicates the necessity of having someone present both on behalf of the accused and the Attorney General in respect of the determination of bail, rather than giving the Attorney General the right to determine for a period of time whether or not a person should be released.
The third criterion is to insure an early trial for those who have been detained in custody pending trial. Again, I am sure the Minister of Justice must cringe at times when he thinks of the way these people have not only been arrested but been retained in custody and, in many cases, refused permission by the authorities to contact relatives, friends and counsel. I appeal to his instincts of justice in respect of this particular amendment.
The fourth criterion the minister suggests is to provide statutory guidelines for decision making in this part of the criminal law process and thereby mitigate against the possibilities for discriminatory injustice in the decision to arrest, hold for custody, admit to bail, etc. He probably has summed it up beautifully with that phrase "the possibilities for discretionary injustice". I think we have had an example of discretionary injustice with regard to arrest and holding. Now, the minister wants to continue this discretionary injustice with regard to the matter of bail.
The minister said that the bail reform bill will continue to humanize the administration of criminal law in Canada. The right to bail should not be the prerogative of the rich and detention the plight of the poor. He further observed that an accused person should not be subjected to detention without good reason. When we talk about humanizing the law and not subjecting a person to custody without good reason, we are reminded of Section 2 (12) of the Bill of Rights which the minister is now incorporating as part of Bill C-181. Yet, at the
same time he deprives a person of the right to reasonable bail without just cause, even though this provision is contained in the Canadian Bill of Rights.
I find it very difficult to criticize the Minister of Justice, who has had the reputation of being so progressive and humane in the past in respect of this particular matter, but I think events and facts have clearly shown that there has been a great deal of injustice in respect of the arrest and holding of persons. The Minister of Justice could show this tendency to humanize the law by accepting the amendment regarding determination of bail.
If the criterion for bail relates to the appearance of the accused at trial and also the possibility that a serious crime might be committed, surely that determination could be made by a trial judge on the representations of Crown Counsel, speaking on behalf of the Attorney General, and defence counsel speaking on behalf of the accused. This is one way the minister could show some compassion for people who are detained in jail, by not having the Attorney General impose discretionary injustice but rather by having the trial judge impose discretionary justice.
It is for these reasons we move the amendment. I have always thought the Minister of Justice earned his title in the full sense and I would hope he will not quickly earn the title of minister of injustice. If he continues with his attitude concerning amendments to this bill, it may be that he will be suitably tagged with the name of minister of injustice.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has recited my words on the introduction of the bail reform bill which we hope to re-introduce in this House shortly. I stand by those words. I think no one seeks a more contemporary and compassionate, human and flexible criminal law process in this country than I. I have been encouraged by the support I have received over the last two and a half years from the hon. member on the standing committee, as well as from hon. members on both sides of the House.
We are dealing with an extraordinary situation. Insor-far as the particular threat to which this bill addresses itself, namely the FLQ, we are not dealing with the ordinary tenor of the criminal law. I tried to explain at the second reading stage of this bill why it was that existing provisions of the criminal law were inadequate to deal with this politically organized criminal conspiracy. I also tried to describe to the House why it was that we sought for a specific purpose, and for a limited period of time only, certain extended powers to be exercised by law enforcement officers in this country under the direction of provincial attorneys general, namely increased powers to arrest and to detain for a limited time, of search and of suspension of bail.
I continue to think that in dealing, in ordinary circumstances, with crime in this country, bail should be considered to be an inalienable right if sought for just cause, and that the primary purpose of bail is to insure that an accused shows up for his trial. The secondary purpose is to insure that releasing an accused on bail will not

November 16, 1970

prejudice the public interest in the sense that an accused might tend to re-commit a crime, cause violence to others, intimidate witnesses and so on. Because of the nature of this FLQ conspiracy I am of the view that the second feature, namely the public interest, would not be served by this bill with the adoption of this amendment.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
The very nature of the seditious objectives of the FLQ is to attempt, or promote, the overthrow by violent means, by force or by crime, of the government of Quebec or Quebec in its relationship to Canada. There is more than a little evidence to indicate that members of organizations like the FLQ if apprehended, arrested, and then allowed to go free on bail, following the ordinary principles of law would be tempted to escape the country or to seek and perhaps be granted refuge in other countries. The ordinary extradition laws do not reach out to these cases. What is perhaps more important, I think it would be unrealistic to ignore the fact that given an organized conspiracy as we have here, the likelihood of frustration of the measures taken by the law enforcement authorities would be high if released members of unlawful organizations such as the FLQ were able, when released, to make contact with other conspirators.
I think we are entitled to assume in this case that the risk of intimidation of witnesses would be extraordinarily high. I do not say I am not sensitive to the remarks the hon. member addressed to me or to the way he put them. Were we dealing with the ordinary scope of the criminal law, then I would be most receptive to them. But I have stated on a number of occasions that this is not an ordinary criminal measure but is an extraordinary criminal measure to deal with an extraordinary threat. I say to the hon. member that in terms of this bill his amendment would be meaningless because, as a practical matter, this is what would happen if subclause 1 of clause 7 were repealed altogether and nothing substituted therefor. In short, the government recognizes the extraordinary rule embodied by subclause 1 of clause 7, but it is a rule designed to meet an extraordinary situation. The primary purpose of the provision is to ensure that members of the FLQ and their supporters, who are to be proceeded against under law, will not be in a position to frustrate these proceedings by being allowed to escape justice or interfere with the trial by intimidating witnesses or otherwise.
Because the information relating to conspiracy is in the hands of the law officers who are responsible to the Attorney General, and because of the fact that the Attorney General will be responsible to the legislature of the province and will therefore be responsible to the people, I prefer that these extraordinary measures, namely the suspension of bail by discretion, be in the hands of the Attorney General. He will be accountable for the administration of these extraordinary measures during the six months' period which this bill has to run and I would rather not impose upon the judiciary the responsibility of being a party to the suspension of bail. For these reasons, I urge the committee to refuse this amendment.
Public Order Act, 1970


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, would the minister permit one question. It is a very simple question. In respect of association, such as that involving the FLQ, I think that if someone were charged and obtained bail, provided it were permitted, the laws of extradition between here and the United States might not apply.


John Napier Turner: That is the advice I have been given. I should point out that when we talk about the suspension of bail we are dealing only with a person charged with an offence under clause 4, namely membership or participation in the FLQ. The suspension does not attach the other offences.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, like the hon. member for Broadview, I have always been sympathetic to the excellent statements the Minister of Justice has made concerning the extension of the system of bail to permit people who have been charged with an offence, who are known in the community and are not likely to disappear, to be permitted out on bail until their trial. Therefore, despite the difficulties the Minister of Justice enumerated, I am rather perplexed about what is going on at the present time. I do not question the right, and indeed the duty, of the government to keep in jail until they come to trial people who have been charged with offences such as kidnapping, dynamiting and so on, and possibly even membership in the FLQ.
However, there were people arrested almost a month ago who have been charged with sedition who may or may not be guilty. I assume that when their cases come up for trial the courts will decide whether or not these people are guilty. Some of them may be found guilty, but some of them may well be found to be innocent. Although I hold no brief for them, some of these people are quite well known and are not likely to disappear. Some of them hold important positions in the province of Quebec. Yet, some of these people who were arrested in October may not come to trial until January or February and the trial may continue for a month or so. These people could be locked up in jail for a period of four to six months. I think this is an extremely serious matter. Unfortunately, as indicated by a survey carried out by CTV and released yesterday, a majority of the people of this province believe these people are guilty and should be very heavily punished. However, it well may be that many of these people who will have spent some four to six months in jail will be found to be innocent.
It seems to me the situation we have before us now is very different from the situation the minister had in mind until very recently. I must say to the minister that I am not at all convinced by the argument he has put forward this afternoon concerning the need to keep these people in jail until their trial. While he did have the co-operation of members on this side in the past, I want to tell him that if he continues doing what he is doing now that co-operation will not be forthcoming in the future.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I should like to deal very briefly with the minister's reply. I want to say

November 16, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
first, as I did in connection with another amendment last Friday, that even if it is admitted that certain additional powers are needed by the police, such as the right to search without warrant and to detain for a certain number of days without charge, surely members of the committee and the minister himself must be bound by the determination that these extraordinary powers not be extended one iota beyond what is absolutely essential. The minister, it seems to me, simply has not convinced anybody yet that this particular power in the hands of the Attorney General can conceivably be essential to achieving the purposes for which this bill is before the committee.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
The question is not whether a charged person is kept in jail or not. I cannot decide that, nor can the minister. The question is who will determine whether that person is to be kept in jail pending trial or whether he is to be let out on bail. A basic principle is involved here, namely, whether or not it is right to leave that determination in the hands of a political officer, who is advised by the police who will always find it more convenient to keep somebody in jail rather than to let him out on bail. I ask the minister: has he so little confidence in the judiciary in Quebec or elsewhere that he has to deprive the judiciary of their normal right to make that decision? All the arguments which the minister gave for making the decision as to whether people charged under clause 4 should or should not be given bail he can make or counsel for the attorney general of Quebec can and would make to the court. Counsel would indicate to the court that the person is likely to escape from the country and that extradition would not apply. Counsel would likely indicate to the court the danger that if the man or woman is let loose he or she will have direct contact with the conspirators and continue committing an offence. Counsel would likely indicate to the court the danger of the intimidation of witnesses, and use all the other arguments which the minister gave. If those arguments are valid, if counsel can present to the court some reason for his assertion, I have no doubt that the court would refuse bail, as courts have done in extreme cases of that sort even when the ordinary law is applied.
The issue that is involved is that the minister gives the attorney general of Quebec the power simply to file a certificate in which he states that in his opinion just cause exists for this man to continue to be detained, or whatever the language may be. The court has no discretion, and counsel for the accused has no possible ground for argument. The attorney general has spoken, and that is it.
May I remind members of the committee that the minister made clear, I think on Friday, that the attorney general would not be required to state the reasons for his assertion that there was just cause. I am right in that, am I not? I am sure I am. The minister said that all the attorney general would be required to do would be to state in the certificate that in his opinion just cause exists. Then, the man would be denied bail on the word of the attorney general without inquiry by an independent judge and without the counsel for the accused being able to argue against it because there would be no argument. The attorney general has spoken, that is the word of the Lord.
The principle that is involved is one that our law has recognized for centuries, namely, that you cannot leave the question of whether a person charged is to remain in jail or be let out on bail in the hands of a law enforcement officer who will always find it more convenient to have the accused in jail and who will always have an argument for refusing bail. The minister should not reject that principle and throw it out the window without much more reason than he has given us.
I repeat, I am not arguing whether a certain person or a number of people should be in jail or should be freed on bail. I am saying that the decision should be made by the judge and not by the police, because the attorney general does not make that decision on his own but makes it on the recommendation of a police officer. He has even greater difficulty in refusing to take the advice of his police officer than the judge would have in taking or refusing to take the advice of counsel for the attorney general in court. Therefore, in practical terms, it would not even be a decision of the attorney general. That is what our law has always tried to avoid.
I cannot understand the logic of the minister. May I put it in the same terms as I did in respect of another amendment last Friday. The kidnappers and murderers of Mr. Laporte will have the matter of whether or not they receive bail argued in court and decided by the judge, but someone arrested for committing an act prohibited under clause 4-which to my mind is much less reprehensible than the act of kidnapping and murder- will have no say as to whether or not he should obtain bail. The attorney general himself will make that decision. I cannot understand the logic of that. I cannot understand why the murderers of Mr. Laporte should have greater rights in the courts of Quebec than a person charged with being a member or attending meetings of an assembly or group or an association alleged to be Le Front de Liberation du Quebec.
To my mind, it is completely unacceptable that this group of men and women who are not by definition charged with any other offence-because if they were charged with another offence, whether sedition, treason, kidnapping, murder or possession of offensive weapons they would come under the criminal law and all the rights with respect to bail would be theirs in court-but only with the offence of being members of the FLQ, will have less rights than a man who committed murder as part of the criminal conspiracy of the FLQ. That seems to me to be totally illogical. I do not see how the minister can insist on this provision being necessary to achieve the purposes for which the bill has been introduced.


John Napier Turner: I want to reply briefly to the additional remarks addressed to the committee by the hon. member for York South. I think I should impress upon the committee that what we are dealing with here is not the automatic suspension of bail but suspension of

November 16, 1970

bail only on a certificate signed by the attorney general. That certificate cannot be delegated, it is not something that can be done by the police. It has to be done by the attorney general on his own authority.


David Orlikow: Where does he get the information?


John Napier Turner: I do not think the hon. member for York South wants to leave the impression that the attorney general is not accountable. He is more accountable than anyone in the judiciary. He is accountable to the legislature and to the people of the province.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Napier Turner: Oh, yes, it has been part of the tradition of the British parliamentary system that the attorney general, whether he be the attorney general in parliament or in a legislature, must be an elected officer of the government and must be responsible as Member of Parliament or as a member of a legislature to the people through his elected position.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is political accountability, not judicial accountability.


John Napier Turner: Political accountability is one given to him under this bill for the operation of an extraordinary provision of law, a provision of the law that is likely to be controversial in its administration, and I recognize that. That controversy is something for which the attorney general should bear responsibility. I would not want to involve the judiciary in that type of controversy. When I have the honour, I hope, to introduce a bill on electronic eavesdropping or wiretapping, I think the responsibility for issuing any warrant to wiretap should not lie with a judge but should lie with the attorney general of a province or with the Attorney General or Solicitor General responsible to this Parliament. The reason for this is the same, that when you are dealing with something that involves the discretionary side of the administration of justice, the person using this discretion ought to be held accountable to the people. One should not involve the judiciary in that type of accountability.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
As I have stated, there is no automatic suspension of bail here. The suspension will have to be made on a certificate by the Attorney General, not the police but by the Attorney General, and the police after all are accountable to him. The Attorney General is responsible for the police or for their administration, or maladministration, whatever it may be. So, there is no breach in that link of accountability beginning with the police, through to law enforcement, to the prosecution, up to the Attorney General, from the Attorney General to the legislature, and on to the people.
I think, Mr. Chairman, I have made the points I wanted to make. We are dealing with a dangerous cons-
Public Order Act, 1970
piracy that has proved how lethal it can be, and because of that I think that to allow the ordinary provisions of bail to apply would defeat the purpose of this specific, short-term piece of legislation. The FLQ is just not an ordinary group of citizens but a group of people dedicated to the overthrow of government by violence and in a seditious manner. To allow that type of person out on bail if apprehended-and apprehension is obviously difficult as current events demonstrate-with the possibility of intimidating witnesses, or reconstructing the conspiracy, or threatening life, is something we have to contend with within the terms of this bill. I do that, taking full cognizance of the purport of the remarks that have been addressed to me.
I would not be introducing this type of measure in the general scheme of things were we living in different times, and as soon as I can I will be continuing in Parliament with the type of measure which is more palatable to me in terms of bail reform, the law relating to arrest, and the rest of the legal reform program that we have been introducing over the last two years. But, Mr. Chairman, this is a specific measure to meet specific circumstances and I must take cognizance of it in that respect.


Mr.   Barnell@: Mr. Chairman, I find the logic of the minister quite extraordinary. If one were to follow his argument to a logical conclusion, his theory of the political accountability of the Attorney General, one is led to the idea he is suggesting that we should abolish the courts altogether. After all, if the Attorney General is responsible to the legislature, and through it indirectly to the people, why not allow him to decide "off with his head" in respect of an accused?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What manner of nonsense is this?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Surely, the Minister of Justice is not trying to suggest seriously that decisions that affect the life and death, or freedom and captivity of individual citizens should be handled through the process of what he calls political accountability? I have tried to follow the minister's argument in support of this bill through its various stages, but I find myself feeling more and more as though I were in an Alice in Wonderland atmosphere.
In his most recent remarks, the minister again referred to a very serious conspiracy. There are certain facts that have been reported in this House. The kidnappings have been reported. The murder of a minister of the Crown of the province of Quebec has been reported. But, Mr. Chairman, so far as the records of this House go, we have not had anything more than pure hearsay about this conspiracy with which clause 4 of the bill is designed to deal. I am just wondering how much research someone 50 years from now would have to do to find any real evidence in the records of this House concerning this conspiracy to which the minister keeps referring, and referring, and referring.
Like other hon. members I have hearsay knowledge. The minister, having a closer association than I with the area in which the conspiracy developed-

November 16, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970


Russell Clayton Honey: Order. I wonder if the hon. member would like to come quickly to the relevant part of his remarks on clause 7 with which we are now dealing, the matter of bail and the method of granting bail?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, it is my humble submission, to use an expression I have heard, that I was right on that point because the minister is asking us to agree with him that the normal right to bail should be suspended on the ground that there exists a serious conspiracy to overthrow government by violence. What I am suggesting is that there should be something more than hearsay on the records of this House, something more than argumentative dissertations from the minister and other members of the government, to assist members of the committee in making a decision on this point.
I have been wondering on a number of occasions why the minister has never tabled in this House any form of documentary evidence in respect of the conspiracy. I have heard reports of a broadcast in Quebec concerning some document which I think has been referred to as a manifesto. Why does the minister not table a copy of that document, if it exists, so that we may have a first hand and official chance to examine it?
Is there other documentary evidence of statements made by members of the FLQ that the minister could place before the House, that could form part of the official records? The minister is repeatedly asking us to turn over extraordinary powers to the Attorney General of a province in order to administer a special law. Why is it that the government has not placed any documentary evidence concerning this whole matter in the records of this House? Can the minister explain that?


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Gilbert) negatived: Yeas, 11; nays, 46.


Russell Clayton Honey: I declare the amendment lost.
Shall clause 7 as amended carry?
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Russell Clayton Honey: Shall clause 8 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


John Gilbert: Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak on clause 7, and I must ask you to refer back to clause 7.


Some hon. Members:: It was carried.


John Gilbert: Mr. Chairman, I am sure you just did not see me. You were looking to the right.


Some hon. Members:: He was not up.


Russell Clayton Honey: The Chair has to confess that it did not see the hon. member. We will now hear the hon. member for Broadview on clause 7.


John Gilbert: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This just indicates your impartiality and spirit of fairness; I appreciate your consideration.
I now move that subclause (3) of clause 7 be amended by striking out the word "ninety" from the tenth and fourteenth lines and substituting therefor the word "thirty". The subclause would then read:
(3) Where a person who has been charged with an offence under this Act is being detained in custody pending his trial, and under the trial has not commenced within thirty days from the time when he was first detained, the person having custody of the person charged shall forthwith upon the expiry of those thirty days, apply to a judge of the Superior Court of criminal jurisdiction in the province in which the person charged is being detained to fix a date for the trial, and the judge may fix a date for the beginning of the trial or give such directions as he thinks necessary for the commencement of the trial.
It is a very simple amendment, to strike out the word "ninety" and replace it with the word "thirty". We feel that ninety days is a very long time.


Russell Clayton Honey: There does not appear to be a copy of the amendment here.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, could I make a suggestion? The amendment is very simple and while someone is preparing it could we not make submissions? There has been some delay and I do not see that it would do any harm. Surely, hon. members would agree to that.


Russell Clayton Honey: The Chair now has the amendment in writing, so perhaps I could put it. It has been moved by the hon. member for Broadview:
That clause 7, subclause (3) be amended by striking out the word ninety from the tenth and fourteenth lines of the said subclause on page 5 and substituting therefor the word thirty.
Shall the amendment carry? The hon. member for Broadview.


John Gilbert: I am sure the Minister of Justice will approve this amendment and see the fairness of it. I am sure he would be the last person to have anyone detained in custody for 90 days before being brought to trial.
Under the wording of the clause not only is someone detained for 90 days, but when that person is brought before the judge the judge may, not shall, fix a date for the trial. Experience has shown that this is a very harsh way of treating any person charged with and not only is it contrary to the minister's spirit of fairness and justice but it strikes very hard against the opinions of people right across the country. As the hon. member for Timis-kaming has just said, it strikes against the fundamental principles in the Bill of Rights.
I can almost anticipate what the minister is going to say. He will say that when a person is charged under the Criminal Code he could be detained much longer because when he appears for trial the Crown could ask for successive remands which may exceed 90 days. This does happen under the Criminal Code. Sometimes an accused cannot be brought to trial for four or five months for various reasons. The minister says that this is an extraordinary bill to cover a particular situation. It seems that

November 16, 1970

he would be the last person to have someone detained lor 90 days, and then brought before a judge to whom he gives the discretionary power with regard to fixing the date for trial.
It may be that the minister feels that 30 days is a little bit too short for the preparation of the case. If the minister feels that 45 days would be more appropriate for preparation before a person is brought to trial, I would be quite prepared to accept his amendment. The way the clause now stands certainly imposes a hardship on the accused. I think the government should appreciate that difficulty and be prepared to agree to the amendment.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, there are no existing provisions of the Criminal Code which would aid any accused who has been refused bail in accelerating his trial. The hon. member for Broadview alluded to that. The present provisions of the Criminal Code provide no means for an application for accelerating the trial of any accused held without bail. For that reason, in the bail reform bill to which we have alluded earlier, I incorporated a provision that if bail were refused then the accused would be entitled to apply at the end of 90 days to set a date for trial.
The bail reform bill would achieve this improvement in the law. I discussed with my officials whether 90 days was an appropriate period and, taking into consideration the difficulties that might arise for both the prosecution and the defence, I was assured that 90 days was fair and to reduce it might prejudice the administration of justice.
Subclause 2 of clause 7 is designed to assist the accused because, in our opinion, if he is held without bail he is entitled to an accelerated trial. The reason subclause 2 is there is that under subclause 1 of clause 7 he could be held at the order of the Attorney General without bail. I should point out as well that if clause 7 subclause 1 had disappeared as a result of the earlier amendment by the hon. member for Broadview, then the rationale of subclause 2 with which we are now dealing also would have disappeared. I
I would point out to the hon. member for Broadview that if both his proposed amendments, namely the amendment to subclause 1 of clause 7 which was just defeated by the committee and the amendment to subclause 2 of clause 7 now before the committee, were passed it would place members of the FLQ in a better position than that which currently obtains with respect to other citizens subject to criminal proceedings.
With respect I submit the committee should reject the amendment.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will say at the outset that I support the amendment. With the greatest respect, I cannot accept the minister's argument in connection with the Criminal Code. It is true that sometimes people are kept 90 days awaiting trial, or 100 days, but the fact remains that as the code is currently set up an accused person can get his
Public Order Act, 1970
case before the courts without any undue delay. He can go before a magistrate, skip the preliminary hearing on an indictable offence and then ask for a speedy trial before a county court judge or, in certain provinces such as Alberta, before a supreme court judge, waiving the right to a jury even at the high court level. I have known cases where, after the charge has been laid, there has been refusal or reluctance on the part of the Crown to get on with the job. Defence counsel then picks up the telephone or goes into the office of the chief justice and says: Look, I want to make a move. The judges are always anxious to get on with the job, and I am sure I speak for all provinces. So, the machinery under the code is such that in a few days an accused person can get to trial if he so wishes.
In some instances, of course, when people who are in jail have no counsel, there are abuses, but the law is there to expedite justice. I believe 90 days is far too long. In fact, I have some doubt about 30 days, but I am prepared to accept the amendment; I shall not delay the committee. We on this side have said very little about these amendments but as far as we are concerned we do not accept the argument of the minister that this provision really puts a man in a better position than one who is charged under the Criminal Code. In my opinion, in plain ordinary language, that is hogwash. There are procedures under the code by which a speedy trial can be obtained. Even if a case is to go to a jury, an accused can get it heard before 90 days have gone by if defence counsel is on his toes. In my opinion, 90 days is too long. Even then, as the hon. member for Broadview pointed out, the accused has to make application to a judge who may set a time for trial. So the case may not get to trial for 120 days.
I am surprised at the attitude the minister is taking. This is what is delaying the passage of this bill. Surely, we thought, the Minister of Justice would accept reasonable amendments. But it seems he has closed his mind. Somebody in the bureaucracy has handed him a bill and he intends to stick with it at all cost. If he had accepted some of the reasonable amendments which all parties in opposition have put forward, the bill would be through by now. All of us are concerned about the length of the period which accused persons spend in detention. This is the time to ask questions because immediately the bill becomes law I can hear the minister saying: Oh, this is a provincial matter within the jurisdiction of the provincial attorney general. I asked him today whether the police of Quebec were incompetent or infiltrated. I want to know. If anyone can hide in a cupboard like old Mother Hubbard, it is time we got some answers from this government. The minister and his hon. friends brought in the War Measures Act and now they are bringing in legislation to replace it. As soon as there is any problem, we are told this is a matter for the province of Quebec.


Mr. Peters:: I was very interested in the remarks the minister made in relation to the Criminal Code and the delays that have taken place. As lay people, most of us are not aware of those delays unless we are charged with an offence, but when we do learn about these cases we do
1196
November 16, 1970

Public Order Act, 1970
not like them. The minister is wrong in saying that it does not matter whether similar delays take place under the legislation he is putting forward.
In my opinion all of us should be trying to limit the delays which can take place under the Criminal Code. As the old saying has it, justice delayed is the same as justice denied. In this particular instance, the minister has especially good reason to make sure there is no unreasonable delay, because we are dealing here with a political bill. If people are charged with treason, for example, under the Criminal Code, they will be dealt with according to the provisions of that code. But we are passing a political bill. We are creating a political party where no party existed before and, at the same time, we are outlawing that party.
It seems to me that justice will not be served unless we act speedily. I have always been confused by charges which are laid and which are never withdrawn but which are never proceeded with, either. I am thinking of a case which concerned me. I was charged under the terms of some remote section of the code having to do with an injunction. This took place 15 years ago and I have heard nothing about it since. However, I imagine I am not supposed to go back to that particular property. The case is still pending, it seems, and I suggest this is not very fair. I urge the minister to reconsider his attitude. I am aware it is said that the accused person is often better served by delay. Sometimes Counsel will try to wait until the judge dies. Sometimes the delay arises because of difficulty in getting witnesses; sometimes it is the fault of the Crown. In many cases it arises through the inefficiency of the courts. In any case, I believe the minister is wrong in implying that a long delay is warranted.
This is a political bill and the charge will be a political charge. This being so, it seems to me these matters should be settled in the courts as soon as possible. I certainly hope that the courts will be ready to deal with these political crimes expeditiously. I believe it is improper to relate the circumstances here to circumstances under the Criminal Code. Some of the delays which take place in proceedings under the code may be justifiable, but here, when we are dealing with a political crime, action should be taken as speedily as possible. I hope the minister will reconsider his position.
Mr. Fair weather: I am disappointed at the attitude which the minister has taken towards this amendment. As to the response of the opposition, I believe he would get the same answer with respect to almost any bill which he brought before the House dealing with timetables for trials.
There is absolutely no reason, in my view, why, after 30 days, the Crown should not be prepared to proceed. We should bear in mind the very wise observation made by the hon. member for Timiskaming. This bill creates a new crime. I am not greatly interested in what the code may or may not say about any particular crime because it has been put in statute form over many years and there are precedents and so on. That is why I deplore the
fact that people are anxious to get on with this. Some are so irresponsible as to say the bill should be passed in one or two days.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
This new crime is retroactive in its scope. I think the minister will want to ensure that the techniques for trial are the most sensitive and sophisticated that can be evolved by the law officers of the Crown. I will be resisting any attempt or excuse by law officers to include a convenient 90-day period. I suggest the minister should be much more flexible in his attitude towards this clause.
I will be supporting this amendment and many others. All this amendment does is limit the period of detention before trial. If the procedures cannot be completed within 30 days then, as my friend from Calgary North says, there should be an investigation into what is the matter with the administration of justice in the province of Quebec. If anyone has read the speech made by the Quebec Minister of Justice in the national assembly a couple of days ago, he will be even more suspicious about this type of legislation coming before this Parliament.


John Napier Turner: I wish to say a few
words relating to what the hon. member for Fundy-Boy-al and the hon. member for Calgary North said. This is not a minimum period, it is a maximum period. The words read:
-and the trial was not commenced within ninety days from the time when he was first detained, the person having the custody of the person charged shall, forthwith upon the expiry of those ninety days,-
Of course, it would be open to counsel within the 90 days to proceed with an application to set a date for trial. We hope that will happen. This is the outside period within which a date for trial must be set.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a question of privilege.


Russell Clayton Honey: The hon. member on a point of privilege.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a question of privilege; the minister has always been very fair in trying to quote people properly. In this case I said 90 days and then an application is made for trial. A trial date might be set 30 days after the 90 days or, in other words, 120 days after the arrest. If an application is made within the 90 days, the judge may set a time for the hearing. Am I not right in that regard?


John Napier Turner: Certainly the hon.
member is right, but it is open to counsel any time before the expiry of the 90 days to make an application for trial. This application can be made the day following the arrest. That is why the section is phrased, "and the trial has not commenced within 90 days from the time when he was first detained". The 90 days is the maximum period. We all hope, as is the case in criminal matters, that the trial commences as quickly as possible. If there

November 16, 1970

has been no application to set a date for trial within the 90 days, it then becomes mandatory. In the Criminal Code it is not mandatory, and this provision is to overcome that lack. The bail reform bill also includes the provision of 90 days.


Mr. McCleave:: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Before doing so, may I preface it with an observation. If a person is in jail and his case has not been set for trial within 90 days, public suspicion would inevitably develop that no case existed against the person or that the authorities were trying their darndest to round up some evidence to use against him. That would be a natural inference from such a circumstance.
It has been stated many times that the provincial attorneys general are administering this particular measure, although for practical purposes this means one man, the Attorney General of the province of Quebec. We are dealing with the administration of justice, bringing an accused into court. We have to consider the workload of the courts in the province of Quebec. Have the officials of the Department of Justice been in consultation with the Quebec Department of Justice to determine this 90-day period?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, when I met the provincial attorneys general in Halifax in July, we discussed the bail reform bill. At that time all the provisions of that bill were thoroughly canvassed, as they were by the commissioners on uniformity of law in Prince Edward Island in the first week of September. The maximum period was discussed. It was the opinion of the attorneys general and their advisers that this maximum period was in keeping with the case load of criminal matters in Canada. For that reason I accepted 90 days as the maximum period for the purposes of the bail reform bill. I drew on that experience for the purposes of this legislation. The 90 days applies in those cases under the bail reform bill where bail has been refused.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, this is my first intervention in the debate on this particular bill. I make no apology for intervening at this time, particularly in view of the remarks made by the Minister of Justice. This is exceptional legislation, therefore we must take exceptional care that everything shall be done properly.
This is one of the clauses in this bill that has disturbed me. One can readily conceive of a person being held without bail for a period of almost 90 days and then having a trial judge set a date for trial three months hence. What if that person is then found to be innocent? The net result would be that the apprehended person would be held without bail for five or six months. What are the consequences? He has lost his job and his reputation has gone out the window. There must be no suggestion of guilt by association. Unfortunately, in this particular case 450 people have been found guilty by association. Let's not have any illusions.
23568-5}
Public Order Act, 1970

They were all lumped together and accused of the same offence. Each individual's reputation has been affected without distinction, innocent and guilty alike.

We Canadians, with our love for civil rights, must not do anything under any circumstances to interfere with those rights. My practice is not criminal law. Hon. members know that I am in favour of law and order, but X am absolutely revolted by some of the provisions in this particular bill, not with regard to apprehending but after apprehension. That is my point. It is almost as though we were devising a modern day lettre cachee. I suppose that 90 days, in this day and age, could be compared to five years in the bastille.
I fully support the amendment. Once a person has been charged, appeared before a magistrate, pleaded, and bail has been refused he has a right to counsel. There is no denying that counsel should then apply to set a date for trial. Remembering that this is a special remedy we are seeking I think the courts and the representatives of the Crown would be very loth to abuse their position by asking for a deferment knowing that the individual concerned could be found innocent and indeed is innocent until proved otherwise. I do not find this period of 90 days in any way acceptable.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
May I come back to the argument made by my colleague from Calgary North and others. It is absolutely incomprehensible to me that in passing this legislation or accepting the regulations made pursuant to the War Measures Act the Parliament of Canada should take a Pilate-like attitude and say that all abuses are the responsibility of this or that attorney general. This is not good enough. The responsibility is ours. It is this government that invoked the War Measures Act; it is this government that is passing this legislation in substitution therefor; and it is this government, the government of Canada, that will pass legislation of a more permanent nature.
For this reason we have to be more than careful to protect the rights of people. It is on this basis that I plead with the minister to accept what I think is a very reasonable amendment.
tTranslation]


Mr. Goyer:: Mr. Chairman, I share the opinion of the members of the opposition who find a little shocking that a person should have to wait quite a long time before going on trial and that this prolonged delay may indirectly prejudice his future and his status as a citizen and a worker. However some persons detained under other sections of the Criminal Code are also waiting to go on trial and if we should change the rolls to give priority to trials under the bill before us we would do a prejudice to those presently detained for an offence under the Criminal Code. We would grant a privileged status to those arrested under the Public Order Act 1970. I do not think that doing wrong to others will rectify the injustice done to those who were arrested under Bill C-181.

November 16, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
Furthermore I do not think that these people should be treated in a special way. They are common law criminals like anybody else arrested under the Criminal Code and I believe that they should be considered according to the same rules of justice.
The fact that the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) is telling us that the provincial attorneys general were consulted and that the Quebec Minister of Justice approves the clause we are now considering is reassuring.
I think we should avoid the very protective attitude adopted by certain hon. members when it comes to the prerogatives of a government that has the same rights as the central government from a constitutional point of view. I feel that this attitude is wrong.
The government of the province of Quebec as any other provincial government in Canada enjoys its own autonomy and we must not judge it as if we were on a higher plane. The provincial governments are entitled to the same respect and prerogatives as we claim for ourselves.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I want to say that any arrests under this legislation will be carried out under very special circumstances.
Common criminals or others arrested under any other legislation must be arrested under a warrant. Furthermore all other requirements of the Criminal Code must be observed whereas under the new legislation they knock at people's doors at night and arrest them without warrant. I therefore feel people thus arrested should be brought to trial before others.
I find it difficult to deal with this rather ticklish matter because the Quebec provincial government will be responsible for the application of the new legislation. However it is emergency legislation we are dealing with not merely legislation applying to the FLQ but of a much more permanent nature.
One should not deceive oneself. We are discussing a permanent law, although it applies for the time being to the province of Quebec. It also mentions people arrested under this law, therefore, one has to study it very carefully. The hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Goyer) should consider clause 14 which has a retroactive effect to October 16; therefore, any person arrested under the War Measures Act will be considered as having been arrested under the measure that is presently before us.
Why? We must think about it. I leave it to the attorney general of my province. It is possible to get the opinion of the attorney general of Alberta or of any other province, because members of other groups or associations could very well spread FLQ ideas in Alberta and be apprehended there.
If I went to Edmonton to shout "Long live this group" or to advocate that the federal government or the government of Alberta should be overthrown, I would be arrested under this act.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Gilbert) negatived: Yeas, 20; nays, 42.


Russell Clayton Honey: I declare the amendment lost. Shall clause 7 as amended carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Clause as amended agreed to.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
On Clause 8-Evidence.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I rise to move an amendment which is perhaps the most important this committee will have to consider. I want to say that my colleague, the hon. member for Greenwood, intended to move this amendment. Unfortunately, one of his sisters is very ill outside the country and for that reason my friend had to leave, so he asked me to move it. Therefore, I move;
That clause 8 be amended by striking out of the third line thereof (page 5, line 24) the words "either before or" and substituting "16th day of October. 1970" for the words "coming into force of this Act",
So, the clause will read:
In any prosecution for an offence under this Act, evidence that any person after the 16th day of October, 1970-
If any person has done certain things such evidence shall in the absence of evidence to the contrary, be proof he is a member of the unlawful association. I think you may have that already Mr. Chairman. I hope the amendment is clear. Perhaps it might be worded differently, "on or after October 16, 1970" instead of "after October 16th, 1970". It probably should be worded in that way in view of the date, and if the committee will permit me I should like to make that amendment to the amendment I moved.


Russell Clayton Honey: Would the hon. member repeat the proposed amendment?


David Lewis: You have my copy, Mr. Chairman, but the amendment would be that in place of lines 24 and 25 on page 5 you would have the words "on or after October 16, 1970".


Russell Clayton Honey: If I understand the hon. member he is adding the words "on or"?


David Lewis: That is right.


Russell Clayton Honey: Is it agreed that the hon. member has permission to insert those words? I will not read the whole amendment, only the pertinent lines as follows:
In any prosecution for an offence under this act, evidence that any person, on or after October 16, 1970-
Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
November 16, 1970


Russell Clayton Honey: So the amendment now will read:
That Clause 8 be amended by striking out of the third line thereof (page 5, line 24) the words "either before or" and substituting "on or after the 16th day of October, 1970",-
The clause will then read:
In any prosecution for an offence tinder this Act, evidence that any person on or after the 16th day of October 1970 (a) participated in or was present at a number of meetings of the unlawful association or of any branch, committee or members thereof,
(b)	spoke publicly in advocacy for the unlawful association, or
(c)	communicated statements on behalf of or as a representative or professed representative of the unlawful association, is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof that he is a member of the unlawful association.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, this clause touches upon one of the most obnoxious suggestions in the bill that is before us, the provision for retroactivity, a principle that has been rejected by our law for centuries, particularly in respect of criminal law.
You will note that Clause 4 of the bill makes it an indictable offence for any person to be or profess to be a member of an unlawful association, and makes a person so charged liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. What Clause 8 does in our view is make evidence that a person had at some time in the last number of years attended some meetings of the unlawful association, or spoken publicly in advocacy of the unlawful association, or communicated statements on behalf of the unlawful association, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof that he is now a member of the unlawful association.
My first point is a simple one, that the FLQ or any association analogous to it was not unlawful before October 16, 1970. Membership in the organization before October 16, 1970 was not unlawful. Speaking for the organization before that date, and communicating statements on behalf of the organization before that date was not unlawful, except to the extent that the actions of the members of the FLQ were against the law or criminal acts. Then, of course, they are caught by the ordinary Criminal Code.
In so far as people involved in bombings, or kidnappings or manslaughter as a result of bombings, or robbing banks and other things for which members of the FLQ have in the past been charged, they have been so charged under the ordinary Criminal Code. What this Clause 8 deals with is purely evidence of membership in the FLQ, and I underline "purely evidence of membership'', not evidence of any other offence or crime. It deals only with evidence of membership in an organization which did not become unlawful until October 16 of this year. This provision, in our estimation, makes the effect of the law retroactive.
It is true that the clause contains the words "is in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof that he is a member of the unlawful association". Therefore the offence is being a member of the unlawful association today, but the evidence on which you may be charged
Public Order Act, 1970
with the offence and the evidence on which you may be convicted of the offence is evidence that pre-dates the time when the association in fact became unlawful as a result of the regulations under the War Measures Act, namely October 16 of this year.
It should be noted, first, that this clause does not contain any time limit. It would be a little less reprehensible, although still reprehensible in my view, if it referred to the last three months or back to October 5 when the kidnapping of Mr. Cross occurred, or even if it went back a little further. However, there is no time limit at all. It is obvious that attending some meetings a year earlier, in October 1969, or five years earlier, in October 1964 or 1965, would be evidence under this clause of proof that a person is now a member of the unlawful association.
The attitude of the minister has been such that I cannot say I have much hope he will accept this amendment, but I really suggest to members of the committee that there are few provisions in what is essentially a penal statute which are more unpalatable to any democratic gathering than a provision of retroactivity.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
As was pointed out in this committee on earlier occasions, article 11, subarticle 2, of the Universal Charter of Human Rights, which we signed and to which Canada adheres, contains a provision that no one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or provision which did not constitute a penal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. The point is that anybody who attended meetings or communicated statements on behalf of the FLQ or any analogous organization before October 16, 1970 was doing an act which did not constitute a penal offence under our law at the time when it was committed. The effect of this clause in the bill, in respect of convicting a person for membership in the FLQ or analogous unlawful association, is clearly to make the effect of the law retroactive. It has been suggested in this chamber before that because the membership relates to a time after the passage of the legislation or after the regulation which is now in force, there is no retroactive provision in the legislation. However, I emphasize and repeat that the membership is proved by previous acts or previous advocacy, and the real evidence is not of membership today but of membership before such membership was unlawful, and the evidence of past activity creates a presumption of present membership in the unlawful association.
This itself, of course, is not very often seen in our criminal law. The creation of a presumption of guilt and placing the onus on an accused to prove his innocence, is not contained in very many provisions of our criminal law, although it is contained in some. It is the kind of provision which all our traditions of criminal law condemn and which should not be present except in very exceptional circumstances. You know, Mr. Chairman, I am not seeking a change in that respect. I am not moving

November 16, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
that the reverse onus be removed because that, in the circumstances of this case, may not be possible. But I do say that this places the accused in an impossible position. He attended some meetings three or four years ago. He made some speeches a year or two ago. He is charged and brought into court. The facts of his attendances and of his speeches are established. These are brought before the court through the witnesses for the Crown. What does the accused then do? He gets to his feet and says he attended those meetings three or four years ago, if he wants to admit this and if it is true, but states that he has not done so since. He states he is not a member of any unlawful association.
What does the court then do? All of us who have had any experience in court would be very worried about this kind of evidence in contradiction of the facts which clause 8 would permit, because the court likely would look on this evidence as self-serving and would not be very impressed by the accused making an assertion to the effect that he is no longer a member of the FLQ or never had been a member of the FLQ. Unless the accused could produce some additional evidence to the court to support his assertion, then the likelihood of his evidence being accepted as contrary evidence is very small indeed. So, the onus placed on the accused in this case is very heavy indeed, even if the act were one which he performed after it became unlawful. But it is an impossible burden if he can be charged with being a member of an unlawful association and convicted of being a member of an unlawful association on the basis of acts which he performed at a time when the association simply was not unlawful and when the acts therefore were entirely lawful so far as the law at the time was concerned.
I have been trying to think why this provision is needed if justice is to be served, and I cannot think of any reason other than the same reason that has seemed to justify in the minister's mind the rejection of every other amendment which so far has been put before this chamber. I want to repeat, Mr. Chairman-and this is the foundation upon which our approach to the bill is based-that right from the outset on October 16 my leader, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, and I said in the speeches we made on that Friday that we recognized there was a criminal emergency in Quebec, and that at that time perhaps it was necessary-we had to say "perhaps" because we did not have the information to justify even this qualified approach- to extend the powers of the police to search, arrest and detain for limited periods. If those powers would help find the members and ringleaders of the FLQ, help to incarcerate and punish them and break up the criminal conspiracy which the FLQ has been and is, then distasteful though it is, if the government came down with legislation we would consider supporting the extension of those police powers.
This I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, is the absolute limit to which this bill ought to go. Indeed, I want to say that as the days pass one becomes less and less convinced that the bill is at all necessary. One becomes less and less
convinced that the serious interference with the rights and liberties of the people is justified by the present situation in the province of Quebec. It is becoming increasingly clear that all the dark hints that were given by ministers of the Crown came out of somebody's imagination rather than out of fact. The conspiracy by these people appears not to have been a conspiracy at all. It would appear that Mr. Laporte was kidnapped by a little group of people who were on their way to Texas, heard of the kidnapping of Mr. Cross and came back to do what they had discussed doing earlier. There did not seem to be any plan. There is no evidence of which I know that is absolutely convincing that even the narrow powers to which I have referred are needed at this time.
However, I am taking on trust, if you like, the general attitude of the authorities in Quebec and here that some expansion of police power is needed to destroy the FLQ. But we ought not in this bill to go one step beyond those powers of search, arrest and detention for a very limited period. When we go beyond that we move in a direction which is unjustified by events in Quebec and which is unjustified by any principle of civil liberties or indeed by any principle of decent and just law, civil liberties on the side.
This particular provision in this bill has been criticized by almost every commentator I have heard, and in almost every editorial and article I have read from across this country. It was criticized I believe only last week by the clergy of a Quebec diocese as reported in the French language press. The clergy plead with the government, and particularly with the Minister of Justice to take out the odious provision of retroactivity in this bill.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I want to emphasize again that what we are dealing with here is purely membership in an unlawful association and committing acts which were lawful before a certain date. The conditions for conviction for membership in an unlawful association is entirely contrary to the spirit of our law and not to be permitted by this committee. I suggest that it will not interfere with the police or with the authorities in their search to destroy the FLQ. We should not create a precedent of retroactivity and I plead with the minister-not with great hope in view of his past attitude-and I plead with members of this committee, I must add not with much hope either in view of the past attitude of government members of the committee to support this amendment and remove the retroactivity from this bill.
We feel that this is a crucial and important point and we ask the committee to deal with the amendment as it should be dealt with.


The Deputy Chairman:: Is the committee ready for the question?


John Napier Turner: I have listened with great interest to the hon. member for York South. We are dealing with an important principle of law. But I want to

November 16, 1970

say first of all that all that clause 8 does is to raise an evidentiary presumption or a presumption of evidence and nothing else. Clause 8 does not create an offence. The offence is created under clause 4.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Clause 8 raises a presumption of guilt.


John Napier Turner: There is nothing in clause 4 which creates an offence retroactively and there is nothing in clause 8 which creates a law which has a retroactive effect. In clause 8 we are dealing merely with a presumption of evidence.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: And of
guilt.


John Napier Turner: It is a presumption of fact.
I want to submit to the committee first of all that there is no retroactive provision in this bill. Clause 8 raises a presumption in relation to one offence only namely an offence under section 4(a) of the bill that of being a member of the unlawful association. So let us put this in the proper perspective. Section 8 does not create a law which has a retroactive effect and the evidentiary presumption relates only to one offence namely the offence under clause 4(a) of the bill dealing with a person who is or professes to be a member of the unlawful association.
I am speaking legally now and I am attempting to interpret the legal effect of this bill. A person cannot be properly charged or convicted of being a member of the unlawful association namely the FLQ prior to October 16, 1970. There is nothing in clause 8 or in clause 4 that says that. When we are talking about retroactive legislation or retrospective criminal legislation this is what it means in the true legal sense. If you had a retroactive piece of legislation a person could be convicted in November of 1970 on a charge specifically referring to conduct in October 1970 which was not unlawful at that time. Now no one can properly be charged or convicted either under the regulations passed pursuant to the proclamation of the War Measures Act or under this bill unless the charge specifically relates to conduct after October 16, 1970. I
I have said that the effect of clause 8 is to raise a rebuttable presumption, and lawyers present in the committee will know what I mean. In other words, if the Crown, by adducing evidence of those things enumerated in clause 8, places an accused in the position of being liable to be convicted unless evidence is adduced on his behalf either by himself or through witnesses or through the cross examination of witnesses who testify on behalf of the Crown, which on a balance of probability indicates that on the date specified in the charge he was not a member of the unlawful association, then the benefit of the doubt goes to the accused.
I will go into this in more detail, but the presumption of fact, or what criminal lawyers call a provisional pre-
Public Order Act, 1970
sumption, only sets an initial presumption against the accused which he can rebut or discharge if, on the balance of probability, the doubt is in his favour. The overriding burden of proof, namely the burden of proof on the Crown in every criminal case to prove guilt beyond any reasonable doubt, always exists.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the minister permit a question?


John Napier Turner: I would like to go on with this complicated argument. It may be that if I do not finish it by five o'clock perhaps the committee will give me an extra five minutes or so because it is important that I make my arguments in sequence.
There is nothing new in the concept of placing an onus on the accused in criminal proceedings to adduce evidence on his own behalf once the prosecution has led some evidence pointing toward guilt. As a matter of fact, the hon. member for York South said he was not as concerned about this provision as he was about what he called the retroactive provision, which I deny is a retroactive provision.
By way of illustration I want to refer to section 8 of the Narcotic Control Act which provides that on a charge of being in possession of an illicit drug for the purpose of trafficking, the Crown need only prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was in possession of the drug whereupon an onus is placed upon the accused to adduce evidence that he was not in possession for the purpose of trafficking. Similar provisions appear in the Food and Drugs Act, in the Customs Act when we are dealing with the unlawful possession of smuggled goods, and the Excise Act in the provisions relating to the unlawful possession of spirits.
With respect to these provisions it must be borne in mind that such a provision is necessary if the offence of being in possession for the purpose of trafficking is to be effectively enforced. There is nothing per se objectionable about such a provision. It simply means that when the Crown has proved illegal possession, this gives rise to a presumption which places a burden on the accused to adduce evidence concerning the motive for his being in possession. The Ontario court of appeal has held unanimously in the case of The Queen against Sharp (1961) 35 C.R. 375, that the onus shifting provision in the opium and narcotics drug act, a provision similar to the shifting of onus or shifting of the burden of proof or presumption of fact that we have here, did not violate the Bill of Rights by depriving a person of the right to a fair hearing or by depriving a person charged with an offence of the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
This case in the Ontario Court of Appeal points out that the shifted onus can be discharged upon a balance of probability, and it also draws attention to the fact that the Supreme Court of the United States has held that similar statutory presumptions are not a denial of due process provided there is a rational connection in

November 16, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
common experience between the fact proved and the ultimate fact presumed.
There are many instances in the Criminal Code where an onus, similar to the one in clause 8 of this bill, is placed on an accused to adduce evidence. To mention only a few I want to make reference to section 162 of the Code, which involves trespassing at night:
Every one who, without lawful excuse, the proof of which lies upon him, loiters near or prowls at night upon the property of another person near a dwelling house situated on that property is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Then, there is section 221(2) and (3), which relates to failing to stop at the scene of an accident:
Every one who, having the care, charge or control of a vehicle that is involved in an accident with a person, vehicle or cattle in charge of a person, with intent to escape civil or criminal liability fails to stop his vehicle, give his name and address, and where any person has been injured, offer assistance, is guilty of
(a)	an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for two years, or
(b)	an offence punishable on summary conviction.
In proceeding under subsection (2), evidence that an accused failed to stop his vehicle, offer assistance where any person has been injured and give his name and address is prima facie evidence of an intent to escape civil and criminal liability.
There is the same shifting onus there.
With respect to the offence of kidnapping, section 233(1) of the Criminal Code reads:
Every one who kidnaps a person with intent
(a)	to cause him to be confined or imprisoned against his will
(b)	to cause him to be unlawfully sent or transported out of Canada against his will, or
(c)	to hold him for ransom or to service against his will, is guilty of an indictable offence-
(2)	Every one who, without lawful authority, confines, imprisons or forcibly seizes another person is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for five years.
(3)	In proceedings under this section the fact that the person in relation to whom the offence is alleged to have been committed did not resist is not a defence unless the accused proves that the failure to resist was not caused by threats, duress, force or exhibition of force.
In other words, the burden is on the accused to prove that the failure to resist was not caused by threats, duress, force or exhibition of force.
Referring also, Mr. Chairman, to section 253(1) of the Criminal Code:
The proprietor of a newspaper shall be deemed to publish defamatory matter that is inserted and published therein, unless he proves that the defamatory matter was inserted in the newspaper without his knowledge and without negligence on his part.
Section 295(1) of the Criminal Code reads:
Every one who without lawful excuse, the proof of which lies upon him, has in his possession any instrument for house-breaking, vault-breaking or safe-breaking is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable for fourteen years.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before the minister leaves those, would he answer a question?


John Napier Turner: May I finish the argument first? All those articles in the Criminal Code, and there are several others I could have adduced, indicate that there is nothing unusual for the onus of proof, in terms of a presumption of fact, to be inserted against the accused in a criminal matter, and that in several instances, indeed many instances in the Criminal Code, this presumption of fact, set forth in a statutory form, has to be rebutted by the accused if he is to escape guilt. He satisfies that onus of proof, or rebutts that presumption if, on the balance of probability, he creates doubt in the minds of a judge and jury. The Crown has to satisfy the burden of proof in every criminal offence. It has to establish that an accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Clause 8 of the bill reads:
In any prosecution for an offence under this Act, evidence that any person, either before or after the coming into force of this Act,
(a)	participated in or was present at a number of meetings-
Hon. members will notice that this is changed from the wording in the regulations. Now, active participation is necessary, and there has to be presence at a number of meetings instead of at a single meeting, as obtained under the regulations-and that was a weakness.
(b)	-spoke publicly in advocacy for the unlawful association, or
(c)	communicated statements on behalf of or as a representative or professed representative of the unlawful association,
is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof that he is a member of the unlawful association.
That is to say that he is today a member of the unlawful association or is, after October 16, a member of the unlawful association. This means that the accused, when confronted with evidence under (a), (b) or (c) is entitled to adduce evidence casting doubt on that evidence, thus casting doubt into the minds of judge and jury. If he is able to present any reasonable explanation for participation at a number of meetings, or for publicly speaking or advocating for the unlawful association, or for communicating statements on behalf of the unlawful association, that surely would be enough to create that balance of probability, to create that aura _of doubt, which would mean the Crown would be unable to satisfy its primary burden of proof beyond any reasonable doubt, as in any criminal case.
I want to cite as authority for the proposition which I have just presented, the Ontario Court of Appeal in the case that I have just mentioned, and the Supreme Court of the United States, referred to in that case. I also want to refer to an Introduction to Criminal Law" by Cross and Jones, the sixth edition, at page 65 as follows:
When the jury may find that the presumed fact exists on proof of some other fact, the presumption is one of fact.
That is what we have here.
Presumptions of fact are sometimes called "provisional" presumptions and they play a very important part in the administration of the criminal law because they are frequently the only means by which the state of the accused's mind can be proved. The judge will tell the jury that they are entitled to infer guilty knowledge or criminal intent from the fact that the prohibited act was done by the accused, and, if the accused offers no explanation, the inference will usually be drawn. This is a
November 16, 1970

matter of common sense, because people generally are aware of the circumstances in which they act, and they generally do foresee that what does result from their conduct will result from it. If, on the other hand, a credible explanation is offered, the jury must consider the evidence as a whole, and if they entertain any reasonable doubt, the general rule that the prosecution has the burden of proof obliges the jury to give the accused the benefit of that doubt.
That benefit of the doubt, and that strict burden on the Crown to prove guilt beyond any reasonable doubt which has been followed in the courts of this country since before confederation, were perhaps best stated in an appeal from the Court of Criminal Appeal in England to the House of Lords in the following important sentences taken from the speech of Lord Sankey. I am referring to the case of Woolmington against The Director of Public Prosecutions, which can be found in the 1935 Appeal Cases, page 462. Here is what Lord Sankey said:
-if it is proved that the conscious act of the prisoner killed a man and nothing else appears in the case, there is evidence upon which the jury may, not must, find him guilty of murder.
It is difficult to conceive so bare and meagre a case, but that does not mean that the onus is not still on the prosecution . .. Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt... If, at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt, created by the evidence given by either the prosecution or the prisoner, as to whether the prisoner killed the deceased with a malicious intention, the prosecution has not made out the case and the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal.
No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained.
And that is the law of Canada at the same time.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I also want to refer to the well recognized doctrine of proof of similar acts in order to establish a course of conduct. The hon. member for New Westminster, when he was speaking on second reading, demonstrated conclusively that this has always been a principle of the law-


David Lewis: Have you much more to go?


John Napier Turner: Not much more. I can finish in perhaps three or four more minutes. He demonstrated that it is a quite accepted and traditional principle of British criminal law, applied by the Canadian courts, that similar acts related to the conduct of the accused prior to the offence can be relied on as proof for the offence, I repeat even if the conduct was prior to the offence.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Under that doctrine, evidence can be adduced against an accused to assist in establishing his guilt, even though the evidence-


Gérald Laniel: I regret having to interrupt the hon. minister but the Chair has done its best not to see the clock. I wonder how long the minister might wish to continue because, according to the rules, the Committee 23568-6
Public Order Act, 1970
has not the authority to extend the hours of sitting. If the minister is hoping to make his point and complete his remarks within a minute, perhaps the Chair could permit him to continue, but no longer than that, I think.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Napier Turner: I should like to thank the Chairman and the committee for their indulgence.
Under that doctrine of similar acts, evidence can be adduced against an accused to assist in establishing his guilt even though the evidence relates to conduct on the part of the accused prior to the date of the offence charged in respect of which the accused has not been convicted, or indeed even charged.
It must be borne in mind in the absence of a provision like clause 8 that, having regard to the clandestine nature of the FLQ, it would be impossible, apart from admissions on the part of the accused, to establish the commission of an offence created by clause 4(a). In other words, it is obvious that when you are dealing with a clandestine conspiracy, to attempt to rely on admission or actions or conduct subsequent to October 16 would render this legislation impractical.
The hon. member for York South said the FLQ was not unlawful prior to this bill and prior to the regulations. I contest that most vehemently. I point out to him that prior to October 16 the FLQ had a record of violence-


David Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I am sure the minister would not want to misrepresent what I said. I carefully said that it was not an unlawful association in the sense which this bill makes it one. I went on to say that it was, of course, an association against the law as a criminal conspiracy, committing crimes. We are not disagreeing on that.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I accept the hon. member's restatement of what he said. He is perfectly accurate, and I do not contest it.
What I am submitting is that the FLQ, under sections 60 and 62 of the Criminal Code, satisfied the definition of a seditious conspiracy, which is:
-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.
Then, "everyone who speaks seditious words," and so on "is guilty of an indictable offence" and so forth.
It is quite clear that the conduct which we are trying to reach here is conduct which we have rendered more precise by making it an offence to be a member of the FLQ so as to limit the extent of power of arrest, so as to limit the extent of detentions, so as to limit search and so as to limit the other suspensions of ordinary criminal law and relate it particularly to clause 4. That is why we make the FLQ an unlawful association, in order to

November 16, 1970
National Securities Commission restrict the ambit of the law for a short term. Those people in the FLQ were undoubtedly, prior to this legislation or prior to the regulations, part of a seditious conspiracy.
To summarize in 30 seconds, Mr. Chairman, the law is not retroactive in its effect and creates no retroactive legal offence. Clause 4 creates the only legal offence, and that provision does not have a retroactive effect in that it is an offence to be a member of the FLQ only on or after October 16.
Clause 8 introduces the rebuttable presumption of fact. This is common to criminal law for generations. Without that rebuttable presumption of fact, the basis of clause 4 could not be met and the legislation in effect would prove to be impractical.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman-


Gérald Laniel: The Chair feels that it should not start allowing members to ask questions at this time and is bound by the rules. The only reason the minister was given extra time was that the question was a complicated one. So that the House may proceed to the consideration of private members' business, I now leave the Chair.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles); pensions-old age security; the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Thomson); broadcasting-performance of North Battleford satellite television station.
It being five o'clock p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' NOTICES OF MOTIONS


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That, in the opinion of this House, the government of Canada should initiate at an early date a plenary conference with the governments of the provinces for the purposes of examining in detail all requirements leading to the effective operation of a national securities commission under the joint jurisdiction of both levels of government.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I hope that in the period of less than an hour which is left, we can examine this question and that the principle can be adopted by the House. I hope also that the government will then act on it.
Your Honour has read the motion in detail but there are certain points to which I should like to refer specifically. The first is that there should be a conference with the governments of the provinces, and the second point is that the respective governments should examine in detail all the requirements and conditions leading to the effective operation of a national securities commission which would naturally operate under the joint jurisdiction of the provinces and the federal government.
One might ask what sort of hybrid is being proposed here, but I submit it is not a monster at all. This is an agency which would regulate the sale, transfer and issuance of securities in Canada. Hon. members may ask why that is necessary, and is it not being done at present by various provincial securities commissions. It is, but to a very limited degree. I believe there should be a national securities commission. I underline my use of the word "national" as distinct from "federal". I recognize that the provinces have very clear rights and powers in this regard. This would be considered as a national body set up by both levels of government.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
It would be overemphasizing the obvious if I were to record all the difficulties experienced in Canada over the years in connection with sales of stocks-the lack of control over company operations, the abuses which have arisen from insider trading, and so on. We hear of lawsuits to recover funds from directors who had special knowledge and used it to their own advantage to the detriment of fellow investors in a particular company or corporation; we also read reams of material coming from the United States complaining bitterly about the operation of certain types of promoters in the Canadian exchange field. Thousands of Americans are bilked out of millions of dollars annually as a result of the operations of fraudulent promoters.
My chief reason in putting forward the idea of a national securities commission is, then, the need for a uniform standard of protection for the investing public. We know that in connection with certain types of company it is more favourable to make use of certain stock exchanges where the regulation and supervision is not nearly as sophisticated or effective as it is, for example, in Toronto. In the second place, I think we could eliminate some of the ill effects resulting from split jurisdiction. In explanation of this, I would remind hon. members that it has been possible for certain operators-either because they work in provinces where there is a very small securities commission, a very limited amount of business, or because a company is a federal company, permitted to do certain things which provincial law does not require it to do-who are thereby able to avail themselves of a degree of artificial protection. I would try to eliminate this by setting up a national securities commission.

November 16, 1970

In the third place, I believe a national securities commission could work toward a greater degree of public disclosure of corporate affairs. I am not saying that disclosure on the part of private companies could be secured; since these companies would not have any stocks to go on the market they would not be obliged to make disclosures. Attempts by the federal government to move into this field have, in my opinion, been artificial and futile. As an example, I mention the requirement under Bill C-4 last year which amended the Canada Corporations Act in relation to requirements concerning the filing of returns in connection with insider trading, takeover bids and that sort of thing. The trouble is that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) and the Registrar of Companies do not have the authority by law to compile or publish statistics. The information is merely placed on file and an individual seeking information about particular companies or the activities of their directors has to search the file.
This procedure would be eliminated under my proposal because the commission would have authority to collate and publish the information. Reporting, or requiring a report once a month, does nothing to protect the public, though it may help people who make a practice of examining individual corporate files maintained by the registrar of companies. The same applies in all the provinces. I say that if we are to maintain the same level of progress in relation to federally incorporated companies as is being achieved in Ontario under the Ontario corporations act, together with the activities of the Ontario securities commission, we ought seriously to consider the establishment of a national securities commission as I have suggested.
Over the past two or three years, I have often asked the minister to tell us what progress was being made in this direction. I know that contacts have been maintained between the federal authority and some of the provinces which have shown an interest in this question. The answers have been inconclusive and vague. The minister has been anything but frank in telling us what progress has been made. In effect, no progress has been achieved over the past 18 months, at least not until very recently.
I raised this question during the second reading of Bill C-4 in November, 1969, as reported on page 711 of Hansard, and again in the Finance Committee in the discussion on the provisions of that bill; I alluded to it again in the report stage of that bill, particularly in January of 1970, and on third reading of Bill C-4.
What type of organization do I envisage? I cannot give all the characteristics of it because I am not an expert in securities operation. This is why I should like a conference called among all the governments involved to discuss in detail the requirements necessary to the effective operation of a national securities commission. I indicated that I want a national body created jointly by the federal government and the provincial governments. 1 understand, and this is one of the problems involved, that the federal government may have insisted that any such national body be located in Ottawa. If this is the case, I think it is the poorest place in which such a commission
National Securities Commission could be located. For practical reasons it should be located next one of our principal stock exchanges, and there are only six cities in Canada where such exchanges are in operation, namely, Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg and Toronto. I suggest that a national securities commission would be located most effectively in the city of Toronto because that is where the greatest volume of financial operations take place; it is the leading stock exchange in the country by a wide margin.
I hope hon. members will give us the benefit of their views with regard to this question. I have discussed it privately with a number of hon. members from time to time and I have received nothing but the greatest encouragement. There may be differences about the details of the proposal but I hope that from our discussion this afternoon will come a much clearer idea of what we want, and that the government can then take up the idea with some degree of guidance. We could then effectively arrive at a conference, not within the next six months but some time in 1971, with a view to having a national securities commission at the earliest possible date. I urge hon. members to accept my motion.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia-Lamblon):: I wish to compliment the hon. member on the motion before us for debate today, not only on the substance of the motion, but his perseverance in bringing forward this matter at every available opportunity. It is the kind of subject that the hon. member has probably found difficult to discuss on an election platform. It is not the kind of motion that will get him very many votes because of its complexity. It is almost impossible to bring forward on an election platform the kind of ideas he is suggesting here. Therefore, it is necessary that for the general good of the Canadian public, particularly the Canadian investing public and those investors from the United States, that some additional form of protection be afforded.
I indicated that the hon. member had persevered. As recently as February 25, 1970, as recorded at page 4065 of Hansard, the hon. member directed a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford). It reads:
What stage has been reached in the discussions or negotiations with provincial authorities with a view to the establishment of a national securities commission or some similar body?
I like the hon. member's choice of nomenclature. He uses the word "nationally", thereby recognizing the definite involvement that the provinces must have in any securities commission regulatory body that is established. The minister's written answer to that question reads:
The establishment of a national securities commission or similar body was last formally discussed with the provincial authorities at a meeting of the Federal-Provincial Committee of Officials on Financial Institutions and Securities Regulation which was held on October 25, 1968.
The minister adopted the nomenclature of the hon. member, namely, that it is to become a national body. I do not think there is any doubt about whether the federal government approves this kind of regulatory body.

November 16. 1970
National Securities Commission The hon. member has indicated the kind ol protection it would afford the Canadian public, protection the investing public do not have at the present time.
This proposal would have the distinct advantage of increasing the kind of investment we need in this country. We could then clearly and boldly say there is a measure of protection that is universal throughout the country. In that way, we could give an assurance that, unfortunately, is not possible at the present time. It would have the possible effect of enabling Canadians to marshall funds for equities through separated jurisdictions, which has a tendency to impede the flow of capital which we desperately need in this country. As I indicated, it is bound to help investment because of the additional protection it will afford the investor.
As recorded at page 4065 of Hansard of February 25, 1970, the hon. member had a series of five questions. The minister's reply to the second query was as follows:
The last discussions with the provincial authorities on this subject took place at the meeting referred to above. The meeting identified some of the basic issues that had to be resolved before agreement could be reached. These issues were the subject of careful study since the meeting and it is proposed to discuss the matter further with the provincial authorities very shortly.
When this question was answered on February 25, the hon. member was quite right in asking the meaning of the word "shortly". In all probability, officials of the minister's department are, in fact, discussing the very thing he is suggesting should be done through this motion we are debating this afternoon. There is no doubt that it is desirable to introduce legislation regulating international and interprovincial issues of, and trading in, securities.
I might reiterate in different wording than that used by the hon. member. The main considerations which should lead to this decision are that federal legislation would close certain gaps which result from constitutional limits which exist in the securities legislation of this country as presently enacted by the provinces. When problems arise with regard to international trade in securities there is no agency that can speak for Canada. In these matters, Canada can And itself in a weak bargaining position vis-a-vis a foreign regulatory body because neither the federal government nor the provincial securities commission is in a position to give specific assurance concerning the adequacy of Canada's regulations taken as a whole. For a number of well recognized reasons, the trend of the various capital markets in Canada is to become one market.
The same forces at work in giving an increasingly international character to large financial business so that the common market in Canada has become closely linked with the other capital markets of the world. Such developments have imposed a responsibility on Parliament for regulating our common capital market in such a way to enable it to achieve maximum efficiency and to make its maximum contribution to the economic growth of Canada.
Investor confidence is clearly enhanced by effective security regulation. The United States economy is influenced to a large extent by investors' confidence. Until now, the burden of creating this confidence has fallen upon the provinces. There can be no doubt that the investment climate of the country as a whole has benefited greatly from the skilled and conscientious work performed by the securities commissions and staffs of various provinces.
For reasons already stated, nothing short of federal participation will create in Canada and abroad the desirable degree of confidence in Canadian securities. Of course, the hon. member has merely introduced a motion because, he says, he is not an expert in the kind of legislation that is required. I, certainly, am even less of an expert.
We have an obligation in this debate to give some idea of the kind and form a legislation that is required. The legislation should be broadly along the line of legislation already in effect in Ontario and the western provinces. However, careful attention will have to be paid to the views of the provincial authorities, members of the financial community and all other interested persons to ensure that the legislation will meet the requirements of the Canadian economy. The federal government must carefully consider the way in which the federal legislation should be administered and the nature, organization and powers of an agency to administer it.
The Ontario proposal for a joint Federal-Provincial Commission, to be known as Cansec, will be a very useful study. I think this is due to the involvement of Mr. H. E. Langford, the President of the Ontario Securities Commission. The imaginative approach of this proposal to harness the experience of all municipalities in Canada will minimize the number of files required and simplify the whole process of securities regulation. There are two major attractions to this particular proposal. The proposal contains some elements fundamental to the whole scheme which the federal government, and apparently some provincial governments, might find difficult to accept. The individual ministers would have the responsibility of administering the statutes passed by their own legislatures.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
The federal government is firmly of the view that a federal minister must, within the constitutional powers assigned to the Parliament of Canada, be answerable to Parliament for the interprovincial and international regulation of securities. Similarly, the multiple functions of the commissioners, sometimes acting as members of the federal securities commission and sometimes acting as members of a provincial commission, would obscure and diffuse the responsibility of individual commissioners.
I do not cite these difficulties to give the kiss of death to the motion. The hon. member himself has already admitted that the motion is not, in effect, legislation but

November 16, 1970

simply embraces a topic that should go to the appropriate committee and appropriate minister for discussion and decision. However, clearly from his answers to the hon. member which I cited earlier, the minister is concerned about the matter and sees merit in the hon. member's recommendation.
I do not know whether it adds much to the steps the government is taking at the present time, but if there is one thing to be remembered in all this question it is, first and foremost, that we as members have an obligation to encourage investment in Canada. One of the best ways we can do this is to set up the kind of governing or regulatory commission to give to investors the protection they have the right to expect.


Mr. Max Sallsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I first of all congratulate the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) for introducing this motion to the House. I hope hon. members permit it to go to committee rather than talk it out. It is an important matter that needs to be dealt with, and I think a committee study would be an appropriate way of dealing with it.
I make this suggestion not because I agree with the proposals of the hon. member for Edmonton West; at the moment I have too many questions about the effectiveness of his approach. My questions do not arise from the calling of a conference of federal-provincial representatives to discuss the question of securities; indeed, I believe this is a step that would have to be taken. My questions arise, rather, from the feeling I have as to whether a securities commission would be a more appropriate way of handling what has been a long standing problem of confidence in securities in Canada, as opposed to dealing with the matter under a corporations act. Perhaps a conference should be convened for the purpose of discussing the application of a corporations act to all parts of Canada, rather than the creation of a securities commission.
I am wondering whether the argument for a commission as opposed to a corporations act is an indication of some distrust of direct government supervision, and a greater inclination toward wanting to see the stock markets play a greater role, as would be the case with a securities commission. My own feeling is that in a matter of this importance I would far rather the responsibility remained at the government level or perhaps enlarged, since the people of this country do have a chance to express their point of view at that level. A commission would be one further step removed from direct representation of the people.
Having said that, I find a number of the arguments of the hon. member for Edmonton West difficult to understand. As I recall it, when we debated the Corporations Act both in the House and in committee the hon. member took a strong stand against disclosure, particularly against the publication of statistics of corporations. One of the arguments that he used this evening was that a securities commission would require the compilation and publication of the very matters he argued against being disclosed when we debated the Corporations Act. I hope
National Securities Commission that on some suitable occasion the hon. member will enlighten me as to why he takes this view today. Perhaps he would let me know why he did not want to see any
disclosure provided for in the Corporations Act yet is quite prepared to have disclosure and publication if his proposal today is accepted.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I was talking of public companies.


Max Saltsman: It does not matter to me whether they be public or private companies. An important principle is involved here, which is that knowledge be supplied to the investors of this country. Confidence must be established in the integrity of issues that come onto the market in this country. There is no better way of achieving this than to have total and absolute disclosure by all companies in Canada.
I do not know whether the hon. member would raise the question that securities commissions, on the whole, tend to look at new issues rather than those of existing companies-though they do both, of course-and therefore there is a greater, perhaps overriding need for only new companies who are seeking support to be investigated rather than the long-established companies. I hope that is not his argument because there is considerable evidence that some long-established companies have had problems in this regard.
In the United States there are at the moment some of the most prestigious companies associated with the stock market either on the verge of or already in bankruptcy, and there is considerable investor disillusionment with some of the major institutions. I find it difficult to make a distinction between scrutiny and publication on the basis of whether a company has recently entered the money market or has been long established. I therefore do not see justification for creating a commission rather than making provision in a corporations act.
I also had difficulty with the hon. member's suggestion that provincial governments be involved in a matter of this kind. I think it would pose considerable problems for us. Constitutionally, I think the argument is quite sound that in matters of securities the provinces must be consulted. They have to be involved, and perhaps we will not be able to do anything unless this is so. At the practical level, experience has shown that the federal government has, on the whole, been more willing to work for things like disclosure, intelligent reporting and publication than have the provinces. The provinces find themselves taking different views. Some provinces are quite satisfied with things as they are; others are not so satisfied.
There is always a tendency for provinces that need development in the worst possible way to start a "beggar be thy neighbour" program-a program of outbiding everybody else, whether in the area of granting special concessions or not, or being lax about what they insist their investors should disclose, and things of that kind. In this kind of encounter, what happens is that those who want to take a stronger and firmer position are often

November 16, 1970
National Securities Commission reduced to a compromise which takes into account the lowest common denominator in order to reach agreement. This is always a factor when one is trying to seek agreement. However, it should be recognized as one of the practical defects of reaching agreement on something as important as disclosure and investor confidence.
I am of the view-I think there are others in the House of a similar view-that it may be more realistic and perhaps more practical for the federal government to take the lead. I know each time this is suggested others say that the provinces may not go along with the government, and this is true. What is more, they do not have to go along with the government. But when the federal government has taken the lead and has put forward legislation, at least respecting federally incorporated companies, ultimately the provinces have gone along with it and have adapted themselves to the circumstances.
[DOT] (5:40p.m.i
I think we can point to later legislation in this regard; for instance, minimum wages. We can also point to the Corporations Act, although in that case one province led the way rather than the federal government. I say these things in order to point out the importance of the federal government on its own asserting a point of view and asking the provinces to go along with it. It has the right to do this. The federal government does not have the power to compel the provinces to follow suit. I think the ability and the willingness to set an example would be emulated by others.
As willing as I am and as desirable as I think it might be to have this motion go to committee for examination, I think the effect of the motion would be to make the enforcement of safety regulations more difficult for the reasons I have enumerated. There is a necessity to get provincial co-operation because of a movement away from firm legislation, and a commission approach would not be as determined as it should be. I would be much more in favour of a motion calling for a federal-provincial conference on the Corporations Act and having in it suggestions incorporating full disclosure and full publication within the ambit of the Corporations Act, rather than having a commission type of organization.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) for the motion he has placed before the House this afternoon. I sympathize with him in trying to draft a motion such as this one, because it involves a matter primarily within the responsibility of the provinces yet it is one of national concern and involves a national need. If the action he proposes could be taken, it would be to the national good. The possibility of achieving this action does not he in a private member's public bill but with a national conference through which, by publicity, pressure could be brought to bear on provincial governments which have the responsibility but are reluctant to give it up to the federal government. In this connection I understand there was a federal-provincial conference held in 1968, as the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) has men-
[Mr. Saltsman.l
tioned, at which there was considerable agreement between the federal government and the province of Ontario although little agreement among the other provinces concerned.
The hon. member's motion suggests that there be established a national securities commission controlled by the two levels of government, federal and provincial. In order to iron out the details as to how it might work, the hon. member suggests there should be held a national plenary conference. Few people would argue about the necessity for a national securities commission. Certainly there is need for a uniform standard of protection for investors throughout the country.
The provinces down through history have been reluctant to give up any of their fields of responsibility including property, civil rights and, in this case, provincial securities. Back in the late 1930's the provinces did agree to a constitutional amendment which made it possible to set up the Unemployment Insurance Commission. They gave up some of their rights there. They have at various times of national emergency given up their rights in the field of taxation, or at least agreed to turn them over to the federal government. However, they are very reluctant to do this. I think the strategy of the hon. member for Edmonton West in calling for a national plenary conference would establish a good forum in which to bring national publicity to the question and bring public opinion to bear, thereby putting pressure on provincial governments to give up some of their powers in this field so that something to the national good might be achieved in every part of the country.
How might we establish a national securities commission? It seems obvious that this is desirable. It could be composed of commissioners appointed by Governor in Council who would be responsible through the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to Parliament. Contrary to what the hon. member for Edmonton West has suggested, I would envisage the headquarters of this commission to be in Ottawa. He has suggested it should perhaps be in Toronto, which has the largest stock exchange. If this were done it would delay any agreement by other, small commissions throughout the country and provincial governments. They do not want to see control going to one of the other provincial capitals. I suggest the headquarters should be in Ottawa with strong regional offices, if necessary, to which the commissioners could travel from time to time as their duties required. The commission would be responsible under the federal securities act, and its powers would include the power to make regulations, carry out investigations and hear appeals.
The commission would be responsible for all international and provincial issues of and trading in any securities. Qualification of issues would be through the regional offices. A simple qualification procedure could be introduced for smaller issues. I think this would be an improvement, because some of the provincial commissions and governments were reluctant in 1968 to agree to the establishment of a national securities commission; they thought it might dampen down their ability, espe-
November 16, 1970

cially a province like British Columbia, to raise large issues of securities. The commission could also be responsible for other functions within the competence of Parliament, for example, the registering of investment dealers and brokers engaged in international or interprovincial issues of or trading in securities.
Having regard to the important matter of co-operation between federal and provincial authorities, there appear to be at least three possibilities. A province might wish to retain the administration of its own legislation. However, once federal legislation was passed it would necessarily prevail in regard to interprovincial and international offerings and tradings. I believe the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton suggested it was the view of the Ontario government that it should retain its own administration. On the other hand, the province might wish to delegate the entire field of securities administration to the federal securities commission, in which case the commission would, after certain conditions had been worked out, administer that province's securities legislation in addition to dealing with the federal securities act.
It might be possible to take a middle course by which the staff of the provincial commission and the federal securities commission would be merged. The federal securities commission and the provincial commission would remain distinct and separate bodies and the staffs of the two official bodies would have a dual function, one to administer the federal securities act in the province and the other to administer the provincial act. In exercising either of these two functions they would be responsible to the appropriate commission.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Two of the main advantages of the CANSEC proposal would then be realized. The knowledge and experience of existing staffs would be used in a co-operative fashion for a common securities administration along the lines of either of the two courses which I have outlined, and would call for consultation with provincial governments by the federal government on the choice of the federal commission's chief administrative officer, such other officers as were appropriate, and on other matters of common concern. Where the pooling of staff was agreed upon, the chief administrative officer under a provincial commission might also be appointed the head of the federal commission's regional office if this were mutually agreed.
Over the course of time the federal securities commission would become a central source of information on all securities matters, which would be available to all provincial securities commissions. Studies of developments in the securities industry could be undertaken either jointly or by the federal securities commission and the results of these studies would also be made available to the provincial securities commissions. The federal government should develop these ideas in fuller detail in consultation with the provinces. The paramount objective of the federal government should be to achieve, by the simplest and most economical means available under our Constitution, a system of securities' regulation best suited to Canada's needs. In pursuing this objective the federal
National Securities Commission
government should be anxious to explore with the provinces the most constructive forms of co-operation.
In summary, it would seem to me that this is a good idea. It would be of great convenience to trust companies and others in raising securities issues, because it would not be necessary to travel to several securities commissions throughout the country to have their issues approved. It would lead to better liaison between provincial securities commissions. There have been several celebrated cases in recent years where trust companies have gone broke. Hundreds and sometimes thousands of little people have lost savings which they have entrusted to these companies. In this connection a uniform standard of protection should be available across the country.
The federal government certainly has a responsibility to push in this direction. I think the provincial securities commissions should maintain the authority to issue small issues within its province. This might make them more agreeable to the establishment of a federal or national securities commission. It seems to me the idea of a conference is a good one, because it would bring public pressure to bear on the provincial governments to cooperate in respect of the establishment of a national securities commission which in the end would generate more confidence in the investment climate in Canada.


Mr. Philip G. Givens (York Wesi):: Mr. Speaker, during the course of this discussion we have heard about the importance of raising capital for the development of this great country which is endowed with tremendous resources. I think we are ad idem in complimenting the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) for bringing this suggestion before us because it is a very vital matter and we feel there should be one agency instead of some 10 agencies across the country for the purpose of raising efficiently, cheaply and honestly the kind of capital we require.
In the final analysis, when something goes wrong this government takes the responsibility because, indeed, the image of our country is at stake. When something goes wrong like the Commonwealth fiasco, I.O.S. or the British mortgage disaster, our government is blamed: people rear up and ask why the federal government does not do something about it. I ask: Why, indeed, do we not? We do not because in every case we come into conflict with the Constitution; therefore, property and civil rights are involved and the provinces rear up their heads and say they will not allow any diminution of their jurisdiction in this field. I think the time has come when we must say to the 10 emperors of the provincial empires that this country is one nation and not 10 nations. IVhat we require is a central clearing-house with central authority in this field of activity, otherwise we will never be able to raise the kind of financial resources that we require.
I should like to make one particular point which has been made by others during the course of this debate. I appeal to the people in the business community and in the securities field, who address meetings of service organizations and boards of trade and who are always

November 16, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
calling in a very rhetorical way upon the federal government to do what has to be done to establish a national securities commission for the purposes indicated this afternoon, to in turn go to the authorities in their provinces and tell them they should co-operate with the federal government for this purpose. They should speak to the provincial authorities and tell them they should contact the federal authorities on this matter.
I think the time has come when we should cut out some of the wind and hypocrisy in respect of this matter, because it is the seats of authority in the various provinces which have been standing against us. They have been saying they cannot diminish their jurisdiction because if this particular problem were handled by the federal authority in Ottawa it would be against their best interests. I think this is false. I think they should cut out this kind of army game which they have been practising over the years.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the hour for private members' business having expired, the House will now revert to the business that was interrupted at five o'clock. The House will now forthwith go into Committee of the Whole.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-181, to provide temporary emergency powers for the preservation of public order in Canada-Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)-Mr. Laniel in the chair.
Gérald Laniel: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair. The committee will meet at eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. When the committee rose at five o'clock clause 8 of Bill C-181, and an amendment thereto by the hon. member for York South, were under consideration.
On clause 8-Evidence.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It may please the committee to hear that I will not make a speech. However, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice a couple of questions. I certainly agreed with what he said this afternoon except for his use of the phrase "any reasonable doubt". I think
what he meant was "beyond reasonable doubt". These are two different things. I see he agrees with me on that.
Second, I would like to put to him the following question in practical terms. Ideals and theory are one thing, but the practice of law in a courtroom is another. If a person was charged with being a member of the FLQ, an illegal association, it was obvious he had attended about ten meetings prior to October 16, and evidence was brought forward under clauses 4 and 8 of the bill-the minister spoke about rebutting the presumption-unless the accused went on the stand and there was a defence as a result of cross-examination, would that person, because of his connection with the association prior to October 16, be convicted as a matter of fact or as a matter of practice?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, when we get into these hypothetical situations I have to be very careful that I do not try to put myself in the position of the court. I have learned that in some cases there is a difference between the advice I receive and what courts finally say by way of determination. The hon. member appreciates that. The hon. member for Fundy-Royal will know that on occasion I have been able to predict the final result of a case.


Mr. Fairweaiher:: That was on your own.


John Napier Turner: However, it seemed to be pretty accurate. At any rate, the situation is that if evidence were to be adduced to the effect that the accused was present at a number of meetings, short of any evidence to rebut it introduced by witnesses called by the accused or in the event that he chose to take the stand on his own behalf, or by way of cross-examination of the Crown's witnesses who tended to establish that evidence, of course the presumption of fact might carry. I emphasize that it might carry. It is a presumption of fact. So there would have to be either evidence contradicting the evidence of the Crown, or successful cross-examination so as to cast doubt on the evidence of the Crown in order to throw the offence charged into doubt under a balance of probabilities-not beyond reasonable doubt, in terms of this presumption, but only in terms of a balance of probabilities. So that the Crown would then be unable to discharge its primary burden of proof, which obtains in every criminal case despite any presumptions there may be in the legislation arising out of the statutes. Then the Crown would be unable to establish beyond any reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I would like to put to the minister another question. Again the Minister of Justice slipped into the mistake I mentioned. He said "beyond any reasonable doubt". He meant beyond reasonable doubt.


John Napier Turner: Yes, I meant beyond reasonable doubt.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: There is a big difference. I would like to have a case that was beyond any reasonable doubt. I

November 16, 1970

would like to put this question to the minister. Let us consider myself in a hypothetical situation. I will put myself right into the minister's hands. Let us say that when I was a young man I attended many meetings addressed by Tim Buck because I wanted to hear him; I felt that it was quite in order for me to attend these meeting, and I wanted to see what went on in a Communist meeting. I may have attended three, four or five meetings altogether. Assume for a few moments that we are dealing with an illegal association.
Let me ask the Minister of Justice the following question. According to clause 8-I realize it is a clause on evidence but it is a very dangerous clause and substantive law, really-unless I personally went on the stand and said I only went to the meetings because I was interested in being there to see what Tim Buck had to say and perhaps to confront him and his ideas, without any other evidence on my part-and that puts the accused on the stand, which is completely contrary to what is practised under our criminal law as we understand British justice-would the minister, as a lawyer and as Minister of Justice, not agree that without any evidence to the contrary I would more than likely be convicted?


John Napier Turner: No, I would not agree with that. If the accused chooses to take the stand and says, as the hon. member has said, that it was a frolic of his youth and curiosity which led him to see how this movement worked, but that having satisfied that curiosity he did not participate in an effective way in the meetings and did not share the objectives of that illegal association, that type of evidence would be admissible to cast the amount of doubt that is necessary effectively to rebut the presumption.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have one last question for the minister. Does this section not really put the onus on the accused, which is the opposite to what is generally done in practice, so that a person, in order to defend himself, would be forced to take the stand? In any case I have ever defended it has been up to the Crown to prove the guilt under the Criminal Code. Let us face it: all the great counsel, whether they are here or anywhere else, have this assistance which is built into our jurisprudence, and would never put the accused on the stand. Normally that is the practice that we learn in law school. If one does not learn it there, one learns it in practice. This provision would force the accused to take the stand and be subject to cross-examination, almost making him a witness of the Crown.


John Napier Turner: No, I do not agree with that, Mr. Chairman. The evidence that would be introduced to rebut this presumption or to cast sufficient doubt upon it may be, of course, evidence introduced out of the mouth of the accused if he chose to take the stand, by way of cross-examination of Crown witnesses or by way of witnesses introduced by the accused.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
As I have said, this shifting onus, which is a statutory onus on the accused to rebut a particular presumption, is
Public Order Act, 1970
found in other sections of the Criminal Code. It is open to the accused to decide, if he is able, whether he wants to rebut that onus. But that shifting onus is an onus on the balance of probability relating to the facts set forth in the evidence. It does not shift in any way the primary onus of the burden of proof on the Crown to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. That onus remains from the first to the end of the case.
This aspect merely relates to the proof of facts within the scope of the case. But there always remains on the Crown, as I cited in my reference to Mr. Cross's book on the introduction of evidence, the onus to establish beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused, and that in no way is affected by the presumptions of facts set forth in this clause.


Charles Terrence Murphy: Mr. Chairman, I have two questions for the minister. First of all, I am concerned with the last three lines of the clause where we see the words, "in the absence of evidence to the contrary." I am afraid that may refer back to the word "evidence" in the second line of the clause, which is "evidence that any person may have (a) participated in or was present, (b) spoke publicly," etc., and "(c) communicated," etc. Let us assume that a man-as put forward by the hon. member for Calgary North-a number of years ago attended a number of meetings. Provided the evidence which is referred to in (a), (b) and (c)-or (a), (b) or (c)-is adduced at his trial, the latter part of the clause would require the accused to adduce evidence to the contrary.
With regard to the evidence which he must adduce, would it be evidence to prove that he was not at a meeting, did not participate, or did not communicate? Would that be the type of evidence expected? Or would it be sufficient if he were able to satisfy the court that since then he has dissociated himself altogether from this group although he may have been guilty, as it were, of carrying out the activities which are proscribed here and which would have raised the presumption against him? I would like clarification on the "evidence" referred to in he last three lines. Is it evidence of his present dissociation from the organization, or must it be evidence to disprove the fact that he had attended meetings and participated earlier?
The second part of my question is: Is there any significance to the fact that neither the word "and" nor the word "or" appear at the end of clause 8(a)? With regard to a person who was simply present at a number of meetings of the illegal organization in the past, but did not participate actively, speak publicly in advocacy of the unlawful association or communicate statements, etc.-in other words, there was his mere presence at meetings- would that become grounds for a prima facie case, as it were, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, or should the word "and" not be added to the end of paragraph (a)?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, in
answer to the first question it is my view that the evidence that could be adduced to the contrary would either be evidence tending to discredit the evidence introduced by the Crown to establish a presumption under either (a),

November 16, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
(b) or (c), or evidence which was introduced independently of the Crown to establish a new set of facts which would tend to rebut it; in other words, either evidence to attack the evidence which the Crown established or evidence to show that subsequent conduct had given the lie to the earlier evidence. Either type of evidence would be admissible to rebut the presumption.
In answer to the second question, on the basis of the drafting advice I have been given, the fact that there is an "or" between paragraph (b) and paragraph (c) implies the existence of an "or" between paragraphs (a) and (b) and they should be read disjunctively.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether there is any value in arguing with the position the minister has taken, in view of his attitude toward the amendments, but I want to take just two or three minutes to say that I am not in the slightest convinced by the minister's argument that this is not retroactive legislation.
I am not going to take much time in dealing with the question of reverse onus represented by the last lines of clause 8. As I said this afternoon, we were not seeking to amend that. But much of what the minister said referred to the fact that the onus is placed on the accused to prove something that would discredit the earlier evidence against him. I am concerned merely with the question of retroactivity, and I say with the greatest respect to the minister that in his argument he was indulging in semantic legalisms.
Clause 8 is not the clause that provides the offence. It is true that the offence is provided in clause 4, and instead of having clause 8 here the minister could easily have added clause 8 as part of clause 4. That, surely, is irrelevant. What is relevant is that clause 8 sets out the facts under which a person is proven to be a member of the unlawful association, and being a member of the unlawful association is an offence against this law. Therefore, when you have proved that the person is a member of the unlawful association by reference to acts which occurred before the association was unlawful, you are making the substantive offence retroactive, and no number of words and no way of arguing will change that situation.
If I can be held to be a member of the FLQ today by virtue of the fact that I attended some meetings five years ago, then the law substantively is retroactive or retrospective. Certainly the retroactivity is in relation to the evidence on which I may be convicted, but this division between fact and law in this kind of situation seems to me to be entirely barren. When the minister referred to the fact that in an ordinary criminal case you can go back to acts, or action or behaviour of the accused prior to the date on which he is alleged to have committed the offence, you are dealing with something that has always been an offence. It has always been a crime to conspire to commit murder or to commit kidnapping. If I am alleged to have committed that crime on a certain date, and there is evidence prior to that date of my behaviour related to the crime with which I am charged, then of course it is admissible-not as evidence of the
charge as set out in the particulars but as evidence of my behaviour supporting that charge.
But this is a new offence. Membership in this organization was not unlawful before October 16. Attending a meeting of this organization was not proof of an unlawful act before October 16, nor was communicating on behalf of this unlawful organization an act which proved membership in an unlawful organization. It is this referral back to what I may have done a long time ago that is offensive.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Time and again in a number of clauses of this bill the minister has referred to the fact-and obviously it is a fact-that it is difficult to prove membership in the organization and that the FLQ is a clandestine organization. Presumably it has no membership card and no membership list, so the Crown would find it difficult to prove that anyone was a member. To extent this logic if it is difficult to prove membership of an organization it is almost equally difficult to disprove it, and in certain circumstances perhaps more difficult.
If there is no membership list and no membership card, it is not necessary to resign membership from the organization. If I am a member because I attend clandestine meetings of a cell or a group, how do I prove that I am no longer a member? I do not send in an official resignation and I do nothing to take me out of the organization of which I was a member. I have committed an offence merely because I attended a meeting some years ago of an organization that has now become unlawful. I have met many young Canadians in Quebec, mainly of French expression, who attended these meetings some time ago.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Trudeau types.


David Lewis: People who were, if you like, fooled by the social and economic objectives which the FLQ has always pretended were theirs and which existed before the bombings started. In my political life I have known people who have attended meetings of Communists, Trotskyists and Maoists without at all accepting the basic theory of force or violence practised or preached by those organizations. They attended the meetings either as part of their education or because they were attracted by Communist, Trotskyist or Maoist pretensions-because they were fighting the battle of the unemployed, the poor, the dispossessed.
The same is true of any organization. The FLQ is here outlawed, not merely because it is a criminal conspiracy or a seditious conspiracy but also because of its political aims of separating Quebec from Canada by certain means. There are a good many young people who may have attended meetings of groups of the FLQ because they were interested or even because they accepted the political aims, without any knowledge or understanding of the criminal and terroristic acts which some members of the FLQ intended to commit.
A young person may have attended a few such meetings six months ago, or four or five years ago, and be

November 16, 1970

charged under this law. The prosecution could then adduce evidence that he had attended those meetings. He may have spoken at them or advocated the purely social goals which the FLQ pretends to have. He may even have communicated FLQ manifestos to other people- manifestos which did not refer to terror, kidnapping or murder but merely dealt with the social and economic objectives of separating Quebec from Canada, of helping the unemployed, the poor and the dispossessed in the province of Quebec, or of fighting the authorities in Ottawa. I use the word "fighting" deliberately because that is the word that might appear in such a manifesto.
A person in these circumstances who had attended the meetings or communicated the manifestos may find himself in court with witnesses for the Crown giving evidence of these facts. The prima facie, presumption as a result of these facts dating back six months or five years is that the person is a member of the FLQ and has the burden of disproving the allegation. I do not know how he can accomplish this. The point we wish to make is not merely the difficulty of the accused to disprove the awful and unjust situation in which he finds himself, but the wrongness of the principle of putting him in that position by making the law effectively retroactive even though the crime itself is not retroactive.
He is put in this position if the crime depends on acts which were entirely lawful at the time, and when the organization to which they were related was not unlawful except as a criminal or seditious conspiracy and, therefore, unlawful in the sense of the Criminal Code but not in the sense in which this bill makes it unlawful. This is the principle with which I am concerned. I have given the matter a great deal of thought since the bill was first introduced, as have all my colleagues. No amount of playing with words, differences between the evidentiary presumption or some other kind of presumption hides the fact that a person is presumed to be guilty because he is presumed to be a member of the organization. He then has to find some way of proving his innocence, and not the usual way where there is a shift of onus in the Criminal Code, because of acts committed when they were entirely lawful.
It is the retrospective aspect of this bill that we find entirely unacceptable, contrary to the basic principle of our criminal law, indeed of most of our law, and contrary to any concept of civil liberties and civil rights.


Mr.   De Bane@: Mr. Chairman, to my mind, clause 8, as it now stands, creates a simple presumption which, unless it was contradicted, would be enough to overrule a presumption of innocence. This, in itself, is not exceptional, because, as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) pointed out this afternoon, the Criminal Code already contains quite a number of similar presumptions. Those presumptions hinge on past facts.
Nor is this remarkable in itself. The evidence of facts that preceded the crime is often accepted by the courts. With regard to clause 8, the danger lies in the retroac-
Public Order Act, 1970
tivity it may establish because of the vagueness of the expression "member of the unlawful association".
In effect, the act forbids membership in the association; clause 8 states how one can be proved a member but the act does not explain what it is to be a member. Obviously, according to the dictionary, "being a member" is the state of one who is part of an association; but as the "unlawful association" in question has no charter, no records, no membership cards, it is therefore very difficult to state specifically who can be a member of the said association. Therefore, it is normal to confuse the means of evidence outlined in clause 8 of the legislation, with the offence itself.
Thus, instead of merely being used as presumption, the facts enumerated in clause 8 will become the very basis of the offence. These presumptions concern past events which could have occurred even before membership in the FLQ was declared unlawful by law, as of October 16, at four o'clock in the morning. In that sense, the offence could be considered as having a retroactive effect.
I think the main issue is that the legislation seems to dismiss the possibility of a defence, in fact not in law, once the presumption is established. The phrase "un certain nombre de reunions" is much more indefinite than a certain number of meetings". In fact, the number "un" is a certain number, according to the Robert dictionary.
In my opinion, an exceptional legislation should be couched in the clearest possible terms. This is an example where the French and English terms do not have the same meaning. It is obvious that "a certain number" means "more than one" and that the French word "un" means "a certain number."
Now what happens to the persons who spoke on behalf of the unlawful association before October 16, at 4 a.m. and which were jailed under the regulations or the Criminal Code, after having been found guilty of criminal offences? The possibility that those individuals could be deprived of any legal means of defence makes us fear that the effect of that legislation could be retroactive.
If the proposed effect is really sought through the action of presumptions listed in the Criminal Code, we should add a clause describing what is meant by membership, which is not defined in the bill. I therefore move the following:
Is a member of the unlawful association any person whose participation in this association meets the requirements of the act for taking part in a seditious conspiration.
With this amendment, of course, the crime of being a member of an unlawfull association would be defined.
Also I do believe that failure to ascribe definitions to criminal acts is tantamount to enacting the Wrong kind of law, a law which is foreign to the principle of legality.
Mr. Chairman, there is another point which troubles me: once this legislation is passed, the commission of such acts as are listed under clause 8 would involve a presumption of membership in the association. Now it should be remembered that under clause 14, the fact that a person has on or after October 16 committed any of the

November 16, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
said acts, that is speaking publicly in favour of the association or communicating statements, amounts to an offence.
Then, in my opinion, telling a person that the fact that he has publicly spoken in favour of the association implies a dual offence, contravenes two widely admitted principles of criminal law:
Nemo bis vexari debet pro una et eadem causa, and Nemo debet bis punari pro uno delicto
I do not see how, especially after adoption of this act, the person who commits one of the offences can be accused at the same time of committing the other.
With regard to the retroactive effect of the act, it is not definite. Personally, I know several students who were previously members of the FLQ which had branches in several colleges around the years 1963-64, and who left this association when they found out that it was far from being patriotic. These persons, under this act, will be liable to arrest. The attorney general will be able to file a certificate with the clerk to this effect, under clause 7, and they will await their trial. Obviously, it can be said that acts of treason and of sedition are forbidden under the Criminal Code. However, this association became illegal only on October 16 at four o'clock in the morning. And people were arrested as soon as the regulations were enacted.
I understand why those persons cannot have violated the regulations: they were arrested in their sleep. Of course, today, we must have other remedies. As a solution, some suggest that we go back. While agreeing with the Minister of Justice that it is not exceptional in itself to establish presumptions for past actions, I feel that, taking into account the various factors I just mentioned, it is a bad technique. It is unthinkable that several provisions of the legislation should indicate how to determine membership in any association, that membership constitutes an offence and that it does not say what it is all about.
I think the minister is right once again in saying that we may go back. The theory of similar facts and other similar presumptions exists in the bill, but the way the clause is drafted, besides the error I pointed out to the effect that "un certain nombre" in French has not the same meaning as "a number of meetings", it seems to me that the act should be clearer.
I think this clause might be improved by being amended. I am aware of the impossibility refered to by the minister but I think it might have been possible-by including, for instance, the definition which I just suggested-to solve a good deal of the problems. I believe that any person who committed an unlawful act before October 16 is "indictable" under the Criminal Code. If we do not want to prosecute this person for the new offences which are obviously created here, I do not see why this legislation has, in some regards, a retroactive effect.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, at one point I thought I would support the government when we came to consider
clause 8. When I spoke about our amendment I dealt with this particular clause. As it reads now, I agree with the minister that a question of evidence is involved. But it is a question of evidence which makes substantive law because it places the accused in a position where he is obliged to take the stand and defend himself. The minister can shake his head, but this is what will happen.
The Minister of Justice well knows that an accused has to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and the onus is on the Crown to so prove. But here the onus is placed squarely on the accused. In effect, this clause has made the law retroactive. The minister should refer to the case of Clarke v. The King and the other cases on this point; the citation is 25 Canadian Criminal Cases. The fact remains that in practice the implementation of clause 8 will force the accused to take the stand, which is contrary to normal procedure. Laymen who listen to television shows think the accused always takes the stand. We do not act like Perry Mason. We do not walk up to the bench to whisper to the judge. We do not act as they do in that television show. We do not put the accused on the stand to solve every case. It has been my experience and the experience of other defence lawyers that very rarely is the accused put on the stand, regardless of his guilt or innocence. The reason is that he is then subject to cross-examination. He may leave some doubt as to his innocence in the minds of the jury and therefore be convicted.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
The onus is strictly on the Crown. That is the principle of British jurisprudence. This principle has been adopted throughout the Commonwealth, including Canada, and throughout the United States. The Minister of Justice referred to the Narcotic Control Act. As far as I am concerned, that is contrary to the Bill of Rights. Perhaps the courts will have something to say about that. There is the Income Tax Act. All these statutes are being set up by the Crown. They have similar clauses. They are different from the Criminal Code. The onus is shifted to the accused and the defence.
I agree with the Minister of Justice that this is a matter of evidence, but in practice it becomes substantive law. Once a person has attended four or five meetings of this association or has been associated with it in accordance with clause 8, and it is established he did this prior to October 16, he is guilty of the crime unless he takes the stand. What does this mean? When a person is arrested, under the normal rules of jurisprudence he does not have to make a statement. In fact, the police in the jurisdictions of the ten provinces have been instructed to warn an accused that anything he may say may be used against him at his trial. If there is any duress, promise, threat or similar statement made to the accused by a police officer, the statement is not admissible at the trial. There is often a fight about this when a person is charged under the Criminal Code.
An admission by an accused must be voluntary. If not, it is ruled inadmissible at the trial because it was made under duress. Some people make statements because they want to be martyrs. One famous case is the Henderson
[Mr. De Ban6.1
November 16, 1970

murder trial. In 1957 a man in a Chicago jail confessed to committing a murder in Calgary which had been unsolved for ten years. When the man was brought to Calgary he said, "I only made that admission to get out of the jail in Chicago." Two years later the proper accused was found. He was tried and convicted. But the Chicago man who was brought to Calgary had made an admission. That is why we have the rule of evidence that statements made by an accused to a police officer or someone in authority must be made voluntarily, and this is the reason a warning is necessary.
Under clause 8, once it has been established by evidence that a person had some contact or association or attended certain meetings, he is guilty until he proves his innocence. Crimes are retroactive to October 16, the date the War Measures Act regulations were proclaimed. The Minister of Justice referred to the law of similar acts. If that is the law of evidence in Canada, the Crown can call evidence to show that a person has committed a certain kind of conduct for a period of time. If he is still engaged in that conduct, he can be convicted. The defence is in the position where it must rebut that evidence. To force an accused to take the stand is contrary to every form of jurisprudence. We are wasting a lot of time on this bill.


An hon. Member:: That's right.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I say to the hon. member that he should add all the minutes and hours that we in the Conservative ranks have talked on this bill. A few days ago we asked that all questions be put.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We are not responsible for the playing that is going on in the government backbenches. Perhaps the Prime Minister is responsible. I do not know what tricks he may have up his sleeve. I want to get down to brass tacks and deal with the point I am trying to make. The mess in the province of Quebec will not be cleaned up by this bill or the War Measures Act. It will not be resolved until justice is administered in its proper form. We have the evidence of the police entering a certain apartment, picking up Lortie and missing the two culprits, those who are allegedly guilty of murder or kidnapping.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There were three.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, three. The Minister of Justice or the Prime Minister should make a statement clarifying the situation today. Until today the RCMP have been beyond reproach. They have skills and scientific detection equipment equal to those of any police force in the world. The inference should not be left that this group of people is either incompetent or infiltrated.
The problem is not that we require stronger law. What we require are trained, competent police officers to administer the law. If the Minister of Justice had not received instructions from the Prime Minister he would say that what we need today is to clean up the mess as
Public Order Act, 1970
far as the police force of the province of Quebec is concerned. I think that is the problem. No one can tell me that the police can walk into an apartment, go out for lunch, leave their weapons and ammunition and then say that we need an act to strengthen the law. Good, clean boys are needed to clean up the mess.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Because the government is trying to hide under this umbrella, I am not prepared to give them a new law. We do not need new law. We need officers to carry out the law under the Criminal Code. That is what is needed to clean up the mess in Quebec. The Minister of Justice has been told, not only by the opposition but by newspapermen, that if we had the facts behind the reason for invoking the War Measures Act we would know why the government implemented these strong measures. I repeat, they do not need strong measures. What needs to be done is to administer the law which exists in Canada today. Most of those who have been arrested could have been charged under the Criminal Code.
I wish to refer to page 8 of the report of the Royal Commission on Security, paragraphs 21, 22 and 23. This group investigated security in our nation.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order. The Chair has some doubt as to whether the hon. member is speaking relevant to clause 8. I invite him to refer his remarks to that clause.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I can understand why you would have some doubts, because I question whether you understand what clause 8 is about.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Russell Clayton Honey: Order. I think that on reflection the hon. member will not want that remark left on the record. In fairness, I asked the hon. member to return to clause 8. I did so with respect. The Chair is not infallible. I think the hon. member has wandered sufficiently far from clause 8 that it is the responsibility of the Chair to bring him back to it.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, if I had said anything to hurt the Chair I would be the first to apologize, but with respect I think I am right. I suggest that the securities report is relevant to clause 8, and I will tell you why. The government is asking for extraordinary measures on behalf of the Crown. If only two years ago, when the government had this knowledge, they had exercised the law and adopted the recommendations of the royal commission, they would not have had to pass this legislation today. The mess in Quebec would have been cleaned up long before the War Measures Act was invoked.
With the greatest respect to the Chair-and I have been respectful as far as the Chair is concerned-I still contend the report is relevant to clause 8. Although lawyers might understand the clause in theory, in practice it is a very dangerous clause. Therefore I would ask

November 16, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
the Chair to hear me out so far as the report of the Royal Commission on Security in Canada is concerned. Paragraph 21 of the report makes direct reference to when the security of Canada is at stake. Two years ago the government knew about the FLQ. Having that knowledge, why did the government not move in? They did not move in and as a result created some action, even some reaction, and brought in these extreme measures.
When we question the government on Orders of the Day, they always reply that it is a matter for the Attorney General of the province of Quebec; that it is a provincial matter. The government is implementing extraordinary measures either through the War Measures Act or through this special act. If the government had fulfilled their obligations, as the Royal Commission on Security recommended, they would not be in the mess they are now. The situation is such that this is a question that goes to the security of our nation. Since it goes to the security of our nation we are entitled each day to get answers from the Minister of Justice, from the Solicitor General and from the Prime Minister. Yet each day they refuse; they say it is a provincial matter. They say, "We only pass the act. They are implementing it".
To come back to clause 8-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am very glad hon. members are clapping. Clause 8 gives the government, the police and the Crown extraordinary Powers in regard to the admission of evidence. It places the onus on every accused in Canada to prove his innocence. We would not even have to consider this sort of measure tonight had the government acted in accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Security.


Mr. Drury:: This is your second reading speech, is it not?


Mr. MacEwan:: You could learn something from it. You are a cabinet minister from Quebec and should know about this.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It took two years for the government to make up their mind. It is easy to get hysterical and for the government to say they have done something. But what have they done? I ask them through you, sir, will they please stand in their places and explain tonight how the police can go into an apartment, arrest one person and miss three others, as well as leave their guns and ammunition in the apartment?


John Napier Turner: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, that was denied today by the Quebec police. The only basis for this information, as I understand it, is a communique issued by the FLQ.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Will the Minister of Justice stand in his place and say that these facts are not correct; that he has investigated the matter and he finds these facts are wrong? The Globe and Mail and other newspapers in Canada must have printed facts which were not true. I
would accept the statement of the Minister of Justice if he would stand now and say that these three men were not in the apartment when the police walked in.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. Again may I indicate to the hon. member that we had a very broad and useful debate on second reading and on clause 2 of the bill. With all respect to the hon. member, it seems to me we are ranging much further than we should at this particular stage of the proceedings. I would ask the hon. member for Calgary North to return to clause 8 of the bill.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, as far as I am concerned I think I am right, and I still submit, with the greatest respect to you, that I am relevant. We would not have to ask Parliament tonight to pass and approve these extraordinary measures if the government had acted. We would not have to ask Parliament to approve these extraordinary measures tonight if we knew that the law would be administered as it is administered in the rest of Canada. The Minister of Justice says this statement has been denied today, yet he himself has not denied it.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I ask the Minister of Justice to stand in his place-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: -and say that these facts are not correct; that these accused, allegedly guilty of kidnapping and murder, were not in the apartment-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: -at the same time the police were there, and that the police went out for lunch. I ask the minister to stand now and say that that is not correct.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If the minister will stand and say that, we may go along with these extraordinary measures. But if we are going to give the police power to administer a law of this kind, with that kind of administration-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: -what is going to be the result with regard to giving the police extraordinary powers of this sort? It is not going to clean up the mess. What we are trying to do tonight is clean up the mess in the province of Quebec. As long as the law is administered as it is, how can we clean it up? This is why I want to hear from the Minister of Justice. The minister may say this story has been denied. Perhaps a newspaper wrote one thing this morning and somebody denied it this afternoon. The minister could get on the telephone to the Attorney General of Quebec and find out whether or not these facts are correct.
Secondly, during the question period I asked whether the government had investigated to find out if these facts

November 16, 1970

are correct. Then Parliament would be able to move and decide what kind of powers the police need. But without that information, with the greatest respect, Mr. Chairman, Parliament is being asked to make a decision without evidence in the same way as we made a decision without evidence in regard to invoking the War Measures Act.
Coming back to clause 8-


Russell Clayton Honey: Order. I regret to advise the hon. member that his time has expired.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak for a few minutes and to return to the amendment to clause 8 moved by my colleague, the hon. member for York South. In particular I should' like to get back to some of the things the minister said when he spoke to the amendment before five o'clock this afternoon. I always listen with a great deal of interest when the minister speaks to us on these fine points of law. However, when I listen to him and to other learned gentlemen in this House I always get two impressions. On the one hand I get the impression that lawyers like to use words that are not in our normal vocabulary, thus creating the impression that there is a mystery about the law that ordinary people cannot really comprehend. The other impression I get, however, when I listen attentively, is that when you boil it all down the law is fundamentally a matter of logic.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: And common sense.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, I would even add common sense and an adherence to certain principles that have been accepted and established. Accordingly, I paid particular attention to the minister when he tried to argue that clause 8, as he has put it in the bill, is defensible because, as he has said, there are many other statutes which have a similar provision in them.
I listened to the provisions that he cited and, with respect, I must say I do not feel that a single one of them was on all fours with the wording in clause 8 which is now before us. I say that because in every case the something that one did that could be used as presumptive evidence occurred at a time when that act was an offence. For example, if I may think of one or two, the minister said that possession of certain drugs is presumptive evidence that one is trafficking. The difference between that kind of legislation and this is that at the time one had the drugs it was a crime to engage in trafficking, but in this clause a law is being written which refers to a period of time before it was a crime, as in this case, to be a member of the FLQ. I
I submit with all respect that if the minister will take another look at those examples he gave us during that interesting speech this afternoon he will have to admit that there is not one that is on all fours with the provision of clause 8, and there is not one that defends the
Public Order Act, 1970
legitimacy of this clause on the general principle that precedents establish a case. It is because new ground is being broken in this clause that I feel the amendment of my colleague the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) should be supported.
The minister in his remarks this afternoon made a great deal out of the fact that persons can be found guilty on the basis of presumptive evidence, or at least presumptive evidence can be used against them even if it relates to something that had been done prior to the time of the offence for which they are charged. The minister tries to carry that over to this by saying, therefore, that if one attended meetings of the FLQ three or four years ago, prior to the time of the offence, which could only occur since October 16, that can be used against him. The point I make is that in all of these other laws under which a person's action prior to the time of the offence can be presumptive evidence against him, it was at least a crime at the time the offence was committed or the act was performed.
In this case we are being asked to say that what a person did when it was not illegal, when it was perfectly within the law, can be used as presumptive evidence against him in the period of time when the new law is in effect. I submit that the things my colleagues have said about the dangers of retroactive law of this kind are correct and that we are embarking on a dangerous course.
Perhaps I may go a bit further in respect of what I heard the minister say this afternoon. I believe it is correct to say that he said if a person is accused under this clause and can establish doubt about the evidence that he was in attendance at FLQ meetings prior to October 16 then, of course, that falls to the ground and he is in the clear. Supposing such a person cannot cast doubt on that evidence; supposing the facts establish that the accused was at meetings, in the plural, of the FLQ prior to October 16: then I submit that unless he can produce evidence that he is not now a member of the FLQ, and it is just as hard to prove you are not as it is to prove that you are, then the plain wording of clause 8 means that in the absence of evidence to prove that he was not at such meetings when it was not illegal to be there, that in itself is proof that he is now a member of the FLQ.
In the plainest way I can put it, it seems to me that is passing a law that has a retroactive effect. It is not being made a crime to have attended FLQ meetings in 1965, 1968 or 1969. That is not being made a crime by this measure.
However, if it can be proven under clause 8 that one did attend meetings in those years, and if one cannot prove that he is not now a member of the FLQ, then under this clause such a person can be found guilty of the main offence in clause 4, which is membership in the FLQ, and is liable to the punishment set out in this bill. So, Mr. Chairman, for these reasons, and because it seems to me in the plainest of logic we are being asked to support a proposition that is retroactive in effect, I urge that the minister given more weight than he has yet

November 16, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
given to the arguments advanced by my colleague the hon. member for York South.
I end the way I started, by pleading with the minister to face the fact that the examples he gave us in other statutes are not on all fours with this one. They are not good precedents and they are not reasons which justify the kind of departure that is involved in this dangerous clause. I urge the committee to support the amendment of the hon. member for York South so that it is only attendance at FLQ meetings since it became a crime to be at such meetings, that can be used as evidence against an accused person.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, like the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I was impressed by the clarity of the minister's statement this afternoon in outlining to the House the place and the role of what he termed presumptive evidence in proceedings before the courts. It was because of the clarity with which the minister outlined the existing practice and precedent in this connection that I became more than ever convinced of the fact that my colleague's amendment to clause 8 is necessary and desirable.
There is one example the minister gave this afternoon which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre did not touch upon, and this is the one which to me clarifies the position we are in. The minister made reference to the crime of seditious conspiracy. He stated, quite properly, that his objective was to stamp out seditious conspiracy. I think there is no quarrel in the committee that this is apparently the purported objective of the bill before us. I think, also, that most members of the committee will recognize that seditious conspiracy is one of the most difficult offences to deal with and, if I follow the minister correctly, I can see the place and the role of presumptive evidence in respect of prior activity and association with the FLQ. I can understand the role of presumptive evidence when the activity or association occurred over recent months or even years in relation to a charge or an allegation that a person had been involved in seditious conspiracy.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
It seems to me the very argument the minister advanced in that connection makes it more apparent than ever that to now apply that principle through the proposed new offence is certainly not in keeping with the principles of our law and justice as outlined by the hon. member for York South. So far as 1 am concerned, the very idea of declaring such an organization to be illegal or unlawful is distasteful. This is something which I think we should weigh carefully at any time, both in respect of its practical result and whether or not it is necessary and desirable in a democratic society.
I am prepared to admit that in dealing with the problem of seditious conspiracy there may be circumstances, as this bill suggests, when such a specific group or organization and its membership should be determined to be unlawful. However, if we deal with it in the sense of going back into a person's past and are not prepared to allow people to act in accordance with what Parliament

decided with the coming into force of this law, we are going beyond what I feel is necessary or desirable. It seems to me that the minister has something in this legal bag of tricks which he has not yet logically put before the committee. He and all his colleagues on that side of the House should stand and support this amendment.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, there is a
good deal in this legislation which I find offensive. Perhaps there is little that is more offensive than the clause we are discussing. The decision to include a clause which would allow the police to arrest and charge people who have been members of a particular group or organization for some years and who perhaps a few weeks ago terminated that membership, all argument to the contrary, is something that is so unbelievable and unjust that I find it difficult to comprehend that any government would have the audacity to bring such a suggestion in legislative form before this House. I find it repugnant that members of this House should be expected to approve a clause of this bill which would establish guilt on a retroactive basis.
This clause states that membership of any nature in an organization that was not considered unlawful until a few weeks ago can constitute the necessary evidence with which to charge a person with a criminal offence. This is too strong and unpalatable to be justified on the ground of security in this country. Not only are we in effect stating that certain acts in the past which individuals may have committed, or certain statements which individuals may have made, are a crime, but in this legislation we are creating a new crime which is either membership in, support for or encouragement given to a particular movement.
This would be bad enough in itself in light of the traditions of this country, but the fact is that we have not yet been given evidence in these many days or weeks of debate concerning the nature of the FLQ and what in particular would constitute reasonable evidence in respect of a criminal offence in this respect. Certainly the minister did not offer to this House in the earlier discussion on clause 3, which was stood, nor in the subsequent debate on various other clauses any relevant information concerning the exact nature of what would constitute a crime in respect of the FLQ. I think he has not done it primarily because he is not able to do it.
In the first instance, the minister has not been able to define the exact nature of the FLQ for purposes of arrest, charge and conviction. Are we, then, to be asked to put ourselves in the completely unbelievable position of suggesting that attendance at meetings or earlier support for some aspects of this organization will constitute evidence that would convict one of a criminal offence? This really is an Alice in Wonderland situation. I am amazed at the audacity and the fictional kind of existence in which the minister and the government must live, when they would expect either members of this House or the people of the country to believe that the establishment of a clause establishing retroactivity is in the best interests of the country or in the best interests of dealing with the present difficulties in the province of Quebec.
November 16, 1970

Further, it is beyond me how we can in all justice expect to have the people of this country accept as fair legislation which calls for the establishment of criminal offences which when committed in the past were not criminal. By the simple passage of this clause in the bill we would in effect be telling the people that something they did in the past, which to the very best of their knowledge did not constitute a criminal offence, has now in fact become a crime.
It is possible that next year the government might decide that some other organization is in effect of a like nature to the FLQ, and that it would constitute a criminal offence to support that organization, not only now when the legislation becomes valid but perhaps 10, 15 or 20 years ago when it seemed to be no criminal offence to belong to or support a specific organization. It is incredible that we should be engaging in a discussion of such a proposal this evening. Although we certainly are dealing with an organization which is repugnant to almost 100 per cent of the population today, this does not set aside the possibility that some other day another government, or perhaps this government, will propose similar steps in respect of other organizations, other activities, other bodies and other beliefs or ideologies.
In this proposal we are asked to accept a presumption of guilt which strikes me as being contrary to everything I understand of our system of justice. A person will be called upon to prove that in his earlier association, which he may have terminated half dozen years ago, he has no longer maintained some kind of active interest or support. How in the name of heaven is an innocent individual before the courts expected to prove the nebulous assertion that he is no longer an active member or supporter of that particular organization?
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
There is one thing that is basic to the legislative framework assembled in this place. Not only must we provide laws that are just and fair to the citizenry of this country; they must, above all else, appear to be just. It has not taken very long for a great number of people in this country who have looked at this bill to realize that of all aspects of it this clause is obviously and in the first instance the most unjust. If we are seen to be assenting here in this place to this kind of unjust precedent, we do no service to the remainder of the body of laws and statutes of this country. I urge the minister to reconsider the wording of this clause so as to strike out what I think is offensive both to the House and to the good common law of this country.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Chairman, I will not bother you or the minister for too long, but as I listened to hon. gentlemen and members of the House tonight I realized that around 30 per cent of them are from the legal profession, which makes one timid to stand up and cast a layman's opinion on some of the proposals which we have before us.
I would suggest at the beginning that the Minister of Justice, prior to the supper recess, tried at least to indi-
Public Order Act, 1970
cate that clause 8 was perfectly all right and that somewhere in it everyone was well protected. At the same time, I am sure that lay people across this country, about whom we should be concerned so that we can talk to them on the street and at work and not necessarily in a court of law, should have their laws put into language that they understand. I suggest that if there is any reasonable doubt whatever about the clause under discussion, the minister should take another look at it. Surely the minister must realize that if he had to spend the length of time that he did in this House speaking to many of his learned friends, many of us and many people in the country will never understand what the clause says.
Let us, for example, look at the first paragraph of the clause which contains the words "either before or after". That in itself should give everyone cause for concern. I am pleased to see that even some of the members of the minister's party have questioned the terminology before us. I am sure that the hon. member for Calgary North when speaking a while ago about past cases in the courts could recount others, as could other lawyers in the House, and tell us what might happen in the future. But we also know that many people will collaborate with those who they believe are doing something for them. I suggest that people in Quebec who at one time thought the FLQ was doing something for them and who were with the FLQ and supported that organization, now denounce terrorist actions, as all of us in the House have, when they have found out that the FLQ thinks that force is the only way to achieve its ends.
If one looks at clause 8 and at the amendment proposed by the hon. member for York South, one can see no reason why the Minister of Justice would not at least wish to stand up and say there is reasonable doubt regarding the wording and that he will do something about it. He could at least say he will take another look. Instead, he spoke for about an hour explaining something that was beyond the understanding of most people in this country; and after trying to explain it he suggested that we should have such things as "shifting onus", "primary onus", "presumption of fact" and all that type of terminology that means very little to the average individual.
The basic question that we have to ask ourselves tonight is whether or not these provisions will be retroactive with regard to those who may at one time have believed that a certain group of people represented their interests. I suggest to the minister that if he is not prepared to give serious consideration to this amendment, it will amount to telling the people of the country that it is he who piloted the bill through the House, he who is the leader as far as this bill is concerned and not the leader of the Liberals. Maybe he would like to be the leader, but he is not quite there yet. I understand from the news tonight that there may be a leadership contest before too long.


David Orlikow: Look at the results of the by-elections.


John Leroy Skoberg: I understand that if he puts the legislation through and the House passes it, he can wash his

November 16, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
hands of it completely and say, as they have been saying for the last two weeks, "We have put it into effect. Now it is up to the attorneys general of the respective provinces". It is wonderfully easy for learned people in this House to say they have passed the buck to someone else. At the same time, people can rot in jail for 90 days swearing that they were not and are not members of the illegal association.
I think that some members of the Liberal party believe in the positions of the World Federalists. There is one short paragraph in the recent editorial on that publication which I would like to quote. The words I will read are not to be found in the law books, but I am sure that the editorial gives a good analogy to the situation we are now facing. One part of the editorial reads as follows:
In fact, as laws pile up, peace and order recede further into the background. Anti-riot laws, anti-conspiracy laws, anti-drug laws do little to shore up respect for the lawmakers and do nothing to enhance their authority. As their laws multiply, their authority derives more from guns than from legislation.
Surely the Minister of Justice must realize that to correct the situation with which we are faced today we need more than this legislation. I am sure he realizes that if he refuses to accept any of the amendments suggested to clause 8, what he is really saying is that we might as well wipe out any pretence of suggesting anything that will have any benefit so far as this legislation is concerned.
It has been said to me-in fact, this applies also to many union contracts that have been signed throughout the country-that it would be much better if professors of English were to write some of the legislation and some of the union contracts, so that they would make sense to the average individual. If I could possibly get the attention of the Minister of Justice for a moment I would like to plead with him, if he believes there is any reasonable doubt regarding the wording of the clause, to stand up right now and say that he will take another look at it. Otherwise, this entire debate will be a complete farce and the onus will be placed on the Liberal government.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Chairman, because we are sitting in Committee of the Whole and therefore there is no way in which our opposition to this provision can be registered without our voicing it, I will take a minute or two to say that I will vote for the amendment proposed by the hon. member for York South. I realize that the minister has had a long day and that there are other discussions that he wishes to continue with his colleagues, but perhaps someone else will listen to what I have to say.
Perhaps the outlawing of dangerous toys is the most serious issue facing the country. I do not happen to believe it is, although I commend the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs for that bold initiative. The curious aspect of this provision of which I want to remind the minister is that this legislature, and legislatures similarly organized, are the only places that could have the audacity to promote such retroactive provisions and have them ruled constitutional. To put it much more quickly and simply, this provision would be clearly unconstitutional were it passed in the United States of
America. Therefore, we should question it. I think it is worth while to take a little time on this bill, particularly on a provision such as this clause.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: A couple of weeks?


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: The second curious fact is that we have been along this road before in this Parliament. Anyone who has read about the mistakes that were made by predecessors in office at the time of the Winnipeg general strike know that very serious errors were made at that time because of the hysteria that surrounded the strike. It took a good many years to remove that legislation from the statute books. I think it is to the credit of Ernest Lapointe, the then Minister of Justice, and the Mackenzie King government that section 98 of the Criminal Code was finally abolished. But, Mr. Chairman, having passed along this road before, here we go again.
Seriously, I ask the minister, what was the rationalization behind this clause? Where did it come from? Is it the same as in other statutes, or is it some new initiative, some new piece of draftsmanship without precedent? I shall oppose this provision and vote for the amendment. I am curious about the origin of this retroactive provision and can only say it is abhorrent.


Mr. Broadbent:: Mr. Chairman, of all the amendments that have been proposed, this is probably the most fundamental. It has attracted the support of a number of serious members on both sides of the House. It would be an act of both courtesy and earnestness for the minister to reply to some of the criticisms before we vote on the amendment.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What's the use, if he is going to say the same thing again?


John Napier Turner: The hon. member for Calgary North has just said what I was going to say. It would not be much use if I were to say the same thing again to the committee. I have listened carefully to all the arguments. I think I could repeat every argument made by hon. members, whether they be lawyers or non-lawyers. If the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby reads my speech, I think he will find there has not been an argument that I have left unanswered.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Fundy-Royal made a perfectly legitimate presentation. He asked the minister for the ancestry of this rather weird clause that we are studying.


John Napier Turner: I cannot give a full pedigree of the clause. It was drafted to meet the present circumstances. It bears no relationship to, nor does it derive any ancestry from section 98.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I did not say it did.

November 16, 1970


John Napier Turner: Its parentage cannot be traced back through any particular lineage. It is something specifically drafted to meet a specific, current problem.


David Orlikow: If the hon. member for Fundy-Royal and the Minister of Justice want to know the origin of this bill they should read an article which appeared in the Montreal Star on Saturday, written by W. A. Wilson, an Ottawa correspondent who is not unfriendly to the government. He makes the case very plainly that the bill has its origin in section 98. I had my say about section 98 before and I will not repeat it. I think the bill has two origins, one in section 98 and the second in the feeling of the minister that he owes something to the Attorney General of Quebec, and he is going to pay that debt in this bill.


Gérald Laniel: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Lewis) negatived: Yeas, 29; nays, 51.


Gérald Laniel: I declare the amendment lost.


John Gilbert: Mr. Chairman, I have a further amendment to clause 8. I move that clause 8 be amended by adding the following subclause:
2. In any prosecutions for the offence of being a member of the unlawful association, the accused shall not be convicted unless it is established that he knew of the use of force or the commission of crime by members of the unlawful association.
My moving of this amendment was prompted by a telegram sent to the Prime Minister by 23 members of the faculty of Osgoode Hall and York University, Toronto, setting forth their objections to the War Measures Act. In their third suggestion they said no one should be charged or detained by reason of his membership in any organization unless there is evidence acceptable to a court of law that he knew or ought to have known of the violent methods of such an organization.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
If we are to accept the minister's interpretation of clause 8, it is that this is an evidentiary presumption in relation to the one offence of membership in the FLQ. This afternoon he outlined how the presumption operates. If the accused can set forth a case with the balance of probabilities in his favour, then the onus shifts to the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is a member of the FLQ. But the thing that concerns me, Mr. Chairman, and I am sure it concerns members of the faculty of Osgoode Hall law school of York University, is that there are two types of membership, active and passive.
Clause 8 of the bill states:
In any prosecution for an offence under this act, evidence that any person, either before or after the coming into force of this act,
(a) participated in or was present at a number of meetings of the unlawful association or of any branch, committee or members thereof-
Public Order Act, 1970
In paragraph (a) you have participation in or being present, in paragraph (b) you have speaking publicly in advocacy for the unlawful association, and in paragraph (c) you have communicating a statement on behalf of or as a professed representative of the unlawful association. The first line of paragraph (a) states, "participated in or was present at a number of meetings", but you get an active participation in the other paragraphs. Under paragraph (a) you could have a charge against a person who "participated in or was present at". When you look at the words "was present at" it means you are sort of dwelling on mere membership.
One of the things that has worried many members in this House, and I notice it worried the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie this evening, is the type of evidence that could be brought forth. If a person is charged under clause 4 with being a member and the evidence comes forth that he was present at a number of meetings-the minister has said this may be an improvement over the regulations-the question arises as to the type of evidence he can present to rebut this allegation. It would be difficult for him to say, "I was not present at the meetings". The minister has admitted that there may be two types of evidence: he may be able to argue that he was not present, or that at the time of the charge or previous to it he had renounced membership in the association. I am sure this is the reason why the professors of Osgoode Hall at York University were so concerned about mere membership.
I can appreciate a person being charged if he has participated, if he has advocated or if he has communicated; but if his membership is mere presence at the unlawful association it does impose a tremendous burden upon the accused.


John Napier Turner: I wonder if the hon.
member would permit a question.


John Gilbert: Certainly.


John Napier Turner: Has the hon. member the date of that communication from York University?


John Gilbert: Yes, I have, Mr. Chairman. The telegram is dated October 21, 1970, and is addressed to the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Prime Minister. I shall be glad to send it over as soon as I have finished. These are the submissions that were prepared and sent to the Prime Minister, signed by 23 members of the Osgoode Hall faculty of law, York University, Toronto. I might add that the provisions in this bill are practically the same as the provisions dealt with by the professors in sending the telegram to the Prime Minister.
I think I have made my point, Mr. Chairman, that the real problem that faced the professors and faces many members is this question of mere membership or passive membership-the attending of meetings when the FLQ was a lawful association. This imposes upon the accused the burden of proof. As the minister has said on other occasions, judges may say that presence at those meet-

November 16, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
ings is sufficient to establish guilt, rather than following the second line that the minister has submitted, that an accused could bring forward evidence that at this time or a short time after attending the meetings he had renounced membership in the FLQ.
If the FLQ is an unlawful association-and we say it is unlawful because it advocates violence for the overthrow of the government-surely mere membership should not be sufficient grounds to lay a charge against a person who attended meetings before it became an unlawful association. I appreciate that if the person has participated at the meetings or has communicated or advocated, it is a different matter. But mere membership should not be sufficient to charge or detain unless there is sufficient evidence that the accused ought to have known of the violent methods of the FLQ.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal briefly with the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Broadview. The reason I asked for the date of the communication to the Prime Minister from the professors of the Osgoode Hall faculty of law at York University was that since the date of that communication, October 21, the regulations have been, not replaced but substituted by the bill. That is to say, the communication from the professors was dealing with section 8 of the regulations, which differs in a material way from clause 8 of the bill.


John Edward Broadbent: Would the minister permit a question related specifically to what he is now saying? If the minister looks at page 2 of the brief from the members of the law faculty of Osgoode Hall he will notice that the section is subtitled, "With respect to possible new legislation." It is with direct relation to this legislation that the proposal is made, not to the War Measures Act.


John Napier Turner: Yes, Mr. Chairman, but with the greatest respect, at that time the professors had no idea what was going to be in this bill. The bill differs in quite a material way from the regulations with respect to the point made by the hon. member from Broadview. The regulations state:
In any prosecution for an offence under these regulations, evidence that any person
(a) attended any meeting of the unlawful association
The bill states:
In any prosecution for an offence under this act, evidence that any person, either before or after the coming into force of this act,
(a) participated in or was present at a number of meetings of the unlawful association or of any branch, committee or members thereof-
There are two material differences in that paragraph. The first is that the idea of participation is added and the second is that it must be a number of meetings. I am advised that this means two or more meetings. I am suggesting that what the professors were directing themselves to has now been materially changed, and now each one of these three paragraphs deals with active participation or a positive act.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Or
attendance.


John Napier Turner: Participation contains the concept of an act.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Or?


John Napier Turner: Or was present at a number of meetings. Not just one.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Two?


John Napier Turner: "Spoke publicly in advocacy." There is an active concept in that idea. Then, "(c) communicated statements on behalf of or as a representative or a professed representative." Again we find an active principle-the sharing of ideas. There is nothing passive in those three paragraphs. The criticism to which the hon. member and the professors of York University directed their attention may have had some application to paragraph (a) of the regulations at that time, but in my submission it does not apply now.
The hon. member is suggesting we should impose an additional burden of proof; that an accused person has to know what the organization is all about. The FLQ is so notorious that its objectives and means are well known not only in Quebec but throughout Canada. How any person can possibly be a member of the FLQ without knowledge of its willingness to resort to the use of force and the commission of crime is hard to imagine. The nature of the organization is known to persons generally across Canada. If, in a situation which I find it difficult to imagine, someone came before the courts and said, "I was a member of the FLQ but I did not know what it was all about", the judge would be bound, if he were satisfied that this was true, to instruct the jury accordingly and the jury would be bound to find accordingly. I doubt very much if such a person would then be convicted or, if he were, whether he would get much of a sentence. But to put into the bill such a provision as is suggested, when the bill is now drafted quite differently from the regulations would, I contend, be placing an unwarranted burden of proof on the Crown.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Might I suggest to the committee that under the provisions of Standing Order 6(5)(a) we interrupt the proceedings to ask Mr. Speaker if we can extend the sitting of the House tonight until the Committee of the Whole has disposed of clause 8 of Bill C-181, or eleven o'clock, whichever is earlier?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gérald Laniel: Order. In view of the request made by the minister, it is my duty pursuant to section (5)(a) of Standing Order 6 to interrupt the proceedings of the Committee of the Whole in order to permit the House to make a decision on the motion to be proposed by him.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel) resumed the chair.

November 16, 1970


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by my colleague the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis):
That this sitting be extended until clause 8 of Bill C-181 has been disposed of by the Committee of the Whole, or 11 o'clock, whichever is earlier.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Before putting the motion I feel I should read to hon. members the relevant Standing Order:
When Mr. Speaker puts the motion on such question he shall ask those who object to rise in their places. If ten or more hon. members then rise, the motion shall be deemed to have been withdrawn. Otherwise, the motion shall have been adopted.
All members opposing the motion will please rise.
And none having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I declare the motion carried. The House will resume in Committee of the Whole.
And the House having resumed in committee:


John Edward Broadbent: With respect, as one says around here, the Minister of Justice has completely missed the point. The proposal outlined in the brief submitted by the professors of York University did, indeed, deal with the substance of clause 8. They did deal with what they thought should have been included in clause 8 and, at the same time, with what they thought should be excluded. The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Broadview is taken word for word from their proposal. In effect, it says that no person should be convicted for mere membership unless it can be shown that he knew, or should have known, something about the intention of the FLQ or some related body to use violence. It is not a question of some other crime, but of violence.
This appears to be exactly the point with which the faculty of law of Osgoode Hall were concerned. We have to decide whether or not the proposal which my hon. friend from Broadview had put forward is good on its own merits. I should like to give my reasons for thinking it is a good one. It is common practice in the legal systems of most democratic countries not to convict on the grounds of mere membership of an association. I refer in particular to the recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which declared ultra vires a law which made it a criminal offence to be a member of the Communist party. The ground of this decision was, as I recall, that mere membership in the association, a part from the commitment of specific acts of crime, should not be considered a criminal offence.
My hon. friend for Broadview has put forward an argument of essentially the same nature. For the reasons he has given, it seems entirely appropriate that a person should not incur the serious penalties proposed in this bill for mere membership. The requirement is that he should have foreknowledge of the violence associated with this organization, and I should like the minister to deal specifically with this argument.
Public Order Act, 1970


Gérald Laniel: Order. For the benefit of hon. members the Chair will read Standing Order 40(7) which states:
When it is provided in any standing or special order of this House that any specified business shall be continued beyond the ordinary time of daily adjournment or that any such business shall be forthwith disposed of or concluded in any sitting, the adjournment proceedings in that sitting shall be suspended.
This means there will be no adjournment debate tonight. I point this out for the benefit of members and ministers involved. Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: No.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I wish to ask the minister a question with regard to the FLQ. Are there any membership lists or known procedures whereby persons are known to be members of the FLQ? Is there any means of calling meetings? What is the definition of membership? Is there a membership fee? How is this arrived at?


John Napier Turner: I have already said in this House, and I say again to the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar, that my reply was to the substance of the argument of the hon. member for Broadview after I made particular reference to the date of the statement by his colleagues from York University. Although I may not have dealt with it satisfactorily from his point of view, I did deal with it. I would probably be more courteous to the committee if I did not bore them with repetition, even though my original statement may have been inadequate. I try to meet every argument as it is put forward.
In answer to the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar, there is a difficulty in establishing membership in the FLQ because it is not a legal organization. It does not have all the trappings such as a corporate charter, purposes, objects or perhaps even a membership list, although I am not in a position categorically to reply to that. Because of this, the definition in clause 4 must be as all-embracing as it is, in other words, to assume or to relate membership from or to a series of acts. One who professes to be a member is assumed to be one, or if he communicates statements on behalf of the association. He is assumed to have that type of relationship if he advocates and promotes the unlawful acts or means of the association. Clause 4 is drafted in this way because there is not a standard procedure of ascertaining the membership of a clandestine, hidden conspiracy.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: This clause purports to make a person guilty if he has in the past attended a meeting of the FLQ. How is such a meeting defined? If a person attended a meeting of the FLQ one, two or three years ago, how is the meeting he attended defined for purposes or determining guilt?


John Napier Turner: That would be a matter of fact. It would have to be proved beyond reasonable

November 16, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
doubt to the satisfaction of a court. If a number of people who were proved to be associated with the purposes, objects and methods of the FLQ met for the purpose of advancing the objects of the FLQ, I assume that can he considered to be a meeting within the standard dictionary definition. If it were established that a person attended a meeting or a number of meetings, as the clause reads, creating a presumption of fact in favour of his being a member of that type of association, and he were not able to rebut that assumption by contradictory evidence of subsequently having had nothing to do with it, or having reached a parting of the ways because he found he disagreed with the objects and was not willing to participate in the violence-if he were able to do that he would in the final analysis be found not guilty. Definition of the word "meeting" is what is understood in normal parlance by the word "meeting". In the absence of any definition in the bill, such term would be defined in the standard dictionary.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Supposing, Mr. Chairman, there was a meeting at which was discussed the separation of Quebec from the rest of Canada, even by violent means. Such meeting may have been a meeting of the FLQ, it may have been a meeting of some Maoist order or a meeting of two or three dissident organizations. By what means or definition is it established that the meeting that a person attended was a meeting of the FLQ?


John Napier Turner: You would have to establish facts to that effect. You would have to establish it was an organization that was, I suppose, parading under the auspices of the FLQ and meeting to seek the violent overthrow of the government of Quebec, or the separation of Quebec from the rest of Canada. This would have to be established to the satisfaction of the court. I cannot give the hon. member a complete list of the factors that might enter into the definition or into proving a case.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Chairman, I am genuinely concerned about this question because I have spent about 20 years attending meetings of farm organizations in western Canada and have seen a lot of odd-ball meetings in my time. What I am concerned about is this. We are being asked to pass legislation that defines the position of a person who is going to be charged with having done a certain thing. By what definition or by what rule book do you establish that the person charged with attending the meeting had attended a meeting of the FLQ? If there is no membership list or means of defining these people, the person who is charged is, I suggest, left in a pretty precarious position.
How does one establish, first of all, that a person attended a meeting of this particular group? Secondly, if the group cannot be defined, how does the person know what he was attending? If the minister can offer any yardstick to the committee in this regard, I should like to hear what it is.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I think it is pretty clear that if a man or woman is attending a

meeting that is called for the purpose of discussing the use of violence or crime to overthrow the government of Quebec-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Does it say that?


John Napier Turner: No. But if one reads the definition in clause 3 and in the second paragraph of the preamble, that becomes clear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I will not detain the committee for more than a minute, but may I say to the minister that I think he has very neatly evaded the point that the hon. member for Broadview was making. The minister says that he cannot possibly conceive of a person who is a member of the FLQ not knowing the purposes and objectives of that organization. We are not dealing here with a person who is a member. The purpose of clause 8 is to prove that he is a member.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
The minister dealt with participation, he dealt with advocacy and he dealt with communication. What the hon. member for Broadview was pointing out, so neatly sidestepped by the minister, was that any person who was present at a number of meetings of an unlawful association or a branch or committee thereof, or in attendance at meetings of a small group which did not put up big signs saying "this is the FLQ. Come in and get a machine-gun because we are people of violence," is a member of an unlawful association unless he can provide evidence to the contrary.
The hon. member for Broadview is pointing out, not that membership does not presume guilt but that mere attendance could be the result of a misadventure on the part of a person who attended a couple of meetings some years ago during student days and later became aware of the purposes and objectives of the organization and terminated his association with it. If the minister leaves this matter with the mere presence of someone at a meeting being proof of membership, and places that kind of power in the hands of attorneys general and police forces, he will have many cases of flagrant maladministration of justice in the province of Quebec.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I will try to repeat again perhaps more succinctly, if I am able, what I said initially in reply to the hon. member for Broadview. It is no longer true to say that clause 8 can be interpreted without some ingredient of conscious action by way of participation or association at a number of meetings, or a course of conduct, or active communication, advocacy, promotion or something like that. That positive act assumes some conscious knowledge of what is going on.
I said that it was inconceivable to me that anyone who was a member of the FLQ, or attended meetings of the FLQ in such a fashion that he would be caught on a
November 16, 1970

presumption, would be someone other than one who attended meetings where they were discussing violence and sedition or, armed seditious violence. On the basis of common experience it is inconceivable to me, based on the notoriety of the FLQ, that anyone who was at such meetings would not know of their objectives and purposes.
I said to the hon. member for Broadview that in the hypothetical case where that might happen and where, on the basis of the accused's credibility before a jury or a judge he was able to satisfy the court or jury that that was so, I doubt very much if a jury or judge would convict, or if there were a conviction whether the sentence would amount to much. By adding the words the hon. member seeks to add, he in effect imposes an additional burden of proof on the Crown which I feel would be impossible to satisfy.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I have just one word at this time. The minister said several times earlier, in reply to hon. member's questions, particularly the questions of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar, that the meeting would be an FLQ meeting at which there would be discussion of the aims of the FLQ and the unlawful means that group intended to use. If that is the case, why is my hon. friend's amendment so difficult? Obviously the Crown will have to prove-I am using the minister's own words-not only that there was a meeting, but that there was a meeting of a certain kind at which they advocated violence toward certain political ends. So the Crown would have to prove presence at that meeting, as well as the nature of the meeting. If it proved the nature of the meeting and I was there, obviously I ought to have known that the purpose of the FLQ was violence and crime. Surely this is logical.
The minister simply cannot argue, as he did before, that this amendment places an impossible burden upon the Crown. It has to prove the nature of the meeting and, therefore, that the meeting dealt with the unlawful act or the advocacy of it. If it proves that and the person was there, then obviously that person knew or ought to have known about it. The value of the amendment is in relation to some young person who was roped into attending a meeting; the meeting did not discuss violence; the meeting or a number of meetings discussed separating Quebec from Canada, fighting the battle of the unemployed, helping the poor in east Montreal, or whatever. This student or other young Canadian sits in at that meeting and is attracted to the slogans. He returns and attends another meeting or meetings where exactly the same kind of thing is discussed. But present at this meeting-I will mention names everybody knows-are Vallieres and Gagnon. The Crown will then say that Vallieres and Gagnon were charged with such-and-such and that it was after this the young man attended those meetings.
It is that kind of situation with which my friend's amendment would deal. This young Canadian who was roped into attending such a meeting innocently, and who listened to the social objectives in which the FLQ claims to have an interest, not knowing of the criminal inten-
Public Order Act, 1970
tions which may have been in the minds of the people or some of the people who may have been there, should not be subject to conviction and should not be the victim under this law. I do not see where the burden on the Crown is so difficult under the elements of the amendment of the hon. member for Broadview.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, on the basis of the hypothetical situation adduced by the hon. member, the accused undoubtedly would escape on the basis of the general wording. What I say to him-I can say it to him because of his legal experience and the sharpness of his mind-is that the burden of proof sought to be added by the hon. member for Broadview would either be impossible to discharge in one circumstance or redundant in the other. That capsulizes the reply I have been trying to make.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, the minister is hanging his whole case on the fact that if a person attends an FLQ meeting, or a number of FLQ meetings, this means that person is familiar with the objectives and the means which the FLQ intends to use to attain those objectives. This does not necessarily follow at all. People have been attending Liberal meetings for years and still do not know the real purposes of the Liberal party.


David Lewis: It is not an unlawful association.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, each one of us tends to speak from his own experience.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is right. I have been trying for a long time to find out what your program is.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Chairman, to introduce such an amendment one has to be completely unaware of what terrorist movements are, the goals they seek and how they want to achieve them. In fact, the very essence of the FLQ, the MLQ or any other terrorist movement is their secrecy. Why? Because they seek to overthrow the government by violence.
Therefore, as the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) pointed out this afternoon, we are not dealing with a political party. There are no membership cards and no contributions. These movements do not hold conventions, but secret meetings where terrorism is discussed.
That is pretty well known in the province of Quebec. The record of the FLQ is not recent, for since 1963, its members would have committed about 100 bombings, armed robberies or arms thefts, and they would have caused train derailments.
For those who do not know what the FLQ is, simply by attending one meeting of that association they can figure out how far those guys are willing to go. They state publicly and openly that murders have to be committed.

November 16, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
Everyone knows that in the province of Quebec. Several public meetings, which were not necessarily FLQ meetings, took place. Known supporters of the FLQ were sometimes in attendance at these meetings, indirectly as guests, or because they thrust themselves on a group, meeting for apparently peaceful purposes, to state that political leaders have to be assassinated. If FLQ members now dare say in public that political assassination must be used, there is every reason to suppose in view of the bombings, the robberies, the train derailments, and so on that in more secret meetings these people do not talk about overthrowing the government by democratic, legitimate and peaceful means.
Therefore I think that one would have to be a little naive and ill-informed about life in Quebec to imagine that someone could not know that the FLQ, the MLQ or any other similar movement is not a revolutionary movement attempting to overthrow the government by violence.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)


John Edward Broadbent: I could not disagree more with the remarks that have just been made. Let me give a personal example of the point the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands was trying to make. About two weeks ago I was speaking in Toronto and ran into a student who had recently attended five meetings of a Maoist group. He did not find out until the fifth meeting that it was either a Maoist group or that it believed in violence. This is not a foolish young man. He happens to be a first or second year student who is concerned about poor people in the city of Toronto. He was taken in, if you like to put it that way, by someone he thought was a well meaning student, quite innocent of violent politics, who got him to come out to some study groups. The study groups met a number of times. No mention was made of violence or of Communism, but finally at the
fifth meeting he discovered it was a Maoist group and immediately got out.
I think that is the point at issue, and it cannot be dismissed so readily. We are talking in this bill not only about the FLQ but about some successor, some related body, and it is indeed possible that well-meaning young people in the province of Quebec or elsewhere could attend a number of meetings without knowing about the real purposes of that organization.


Gérald Laniel: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Gérald Laniel: The question is on the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Broadview.
Amendment (Mr. Gilbert) negatived: Yeas, 16; nays, 54.


Gérald Laniel: I declare the amendment lost. Shall clause 8 carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, because we are opposed to it, I rise simply to ask for a standing vote on clause 8.
Clause 8 agreed to: Yeas, 49; nays, 24.


Gérald Laniel: I declare clause 8 carried. Pursuant to special order made earlier this sitting, it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the House.
Progress reported.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Pursuant to the Special Order adopted earlier, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 10.31 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Special Order.

Tuesday, November 17, 1970