1970-11-26

NEW MEMBERS

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer certificates of the election and return of the following members:
Of Leopold Corriveau, Esquire, for the electoral district of Frontenac.
Of Maurice Dupras, Esquire, for the electoral district of Labelle.



NEW MEMBERS INTRODUCED

[Stage Direction]
Leopold Corriveau, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Frontenac, introduced by Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau and Hon. Jean Marchand.
Maurice Dupras, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Labelle, introduced by Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau and Hon. Jean Marchand.

[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising out of an article which appeared in last night's Ottawa Citizen, November 25, under a Canadian Press byline. The second last paragraph in the article states:
New Democrat leader Douglas shouted that the Ontario Liberal was "a damn poor defender of the Canadian nation."
I want to make it abundantly clear that I did not make any such remark either when the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth was speaking or at any other time during the debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Public Accounts-Mr. Hales.
First report of Standing Committee on Agriculture- Mr. Beer.
First report of Special Committee on Election Expenses-Mr. Chappell.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Mr. Andre Ouellel (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table a supplementary report on emergency relief sent by the Canadian government to victims of the cyclone and tidal wave that struck East Pakistan.



CANADIAN FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ACT


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-199, to amend the Canadian Film Development Corporation Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Before I inquire of the House whether the hon. member has leave to introduce his motion, perhaps I might say this: the hon. gentleman has just filed at the table a copy of the bill-I have not looked at it and I think there is a presumption in the case of the hon. member that the bill will be procedurally correct-but with this caution, that it should be looked at, in any event, by the Speaker, I will put the motion. Does the hon. member have leave to introduce this bill?


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Frank Howard: In light of what the Liberal party did over the weekend, maybe the subtitle of this bill should be "Put your money where your mouth is."
The Canadian Film Development Corporation was established "to foster and promote the development of a feature film industry in Canada." However, no provision whatever exists in the Act to contain the industry within Canada. In other words, there is no protective feature with respect to foreign ownership, and I understand that at the moment foreign interests are attempting to move into the feature film industry which has been subsidized and assisted by the Canadian taxpayer through the fund established under the Canadian Film Development Corporation Act.
This bill simply seeks to amend the relevant section of the Act to ensure that the film industry will remain Canadian in ownership with its purpose being to promote Canadianism.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
1492
[Stage Direction]
November 26, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry FOOD AND DRUGS ACT

Mr. David Anderson (Esquimali-Saanich) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-200, to amend the Food and Drugs Act (Labelling).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, despite many changes in the labelling of consumer products, the law relating to the labelling of drug packages has remained virtually unchanged. The purpose of this bill is to have such packages properly indicate the side effects of any particular drug. In other words, if a drug one takes for hayfever makes one drowsy one should know about it before starting to drive a car.


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


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In light of what the House was told yesterday by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, that the interministerial meeting earlier this week was merely for consultation and not for the purpose of obtaining binding agreements between governments, and following the very optimistic and welcome announcement regarding the future market for Canadian oil in the United States, would the minister say that there will perhaps have to be further consultations now as a result of the resignation of Mr. Hickel?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the latter part of the hon. member's question has anything to do with the situation as it exists. The government's position in respect of United States oil markets has been directed toward obtaining access to those markets on a competitive basis with indigenous United States oil and subject, as the communique said, to Canadian regulations under the National Energy Board Act or other applicable Acts of Parliament. The communique, which enunciated the agreement between Canadian ministers and their United States counterparts, indicated that the United States is now prepared to consider this position of opening their markets to our oil in competition with their own indigenous oil. While no final resolution has been made of the problem of security in the event of a shortterm cut-off from the east there will continue to be-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister's statement is very interesting, and I am sure enlightening, but it seems
[Mr. Howard (Skeena).l
to me that this kind of statement ought to be made on motions.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, in spite of the non-answer to my previous question. In light of the fact that the consultation and exchange of information did not result in an agreement between governments, I should like to know whether the minister now feels he will have to consult with the successor of Mr. Hickel in order to maintain the progress which he indicated in the communique?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, discussions are continuing in an attempt to bridge the main question that still exists in the minds of the United States authorities before they can make access to their oil markets available to Canada, namely, eastern security in the case of an emergency. These discussions will continue at the official level, and if need be I will be pleased to continue discussions with the successor to Mr. Hickel.



FUTURE QUOTAS ON CANADIAN OIL ENTERING UNITED STATES MARKET-OTHER FUELS-CONTINENTAL POLICY

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the minister might be prepared to revert to motions to make a statement because the communique gives us very little information. In view of the fact the communique merely speaks of allowing western Canadian oil to flow into the United States market as United States oil moves into eastern Canada, I should like to ask the minister specifically whether the quotas on Canadian oil entering the United States market are to be raised for 1971 or are they to be removed entirely? Has any agreement been reached on this point, and at what particular time will it be possible to raise Canadian exports of oil into the United States market?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, with the quotas our sales into the United States market this year are about 17 per cent over last year and are the highest in history. The communique indicates that in the coming year the pipeline capacity will be used to the full, which would be an indication that the quotas will be raised even more. The communique further indicates that the United States is prepared to consider seriously the question of opening up the markets completely so that we have access to compete freely with United States indigenous oil in their markets.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The
communique speaks of increased trade in crude oil, petroleum products and other fuels between the United States and Canada. Would the minister clarify and elaborate on what is meant by the two words "other fuels"? What other fuels were included in the discussions between the Canadian ministers and the representatives of the United States government?
November 26, 1970


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, certainly discussions were held in respect of Canadian uranium which since 1964 has been barred from the United States market. We urged very seriously that that market be opened again to Canadian uranium, as we believe this would be in the interests of both countries. So far as natural gas is concerned, I think our position was made very clear at the time of the government's announcement, when the National Energy Board judgment in respect of the export of 6.3 trillion cubic feet was approved by the government recently, in which we indicated to our United States friends that an open oil market would engender more exploration for oil and thus-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands in a moment for a supplementary, but perhaps I should caution hon. members about reaching the point of debate on this very important matter.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister one more question. In view of the statement by Mr. Hickel when he was here in Ottawa that "we are still trying to work out how we can have a continental energy policy" and in view of the denial by both the minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs that there was any discussion about a continental energy policy, may I ask if any complaint has been lodged with the President of the United States by the Canadian government regarding Mr. Hickel having let the cat out of the bag, thereby resulting in his dismissal?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I think it is Mr. Hickel who is out of the bag and not the cat. But, Mr. Speaker, if by continental energy policy my hon. friend means the opening of United States markets to Canadian production subject, of course, to the regulations of the Canadian government and the Canadian Parliament or the National Energy Board under an Act of the Canadian Parliament, that is, of course, what we are after. No other discussions took place on any other aspect of Canadian oil policy.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact that no report was made verbally to the House by the minister after this conference, would the minister agree there is now a good case for reporting to the House immediately following these conferences in case any of the parties cease to hold their positions?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's question obviously is argumentative.



SALE OF WATER-UNITED STATES ENERGY MARKET

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary which may be self-answering because there has been a lot of hot air. Can he advise us whether there was any discussion whatsoever either on the part of the United States representatives or the Canadian government in reference to linking any export
Inquiries of the Ministry
of fresh water or selling water to the United States to their energy market?


John James Greene: 

INDUSTRY


Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The communique issued following the Canada-United States ministerial meeting uses the phrase "transitional arrangements" with reference to the protective clauses in the auto pact. This phrase is used for the first time in a Canadian communique; the Canadian government has adopted the United States terminology and replaced the word "safeguards" normally used by the Canadian government. Could the minister inform the House whether or not this means that the Canadian government has accepted the view that the safeguards in the auto pact are merely transitional in nature?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: It is a very fine point. There are "transitional arrangements" but there is no date for the termination of the arrangements.


John Edward Broadbent: That was a wonderfully ambivalent answer, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that we now have a $25 million deficit in the auto trade with the United States, would the minister assure the House that the government will not abandon the existing safeguards in the auto pact?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The figure quoted by my hon. friend is not an exact one. Is he referring to the balance of trade for this year? If so the balance of trade for this year on automobiles between Canada and the United States is favourable to Canada at this time, that is, at the end of the third quarter, in September, by $69 million.



POSSIBLE REVISION OF MARKETING POLICY

Mr. Roland Godin (Porlneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.

November 26, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
Since the Caloil Company of Montreal announced it was dropping plans to build a refinery in St. Augustin in the Portneuf riding, because the National Energy Board has refused to allow it to sell imported oil west of the Ottawa Valley, could the Minister say whether the policy will be reviewed and amended as required?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the member's question. Would he be kind enough to repeat it?


Roland Godin: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall repeat my question.
In view of the fact that the Caloil Company of Montreal announced yesterday that it had decided against building a refinery at St. Augustin, in the riding of Portneuf, because the National Energy Board has refused to allow it to sell imported oil west of the Ottawa Valley, can the Minister of Energy tell the House whether the policy of the Board will be reconsidered with a view to making the necessary changes?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada is that the policy of the government is fair constitutionally. No consideration is being given to changing it because it is felt that it was adopted m the interest of the whole country.


Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Does the minister know that the trade barrier put up by the National Energy Board between Quebec and Ontario is a one-way barrier since Ontario can still sell oil in Quebec?

[English]	_



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: My question is for the Minister of National Defence. In view of the success of the summer student militia training program last year, would the minister consider introducing a series of six-week courses under a special militia training program similar to the one initiated in 1961 in order to combat unemployment and to give the advantage of youth development to students and other young Canadians?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, we do not have such a program under consideration at the moment.


Jack Marshall: I know there is no program in effect now, but would the minister consult with the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and recommend this type of course before Christmas or shortly thereafter?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as I said, we do not have such a program under consideration.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: I would like to direct a question to the Postmaster General and perhaps he would pass it on to the minister in charge of the Post Office. Noting the department's announcement regarding no mail delivery on December 25, 26, 27 and 28 and since a good many Canadians still use the mails, could consideration be given to reviewing the decision not to have mail even on the fourth day of Christmas?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Minister of Communicafions):: will be glad to pass this on to my colleague.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs but in his absence I will direct it to his Parliamentary Secretary. In view of the pressing need for a rational distribution of food and supplies to the disaster-stricken area of Pakistan, will the minister consider sending immediately by Canadian Air Force Hercules transports, Canadian bush pilots and float planes currently idle as a result of the freeze-up in our north?


André Ouellet: I would like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question, Mr. Speaker. Canadian officials have been giving the most careful consideration to the possibility of Canadian aircraft and hovercraft being made available for relief operations in East Pakistan. We are in continuous touch with the Pakistani authorities as to their priorities, but to my knowledge no specific requests have been made to us to supply helicopters, hovercraft or the type of plane mentioned by the hon. member to transport relief supplies.


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question. In view of the time difficulty in connection with the East Pakistan situation, and as it took three days to decide to go to the aid of Peru and six days to send aid there, is the government making any plans to speed up emergency disaster aid for other countries and to get helicopters, float planes, and short take-off and landing planes on site a little more quickly?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, if I may answer this question I would point out to the hon. member that nine flights have already delivered a total of 286,499 pounds of
November 26, 1970

relief supplies and by this weekend another four flights will have delivered an additional 123,000 pounds. On this basis I think it is fairly obvious that the ability to respond quickly to the demand for relief supplies in any part of the world is very high both with regard to the External Aid Office and with regard to the Department of National Defence.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: But are the supplies getting to where they are actually needed on the site of the disaster or are they backing up in warehouses?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as was
already pointed out, it is the responsibility and concern of the government of Pakistan to distribute it to its own citizens and, as the Parliamentary Secretary has already indicated, we have had no request for additional assistance, whether in personnel or aircraft, for the purpose of distribution.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It is supplementary in a way. In view of the anxiety that will now be created by the indications from the minis l er that he is backing off from the safeguards in the Canada-U.S. auto pact, will he assure the House that none of the safeguards will be dropped without first bringing the matter to Parliament?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I think I made that promise four, five, or six months ago, and I will repeat it now if that is useful.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Since he stated at the opening of the annual agricultural conference which is now taking place in Ottawa, that the main trends of the government's agricultural policy would be included in the report of the task force can the minister tell us whether he shares the opinion of the CFU which reproaches it not only with ignoring Quebec interests, but also with not providing the federal government with the information needed to determine its agricultural and trade policies so as to promote the development of various sectors of agriculture, including those of Quebec?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, of course I will be very happy to hear the views of any farm organization and particularly of the UCC, it being one of the largest ones in the province of Quebec,
Inquiries of the Ministry
but I do not think I should give any indication of a degree of support or rejection of the task force report until this congress is over, because that is the purpose for which it was called.



AIR TRANSPORT


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that the General Assembly of the United Nations has unanimously condemned aerial hi jacking, is it the intention of the government to introduce legislation at this session of Parliament which would provide fitting punishment for anyone who carries out or attempts the hi jacking of aircraft?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: I would hope this would be possible, Mr. Speaker.



MANPOWER


Mr, Steven Otto (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of citizenship. It is in regard to a widely publicized news release by Student Employment Europe which states that arrangements have been completed to give 5,000 Canadian students employment in Germany this coming summer. Can the minister tell the House whether the government has come to some arrangements with this group? If so, what are the arrangements, has this group completed any agreement with the German government, and was the government consulted before the publication of this official looking document?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to all those questions is no. However, I have had discussions with authorities in Germany about the activities of Canadian youth there next summer, and officials of the Department of Manpower and Immigration and of the Department of the Secretary of State are pursuing these discussions.



AGRICULTURE


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Because of the continuing loss of dairy quotas by dairy farmers in western Canada under the government's quota program, would the minister take the necessary action to adjust this policy before the dairy industry in the west suffers beyond repair?

November 26, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, this is one of those erroneous preambles to a question which make it impossible to answer. The fact of the matter is that no one in western Canada has lost a dairy quota unless he gave it up.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Inasmuch as these quotas are moving to central Canada-


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


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: -would the minister take the necessary steps to see that quota adjustments are made within the provinces concerned?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, that assertion is not true.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I ask a supplementary?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that we should try to move on as quickly as we can because we will soon be running short of time. I suggest that supplementaries should be limited at this point.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainle-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
As a result of the recent events in Quebec, I would ask him whether he does not believe that it would be in the public interest to establish a royal commission of inquiry to investigate impartially all the circumstances, facts and events which have led the federal government to invoke the War Measures Act.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will recall that the question was asked yesterday.


Georges-J. Valade: No, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, I asked for the establishment of a parliamentary committee, while I am asking today for the establishment of a royal commission of inquiry. I think that it is an entirely different question, Mr. Speaker.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker I must say that the government does not intend to set up such a commission of inquiry. We know what we voted on and I believe the opposition, who supported the government, are also aware of the facts on which they voted. Furthermore, I see no reason for setting up such a commission.


Georges-J. Valade: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The Prime Minister says the opposition voted with full knowledge of the circumstances, a statement which I consider to be false. The opposition voted on the basis of the information given by the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order! Order! That is not a point of order.



POLLUTION


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kooienay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources arising from a recent statement he made to the effect that the United States had violated the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 by its pollution of the Great Lakes. In view of this violation of Article 4 of the Boundary Waters Treaty, what action does the Canadian government propose to take?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member will have been glad to note the very specific statements in the communique issued subsequent to the ministerial meetings between ourselves and our U.S. counterparts to the effect that the pollution of boundary waters was to be of particular concern at the ministerial level, especially in regard to the Great Lakes, and that a further meeting was contemplated early in January, or just as soon as the final report of the IJC on this matter was issued.


Randolph Harding: What specific commitments did the minister receive from his American counterparts that action would be taken on this problem?


John James Greene: I think the communique speaks for itself in this regard, Mr. Speaker. Certainly it indicates that both sides are determined to carry out the recommendations of the International Joint Commission in regard to pollution of the Great Lakes.



SHIPBUILDING


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Ceniral Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the heavy unemployment in the country, could the minister advise whether the government intends to bring forth measures to assist the shipbuilding industry in Canada at an early date?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I am very hopeful that this can be done.


Howard Russell MacEwan: In the consideration of this matter, is it the intention of the government to bring forward and examine the recommendations made by the Robertson committee on shipbuilding?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the committee makes 23 recommendations and we are studying them at this time; as I just said, I am hoping that some of them might be adopted rather soon.


November 26, 1970



REQUEST FOR INCREASE IN AMOUNT SHIPPED THROUGH PORT OF CHURCHILL

Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration who is also responsible for the Wheat Board. In view of the visit of the icebreaker Louis St. Laurent to the port of Churchill next week, which will be a record for any ship docking late in the year and which we hope will have a significant effect on the lengthening of the shipping season, will the minister consider conferring with the Wheat Board and asking them to offer something over 30 million bushels of grain to the trade for export out of Churchill next season?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make it clear to hon. members that there is no limit on the amount of grain offered by the Wheat Board for shipment through Churchill. The problem is that individual buyers and agents are hesitant about booking ships for wheat in certain parts of the season when they cannot be absolutely certain that ships can navigate at that time. The particular navigation at a particular time does not change that over-all attitude.


Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could explain why it is that the offerings of the Wheat Board early in the spring usually correspond very closely with the final sales?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member will realize that his supplementary is argumentative.



INDUSTRY


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Is the minister prepared to table the report on the study undertaken by his department into the Canadian book publishing industry?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago I said that it was being translated and printed. I shall table it as soon as I can.



PRESENCE OF RUSTY BEETLE IN WHEAT SHIPMENTS- SUGGESTED ASSUMPTION OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR LOSS BY BOARD OF GRAIN COMMISSIONERS

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Agriculture inform the House whether he has received a wire from the National Farmers Union in which they contend that the Board of Grain Commissioners inspection branch must assume full responsibility for
Inquiries of the Ministry
loss due to insect infestation of grain since it is their responsibility to issue certificates of final inspection for export grain, and that the failure on the part of the Board of Grain Commissioners inspection branch places liability for the loss on the federal government? Can the minister inform the House whether he has replied to the wire and the nature of his response?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has brought up a very large question. Specifically, with respect to the receipt of the telegram it seems to me that I recall receiving it. If a detailed reply has gone forward, I shall give the hon. member a copy of it.
$ $ ^



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Since there will be new lay-offs at the Caloil Company in Montreal due to the fact that it must give up the idea of building a refinery at Saint-Augustin, in Portneuf constituency, as a result of a Supreme Court judgment, can the Minister of Manpower and Immigration tell us what steps he intends to take to reassure the bread winners who will soon be laid off as a result of this judgment?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think the question is largely hypothetical but none the less I can assure the hon. member that the full services of the department would be available in any case such as the one to which he makes reference.



REPERCUSSIONS OF SUPREME COURT DECISION ON CALOIL OPERATIONS

Mr. Pierre De Bane (Matane):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Is he ready to study with sympathy the problems caused to the Caloil Company by the Supreme Court judgment?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I believe I answered a similar question a while ago for another hon. member.


Pierre De Bané: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The minister reminded us that the government policy was constitutional. I would like to ask him now if he is ready to revise it and to study with sympathy the problems facing Caloil in order to solve them.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, we do not intend to revise that policy at the moment.
November 26, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Hon. Mariial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Secretary of
State.	,	....
Over the last few months, several members of this House have opposed the activities of the CBC in several areas and I would like to ask the minister whether he intends to table shortly in this House a white paper on the objectives of the CBC to redefine its status and its relationships with Parliament?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, we do not intend by any means to table a white paper, but I would like to say to the hon. member that when the CBC management appear before the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts they will probably be in a position to explain the fairly long term policy that they are now preparing.



INFORMATION CANADA


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasler):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister in charge of Information Canada. Has the minister the information now to reply to my question of Monday about surveys in Canada, which should be of interest to all members of the House?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I made inquiries about the particular survey mentioned by the hon. member. I am informed that the reference was simply to an example of the kind of survey which might be made but that no subjects are now under public survey by Information Canada.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Can the minister state when the CBC will put into effect an arrangement for the escalation of the pensions of its retired employees similar to the arrangements for retired public servants that were passed by this House last spring?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I could not off-hand give an answer to the hon. member, but I shall inquire.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, will the minister urge the CBC to act on this matter as soon as possible?



POST OFFICE


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinlhe):: Mr. Speaker,
I have a question I wish to direct to the Minister of Communications.
Would he tell us whether his successor in the Post Office Department has deemed that it is desirable that the department for which he is responsible should become a profitable operation?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will admit, I think, that he is asking the minister to say what he thinks of an opinion that might be shared by another minister of the Crown.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I wish the minister would discuss this matter with his colleague.



WHEAT-INITIAL PAYMENT UNDER ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM

Mr. A. C. Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for the Wheat Board. In light of the fact that many grain farmers have not yet received their initial payment under the Lift program, can the minister assure the House that all remaining initial payments are now in the mail and, if not, is the minister going to investigate this situation?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I cannot assure the House that all initial payments are in the mail because in the one hundred and some thousands of applications some presented a significant amount of difficulty in the processing. These, of course, are still being processed and the cheques will be mailed as soon as it is clear that they should go out.


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: I have a supplementary question for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. Will the minister have the Muskeg Lake Indian Reservation checked to see why these people have not received any consideration whatsoever with regard to the Lift program?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for High Park.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



CITIZENSHIP


Mr. Walter Deakon (High Park):: Thank you for the
applause. I wish to direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of citizenship. Can the minis-
November 26, 1970

ter advise the House when we can expect revisions to the Canadian Citizenship Act, especially in view of the fact that there are people who have resided in Canada for over 40 years and whose children were born in Canada who apply for citizenship and always receive a stereotyped rejection with no reasons being given?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: am sure all hon. members join me in welcoming the hon. member back to the House in good health.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I hope the House can soon get back to the program of legislation so that this bill can be introduced in this session. However, I think the question of the hon. member raises matters which may be outside the Canadian Citizenship Act and may be concerned with problems of national security.



SUGGESTED PENALIZING OF RAILWAYS FOR FAILURE TO SPOT BOXCARS

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I have a question for the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. Why are the railways permitted to undermine the block system by not spotting cars when they are scheduled? Is there any thought being given to penalizing the railways in a similar way as agents are penalized for not filling cars on time?


Otto Emil Lang: Generally speaking, Mr. Speaker, the reports from the Wheat Board indicate a very high degree of co-operation from the railroads in spotting cars according to the agreed plan. I will certainly check on this again. If the hon. member can bring specific cases to my attention, I will investigate them.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: My
question is for the Minister of National Defence. It is in connection with the question I addressed to the neglected President of the Treasury Board yesterday with respect to pay raises for the armed forces. The minister indicated that pay raises are made on the recommendation of the Minister of National Defence and he assured the House that consideration would be given to any recommendations made by the minister. Can the minister indicate whether a regular pay raise is in process for members of the Canadian Armed Forces? If not, would he speak to his colleague who would love to look after this matter before Christmas?
Inquiries of the Ministry AGRICULTURE



ACTION ON FARM MACHINERY PRICES

Mr. Rod Thomson (Batfleford-Kindersley):: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Will the minister be making a statement soon on the government's plans to deal with the high prices of farm machinery as outlined in the Barber report?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: As I have advised the House, Mr. Speaker, I have not received the final report of the Barber Commission. The government made a response to the recommendations contained in the interim report which we received last May, I believe.
* % *



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. Representing as I do the home of the former Grey Cup champions, the Sarnia Imperials, which produced Bummer Stirling, the best placement kicker in Canada, I ask the Prime Minister, the worst placement kicker in Canada, whether, in the interests of improving the football image of the House of Commons, he is practising?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should practice his questions.



NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister in charge of the National Capital Commission.
In view of the announcement by the Quebec Minister without Portfolio in charge of inter-governmental affairs that the federal government must abide by Quebec policy with regard to allowing snowmobiles in Gatineau Park, can the minister say whether the National Capital Commission has decided to allow these vehicles in the park?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: This matter is being reviewed, Mr. Speaker. There are discussions being held between the Quebec minister referred to by the hon. member, the Chairman of the National Capital Commission and myself. We are hopeful that some compromise can be arranged which will still protect the basic principle of preservation of the park for quiet enjoyment. The exact results of that negotiation are not yet established. I hope to have some reasonably good news embracing all those involved in this problem very soon.

November 26, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. Romuald Rodrigue (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General a question.
Could he tell the House whether he received, before or after the introduction of Bill C-181, from the Prime Minister of Quebec or from the Attorney General of that province, comments, suggestions or motions for amendment concerning a particular clause or the bill as a whole?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I always have consulted the Minister of Justice of Quebec and the attorneys general of the other provinces concerning this bill before as well as after its introduction in the House.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether, at the time of his discussions with the Attorney General of Quebec, the latter made suggestions with regard to Bill C-181?


John Napier Turner: There were conversations, Mr. Speaker, but I can say no more than that.


Mr. Baldwin:: A supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question period
expired a few moments ago. I apologize to hon. members who have not had a chance to ask their questions or supplementaries. I have tried to note them and perhaps I can give them priority tomorrow.
* * &



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gerald William Baldwin: I will foresake my supplementary question until tomorrow and ask the Acting House Leader or the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council about the business for the balance of this week and next week.


Mr. Jerome:: Mr. Speaker, we would proceed immediately with government order 36, the surtax on shirts. Following that we will resume the third reading debate on Bill C-181, the temporary measures bill. This will be followed by the second reading stage of Bill C-186, the CNR finance and guarantee bill. Tomorrow we will deal with bills in the following order: Bill C-179, Buffalo-Fort Erie Bridge, second reading; C-191, Loans, second reading; S-6, Anti-dumping, second reading; C-182, statutory instruments, second reading; C-174, Tax Review Board, report stage, C-180, packaging and labelling, second reading and Bill C-177, co-operative associations.


Gerald William Baldwin: Will the Parliamentary Secretary indicate whether any more bills will be placed on the order paper before the Christmas recess? Also, what are the realistic expectations of the government with regard to the passage of measures? Has the government any idea when the Christmas recess will be so that we will know what our diet will be between now and then?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is expected that additional bills will be given first reading before Christmas. I understand the President of the Privy Council will be back in the House on Monday next. He will be consulting with representatives of the parties with respect to the program for the balance of the pre-Christmas part of the session, particularly with regard to the order of business for that time.


Jack Marshall: Will the Minister of National Defence indicate whether one of the bills to be introduced for first reading will be the veterans' pension legislation?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I certainly hope so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And old age
pensions too?


Mr. Lundrigan:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all hon. members I wish to indicate to the House leaders, through Your Honour, that the 40-minute question period is having a detrimental effect on the business of this House. Every day at least 40 or 50 members are unable to ask questions on urgent matters. I suggest that the Chair and the House leaders give serious consideration to extending the question period to one hour. I think it would be much easier on the Chair and should be done especially in view of the very serious economic crisis facing the nation at the moment.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Jean-Luc Pepin: That this House, pursuant to subsection (lc) of section 7 of the Customs Tariff, do approve that the Men's and Boys' Shirts Surtax Order, being Order in Council P.C. 1970-959 of 2 June 1970 made under subsection (la) of section 7 of the said Act, continue to have force and effect until the 29th day of November, 1971.
He said: Mr. Speaker, when I informed the House on June 2, that the government had decided to impose a surtax on some imports of woven shirts offered at prices such as to disrupt the Canadian market, I indicated that it was a temporary measure making use of currently available instruments, pending the full implementation

November 26, 1970

of the new textile policy. It might be useful to consider the situation that developed early in 1970 and led the government to make that decision, namely that of June 2, the application of which we are now seeking to extend.
Several hon. members knew then-as they still do- that the activity and the employment level in the Canadian shirt industry had dropped since 1966 and that many plants had closed down. This phenomenon was closely related to the very rapid and sharp increases in imports from countries with a low cost price and those whose external trade is nationalized, commonly called statetrading countries.
In an effort to minimize the disruption caused by these cheap imports, Canada had negotiated with seven of these countries agreements under which they agreed to limit their exports of woven shirts to Canada. The first agreement entered into with Japan goes back to 1960. Early in 1970 it was realized that men's and boys' woven shirts were entering Canada in considerable quantities outside the framework,-I emphasize "outside the framework"-of these voluntary restriction agreements between Canada and some exporting countries, at a low cost or at prices liable to cause serious prejudice to Canadian manufacturers and workers.
So, Mr. Speaker, two causes, namely quantity and prices, are involved in this case.
Furthermore, there was evidence that exporters were taking steps to buy large extra quantities of such textile shirts offered at prices likely to disrupt the market and from countries, and this I wish to emphasize, that were not parties to those restrictive intergovernmental agreements. Therefore we have here imports over and above the quantities provided for in the voluntary restriction agreements, coming from countries which have yet to agree to the voluntary restrictions.
Then, and after a careful study of the situation in the industry and on international markets, the government decided to take measures which, hopefully, would prevent shirt imports from exceeding the 1969 level, that is 1,200,000 dozens. At that time, attempts were being made to restrict imports to that level which is nevertheless impressive.
Those measures were designed to protect the Canadian shirt industry, while meeting with our international commitments. At the same time, since approximately 40 per cent of the Canadian consumption was exempted from the surtax-I repeat, 40 per cent-Canadian consumers still had many opportunities to buy cheap shirts.
It now seems that the 1970 imports will exceed by approximately 15 per cent the 1969 figure I mentioned earlier, that is 1,200,000 dozens, at least according to our statistics.
Mr. Speaker, I stress the importance of the present imports, so that some hon. members will not be able to claim that the Canadian government is closing the door. That is not so: the door is far from closed, according to the statistics which I have just mentioned. I know that several hon. members are opposed on this issue, some
Surtax on Shirt Imports
being in favour of imports, others of exports. What we are trying to do, is to reach a happy mean, which may appear fair to some and most unfair to others.
This increease of 15 per cent, Mr. Speaker, is partly due to the great quantity of shirts which were in transit when the Order in Council of June 2, which I mentioned earlier, came into force and thus escaped the surtax. Again, it was not very easy to foresee that, because of the shirts which were in transit when the surtax of June 2 was applied. It is to be noticed, however, that our imports statistics include quantities still detained in Customs warehouses, while awaiting the expiration of the order prescribing the surtax. The market has thus not yet felt all the possible effect of the increase in imports.
The representatives of shirt manufacturers and officials of the Department of Finance and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce met recently to discuss that subject. The manufacturers indicated that their orders for the coming season would be greatly reduced and some big importers admitted they are keeping large quantities of shirts in customs warehouses until the Order in Council imposing a surtax expires, that is on November 30.
Canadian manufacturers fear that the shirts presently in storage will be then brought out and put on the market at the beginning of December, thus disturbing the sales of Canadians products during the holiday season.
In my opinion it is the government's duty to maintain present restrictions on imports of shirts until it has been able to study the recommandations of the Textile and Clothing Board as to the future of the Canadian shirt industry.
As hon. members know when the Board was established on October 29, 1970, I asked the Chairman to give priority-second priority as the first belonged to cotton textiles shirts. It is felt that the government should now be in a position to implement the Board's recommendations by mid-1971. As matters now stand, I feel it would be wise to see that imports liable to disrupt the local market remain banned and that the status quo of the shirt industry be maintained until the government is in a position to assess the long term possibilities in this area.
I also insist on advising hon. members that a bill on textiles will shortly be introduced before the House and that they will then have the opportunity to discuss all the aspects of the matter. Therefore, I would ask them to be as brief as possible in their remarks today and if they should have more significant points to make with reference to any philosophical or economic theory, they should wait until then.
Accordingly, I would like hon. members to pass the motion to approve extension of Order P.C. 1970-959 of June 2, 1970.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I will not try to follow the example of the hon. minister, but I will be as brief as possible. There was an agreement that we would say very little on this matter. 1 expected that the minister's comments would be brief.

November 26, 1970
Surtax on Shirt Imports
However, I want to assure him that this question is so important and that there has been so much delay in adopting the necessary measures to preserve the jobs of our Canadian workers that it is time to act.
It is comforting to see that we have finally succeeded in convincing the minister and the government to act. We did not start in 1970 pointing out to the minister and the government how imperative it was that the necessary measures be taken to ensure that imports from countries where salaries are much lower than here be reduced so that the Canadian shirt industry could continue to exist
The hon. minister has said so himself: Several industries, several shirt factories have ceased their operations since 1966. Several others operate on a part-time basis, with the result that in several cities, the economic life has been deeply affected.
Consequently, in order to prove to the minister that we wish to provide him with the opportunity to do all he can to help workers, we want this measure to be passed as soon as possible and, as he suggested, we will wait until later to make comments which perhaps will not be as pleasant as those we made today.
We have much to say on this subject, and we shall be looking forward to this day.
Meanwhile, we offer our best wishes to the minister and his staff in order that they can go on protecting our workers' jobs.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, we, too, intend to listen to the minister on this occasion and to give the resolution speedy passage. This order provides protection to the shirt industry and prevents its elimination, which I am quite convinced in the absence of this measure could easily happen. I think there is no alternative to the present course.
If the shirt industry itself suffered harm, so would other industries since there are primary textile industries that depend upon the shirt industry to buy their materials. More than that, many of those who are engaged in textile industries live in what are known as small, one industry towns, around which a social structure has developed.
I would not want this motion to pass on this placid note without sounding a few words of warning. One of the reasons this motion is necessary-I am sure there are others in the House who have reservations about protectionist policies-is that this government has put this country into a box by creating unemployment of a level that is criminal. The present level makes some of the programs we have talked about make little sense. After all, what is the point of moving people around if there is no place to move them? What is the point of retraining people if you have nothing to offer them when they are retrained? Certainly, there are no alternative jobs for workers in the textile industry at the present time.
Let there be no mistake about the resolution we are agreeing to today: it is certainly not a solution to the
problems of the shirt industry. The minister mentioned this when he pointed out that the matter had been referred to a committee for study and recommendations.
I am glad the minister did not argue that it was not his government's fault. Neither did he raise the question of low wage industries and protectionism in other countries, or the fact that we do not have entry to the markets of other industrial nations. Had the minister so argued, Mr. Speaker, then he would have come in for even more criticism than he is going to get now. Let us not forget that this is not something that has happened to Canada alone, though we have been under attack from low wage countries. Our textile industry has been declining for the last 40 to 50 years.
May I remind the House that during the course of that period, with few exceptions, the Liberal party has occupied the seat of government. It is the Liberal party that has failed to find a solution to the problems of this industry. Very often it has seemed to me as though the Liberal party's solution was one of attrition, of letting this industry die gradually; of turning its head the other way and pretending the situation did not exist, and then rushing in with emergency legislation when an absolute disaster was in the offing.
It is also obvious that we cannot go on in this way, quickly passing legislation, with the minister appealing to the House on the basis of humanitarianism and telling us that the industry will be dislocated unless legislation is quickly passed by the House. We cannot continue jumping from one cliff to another as we have in the past. I do not want to take the position taken by Professor Creighton and others that probably it is too late now to remedy matters; that as long as there is a Liberal government we will have disaster and the country is lost; that the Liberals have not had any policies in the past to preserve this industry and probably will not have any in the future. I think there is still hope. There is always the possibility that they will be defeated at the next election.


David Anderson: Do not hope too much for that.


Max Saltsman: It may be the only hope, if not a very big one. Since the minister is going to give some consideration to this matter, and has set up a committee to look into the problem, perhaps I might make some suggestions at this time. They are not ideological suggestions on our part. Perhaps it is hon. members on the other side of the House who are ideological, because even the absence of policy is a kind of ideology. I see the minister's professorial instincts rising to that and he will probably say a few words about it later on.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
We have seen the results of a hands-off the economy, Liberal, laissez-faire policy with a mere reliance on an invisible hand. We have seen the shoe, textile, electronic, chemical and furniture industries move into desperate conditions. We have taken a look at the Canadian-U.S. auto pact agreement. As soon as that agreement started to bring about some kind of parity with the United States, they insisted that the safeguards be removed. The
[Mr. Ricard.l
November 26, 1970

United States people forgot about all the years of imbalance we had experienced.
Today, in reply to my question, the minister gave me the assurance that the safeguards would not be removed without the matter being presented to Parliament. I tried to ask a supplementary question but it was not possible to do so today. Perhaps I can discuss this subject now in the context of this resolution. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister if he will seek the approval of Parliament before agreeing to the removal of these safeguards? I hope he does not do, as previous ministers have done, that is reach an understanding and then come to Parliament. This has happened in the past. Ministers have come to Parliament sometimes years after an understanding was reached. I hope this minister will find an opportunity to tell us there will not be an understanding with the United States some years before we have been informed about it. I know he will follow the course I have suggested because to do otherwise would make a mockery of his statement today.
I say this to reinforce and draw attention to what the minister said today, just in case he does not intend to seek Parliamentary approval before reaching an agreement. I hope that will not be the case and that perhaps we have someone holding the portfolio of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce who is prepared to behave somewhat better than the previous occupants of that position. I must say his predecessors behaved rather badly while they were in office. They broke faith with this House on several occasions. They made decisions before gaining approval of this House which acts on behalf of the people of Canada. To put a tag to it, they reached agreements behind closed doors.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I think the hon. member has been overly-enthusiastic. I hope I did not give the impression I was sacrificing the powers of the executive branch of government today when I said I would bring the subject to the attention of the House if the government decided to review the safeguards. I did not say I would make it conditional on the approval of parliament if ever it became necessary in the national interest to do so.


Max Saltsman: Well, at last we have an honest Liberal who is able to say the government has no intention of consulting the House of Commons on the Canada-U.S. auto agreement. The government of Canada, or the Cabinet, intends to make a decision, and then tell us what it is all about.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please the Chair should remind the hon. member that the debate at this time is on a resolution in respect of a surtax relating to men and children's shirts. I do not think the Chair should allow the debate to continue on the point just raised. The hon. member should try to bring his remarks back into perspective. He should relate them to this surcharge resolution we have before us. I do not feel he should relate his remarks to a question asked during the
Surtax on Shirt Imports
question period or to any other matter such as the auto pact.


Max Saltsman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your advice. I will try to keep my remarks in line with your excellent suggestion. We are losing more and more control of industry in this country. The point I am trying to make is that the shirt industry is one which is being affected. We have virtually lost control of our technological development and ownership of industry under Liberal regimes. In view of conditions in the shirt industry today, some of its members might not mind selling out but the auto industry is one which is not facing that danger.
As a result of government policies, we have wound up with one of the worst industrial structures in the world. We are using more capital per worker than any other country in the world, and capital use is an indication of efficiency or at least it should be. There are industries here that use 30 per cent more capital than similar industries in the United States, a country which is considered to be one of the most capital conscious countries in the world. These companies operate at about 30 per cent less efficiency.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that much of the reason for this can be related to the fact the United States has a planned economy. I do not want to elaborate on this today because it might not relate to the specific matter before us. I want to bring to the minister's attention the position of the NDP on this matter of trade. We believe in an international policy of integrated trade between nations because we feel that such trade on an integrated and free basis is of mutual advantage. In other words, we are very much in favour of free trade among nations.
We are opposed, however, to the establishment of blocs whether they be between Canada and the United States, or Atlantic blocs, as has been suggested, or European blocs where some countries seek to isolate everybody else, or groups like NATO which have an economic dependency. We are opposed to this kind of organization which divides people one from another. We believe that international trade should be arrived at through governmental action-we make this distinction very carefully- rather than by paternalistic, arbitrary and undemocratic decisions by international corporations.
There is a kind of international vision in the world today which is not being created by the elected governments of the free world. It is being created by international corporations which have usurped this power on their own behalf. We are opposed to this. We appreciate that the move toward free trade in some industries will have to be accompanied by temporary measures such as the one before us. These are necessary to avoid human dislocation, but such measures must be accompanied by a program of assistance and change. This brings me to the major distinction between what the government's position is, has been and probably will be, and our position. Talk about free trade is not enough. Liberals have always done that. Given the state of corporate and foreign control over our economy, how much of the decision

November 26, 1970
Surtax on Shirt Imports
making process is left to the elected representatives of the country? That kind of free trade would be a disaster for this country.
We take the position that free trade must go hand in hand with a program of national economic planning or it will not work. That is what is required at this time. Therefore we are quite willing to see the resolution adopted, but I must also indicate that unless the government moves toward some kind of economic planning we are only giving them a green light to follow their own interests.


Romuald Rodrigue: 
Mr. Yves Forest (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, since we are discussing a motion of a temporary character and that we will soon have the opportunity to consider at length the matter of textile products and the government policy on this subject, my remarks will be brief.

November 26, 1970

I hope, as does the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), that this motion, which covers merely an extension of the Order in Council up to November 1971, the expiry date of the Order in Council in respect of the surtax on some shirts, may be passed quickly, because the expiry date is drawing near.
Mr. Speaker, I support the measure passed by the government last June, in order to curb imports of shirts into Canada. As a matter of fact, this measure intends to help an important sector of the textile industry until such time as a new policy on textile products is put into effect as announced by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce here, toward the end of the last session.
We are keenly concerned with the problems facing the textile industry and we have discussed them time and again, in committee, with other members specially concerned with them, and we have, on several occasions, made representations to the responsible government authorities, after many discussions with industries and unions involved.
I can tell the minister that the new program announced has been, on the whole, favourably received by all concerned but, as in the case of all programs, we are reserving judgment until we can see how fast and efficiently it will be implemented.
As the minister indicated earlier, this measure will give shirt manufacturers some protection against massive imports from low-cost countries, or countries where industries are nationalized, until such time as the new Textile and Clothing Board, the membership of which was announced last October, has been able to study and examine the whole problem and subsequently make recommendations to the proper authorities as to steps required to standardize and streamline this industry which is vital for the country.
I know that the shirt industry has been particularly affected for about fifteen years by a constant, immoderate and inadmissible increase of imports which lately contributed to the closing down of a certain number of factories and put others in an unbearable situation.
But the measure which was adopted last June and whose effect will be extended by the passage of this motion was certainly well received by all shirtmakers who are struggling for survival.
I insist that we take as soon as possible all necessary steps to protect at last the textile industry against irresponsible imports and to ensure that this industry whose survival is essential for the economy of Canada and especially of Quebec goes in for short and long term planning.
It should be recalled that in the past we have outdone ourselves in welcoming textile products from developing or low-cost countries. For instance, in 1966, Canada imported, per capita, three times as many textile products as the United States and about twice as many as Great Britain, and this inflow has surely not decreased since.
Surtax on Shirt Imports
The shirt industry for several years now has had to face a major volume of imports which reached a peak in 1968 while decreasing to some extent in 1969. But the situation is still critical and we must take action if we care for the survival of at least part of the industry. Like others, the textile industry is in need of a long-term overall policy which will allow it to build-up and modernize accordingly, to contribute as it should to our economy, to create jobs, to pay taxes and, finally, to operate in the same manner as any other responsible Canadian industry.
I know that, at the present time, large investments are in abeyance pending a clearer situation and knowledge of what exact direction will be taken by the industry.
Textile plants are mainly located in centres where the economy needs stimulation, in rural areas especially, i.e. in rural areas of Quebec and Ontario, and in some parts of western Canada. It is urgent to implement the new program aimed at establishing a development structure and conditions liable to create a climate of confidence in which the textiles industry could invest, and also to undertake or carry on the manufacturing of products which could compete increasingly on the international market.
Mr. Speaker, it should not be forgotten that one person out of eight employed in manufacturing in Canada is employed in the textile industry and that, in Quebec, the textile and clothing industry supplies 20 per cent of the jobs in the manufacturing sector. It cannot be blamed for dragging its feet with regard to modernization, because our industry is one of the most advanced in the world, from the technological angle, and has not stopped investing to stay up to date. If the government applies in a quick, efficient and realistic manner the new policy announced by the minister, I am sure that this industry will continue its efforts to adapt to future markets and to contribute more to the progress of the Canadian economy.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish so much to talk about the resolution which we support, as we indicated by my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Ricard), as to raise a point of order.
When I began to study the resolution, I referred at once to the statutes of Canada, 1968-69. By looking at the last amendment which dealt with section 7 of the Customs Tariff, I came to the conclusion that this resolution is not legal.
Therefore, we had to refer to Bill C-140 passed during the 1969-70 session to see what was the procedure to follow regarding the acceptance of a resolution concerning the adoption of such an Order in Council. In view of the fact that it has become the usual practice for Parliament to adjourn at the end of June until October, as was the case this year, the printing and binding of statutes stop then. Nobody, except those familiar with Parliament who might have a copy of legislation passed during the last session, would be able to check to see whether or not the resolution is legal and to advise their customers accordingly.

November 26, 1970
Surtax on Shirt Imports
After all, the minister must know that several importers have shirts in their warehouses waiting perhaps for the Order in Council to expire or to be continued in eifect through the adoption of the resolution under consideration.
For instance, if a Vancouver lawyer had to advise an importer, he could not tell him whether it is true or not, and in what way he should act, because he would not have the Statutes of Canada for 1969-1970.
That is why I say it is all very well to adjourn the House from June until October, but we should not stop the publication of the statutes passed during the year. The statutes adopted during the previous session are not yet published. I suggest that the House administration services look into this problem, since it affects the people's rights.
It is easy for people from Ottawa or Montreal to meet their representative in the House and to seek his advice, but it is not so easy for those living outside Ottawa or Montreal. I urge the Chair to consider the possibility of taking remedial action.
As for me, I fully support the statement of my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe, even though he had to limit the scope of his remarks.
I am sure he would have liked to speak a little longer on this but we had agreed that this resolution should be passed quickly, without prejudicing the right of members to state, when necessary, their views and their grievances with regard to the whole textile industry in Canada which, in passing, is not concentrated in eastern Canada alone. Indeed, there are a few sizeable shirt and men's wear factories in my own town and in my own constituency.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The Chair appreciates the remarks made by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and receives them as a grievance or, perhaps, as a clarification on an administrative problem that may come under the jurisdiction of the Chair. Whatever the case might be, his remarks will be taken into consideration.


David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to take any lengthy time in putting forth my views on this subject, but I do feel that perhaps there has been some avoidance of the real subject as a result of the unanimity in all parties.

In this regard, I agree with the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Rodrigue) whose remarks were the clearest, the most complete and the most to the point, although I do not accept them all without reservation.

The points which I would like to raise and which I think are the most important are, first, that this is a

particularly negative type of action for a government to take, especially at a time when many people suspect we are entering into a period of trade war. All those who have read the financial pages of the newspapers will be aware of the great concern there is about restrictive Common Market policies and restrictive United States policies. I feel it is most unfortunate that we are being asked to approve such a measure which, to my mind, although it may be perfectly legal under GATT or any other international agreement, nevertheless is extremely restrictive.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
We should point out that the countries affected by this particular measure are not the rich countries. They are countries which generally are much poorer than ours. In many cases they are countries which through their own very hard efforts have raised their standard of living above what it was some time ago. They have developed industries and wish only to be able to trade with the wealthier countries of the world, such as ours. This measure is not designed against the United States of America or against Japan. It is a measure damaging to Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, China and India. This aspect should be considerd, and it has not been considered as yet.
Further, Mr. Speaker, I point out that this particular resolution is contradictory to the Canadian government's white paper on foreign policy with respect to external aid. This aspect has been completely ignored by previous speakers, and I do not think it has been properly explained by any minister in the House.
Another aspect I would like to deal with is quite different, and it is that this particular measure bears most heavily on those Canadians least able to bear it. If we maintain an artificially high price for shirts we are hurting the man on the lowest income scale in Canada and indeed, in these days of unemployment, the man who is without income. It is all right to say that they do not have to wear shirts, but that is as absurd as Marie Antoinette suggesting, "If they can't afford bread let them eat cake." This is ridiculous. The Canadian who has a good income can afford to buy Canadian made shirts or quality imported shirts, but the Canadian with no income at all could benefit substantially from buying a shirt which costs $2 instead of $5.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I should indicate that it is not my intention to suggest that aid should not be given to the industry. But this type of aid which forces prices up, and which forces the low income consumer to pay the higher cost, is the wrong one. If we need to pump $100,000 or $500,000 into the Canadian shirt industry let us take it from general tax revenues to which we all contribute, and let us not force the consumer, who may be a low income consumer, to bear the entire burden. The method which is being adopted by the government is wrong in principle and will have unfortunate effects.
I have one further point to make, Mr. Speaker. We have long heard of the problems of the shirt industry.
November 26, 1970

We have long heard that subsidies are necessary to make sure that our Canadian shirtmakers can be more competitive. Indeed, we have even been told that maybe one day they will be able to export. I do not know how they will be able to do that, if they are now incapable of resisting imports. But, Mr. Speaker, we have heard all this, and perhaps it is time for the minister and his department to get down to deciding how precisely they are going to go about it.
This idea of temporary measure put upon temporary measure, extended for six months, and extended for a year, is simply not good enough. If it is a viable industry let us assist it properly. If not, we should retrain the workers in it, and import shirts. But let us not continue with a policy that is plainly no policy at all. I hope that in his closing remarks, the minister will make some comment on this matter because we have heard a great deal about a new policy in this House today, about how in the future things will be better, and that we will not need this type of protection. However, we have had very little inkling of what such a policy might be, or indeed if there is any possibility of achieving this goal through any change in government policy.
It is disappointing to me to see the hon. member for Okanagan-Boundary (Mr. Howard), coming from the west and theoretically a free trader, supporting such a measure. But of course he happens to be a parliamentary secretary and thus is in the position of supporting his minister. Perhaps it only indicates that we British Columbians are all protectionists at heart, and our reaction depends on whether the policy touches our areas. In any event, I do hope that sometime before the end of the debate we will hear some figures and facts with respect to how many workers are protected, about how long this protection has been given, and about how long it is expected similar temporary measures will be put one on top of the other. I should like to know, too, what the decline in shirt production in Canada has been in the last few years as a result of foreign competition, and when we can expect a new and viable program which will get the shirt industry out of the problems it now faces?


Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, the following motion appears in today's order paper:
That this House, pursuant to subsection (lc) of section 7 of the Customs Tariff, do approve that the Men's and Boys' Shirts Surtax Order, being Order in Council P.C. 1970-959 of 2 June 1970 made under subsection (la) of section 7 of the said Act, continue to have force and effect until the 29th day of November, 1971.
Mr. Speaker, it is not very often that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) deserves congratulations, but since he was kind enough to introduce this motion concerning our imports, I must recognize that he made a commendable effort.
Unfortunately, this order is restricted in part to imports from Korea. As regards Canada's purchases in that country, its implications are rather insignificant.
Surtax on Shirt Imports
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
And the only item that may be of advantage to us is found in paragraph 2 of the Men's and Boys' Shirts Surtax Order, of which I got a copy in French from the Library. This paragraph reads as follows:
2.	That the import of woven fabric men's and boys' work, dress and sports shirts shipments of which the Republic of Korea has not duly approved for export to Canada under the restrictive agreements reached between Canada and the Republic of Korea threatens serious injury to Canadian producers of men's and boys' work, sports and dress shirts;
The third paragraph reads as follows:
3.	That the government of Korea has agreed that the Canadian government should take appropriate measures to help control shipments which are not approved for export;
So Korea is prepared to control its shipments whose export is unauthorized, which means that men's and boys' shirts may still have access to the Canadian market provided they come from either Japan or China.
I quote paragraph 4:
4.	That subsection (la) of section 7 of the Customs Tariff authorizes the Governor in Council, when satisfied that goods of any kind, the growth, produce or manufacture of any country are being imported into Canada under such conditions as to cause or threaten serious injury to Canadian producers of like or directly competitive products, to order that the goods be made subject to a surtax at such rate as is specified in the Order;
Mr. Speaker, I will read again these words which struck me:
-the Governor in Council, when satisfied-
I will say that the Governor in Council is hardly prepared to take advice and consequently, very hard to convince that mass imports threaten Canadian manufacturers.
The proof of it is, Mr. Speaker, that all the recommendations made to that effect in this House in recent years, recommendations made by the supposedly democratically elected members, have been completely ignored. The manufacturers meet the minister, explain their problems, make suggestions, but His Excellency is not convinced.
Plants close down in St. Jerome, Granby, Sherbrooke, Grand-Mere; thousands of Canadians lose their jobs in plants located in Beauce, Drummondville, Montmorency, Trois-Rivieres, Montmagny, and the minister is still not convinced. To convince him, he needs the report of his political friends, Messrs. Jacques St. Laurent, Annis and Campbell, whom he recently delegated to go and see. Mr. Speaker, I suppose the next time he meets those boys, there will be musical entertainment; he can sing them the song entitled: Dis-moi ce qui ne va pas? (Tell me what the trouble is.)
Mr. Speaker, if Mr. Jacques St-Laurent, a lawyer, was experiencing financial difficulties, it really was not worth asking him to tell us what we already know about the textile industry. All he had to do, as all other victims of the present system and administration, was to go to the office of the Family and Welfare Department in Quebec,

November 26, 1970
Surtax on Shirt Imports
and he would have been given the minimum rates set for such cases.
The present administration is no way different from its predecessors. In fact, this way of messing about that is leading the country to stagnation is unfortunately the consequence of our colonial status.
We have always exported our resources and raw materials at ridiculous prices to England or to the United States which promptly process and refine them in order to sell them back to us at high prices.
Today, we are still facing the same problem. To please our mother country, Great Britain, and especially those capitalists who have become manufacturers in Hong Kong and Japan, we have entered into agreements which contribute to fill Canadian warehouses to the point of practically disrupting several sectors of our economy, and the footwear industry is not spared either.
The Association of Shoe Manufacturers which has been trying since 1954 to draw the government's attention to those conditions, pointed out on December 12, 1966, when submitting its fifth brief, that "shoe imports represented 47 per cent of the Canadian production."
Such was the situation in 1966 and the then Minister of Trade and Commerce was not convinced either.
His administration gave proof of it. Indeed he gave us such proof on January 16, 1967, as reported on page 11284 of Hansard. At that time I asked the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce the following question:
Is the minister aware of the difficult situation in which the Canadian shoe manufacturers now find themselves due to excessive importation of these products from Asian and communist countries?
If so, will the hon. minister inform the house as to the steps he intends to take in this regard; also, will our representatives in Geneva be advised in time to avoid a catastrophe in this industry?
The hon. Robert Winters, the then Minister of Trade and Commerce gave me the following answer:
-this matter has been brought to my attention before and it is under consideration. It is a fact that imports of shoes have increased, but domestic production has substantially increased too.
Today it is the same. Last spring, the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert), made an eloquent speech in the House and referred to DBS figures. These showed that from 1956 to 1969, when the Canadian population increased by 33 per cent shoe manufacturing decreased by 1 per cent. In the same period, there was a 568 per cent increase in shoe imports.
As a result plants closed down and thousands of workers were laid off in Canada. At the same time, employment rose from 90,000 to 107,000 in Italy, a country from which we import.
After examining the Association's last brief, the one released last spring, I asked the minister the following question as recorded on page 8338 of the Official report of the House of Commons Debates of June 19, 1970:
In view of the fact that shoe imports which have been tolerated to date place our Canadian manufacturers on the brink of bankruptcy, can the minister tell us if he intends to recommend that the customs tariff be amended with a view to correcting the situation.
The hon. minister answered:
Mr. Speaker, I am at the present time reading the brief submitted by the Shoe Manufacturers Association of Canada. This document contains certain questionable statistics.
The minister has doubts about figures supplied by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. If this is not somewhat dishonest, Mr. Speaker, I wonder what is.
In front of such criminal carelessness, unemployed people, manufacturers, in short the general public have come to the point where they question the honesty of the minister. If he intends to make up for that, I think it is high time for him to take action.
If at one time he held the position of Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, it is because someone in Parliament believed he had a little energy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but I must remind him that he may not in the House make any insinuations concerning the integrity of a minister or of an individual member.
Therefore, I would ask him to continue his remarks and refrain from making insinuations towards an hon. member or attacking his integrity.


Roland Godin: I thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall comply with the rules.
It is on account of some ministers that there is so much inertia in Parliament.
There are unemployed people in all constituencies because somebody does not assume his responsabilities, thanks to the protection afforded under the Standing Order.
At any rate, I say in conclusion that the time of disappointment has been long enough for us and, as our good friends of Quebec said in 1960: it is time for a change.
I can assure the House that I approve the motion proposed by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Rodrigue) in order to obtain a better control over imports.


Mr. Bruce Howard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few remarks in connection with the subject before us to answer some of the very good points raised by members on both sides of the House and thank them for their contributions to the debate today.
We have had a number of interesting comments but I should like to correct some misimpressions as I go along. I should like to refer to the comments by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Anderson) and suggest to him that perhaps, in the spirit of western freedom, there is some room to consider workers all over Canada who are unduly penalized by changes in our trading patterns. I should like to remind him that those who have suffered from the changes that have taken place in our textile industry are not confined to any one province of Canada but are spread all across the country, including our own province of British Columbia.

November 26, 1970

As Canadians, we recognize our responsibility to the developing countries of the world. We are concerned that they have an opportunity to trade in our markets and we are concerned that nations that buy from us will have an opportunity to sell to us. I should like to point out that as far as this particular commodity is concerned we have more than done our share. For example, we consume twice as many imported textiles per capita as do the people of the United States. We consume many times the number of imported shirts per capita as do the people of the European economic community.


Mr. Hogarth:: We are always losing our shirt.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: We do not take a back seat to anyone in sharing the load of offering trading opportunities to the people of the developing world. We have had to pay a considerable price to do this. I have great sympathy for the members who have spoken on behalf of workers in their ridings who have suffered because of the changes that have taken place in our trading patterns.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
According to the figures which I have, approximately 1,400 workers in Quebec, 3,000 across Canada in the shirt industry have lost their jobs. I think at some point we have to call a halt to this depradation. The hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) said that free trade must go hand in hand with economic planning. We cannot disagree with this point except to say that we should use the words "freer trade" because this is the objective towards which we are working. I think the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich recognizes that we are working for freer trade. In good conscience, we cannot see established industries wiped out by a program of freer trade.
Canadians can be proud of the fact that our exports to countries around the world are growing tremendously. If we are going to be fair to our fellow Canadians, we must allow some opportunity for adjustment and acceptance of these changes. This is what the motion deals with.
The government has appointed a Textile and Clothing Board to examine the situation that exists in the textile industry. This board has the power to recommend changes to the government which would enable existing industries to adjust and change, thereby making it possible for them to employ their workers in new lines of endeavour which will enable them to earn their living.
The emphasis of this program is to have industries concentrate on style promotion in order to develop export markets which do not presently exist. The emphasis is also on restructuring the industry. It is anticipated that our shirt industry will enjoy $1 million in export business this year, the textile and clothing industry as much as $200 million.
So, the shirt industry will be able to adjust to these changes, the government is making available a full range of programs to assist the industry, including consultations
Surtax on Shirt Imports
with economists and experts of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It also includes the range of help available to the industry under the GAAP program. I remind hon. members that the GAAP program has been very successful, not exactly of a stimulating nature, but in the nature of making a change such as was made in the automotive industry. This is what the government is prepared to do.
It is most important that these adjustment programs be successful. As I said a moment ago, the industry is suffering considerable depradation. In 1966, for example, the Canadian shirt industry accounted for approximately 90 per cent of that market. In 1970 it will account for approximately 55 per cent. This is a considerable shock to that industry and it must have time to adjust. I think these adjustment programs which the government is suggesting will be effective, but a reasonable time is required to have them established.
The government is asking that the order be extended until November 19, 1971. During that period the Textile and Clothing Board will have an opportunity to make recommendations that will aid the industry and which will guide the government in introducing measures to help the industry to adjust.
I know that all members want this measure to be expedited. A number of excellent points were made by members this afternoon for which I thank them. The hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Rodrigue) suggested there should be a quota system with regard to shirt imports. I remind the hon. member that at the present time there is an excellent voluntary restraint system for countries with which we trade in this area. Today we are engaged in a measure to bolster this system.
In conclusion, I recommend the speedy passage of this measure.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, November 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carle-ton) that Bill C-181, to provide temporary emergency powers for the preservation of public order in Canada, be read the third time and do pass.
[Stage Direction]
November 26, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
Mr. Arnold Pelers (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, third reading is the stage at which we decide whether a bill should be passed. Some members opposite decided this bill should be passed long before it was even introduced. If they had paid attention to the debate, they would have realized that some very important amendments were moved, none of which were accepted.
When the War Measures Act was introduced there were many rumours in Parliament and throughout the country regarding the necessity for this measure. The charge was made that many of us did not understand the problems. After seven weeks, most of the information is available to the public. We can now make a decision on that evidence rather than making a supposition on information received from very doubtful quarters.
In the November 25 edition of the Montreal Star there is a statement by the Quebec Minister of Justice, who has been given a great deal of authority and latitude by this government under the regulations of the War Measures Act. That minister disagrees with the situation as stated by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand). The headline of the article reads: "Choquette slams Marchand's estimate of 3,000-FLQ strength 'highly exaggerated'." I read from the article:
"There are maybe 100 or 125 active members of the Front de Liberation du Quebec in my opinion," Mr. Choquette said.
"Mr. Marchand has his own way about him. His statement was highly exaggerated. There were far too many conflicting comments and opinions coming from Ottawa during the crisis."
Mr. Choquette shied away from answering directly any question on government reasoning but, though the answers he did give, left the distinct impression that all, or at least most, of the facts behind the Quebec position have been bared.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
There are many who do not blame the government for responding to the request from Quebec in the way it did. To be fair to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), he was one of the few Liberals who thought it was necessary to replace the War Measures Act with some less onerous legislation. There are probably many members of his party who would gladly have given him dictatorial powers had they been asked to do so. One Liberal member indicated yesterday that some Canadians might have to lose their freedom for the sake of the protection of 22 million other Canadians. It seems to me that if freedom is of any importance to the Canadian public, then the freedom of one individual is also a matter of importance. If this view is not shared, it appears to me that the liberties of the 22 million he mentioned are really not worth very much.
I am interested in the position taken by some of the Quebec members belonging to the Ralliement des Credi-tistes. They have expressed concern about the effect this legislation will have in limiting freedom in their province. I am surprised that other members from Quebec are not equally concerned. The bill before us goes very far in limiting the field of the powers contained in it to one particular province. The people of Quebec must feel ashamed that they have been unable to deal with these
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel).]
terrorists. In practice, I believe very few people will be convicted under the War Measures Act or any replacement measure; most will be convicted under the Criminal Code. But no suggestion has been made that we should strengthen the Code so as to keep abreast of present day situations. If the government can show it is necessary, I believe the Criminal Code, applicable to all Canada, should be strengthened in this regard.
In my opinion the government has taken a static position with respect to the situation in Quebec. Though it assisted and, one might say, directed the provincial government in connection with the request made for assistance, when it came to the administration of the legislation, Quebec was left to act on its own. In the past few days the government has been asked to accept changes in this bill, removing the retroactive clause and improving the measure without in any way limiting its effectiveness.
I am surprised that none of the Quebec members across the way supported these efforts. After all, they are not provincial members, though they act like provincial members; if they are provincial members, then they are ones who are not able to make it in Quebec, so they came to Ottawa. If they are representatives on the federal scene they should obviously have been asking the federal government to make provision for a review board to look into abuses. Obviously, there will be abuses. Some of them might consider the story coming out of Montreal of a girl being taken to the local gaol, stripped, felt all over, required to discuss her sex life for three hours and then sent back home after being told that if it was to her advantage they would send a couple of policemen home with her and they would probably be able to take her mind off politics and keep her out of trouble. Some members may believe there is no need for a review board, but it seems to me there is.	.
Sitting on the government benches are many members from the Province of Quebec who are both capable and intelligent. I am concerned that they have not chosen to give others in this chamber the benefit of their advice so that we might solve some of the difficulties which underlie the present situation in the province. Much of the trouble lies within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand); it involves education, it involves the provision of work for the unemployed, it involves proper training for those about to enter the labour market, it involves making people in Quebec feel they have as good an opportunity on the Canadian scene as has any person in any other part of the country.
If there was any reason originally for passing this legislation, it has now disappeared. The situation is totally different now. Underlying it is the need for social and economic improvement, and again I regret that hon. members from Quebec did not take a position which would have supported the efforts put forward by others in this chamber who do have an understanding and a knowledge of the difficulties facing that province.
Some of these difficulties come to my attention from time to time. Last week 20 students from the Province of
November 26, 1970

Quebec came to my office to make inquiries about obtaining assistance in securing from the Province of Quebec loans of the type the federal government is sponsoring in other provinces so that they could continue their education. They now attend a college in my riding, and Quebec does not provide them with the federally-guaranteed student loans, because they are outside the province. It is my contention that many of these questions fall within federal jurisdiction and I am therefore surprised that more members from Quebec did not take the opportunity to contribute to the discussions which have been before us. Apparently, their only intention is to take part in the vote, though this may well result in a decision to continue a kind of legislation which many of us feel will not solve any of the problems of the province, problems which are severe enough to warrant attention by the federal government. For these reasons I am opposed to this legislation, and will so vote.


Mr. Real Caouetle (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, a little over a month ago, the government felt he had to proclaim the War Measures Act in order to cope with the increasingly alarming situation in Quebec. After this legislation was passed in Parliament, we supported its implementation without mental reservations in view of the serious situation in the province of Quebec.
At the same time, the government promised to introduce temporary legislation to protect the public against terrorists. The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) then addressed a personal letter to opposition party leaders, inviting them to submit suggestions concerning the introduction of a bill acceptable to Parliament as a whole.
Now, when reading Bill C-181, we see that the suggestions invited by the government were totally ignored, in other words, that a hypocritical tactic was used to introduce Bill C-181, an act for the preservation of public order.
Mr. Speaker, we do support a bill for the preservation of public order, but why did the government choose to invite our suggestions and then ignore them, thus letting the public believe that in the name of democracy suggestions from the opposition were invited.
Now, what suggestion from the opposition can we now see in Bill C-181?
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I am sure that this bill was already drafted in its present form when the government asked us for suggestions.
For instance, we suggested the reinstatement of the death penalty. Some said: What primitive people they must be to ask for the reinstatement of the death penalty. However, almost everywhere in the world where capital punishment was abolished, now people ask for its reinstatement, and this even in Great Britain, the United States and France. As late as this morning, I heard news
Public Order Act, 1970
to the effect that reinstatement of capital punishment is being sought.
Here in Canada, people are shocked at the idea, including the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier), also hon. member for Hochelaga. In his speech of November 5 in this House, the Secretary of State attacked the leader of the Ralliement creditiste. He congratulated him, and I quote:
-for having seen the danger that was threatening the province of Quebec and Canada because of the present crisis: unfortunately my congratulations must stop here-
He added:
I must also tell him, through you, Mr. Speaker, that I am not the only one who has been deeply troubled about some of the stands he took. When, for example, he suggested that, without trial,-
I draw your attention to the words "without trial"; the Secretary of State made that up. I shall now resume the quotation:
-without trial, presumed members of the FLQ, already detained, should be placed before a firing squad-
I never spoke of presumed members of the FLQ that should be placed before a firing squad. The FLQ leaders were those involved. And then, the Secretary of State went on to say:
-presumed members of the FLQ, already detained, should be placed before a firing squad and that ten of them should be executed for each one of the hostages held by the FLQ, I do not think that he was speaking in a responsible manner, nor in a manner worthy of a civilized nation.
Mr. Speaker, after the attacks carried out by members of the FLQ, acting on orders from their leaders, the Parliament in Ottawa and the National Assembly in Quebec City decided to protect public figures, including the Secretary of State, by posting policemen or soldiers at their doorstep.
Everybody knows that the Secretary of State is well protected and if anyone attempts to break into his home, the soldier or the provincial, federal or municipal policeman would have the right to fire point blank at the intruder. And no one would be shocked by the protection given to the Secretary of State. Even the Secretary of State would not object to a soldier or a policeman shooting at whoever would attempt to kill him or even to manhandle him.
The Secretary of State takes this protection for granted because he is the Secretary of State and a member of Parliament; therefore, would it not be logical to extend the same degree of protection to the people and the society of Canada!
The Secretary of State, among others, is responsible for the present situation in the province of Quebec. He may say that he is opposed to violence but the sort of violence we now witness in Quebec and elsewhere, even in Vancouver, was not born yesterday. I heard, two or three days ago, the leader of the parti quebecois, Rene Levesque, blaming it on everybody, calling everybody a manipulator, a slave of Ottawa, a slave of the "Canadians", and of the Anglo-Saxons.

November 26, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
Terrorism has not been invented by Rene Levesque but, as I said last night in North Bay and as I repeat now, the Quebec terrorism was born thanks to Pierre Bourgault who, in 1961-1962, created a movement which was called Rassemblement pour l'independance nationale. At that time, the movement included people such as Pierre Bourgault, Andre D'Allemagne and a few others who started spreading terrorism throughout Quebec.
When the Queen came to visit Quebec City at the invitation of the Quebec Prime Minister, the hon. Jean Lesage, people had been warned months before that the Queen would not be welcome there. Then, steps were taken to prevent her from appearing in public in Quebec City. Pierre Bourgault, D'Allemagne and the members or leaders of the Rassemblement pour l'independance nationale took care of that.
The parti quebecois was born following Jean Lesage's defeat and Rene Levesque became its leader. This is when the RIN withdrew and immediately joined the parti quebecois. This means that Levesque, who protests that he is not violent, became the leader of Pierre Bourgault and other people of his kind that were members of the Rassemblement pour l'independance nationale.
Mr. Speaker, Rene Levesque says that he is opposed to violence but it is the members of the Rassemblement pour l'independance nationale that probably worked hardest in favour of Levesque who is now bursting with anger against anyone pretending that the terrorists now in jail have worked for the election of parti quebecois members on the occasion of the elections of April 29 last.
Mr. Speaker, I have with me newspaper entitled "Deux mai" published in Quebec City by terrorists from the Limoilou CEGEP, young students who urge all the others to follow them. What do we find in this newspaper of April 23, 1970? Here is what it said:
The FLQ in Quebec City.
It was not yesterday, but in April, and I shall not mention a number of activities which these young people engaged in. Following the events connected with the visit of the Queen, we witnessed the Saint John the Baptist festivities in Montreal, which the right hon. Prime Minister had been warned, six months in advance, not to attend.
What did the Secretary of State do then? And, as I said before, for a whole year he did nothing to stop the terrorists from committing their offences in Quebec. He was afraid to clean up the CBC, as I have been asking him for the past two years. Yet, he is the one responsible for that government agency.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Réal Caouette: Every time a well-known communist showed his face in Canada, he was invited to address the people through the CBC, on the French as well as on the English network, and the Secretary of State never had the fortitude nor the common sense to complain to the CBC authorities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

The Secretary of State thinks that I speak violently, but one must do violence to one's feelings in front of people as irresponsible as our Secretary of State.
Mr. Speaker, in the article entitled "The FLQ in Quebec City" to which I referred earlier, what do we find? It says that Charles Gagnon, now in jail, professes to be a leader of the FLQ. When I said that the government knew who were the FLQ leaders, the Secretary of State said that it was a lie.
Mr. Speaker, Gagnon and Vallieres said themselves: "We are the leaders of the FLQ". But they were freed because it was not too sure whether they were or not, even though they made no bones about it.
9 (4:40 p.m.)
Charles Gagnon was In Quebec City on Thursday, April 9 last, at the Laval University Sciences auditorium. Were also present with him: Jacques-Larue-Langlois, journalist and head of the Vallieres-Gagnon committe, Christian Lamontagne of the FLQ, Pierre Cloutier and Robert Lemieux,
-the same Robert Lemieux who is now in prison, the defender of FLQ supporters-
-two lawyers who champion political causes in Quebec.
Did the Secretary of State not know that in April? He did.
During that meeting which was attended by some two to three hundred persons, a demonstration called "Operation Vallieres" was announced for the following May 12 in Montreal. That demonstration was intended to achieve three purposes:
First, the liberation of the political prisoners (11 nov.).
Eleven, at that time. Are those terms not the ones that were used in the FLQ communiques?
They are asking for the liberation of political prisoners! Those so-called political prisoners are criminals. Was the hon. Secretary of State opposed to that? No! Glued to his seat by two inches of Lepage glue, he did not have the courage to protest against those people.
At noon, three Liberal members asked me to warm the Secretary of State's ears.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Réal Caouette: They said that on November 5, instead of talking about the war measures or the new bill, the Secretary of State kept on flinging abuse at the Rallie-ment Creditiste.
Three Liberal members came to see me at noon, in the Parliament restaurant and told me: Mr. Caouette, warm his ears! Well, that is exactly what we are going to do! and large hands will be necessary, because he has long ears.
However, we will manage to do so. I continue to quote:
Secondly, denunciation of the present legal system to which will be substituted a justice administered by the people.
Those are typical communist terms. The same thing was said in Russia 50 years ago and it is repeated in Canada today. The Secretary of State tells us: We are civilized people, we cannot do nor say anything about it.
November 26, 1970

The Secretary of State is as timid as a hare! Unfortunately he is not in the House.
Recently, when he spoke, he mentioned that the member for Temiscamingue was not in the House. I am here much more often than the Secretary of State! This afternoon, I would have liked him to remain seated after the question period, but unfortunately, he ran away.
I continue to quote:
Third, a demonstration by the Quebec people to show that they endorse the deeds performed by the political prisoners.
These are the main points of the manifesto that we have heard over television, the public radio network and that we have read in the newspapers. What they hope for in Canada is a demonstration by Quebec people to show that they endorse deeds performed by political prisoners such as kidnappings, assassinations, bombings, armed robberies and holdups. The hon. Secretary of State has never expressed his opposition to them, never! Was he giving the FLQ his blessing? I do not know.
Mr. Speaker, there is a limit to be taken in, as we now are by "guys" like the Secretary of State. I keep on reading this article.
The Operation will take place perhaps at the same time in Quebec, and at other times also in Vancouver, Regina and Toronto.
They do intend to undermine not only Quebec but the whole of Canada as well. This is why my colleagues objected yesterday and the day before to the fact that this legislation is aimed mainly at the province of Quebec instead of Canada as a whole.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) rose yesterday and told us, in order no doubt to reassure my colleagues that, to be more specific, this act will be applied everywhere in Canada, not only in the province of Quebec.
This legislation may be applied by the Attorney General of Ontario, by those of Quebec or of British Columbia, no matter which one. But it will have a national scope. We agree about that. However, we do not want any discrimination nor any special status for Quebec. We want all the provinces of Canada to be treated the same.
I go on with my quotation:
Gagnon also asked the people not to confuse the PQ with revolution.
This means Levesque's party and revolution.
This party's action is but the beginning of liberation.
Gagnon claims that the action undertaken by Rene Levesque's party is only-
[DOT]-the beginning of liberation, that it wil be necessary to develop a revolutionary spirit.
It is not the leader of the Ralliement who says that, but Charles Gagnon, a friend of Rene Levesque, who claims today to be against violence. However, all those who advocate violence are with Levesque. It is quite paradoxical, but it is true.
Public Order Act, 1970
I go on quoting:
Constitutional independence is such only on paper.
Let it be known to those who want to rewrite the constitution, to amend it or move subamendments.
Let it be known to the provincial premiers who meet every year in Ottawa with the Prime Minister of Canada to say that the constitution must be amended.
What will be amended? We don't know; nevertheless, we must amend it. What will we do? What amendments shall we move? Nobody knows, but task forces will be set up in British Columbia, Quebec and Ontario to consider what should be changed in the constitution, when it allows us to be what we are right now.
In my opinion, we should start out by respecting the present constitution before thinking of amending it, without knowing what is to be amended. Let us therefore start by respecting it.
We are quite free to say what we have to say without giving anyone a hard time.
Mr. Vital Barbeau wrote as follows, and I quote:
Constitutional independence is only such on paper and is meaningless if we remain subject to American capital.
That bears some resemblance to NDP theories. NDP members are against it, but their government in Manitoba is now constantly borrowing from the United States. About the Parti quebecois, we can read the following:
Even if it is "full of people of good will",
And further on:
-it is sorry that they do not follow through a little more with their ideas. The fact is that the acceptance of the electoral process is the beginning of prostitution, an incurable ailment prevalent among our governments and their politicians.
Our Quebec comrade visited the same day the Frangois-Xavier Garneau College, and later, the Limoilou College, on Thursday, April 16.
Who is our "Quebec comrade"? Charles Gagnon, a leader of the FLQ. That is not all. This little newspaper was distributed all over the Quebec City. I will say to Rene Levesque who gets in a rage against all those who do to share his views, that I am not the one who accuses him of being violent! I said that he gathered all the terrorists in the province of Quebec and I maintain my statement.
On the last page of the same newspaper, these students, who have the right to vote, state:
Even if the Parti quebecois is not all you might want it to be, even if there are climbers and small time politicians in the Parti quebecois, even if the independence proposed by the Parti quebecois is only a very small step towards the liberation of the people of Quebec, even if we are sometimes disgusted by the Parti quebecois-
-they even go as far as that!
-we will nevertheless vote for the Parti quebecois.

November 26, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
I quote further:
Because in the Parti quebecois, there are honest men and a good many more than in other parties, because the Parti quebecois represents the first attempt at democratizing parties.
According to these people, destruction will settle the problem. We must then vote for the Parti quebecois-
__because the Parti quebecois at least allows the achievement
of political independence for Quebec, a prerequisite to its total liberation. Because, as compared to the other dirty parties, the Parti quebecois looks far cleaner. Because we must settle this real quick and get rid of the clique of dispensers of patronage of old-line parties.
This is written in a newspaper. And I am not the one who printed it? Rene Levesque is aware of all this. Why is he picking on everybody? He is the one who acted, not us. Terrorism will spread throughout Canada if our government does not assume its responsibilities.
My colleagues have strongly emphasized the importance of economic reforms. The intentions of the Quebec and federal governments are not good enough. Canadians are not asking for intentions, they want results.
The people of Canada want to have the right to live in peace, to be treated in all fairness, to be free and secure. That is what we care for. Unless the people get what they want, we shall experience more trouble within the next few months.
There is talk about checking unemployment and, at the same time, the number of unemployed goes up. There is talk about giving some hope to our young people when there is no hope. There is talk about giving the family a normal status which would enable it to develop normaly in a normal society; nevertheless, in the province of Quebec at this moment, there are 175,000 jobless. Something like 140,000 families are living on social welfare allowances.
Students want to be allowed to earn a living after they finish school but they cannot find jobs. Last summer, at least 400,000 students could not find a job to enable them to go back to school. These students would be quite ready to integrate into our society, but unfortunately, they have no opportunity to do so. Should we wonder then when we see young people rebelling against this society into which they cannot integrate?
Let us reform what needs to be reformed. Surface reforms are not what the people need. I saw the honourable Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Mar-chand) make fun of Social Credit solutions. However, this morning I read in an editorial by Alain Guiibert published in a newspaper which is not in favour of Social Credit, namely, Sherbrooke's La Tribune:
For Quebec, the deterioration in the social climate will be all the more tragic as we know its potential effects, namely, the recurrence of terrorist movements such as the Front de Liberation du Quebec-The solution is not an easy one, but perhaps we should examine Social Credit proposals seriously.
Instead of deriding them, why not examine them? Is it jobs that people are asking for, or money to buy existing products? Let us distribute the money to Canadians and enable them to buy those products, and then the Canadian economy will become prosperous again.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 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 Moose Jaw (Mr. Sko-berg)-Consumer Affairs-farm machinery price increases proposed by White Motor Company; the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin)-Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-Appointment of Royal Commission on Attitude towards recent events in Quebec; the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale)-Agriculture-Alleged loss of Quotas by Western Canada Dairy Farmers.
The House will now proceed to consideration of Private members business as listed on the order paper, namely, Notices of Motions, Papers.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, are we to deal with Notice of Motion No. 51 in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)? I have not observed, Sir, whether we have already stood the motions which preceded that.


Mr. Speaker:: Notice of Motion No. 34 in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Notice of Motion No. 60 in the name of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Stand, Mr. Speaker, and the next several motions will all stand.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand there are a considerable number of motions standing in the name of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway subsequent to No. 60. Is it agreed that these stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday October 29, consideration of the motion of Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of any reports or reviews with regard to social welfare legislation and income security prepared by or under the direction of Dr. J. W. Willard, Deputy Minister of Welfare for Canada, since June 25, 1968.
[Mr. Caouette.i
November 26, 1970
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, this motion having been considered previously and debated for some 50 minutes, the rules provide that the whole debate may extend for 90 minutes whereafter there can be a five minute resume by the minister and a five minute closing by the proposer of the motion. Then, the bells would be rung for a vote. After discussion, it has been suggested that the most expeditious way to dispose of the matter now would be for the Parliamentary Secretary to the minister to speak for five minutes, followed by a five minute closing by the hon. member, and then the members would be called in for a vote.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I wish first to express to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) my admiration for the way he conducted the debate.
His perseverance in dealing with questions related to social welfare and income security is, of course, very commendable and I hardly need to point out that the questions he raises so frequently in the House are of the greatest interest for the government and particularly for the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr Munro).
Mr. Speaker, the report prepared by Dr. Willard, Deputy Minister of Welfare, is only a working document which summarizes the long experience of this eminent civil servant in the field of social welfare and income security. His work is but an appraisal of social security m Canada covering several years and, I repeat, this is only a working document for the time being.
It has never been the practice of the government in the past and I am convinced it will maintain this line-to table working documents prepared in whole or in part by its officers. I can only renew the request from the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare to the hon member for Winnipeg North Centre to the effect that, having listened to these explanations, he might withdraw his motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in closing this debate may I point out that what we are asking for is the tabling of the Willard report. I can find no better words to describe this report than those just used by the Parliamentary Secretary. He said it is a working document. That is exactly the point. If it were a white paper, or a statement of government policy, and if the government wanted to change that policy, I could understand its reluctance to table such a document. The Willard Report is not a white paper and it is not a statement of government policy. It is a working document. If I may again use the words of the Parliamentary
Welfare and Income Security
Secretary, it is an assessment of the social security situation in Canada.
A great deal of work has gone into the preparation of this report. I have no doubt it cost a good many dollars and the Canadian people have paid for it. Social security is a tremendously important issue in Canada, and I contend that this Parliament and the people of Canada have the right to see and know what is in this document, this working paper, the Willard Report.
I repeat my argument that if there is any honesty at all to the idea that there should be full disclosure of information, if there is any honesty at all to the desire to have participatory democracy, there is no excuse whatsoever for keeping this document secret. This is an offence to Parliament, it is an affront to the Canadian people, and I insist that this document be tabled in the House of Commons. Based on this document the government will be making its decisions in the field of social security. It will be deciding what it is going to do about pensions for retired people in Canada. Perhaps what is going to be done for veterans will also be based upon it.
The government talks about participatory democracy, about the people being involved, but members of this House are not permitted to see this important document. I say again, as I said in my opening remarks when I moved the motion on October 29, that most of us in this place know what an excellent civil servant Dr. Willard is and has been for many years. We are fully satisfied that this document is a valuable one. It is not the private preserve of the government; it belongs to the Parliament and the people of Canada, and I call for an affirmative vote on this motion.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the motion. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it. And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


James Alexander Jerome: May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the House that the Chair
now call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) that Bill C-181, to provide temporary emergency powers for the preservation of public order in Canada, be read the third and do pass.
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose at five o'clock, I was pointing out that our people would not indefinitely put up with promises or superficial reform and that it is high time for the governments to act and provide the necessary reforms. I was quoting
November 26, 1970

November 26, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
only the province of Quebec instead of the provinces as a whole.
A revolutionary movement could just as well start in Toronto, in Winnipeg or in Regina. The proof is that politicians from Regina have been known to say that they might free themselves one day from Canada to join the United-States.
The premier of Saskatchewan said that.


An hon. Member:: Ross Thatcher?


David Réal Caouette: The Liberal premier, a former colleague of my friends of the New Democratic Party-
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
[English']	.


Mr. Benjamin:: I shall have to listen to the translation of this.


An hon. Member:: You'll never believe it.


David Réal Caouette: Ross Thatcher was a friend of mine though he was not a Social Creditor. He was a member of the CCF and I feel that he is still with the CCF, though he did give better leadership than the NDP has now.
[Translation]	_
Mr. Speaker, the minister contradicts himself when he
says:	. .
This bill does not deal with force used or crime iisedto overthrow a government in Quebec with respect to the rest of Can ada, by the FLQ or another association that might succeed it.
I agree with the minister, but that bill is especially aimed at the FLQ.
The hon. member for Champlain stated the following:
We all agree on that, there is no doubt about it. However as to the second point, it is that we could eventually use it as a means of accomplishing the same or substantially the same governmental change within Canada." The P.Q. could advocate "the same government change" as-
And here is what the Minister of Justice answered to that:
Mr. Chairman, in reply to the question put by the hon. member I should say that all the words have to be read as a whole. The bill is directed at the FLQ and any eventual successor group. The FLQ is defined as "any group of persons or associations that advocates the use of force or the commission of crime-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Go on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) to complete his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Réal Caouette: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to my colleagues and to the Minister of Justice for letting

me finish my speech. I shall not abuse of the additional time given me.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out here that the minister contradicted himself when he said in one place:
_force used or crime used to overthrow a government in
Quebec-
-and further on-
____force or the commission of crime as a means of accomplishing governmental change-
But the whole thing is no clearer than pipe juice. One the one hand, people are to be prevented from overthrowing the Canadian government and on the other hand we must protect the government of Quebec in its relationship to Canada.
It is that opposition between the province of Quebec and the rest of Canada we cannot approve. I have had the opportunity, as I said this afternoon, of travelling throughout Canada and everywhere I said I did not want a special status for Quebec. I am not asking for more.
As we are considering Bill-181 we all agree that we must adopt measures to prevent the overthrow of a government by violence. But that law should not apply only in Quebec but everywhere in Canada.
It is because we recognize the need to adopt measures to prevent terrorism that we have voted for the application of the War Measures Act. It was urgent to resort to it since rebellion was threatening in the province of Quebec and terrorist acts, kidnappings and murders were committed in Quebec.
But we maintain that the law must be the same for the ten provinces to prevent similar acts in the other provinces.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
My colleagues have tried to call the attention of both the government and the Minister of Justice to that point.
The minister, in my opinion, should be more specific. There is not one member in this House who would want to pass a legislation applicable to Quebec only. Otherwise, it would amount to backing up our friend the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Douglas) whose campaign at the last general election centered around a special status for the province of Quebec. On the other hand, the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) he was advocating the theory of two nations in Canada. Therefore, we pass one bill applicable to one nation residing in Quebec and another one for the other nation living elsewhere in Canada.
Parliament must be careful when passing a legislation, even if it will only be in force until the end of April next. Then, the government should introduce legislation of a permanent character which would respect individual liberties while protecting Canadian society as a whole, without favouring any special group.
Our position is simple: let us pass the legislation we want, but it is important to bring in reforms which will allow all Canadians to feel free and secure in this country.
November 26, 1970

Of course, to reach this goal, we must obviously and necessarily deal with the financial problem. This is where the trouble lies. It is so true that if a war should be declared, the government would not have to talk about inflation, but it would find a job for everyone now unemployed. Here is the proof: they sent the Canadian Armed Forces to Quebec. Neither the Minister of Justice nor the Prime Minister said that we did not have enough money to send soldiers there. Apparently, that was an urgent matter.
When people starve in Canada, that is an urgent matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Réal Caouette: If we want to avoid a repetition of the events we have just witnessed, the time has come to pass other laws than those which aim at jailing wrongdoers. Let us pass laws which will enable wrongdoers to behave better and then, society will be better organized.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Question, question!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The hon. member for Joliette has the floor.


Roch La Salle: As was said so well yesterday by a member of the New Democratic Party, I think that the members from Quebec have not only the right to speak on this bill, but also a responsibility to express certain opinions. In view of the importance of the bill it is my responsibility to express my opinions and to give some explanations about the fact that we could be in favour of the adoption of the War Measures Act, without necessarily being in favour of the adoption of a special act.
On this point, a certain summary must be made. Let us refer to the circumstances which necessitated the application of the War Measures Act.
First, the War Measures Act was proclaimed and this move was supported by most hon. members.
Mr. Speaker, when the house is on fire, it is too late to discuss whether or not firemen should be called. In my view, no wavering would have been justified. In view of the abduction of these two men and of the psychological climate prevailing in these days, it was necessary to invoke such a drastic measure. Indeed, we had no choice, particularly if we consider that our criminal law leaves no place for us to take the necessary steps.
Since then, there has been quite a number of arrests, and it seems that several people have been arrested for the most futile motives. Searches and questionings have been carried out. The province of Quebec has been occupied by the armed forces and the government has made all sorts of statements in the House. But those statements have never been adequately explained and questions asked by members have not yet been answered satisfactorily.
The enforcement of the War Measures Act was urgently needed when the Act was proclaimed. But since then,
Public Order Act, 1970
thirty days have passed. Parliament, therefore, has had all the time it needed to introduce a law better suited to the present circumstances which are not-we must recognize it-as disquieting as they were thirty days ago.
There has been, for quite a long time a climate of dissatisfaction in Quebec which is due to many reasons. It might be believed that exceptional legislation would settle this problem and would give back confidence to the Quebec people and to the whole country but it would be a mistake to believe it.
In Quebec we went through, perhaps in a rather peculiar way even if some are afraid of the word "peculiar", years of frustration both linguistically and economically. At the same time, we have had a far too high unemployment rate, a per capita income much lower than that of the whole country and this situation does not seem to be improving. In Quebec, we now have 500,000 unemployed and this figure will reach 700,000 by springtime.
Those are so many factors which for several years have provoked discontentment in Quebec. A special law will not be sufficient to restore the population's confidence in Parliament nor will it improve the lot of the people of Quebec.
When this bill was introduced a few weeks ago it was understood that the opposition parties would have an opportunity to participate in the debate and to make useful contributions. After five weeks, it seems clear that the government will accept no amendment. Not one suggestion made by the opposition is deemed likely to improve the bill. It seems that only the government members are enlightened by the Holy Ghost when a bill is being drafted. According to them, we do not enjoy the same advantage.
The government has serious misgivings; I am sure that only through the enactment of social measures better adapted to present conditions can a proper climate of stability be restored in the province of Quebec as well as elsewhere in Canada.
I do not say that a special legislation was not necessary. I think that after the War Measures Act was enforced, we had enough time to draft a legislation more in keeping with present needs.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
The retroactivity of the act can allow justice to go very far indeed. The act is vague in that it does not specify for how long it will be applied. The use of the expression "any identical association or almost identical association" can only lead to confusion.
Some other amendments are vague as well. In spite of that, the act is specific enough to warrant its being supported.
After studying the bill and having realized that the government refused to accept any amendment, I can say that, at the same time, the participation of the opposition parties, in short, the participation of Parliament, was turned down in the preparation of this bill. As members of Parliament, we were entitled to participate in it. To say the least, we were entitled to a better hearing on the part of the government.

November 26, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
Considering that the government rejected all the amendments we proposed and knowing all the weaknesses and inaccuracies of the legislation, I do not feel like supporting the bill. Some may think that I prefer the War Measures Act, but that is not the point. I voted for the War Measures Act because we had no other choice. A more acceptable measure could have been introduced, but it was not. Aware of the weaknesses and inaccuracies of the legislation, it might be said: Of two evils one must choose the lesser. I still think that even the lesser evil is much too great.
Mr. Speaker, the entire history of Canada shows that previous situations resulted in an atmosphere not only of discontent but revolution. This has very deep causes.
In Quebec especially, reference is made to poverty, insecurity, lack of confidence in public men, the failure of the constitutional review. We want, as Quebecers, to be first class citizens, but I think that all those frustrations after many years were liable to create a climate of dissatisfaction. For that reason I will take this opportunity to say once again that the passage of special legislation will not restore the confidence of the people or order in Quebec or elsewhere in Canada.
In connection with the failure of the constitutional review, I read the following this week in be Devoir, and I quote:
In his opening address to the federal-provincial conference held in Ottawa in February 1968, the late Daniel Johnson stated solemnly: "...we all know that the Canadian people is not homogeneous. Although the adamant few still refuse to admit it, we all know that Canada is made up of two nations. What purpose can be achieved by closing our eyes on this basic fact, which is supported by history, sociology and the collective will to live together?
Perhaps it has become for some people a purely academic exercise to ponder whether the British North America Act is or not the result of a pact, but there is no room for doubt as far as the future is concerned: in order to be valid, a new Canadian constitution will have to be the product of an agreement between our two nations."
-which is the whole history of our country. With all due respect to my colleagues, in the end we will have to acknowledge the existence of the two founding nations in Canada. It is fundamental.
Statements made this week mentioned that it will be possible to keep Quebec in the Confederation through force if necessary. When people end up saying such things it is because they do not know Quebecers.
For over 100 years, millions of French Canadians have not only defended their traditions but also their mother tongue. They have hoped and are still hoping that their aspirations will be fulfilled.
So Quebec is different from the other provinces, with all due reference to the leader of the Ralliement credi-tiste (Mr. Caouette) who said earlier that he does not favour a special status for Quebec. Maybe he wanted to say that Canada wants to offer us a special status on the occasion of the introduction of the bill on war measures but it is the first time that Quebec is granted a special status and certainly the moment is not at all appropriate to do so.
This special status will have to be recognized in the Constitution that we have been asked to draft and no doubt this issue is most pressing. In fact, a committee on the constitution has at last set to work and is visiting every part of Canada. It should not, however, waste its time visiting the province of Quebec. It has merely to make a careful study of the briefs submitted to Parliament since 1960 by Messrs. Lesage, Johnson, Bertrand and Bourassa. The committee on the constitution has in its files briefs that reflect precisely the aspirations and the wishes of Quebecers. Regardless of the government that submitted them, these briefs make exactly the same requests and would enable the committee on the constitution to understand, once and for all, what Quebec wants and under what conditions Canada will be able to keep this province within Confederation. The committee on the constitution would learn much by reading Daniel Johnson's book entitled Egalite ou Independence (Equality or Independence).
Quebecers want to live in equality, they want to have the same opportunities as other Canadians have, and to take a full part in building of Canada.
The people of Quebec are well represented in the House. However, some government members from Quebec did not carry out their duty to inform our English-speaking colleagues of the deep aspirations of the population of Quebec. In order to abide by the policies of their party, they have always agreed to an acceptable compromise with provincial governments, provided they belonged to the same party as the federal government.
I am sorry to have to say those things, but I believe that is the crux of the problem, the loss of confidence of Quebecers in the federal representation. Each House member from Quebec has that duty to inform all Canadians of the needs of Quebec and of the conditions that will make it possible for that province to remain within Confederation.
For 10 years the provincial governments have tried to ensure by every possible means that Quebec be kept within the Confederation. Briefs have been submitted, many studies have been published and it seems that the federal government is not interested.


Mr. Guy LeBlanc (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Rimouski on a point of order.


Louis Guy LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be rather brief. It seems to me that my colleague is making an unforgivable digression. The debate should be on an amendment proposed by the Ralliement creditiste, but the hon. member is giving a lecture on the history of Canada and of the province of Quebec.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Lotbiniere on a point of order.

November 26, 1970


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say, on behalf of my party, that we have moved no amendment. If the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. LeBlanc) was more often in the House, he would know that we disposed of it yesterday.
We are anxious to hear the rest of the speech by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. First, the Chair wants to point out to the hon. member for Rimouski that he did not raise a question of privilege, but a point of order. However, I believe that, in view of the present confusion, the Chair should take the opportunity of reminding the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) to stick as much as possible to the motion on third reading of Bill C-181.
Hon. Members have been allowed up to now to stray temporarily from the subject, but to go back on the whole constitutional question in Canada is quite another matter. The hon. member should revert to Bill C-181 in the next few minutes.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Chairman, the member for Rimouski (Mr. LeBlanc) was not aware that we were on third reading of the bill, that amendments had been dealt with long ago and that they had not been accepted anyway.
As to whether I strayed from the subject, I did so in order to show the long standing shilly-shally attitude of the Federal government with regard to the powers which should be granted to Quebec and which are required for her emancipation as a French-Canadian nation, since her powers have often been trampled down. A climate of dissatisfaction has indeed appeared in the province of Quebec.
The hesitation of the federal government is responsible for the formation of a third party in Quebec, the Parti Quebecois, that nevertheless got 23 per cent of the votes at the last April elections. It means that one French Canadian out of three voted for the independence of Quebec.
The prolonged hesitation of the federal government which turns a deaf ear to the claims of Quebec cannot give us economic stability and create the atmopshere of confidence we need and in which we would no longer have to pass special legislation.
That is the problem. We can look everywhere, but nothing will be solved if we do not recognize that the Constitution must be renewed to define clearly the powers Quebec needs and has been demanding for so long. For the information of my colleagues, not only those from Quebec-as they know it already although many of them do not dare say so-but for those from the other provinces, I say that the Constitution, has to be amended because it is the only way of enabling people to keep on believing in a strong Canada and the province of Quebec to believe that its future is within Canada. To refuse to listen to the claims made by the Quebec governments over the last ten years, is to close one's door to them and to hasten the independence of Quebec. It is to run the risk of being faced with more problems.
Public Order Act, 1970
Such things must be said in this House. I did so for the guidance of all the members. I know that some people find it more difficult to say such things. As a Quebecer I believe in a rejuvenated constitution-we must hurry-it is, a matter of months-so that the province of Quebec may have the assurance that the emancipation of the French Canadian nation can be accomplished inside Quebec, in French, without any prejudice to the rest of this country. It is as two nations that we will be able to build a splendid Canada and not in doing as we have done for the last 100 years.
Unfortunate statements were made in this House during the debate on this legislation, including some about the possibility of a parallel government being set up. I thought that the arguments put forward on the day when we voted on the War Measures Act were sufficient to support these measures. Then there was the beginning of a rumour to the effect that a parallel government was to be set up in Quebec, and the government suggested that it was founded.
As a result of the questions which were asked during the following week, we realized that this parallel government never existed, but this persisting rumour gave certain people an opportunity to accuse men who have always stoutly defended the aspirations of the French-Canadian nation, and I do not approve of those who used this debate to tarnish the reputation of a man for which I have great consideration, namely, Mr. Claude Ryan. I say it in this House-


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Roch La Salle: I am aware that this does not sound pleasing for all the Quebec members since Mr. Claude Ryan, at a certain time, was not in agreement with the governments of the day. But I have for quite a long time believed in this journalist's integrity. No one found fault with Mr. Ryan when he supported the Liberal party before the elections of last April 29 and now, because he disapproves of the emergency measures legislation or of the way the government have lead the discussions, there has been an attempt at sullying the reputation of some people for no reasons whatsoever.
Everybody is wondering: who are those responsible for this situation? Definitely, some members of the FLQ whom I condemn without reservation, and I know that all members of this House agree with me. Now, whether they number 25, 200, 1,000 or 3,000 that is quite a different question. Some one has gone as far as suggesting that the government has been using a sledge hammer to crack a peanut. And I even wonder whether this peanut has now been effectively cracked.
Recently, I was reading a newspaper article by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who lived in times somewhat similar to our own. I shall read an excerpt from that article in this House, because it is signed by an authentic Liberal. At that time, in 1890, problems were being experienced with the Metis. Sir Wilfrid Laurier said, in his article, with regard to a certain rebellion, and I quote:
-what is destestable is not the rebels but the men who, having the advantages of power do not fulfil its duties; the men who,

November 26, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
having the power to redress abuse, will not listen to the petitions they receive; the men who, when they are asked for bread, give stones.
If I understand correctly what Sir Wilfrid Laurier meant, I would dare say that those who have the advantage of power are really responsible for the present situation. Sir Wilfrid Laurier added, and I quote:
-if there were some criminals, it was not those who fought, who died, but the men in front of me on the government benches?
This was said by Sir Wilfrid Laurier and it is surely not a man who was always sympathetic to us. I merely wish to refer to that time to prove that the reasons which compel us to pass that special legislation today are perhaps not those you have in mind. It is the lack of appropriate social measures which has led to that climate of dissatisfaction and revolt among Quebecers and Canadians.
This bill is quite difficult to accept, since it can interfere with the freedom of the press. I do not approve all the criticisms against the press nor the charges laid against the C.B.C., making them responsible for the present problems.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, I admit it, has broadcasted a number of programs devoted to separatism in Quebec, but it was only the true reflection of the Quebec reality.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Here, in the House, a number of members have always refused to define the Quebec reality. Moreover, we have always considered this group of individuals as insignificant. However it was important that the members of the other provinces know exactly the number of separatists and the growing importance of that movement in Quebec.
Attempts were made to hoodwink the rest of the citizens by telling them that this movement was insignificant, that it was not dangerous and that its membership was small. But following the election we learned that one out of three French Canadians was favourable to independence. This is the truth, and it is this fact that hon. members from the other provinces need to know.
CBC had programs to which Mr. Levesque was allowed to participate just so that the Canadian people would know the Quebec fact. Whether we like it or not, this is freedom of the press and freedom of speech.
I have not been concerned personally as yet about the freedom of the press but I think it is unfortunate that a member who makes an incorrect statement gets a good write up from the press while another who does not make any incorrect statement is not even mentioned by the press. I should like to make a few remarks on another point, that is the inquiry, by a committee of the House, on the Company of Young Canadians, whose findings urged the government to guard against certain dangerous groups or movements. But nothing was done in this regard. This is why we have to discuss now the implementation of some special legislation.
We asked that a royal commission determine the reasons for the introduction of this special legislation, but we were turned down. A royal commission could actually throw light on every aspect of this question and distinguish between the truth and mere rumours, such as that of a provisional government. We have been denied this royal inquiry which would prove the government's good will.
What are the causes of the climate of dissatisfaction. No wonder Quebec is dissatisfied. I have only been in the House for only two years and already there is no hope of recovering the $250 million paid by Quebec for a service which was never provided. There was and is still some talk of cutting the subsidies to farmers. How can the farmers get along if subsidies are further reduced?
Some are wondering how this discontentment was created and I do not believe that this special legislation will restore confidence or stability in Quebec.
In my own conscience, Mr. Speaker, I will not be able to support such a bill because of its lack of accuracy, and its deficiencies.
At least, a review board should have been authorized to avert abuses in each province. After just one month we already have evidence of abuses and we would like to prevent them from occurring again.
An administrator could have carried on some supervision to check abuse, but we have chosen to abuse power and I am against that.
The words "unlawful association" and "the same or substantially the same" lack precision.
On seven or eight occasions, I believe, I also asked who would foot the bill for the army's stay in Quebec.
First, I was told that the province of Quebec would pay the bill. Another time, I was told that considering the special conditions prevailing, perhaps some agreement could be made with Quebec.
Last week, the negotiations seemed not to progress very fast. In the end, we might get the bill, and, if it happens to be settled like the health insurance plan, Quebec will have to pay once more for a service the expenses of which were met long ago, because the province has been contributing to national defence costs since the birth of Confederation.
We were entitled to explanations the government has refused to provide, and in the circumstances we are led to doubt the government's good faith and to refuse blind support for this legislation.
Many hon. members myself included, wish to re-establish a climate of confidence for the welfare of Canadians. Each citizen in Canada, and in Quebec in particular, must have a greater part of justice.
I presume that we will do more than tabling special legislation, and that we will consider seriously the adoption of social measures which are obviously needed for the re-establishment of a better social climate in Quebec. The formation of a committee on the Constitution is vital today in Canada. The Province of Quebec has been wait-

November 26, 1970

ing quite a long time. It is miserably disappointed with the government's hesitancy on the matter. Quebec needs to know the provisions of a new constitution. It should not be thought-and time will prove me right-that a constitution that does not establish distinctions will makp the ten provinces happy.
We hear about bilingualism throughout Canada. It is not true that integral bilinguism will exist in all 10 provinces. We shall stay with one French province and nine English ones. The provinces however will acquire a supplementary culture, English or French. But let us face it: Quebec wants to and must remain French, and the other provinces will remain English. Together, we can build Canada according to our culture.


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member forgets that New Brunswick is also a bilingual province.


Roch La Salle: Well, yes, New Brunswick is bilingual-


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, so is the province of Ontario. We are not all turncoats.


Roch La Salle: I do not deny the hon. member's point, and I do not say that all members are turncoats. But Quebec will not be abused or deceived by federal members from Quebec who do not tell the truth in this House to their English-speaking colleagues who need to know it. Now there are problems in Quebec because those members have failed to express as they should have the needs of the province of Quebec and to support the provincial governments who for well over a decade have been pondering over piles of briefs submitted to federal-provincial conferences. These members have always refused to analyse those documents and they have even laughed at them. In those papers are discussed the fundamentals not for national unity but for national harmony. There is the big difference.
I am not striving after national unity but after national harmony wherein the two founding nations, as acknowledged by history, may understand each other and cooperate in building up one country, Canada. If we fail to do this, Quebec will separate. My forecasts will come true if the government does not become more conscious of Quebec's needs and aspirations.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, once again 1 am a trifle surprised by the attitude of some hon. members who seem to want to railroad bill C-181 entitled: An Act to provide temporary emergency powers for the preservation of public order in Canada.
In a speech delivered on the program "La Politique Federate" on the French TV network of the CBC on October 31, 1970, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stated, and I quote:
The nation must continue to remain calm and resist with the same lucidity to the confusion which some individuals would like to cause.
2356a-26
Public Order Act, 1970
This is precisely the attitude I am trying to have toward the present situation, and I fail to see the exceptional urgency of railraoding a bill which, in my view, is confusing. We had evidence of that during the debate, in the House, and among the public, through newspapers and other news media.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Some weeks ago, when it was felt that there was an emergency, most hon. members approved the proclamation of the War Measures Act and have not changed their mind yet. Therefore nothing impedes the work of observation and search which rests with our armed forces. Absolutely nothing prevents our police forces from maintaining law and order and from keeping up their investigations to find the kidnappers. It rather seems to me that most of the people are eager to know what concrete results have been achieved through the extraordinary powers granted in peace time to the police forces so that they may track down the revolutionaries.
We will not achieve the results wished for by the people by approving hastily a new bill which, in my opinion, contains some elements of dissent.
Whereas a confused situation seems to last endlessly, people are anxiously awaiting new facts. And in the meantime, we try to pass special legislation, establishing emergency powers in order to maintain order in the province of Quebec.
We now have the proof that it is not the lack of powers which hinders the work of peace officers. What seems rather obvious is the absence of co-operation and the inefficiency of investigation procedures.
The editor of the newspaper Montreal-Matin concluded his editorial of November 24, 1970 by this logical remark, and I quote:
If the handful of agitators were reduced to impotence, the whole of the Quebec people would not need special measures, since the unrest which justifies them would no longer exist.
Like Mr. Cross, we sometimes wonder what is going on. Many people shuddered when they listened to a TV announcer reading the communique of the Quebec Liberation Front. Yet, more than four months ago, on July 11, 1970, a Montreal newspaper published an explosive document, quite similar to the one released in October 1970. It dealt with an unsuccessful kidnapping attempt. This should have been a warning for the authorities. But no. People in office now anxious to do something had no reaction at all.
Another time, the Chairman of the Executive Committee of the city of Montreal, in a clear statement, asked for a Royal commission of inquiry on the behaviour of agitators who were spreading revolution in Canada. Did our legislators hasten to take the decisions the events required? Oh no! They were waiting.
I do not see any reason to multiply emergency or special laws. As I said at the beginning, the War Measures Act allows us to solve urgent problems, provided each and every one does his job. Let us take the time needed to prepare legislation really appropriate in the

November 26, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
circumstances, without spreading discord in one area or the other of the country. As representatives of the people of Canada, it is our duty, when the circumstances so require, to pass laws that apply to all parts of Canada.
Remember the second volume of the Prevost report, issued in April 1969, which called for the establishment of a public system of judicial security designed to ensure to all citizens an easy access to the administration of justice.
Whether we agree in part or in whole with the procedures suggested by the Commission, we must recognize on the other hand that it is as much an urgent necessity as education, welfare and health.
The fact that in our country there are more and more citizens who, for financial reasons, cannot afford to have their day in court is evidence that the financial system we are denouncing needs to be reformed in our affluent society.
At least one-fifth of the Canadian people are denied at one time or another, the right to be heard in court; the situation is such that people have come to the conclusion that it is more advantageous to accept an out-of-court settlement than to resort to justice, because the parties often incur disproportionate expenses.
My colleague, the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin), summarized here in the House on Tuesday, November 24th, 1970, the difficulties he had had because of a deficient judicial system, and I know he is right.
Our lawyers should know that they helped to create the present atmosphere.
I have here at hand an article published in the Montreal La Presse on September 1st, 1970, the title of which is clear enough: Canadian Bar Association accused of abetting injustice, from which I shall quote a few excerpts.
The delegates to the Canadian Bar Association convention were on the hot seat yesterday; they were accused of encouraging injustice and having failed to reform our laws.
The case of the people versus the Canadian Bar Association was put to a large audience of some 650 delegates accompanied by their wives, by the discontented students of the Law School of the Dalhousie University in Halifax.
The claims of the students were received with rousing cheers.
The delegates had heard the same theme, the need for reform in the laws and the administration of justice, earlier in the day, from the retiring chairman, Arthur S. Pattillo from Toronto. His speech was less spectacular, but his mesage was no less urgent.
Calling our times the age of dissent, Mr. Pattillo said at the opening session of the convention that it is extremely important to act quickly and simultaneously in the fields of the reform of laws, justice administration, education of the profession regarding the public.
He said that court procedures are outmoded. Justice is often delayed by technicalities and inefficiency. Laws vary from one province to another and there is no government support for reform.
I have noted myself that our legal system often enables ambitious lawyers to use various means to win a case. Fortunately, a judge aware of his duties and responsibilities was on the bench that day. He delivered a not guilty verdict, although I had realized that a very experienced
lawyer especially chosen for that case had used all the tricks of the trade, to such an extent that I attended a hearing where questionable testimonies were given many times in order to deviate the course of justice.
I am pointing out by way of digression that kind of injustice generated by the legal mechanism. Briefly, this is what happens. Charges are unfairly laid against a citizen. He decides to defend himself and proves that he is not guilty following lengthy and onerous procedures. As a result, he has nevertheless to pay the lawyer's fees and the witnesses' travelling expenses.
This kind of administration of justice is defective, even revolting for a citizen who is acquitted.
Nothing in Bill C-181 provides for compensation to people charged without evidence and yet this is a matter that has caused much comment, particularly since the events of October last.
I was reading in the July 11, 1969 issue of the newspaper Le Soleil an article by Mr. Paul Lachance entitled: Justice for the poor if not poor justice. After having outlined the situation, Mr. Lachance wrote as follows:
Money, the root of evil.
In a masterly study on legal aid entrusted to the PrSvost Commission, Mr. Jean T. Loranger, assistant secretary of the legal aid office of the Montreal Bar, discloses certain figures that give cause for reflection on the degree of poverty among the Quebec population.
He shows that as early as 1964, a yearly income of $4,000, both in Quebec and in the United States, meant poverty for a normal family of four people, and of $2,000 for an unmarried person.
According to Mr. Loranger, that family and that unmarried person are every day deprived of the bare requisites in Quebec. They represent about 23 per cent of the Quebec population.
Statistics also show that 19 out of 1,000 people need legal aid, that is one poor out of 12.
The article contains undeniable truths and practical suggestions.
He adds in conclusion, and I quote:
There remains to wonder whether our government will soon have the nerve to proclaim, through concrete examples, that a state does not have to be rich to show respect towards its own justice.
For as long as it has not become as much the justice of the poor as that of the rich, it will be but a poor justice.
Real justice cannot be administered with a vengeful and penalizing instinct. A serious effort should be made in order to change this turn of mind often inherent in the judiciary administration.
The various correctional services should bring their effort to bear on prevention of crime rather than on excessive and brutal punishment.
I realize that in some individuals, there seem to be a total loss of the sense of responsibilities and that one has to resort to appropriate means in such cases. However, if we take the trouble of examining some particular cases, we have to conclude that some people are not born criminals.
Very often, through a combination of circumstances, they have been badly oriented and society did not favour

November 26, 1970

them in such a way as to enable them to know how to conduct themselves. It is not by crushing them that we will help rehabilitate them.
Equality of opportunities to defend oneself legally must be both great enough not to allow injustices, and explicit enough to avoid abuses as much as possible.
The most complete inventories, the fairest recommendations, the most necessary orientations will remain a dead letter if those who are responsible do not act.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, it will not take too many minutes for me to state why it will be a pleasure for me to vote against this incredible and unnecessary piece of legislation. Yesterday I listened to the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hogarth). The points he made further substantiate the fact that at this time in our history this legislation is completely unnecessary. The cockiness of some Liberal Members of Parliament stems from their belief that they cannot be defeated on the stand they are about to take. They are pleased with the stand they are about to take.
They will be denying civil liberties and supporting the principle of guilt by association. They have forgotten about the United Nations Charter of Human Rights regarding retroactivity of offences. They are supporting a situation wherein a husband and wife can be jailed for associating with each other if one is a sympathizer of the FLQ. They do not support the appointment of a legal appeal or review board. Instead, they suggest a voluntary type of body with no power whatsoever. Some hon. members seem quite pleased that people may become unemployed because they are accused, under false pretences, of being associated with the FLQ and the employer dismisses them. I know of situations where persons have lost their jobs because they have been accused of certain things. Their employers did not consider whether or not they were guilty. Any member of the House who supports this legislation is not being consistent or credible in his position.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has done many things to discredit Canada in the eyes of North Americans. I refer to an item which appeared in the Moose Jaw Times-Herald of Saturday, October 1, which reads in part as follows:
Live in Canada?
"No thanks," say four Glasgow, Montana, high school students. "Not with the War Measures Act in existence."
"I wouldn't give up my United States constitutional rights no matter how enjoyable our stay in Moose Jaw has been," one student said.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Leroy Skoberg: As I listen to the laughter of hon. members opposite, I realize they are not concerned about the civil rights of anyone in this country. What has been said in this House since I have been here? The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) asked what contribution
Public Order Act, 1970
the majority of the Liberal Members of Parliament had made to this House of Commons. I suggest that the members from the province of Quebec have not really told us what the problem is in that province. Have they told us about the economic situation, the unemployment situation or anything else concerning the province of Quebec? Quips are all we have heard from them. They say, "If you knew the situation, you would not talk in this way." I suggest these members have known the situation for the last seven years. The hon. member for New Westminster went to great lengths to show how the situation has been documented since 1963.
The Members of Parliament from Quebec should be ashamed for not telling members from other parts of Canada about the real problems in Quebec. The hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane) has been quite forceful in this House in drawing attention to the situation in his area. This was why he moved his amendments. I understand that in his constituency the rate of unemployment is approximately 28.9 per cent. I am disappointed that the hon. member has now been brought back into line by the Liberal Party and will vote in their favour. Has he forgotten the grand words of wisdom that he has used recently?
All hon. members realize that violence is not the usual means adopted by peaceful people. It is used only when there is anxiety, confusion, fear and a gap between the populace and the authorities. These extraordinary powers are a direct result of the lack of activity and participation by Liberal Members of Parliament from Quebec. Surely the 57 Liberals Members of Parliament from Quebec, give or take one or two, cannot justify not letting us know the real reason for the emergency measures taken in that province. I say that the emergency measures were implemented as a direct result of the Liberal members from Quebec. It can be argued that we really do not know much about it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Leroy Skoberg: I am glad that some members who have sat on their fannies for the last few weeks are now applauding. The article in the November 26 edition of the Globe and Mail, which was referred to by the hon. member for Timiskaming, bears repeating. It reads in part:
Premier Robert Bourassa indirectly indicated agreement yesterday with a statement by his justice minister that Ottawa had exaggerated the strength of the Front de Liberation du Quebec.
Justice Minister Jerome Choquette was quoted yesterday as describing as highly exaggerated an implication that there may have been 3,000 heavily armed revolutionaries ready to fight for Quebec independence-
When pressed by reporters to say whether he considered 3,000 an exaggerated number for active FLQ members, he said: "Well, you saw the arrests, about 100 still held-you have your answer there."
We do not have to ask what is going on in the province of Quebec: it is well documented. I am sure many members from the province of Quebec are now beginning to wonder whether it is advisable to support the type of

November 26, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
legislation now before us. This article also bears repeating because Mr. Bourassa said:
"The Conservatives and NDP know that this is a matter in Quebec's jurisdiction, yet they keep debating it. Are they pseudo-federalists, or are they federalists?"
If Mr. Bourassa wants that type of legislation, Mr. Speaker, it should be enacted by the province of Quebec.
I see no good reason why we should be debating this legislation if the province of Quebec does not want it debated in this chamber. Why should we debate legislation that is not wanted by Mr. Bourassa? Why is it being forced down his throat by some members of this House?
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
I should like to refer briefly to an article written by Dr. Norman Alcock, head of the Canadian Peace Research Institute, under the heading, "The future: Simmering resentment, increasing polarization." One paragraph reads:
As things stand, Canada faces a future not unlike Northern Ireland today; a smouldering resentment and increasing polarization since the basic issue has not been resolved. The recent chain of events has increased, not decreased, the likelihood of our country hanging together, that is, the implementation of the War Measures Act has increased the probability of Quebec seceding from Canada.
I believe members of this House should pay considerable attention to the words of Dr. Alcock; they should mean something to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) and to others in this chamber who are really concerned about civil liberties.
If legislation is needed to meet an unknown situation, let proposals go to a committee where they can be discussed in a calm and unemotional atmosphere. It has been amply shown that the War Measures Act was not necessary. It has been amply proven that the legislation before us now is not in the interest of the civil liberties of the people of this country. I am sure that if the RCMP were given the authority to go into Quebec or any other place in this country and use the Criminal Code as they know how to use it, we would not be faced with the situation which prevails in Quebec and there would be no need for the War Measures Act or for this legislation which is intended to take its place. If the Quebec government had given the RCMP authority to do something about this situation in 1963, we would not be facing this problem today.
It seems incredible that 7,000 police officers in Quebec cannot allay the anxiety that is evident in the province. It also seems incredible that those police officers should not be able to discover and put behind bars anyone who is involved in arson or sedition. This can lead only to one conclusion, that the police are not competent in the situation which faces them. It leads one to the conclusion that the desired effect has to be brought about by other means, because the police are not really in touch with the authorities in the province. It appears the elected representatives are not especially interested in social and economic affairs, in consequence of which the police are not particularly concerned with trying to catch those supposedly responsible.
[Mr. Skoberg.)
There is no question that 98 per cent of the people of this country supported the invocation of the War Measures Act. Encouraged by this, the government has been as arrogant as could be in bringing in this type of bill. They have refused to accept any amendments designed to protect individuals who have been subjected to the kind of discrimination and recrimination which has been reported in the papers recently.
In Malawi recently, the president, Dr. Banda, said that idealism and realism could not ride in the same compartment: they might be in the same carriage, but they could not be in the same compartment. I suggest the government is being neither idealistic nor realistic enough to realize that we must do everything possible to preserve a democratic society in our country. Not many years ago a situation arose in British Columbia involving people who were known as the Sons of Freedom, composed of men and women who were against the authority of the government and critical of Canada as a nation. The province of British Columbia was quite able to deal with that situation with the help of the RCMP. There was no question of calling in the military to help handle the situation, though the numbers involved were far greater than those connected with what is happening in Montreal, where it seems that about 100 people are attempting to blackmail the government of Canada through terrorist action. I suggest hon. members should consider carefully what we are being asked to do in this House. If they feel obliged to accept legislation of the type the minister has put forward, they will be responsible for the consequences.
A vote against this bill, Mr. Speaker, is a vote for the return of sanity in Canada, a vote in support of a democratic society in Canada. If we want to return to law and order, we can do it under the existing legislation, the Criminal Code. We certainly do not need the type of legislation which the Minister of Justice has presented to us.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, we will find it rather difficult to support the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act, 1970, because it does not contain all we would like to see embodied in it, because it is restricted to Quebec instead of applying to all Canada.
I believe the social injustice we experience has generated the climate of barbarism we are facing. We are now seeking means to subdue rebellion in Quebec and in Canada.
The government has already admitted that the War Measures Act is too radical an instrument to be used against internal rebellions. It has therefore sought to use a more flexible, more precise, more adequate instrument, directed specifically against the F.L.Q., which has been declared an "unlawful association". We oppose barbarous acts, but we approve logical and just measures aimed at preventing that barbarity from spreading.
Shame and disgust felt by Canadians with regard to the acts of the FLQ followed a period of deep reflection shared by millions of citizens. We noticed then the deep
November 26, 1970

affection of Canadians for Canada, their firm support for the federal government for invoking the War Measures Act aimed at crushing the "state of apprehended insurrection".
All of us want the Canadian government to find the means to protect the life of the citizens and the existence of democracy in Canada. Canadians know that a peaceful and prosperous Canada cannot be built by destruction. We stand among those who do not want to destroy social order because we abide by the laws of this country.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
The federal government has taken action at the request of the Province of Quebec and the City of Montreal authorities. The Armed Forces have moved into Quebec at the request of the provincial authorities. Quebec is entitled to the protection of the Army when needed.
The three levels of government, federal, provincial and municipal, have taken joint action within the framework of a federal legislation and we have voted for those measures designed to halt the bloody revolution which is raging in Canada.
If this federal bill now before us was deemed today to be too harsh, and if we want to fit it better to the problem without resorting again to the War Measures Act, we have to improve it, taking into account its Canadian and federalist intent, and not making it applicable only to the province of Quebec and to one association, the FLQ.
There are members of the FLQ, not only in the province of Quebec, but in many other provinces.
Each time there is talk about a special status for Quebec, all other governments object.
We must not now give a special status to the province of Quebec on the basis of particular case. If the minister does not bring amendments to the legislation, it will be rather difficult for us to accept it. Although we want reforms and just social legislation we do not want it to apply only to one province because we live in a Confederation.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) stated that Pierre Laporte was not the first victim of the FLQ and that an innocent person, Mrs. Jeanne D'Arc Saint-Germain was killed when a bomb exploded here in Ottawa at the National Defence Headquarters. The FLQ accepted responsibility for this crime. Atrocities were not commit-ed only in Quebec but very near Parliament. Therefore the legislation cannot apply only to the province of Quebec.
What concealed reason could urge the federal government in these circumstances to move a special legislation for the province of Quebec only?
Let the ministers be conscious of their role with regard to the whole country and not just the province of Quebec. Let this emergency legislation remain national in scope as is the case for the War Measures Act.
This is where the difficulty lies. It could be corrected immediately if everywhere in the bill, the word "Canada" were substituted for the word "Quebec".
Public Order Act, 1970
Let us at least prove from time to time our good faith and especially in such favourable circumstances for Canadian unity, when it is a matter of protecting people's rights to live, to be free and secure.
Mr. Speaker, there is proof that Ontario, like Quebec, suffered from FLQ atrocities. Thera is also proof that England suffered from those atrocities through Mr. James Cross's kidnapping. Therefore this legislation should not apply only to the province of Quebec when it might prove useful to all the other provinces. This anomaly must be corrected or we must be given the reasons why this legislation is limited to Quebec only.
If the members who want a united Canada and a just society want to take advantage of such a situation to give Quebecers good reason for breaking away from confederation in order to obtain a justice which they cannot get from their federal government, it is their privilege. I wish this could be heard throughout Canada and not only by the 20 members now present here only to have a quorum!
According to the facts which have been brought to our attention, no logical reason can justify the application of this law to only one province, namely Quebec, which has already reason enough to question the unfair action taken deliberately or not by the federal authorities.
Having to put up with the unfair legislation already enacted, we should at least avoid enacting other legislation similarly designed to degrade or subjugate the French-speaking people of the province of Quebec. Long enough has the province of Quebec been used as a guinea-pig for the federal government's attempts at domination and constant encroachments upon fields of provincial jurisdiction. It is high time to put an end to this and to revert to strict recognizance of the equality of the provinces before the federal legislation, according to the solemn requirements of our present constitution as set out in the British North America Act.
A while ago, the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) said that current events and the uncertainty prevailing in Canada, and particularly in Quebec, are ascrib-able to the deficiencies of the constitution. My reply is that it has nothing to do with the constitution, but with the stomach.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
When everybody has enough to eat, we shall not need a constitution other than the one we already have and which says that all Canadians, whether they be of French or English descent, must be treated as equals. Therefore, we cannot make a better constitution than the one we already have. Therefore, our problem is not of a constitutional nature but rather of an economic one. Let us solve that problem, let us recognize, once and for all, that this economic problem can be settled, thus putting an end to all the social disturbances that we know.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Henry P. Latulippe: Let us find a way to make this act applicable to Canada as a whole and not to Quebec alone.

November 26, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
We would thus give satisfaction to the people of Quebec and, at the same time, we would show a real sense of equity, thus ensuring harmony and justice. We will demonstrate our intent to reinforce Canadian unity not by speeches, as it has so often been the case, but by our actions. We cannot achieve Canadian unity by recriminating against each other at every opportunity.
What we say is plain enough for the government to understand our aims. The government enjoys an absolute majority in the House and it is thus in a position to give us what we are asking for. They cannot pass the responsibility of their refusal onto someone else. If the government, in its stubbornness, continues to restrict the scope of that legislation to the sole province of Quebec, their gesture will be assessed as it deserves by the coming generations for they will bear that mark forever. It is still time for them to change their line. If we have a Canadian government-or a government which pretends to be Canadian-let it pass legislation that will benefit all Canadians.
The government refused Quebec long enough the special status it has always asked. Now that we no longer want that special status because it is tainted with prejudice, this act is to be passed. Let the government beware of being deliberately stubborn and taking advantage of the absolute majority it owes the Canadian people and the province of Quebec. Precisely because it promised to achieve a just society, a united Canada, it should not now take advantage of its absolute majority to exercise it against the mandate the people gave it.
I trust the Minister of Justice is awake enough to understand what I am asking of him. Can he give me a specific answer on the problem I am explaining to him? If the government takes advantage of its absolute majority to turn a deaf ear, it will contribute further to feeding those elements of dissension amongst the people from which stems the very violence it wants to avoid through this act to provide emergency powers for the preservation of public order in Canada.
The government should understand that violence does not happen all at once. Violence can be cultivated and the means the government is using to fight it should not serve to give it new strength and new justifications. As far as we are concerned, we are serious and we claim only what we think is fair and reasonable under the circumstances. It is up to the government to decide.
We are facing at present two large ideologies, communism and capitalism. Communism, if pushed to excess, preaches the use of all means to dominate the universe one day. We do not want this system because the capitalist system is the best in the world. If we are unable, in our capitalist system, to find a solution to our problems, we will then fall under the yoke of an ideology which is complete opposite to ours.
If under the great communist ideology, three meals a day can be guaranteed to everybody, why can we not, under our capitalist system, guarantee the same thing, in freedom?

Another very important reason justifies the application of this legislation to all of Canada, and not only to Quebec. This reason was given by the sponsor of the bill, the Minister of Justice.
On November 4, the minister made the following statement, as reported on page 883 of Hansard. I quote:
Our criminal law was unprepared, both in substance and procedure, both operationally and philosophically, to deal with the kind of terrorist activity and violence which we have witnessed in recent weeks.
It was not meant for a society wherein terror and violence suddenly became synchronized.
The criminal law, as we have it now, assumes that a crime is primarily an individual act or is committed by a single individual. Our criminal law is not equipped fundamentally to deal with organized group violence or organized terrorism.
This quite sensible statement of the Minister of Justice proves that we need legislation to deal with organized violence and terrorism. But is it only in the province of Quebec that we must be ready to deal with them?
If acts of terrorism and violence are committed in other provinces, we will not be ready to take the necessary steps to deal with them. Is that what we want?
This bill should keep its national scope. Indeed, it would be logical to be ready to light terrorism everywhere if it became necessary. Why should we be ready only in Quebec and not in the other provinces? The hon. Minister of Justice will answer me, if he feels like it.
He himself regrets certain deficiencies as regards the criminal law. The minister wants to correct them for the province of Quebec while leaving them for the other provinces. Why should it be so? Why this distinction and this discrimination?
The same deeds perpetrated in the province of Quebec will come under the special legislation and not under the Criminal Code.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
Has anybody given it any real thought?
Is the position of Minister of Justice created only for the Province of Quebec or for the whole of Canada? That is the question. That is the problem that must be solved immediately, or at least, before the special legislation is passed.
We are not separatists. We don't want to become separatists. Don't force us to turn to separatism. If the minister does not want it, neither do we.
The hon. Minister of Justice is perhaps being stubborn, after having received ample warning of his responsibility to 22 million Canadians, and not merely to 6,400,000 Quebecers. It is still time to avoid a monumental blunder. Will he be wise enough to seize the opportunity offered? Sometimes there is more dignity for a man in turning back than in persisting obstinately on a road which has been recognized to be the wrong one, even after starting on it.
November 26, 1970

Opposition members and all the others are not here without a purpose. It is not to no avail that all members have the right to speak and advise in the Canadian Parliament. We are opposed to the acts of barbarism and violence which have taken place in Quebec. We want that the army and the police fight together to meet that situation.
At present we can count on part of the army and of the provincial police forces, but we are not sure that we can count on the whole army and all the police forces.
I am sure that there are at present within the army and our provincial police forces F.L.Q. members, people who are against the law. As long as we have the majority of our army and of our provincial police forces behind us, we will be able to maintain law and order, but the day will perhaps come soon where we will no longer be able to trust in them for maintaining law and order in Canada.
Fully conscious of all these facts, politicians, all the leading personalities of our country, and newspapermen all came to a standstill and meditated. But meditation still is not enough. Action is needed. Indeed, action is required against a system which is of no use to us and against the social wrongs of which we are all aware.
If we fail to do that, it will become impossible to improve the situation. The social disorders which we have now are caused by an unfair system.
What we need, Mr. Speaker, is to establish in every family, in every home, a climate of social life. We must ensure that everyone has a place to stay and three meals a day. This is how it should be in a country that abounds in resources; this is what we are struggling for, and we must get it before long, if we are to preserve our democratic institutions.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, we are now in the third reading stage of the bill to provide temporary emergency powers for the preservation of public order in Canada.
This measure is only but a temporary one since the government intends to adopt a permanent legislation later. That leads to believe that the government did not really mean to replace the War Measures Act that is outmoded and antiquated, by a modern legislative instrument, suitable to the new conditions and the new way of making war, namely terrorism.
The government misled us and introduced this legislation under false pretences, so today the Canadian people are rejecting it.
When the government, taking advantage of the unanimous consent of the House brought forward the War Measures Act for immediate approval it publicly undertook then to introduce in the near future a new and modern piece of legislation whose main characteristic would be that of being permanent. But to our deep disappointment, the government is not honouring its commitment but is putting it off indefinitely. Instead, it introduced this wretched provisional bill which, with a
Public Order Act, 1970
few exceptions, is not so different from the legislation proclaimed on October 16, except that it carries us back 100 years and puts Quebec in a straitjacket.
The government waited more than three weeks before introducing a provisional bill which is quite similar to the War Measures Act.
During the worst part of the crisis which shook the country in October, the government proclaimed the War Measures Act to fight against the illegal and murderous activities of the Front de Liberation du Quebec.
We then supported the government, because we recognized-as we still do-the danger which the FLQ represents for the future of democracy in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada.
There was some consensus that the War Measures Act was not adequate under the circumstances. The problem is not an easy one to solve.
Faced with dishonourable and pitiless men who go as far as kidnapping two persons and basely murdering one of them to achieve their political goals, the Canadian government and Parliament, as democratic institutions in the highest sense of the word, should always remain vigilant. Extraordinary circumstances call for extraordinary measures to protect our institutions, society and our innocent fellow-citizens.
That being said, one fact remains: laws designed to cure an evil must not create an even greater one.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. minister rising on a point of order?


John Napier Turner: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
I wonder whether the House would agree to sit a little later tonight in order to close the debate.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Miller Bell: We are willing to carry on.


An hon. Member:: No, we still have six members who want to speak.


Mr. Speaker:: I must ask for the unanimous consent of the House, and I am not sure of having heard "no".


Stanley Howard Knowles: We agree, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not believe there is unanimous consent.

November 26, 1970
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
I just heard "no", which means that we cannot go on with our business. The hon. member's consent came too late. Some of our colleagues have already indicated that they do not agree to have the debate continued after 10 o'clock.
sfs



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I think it is fairly important that we have an indication from some privileged soul on the other side concerning our business for tomorrow.


John Napier Turner: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that the Parliamentary Secretary to the House Leader already gave an indication of what the business would be for tomorrow.


Thomas Miller Bell: May I ask whether we might be assured that this legislation will not come up tomorrow?


John Napier Turner: I do not know what we can be assured of tonight, but I understand it is to be the CNR financing bill tomorrow.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, on November 16 I directed the following question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford):
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-
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
The following was a supplementary question to the minister:
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?
The minister replied to my original question that the company would be expected to comply with the pricing criteria agreed upon last February, but should they raise prices in the manner suggested by me, the Prices and Incomes Commission would examine it. In answer to my supplementary question, the minister said:
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.
The minister said he did not understand my question. I would like to assure him that the farmers understand the question that I asked. The farmers know why they are having this difficulty. They know who is really controlling farm machinery prices, and the Barber commission also knows what is going on. The Barber commission report on farm machinery prices dealt with the pricing mechanism; it said there is collusion and interference by multinational corporations, there is lack of consumer protection by the government and there are some things which are downright illegal. This is the opinion of the Barber Royal Commission on Farm Machinery Prices.
The minister said the company would be expected to comply with the pricing criteria agreed upon last February, but the Barber report noted that to an important degree these multinational corporations are independent of the national authority of individual countries. No authority exists which can exercise control over farm machinery companies; therefore, the words of assurance of the minister have a hollow ring.
Dr. Barber recommended that the government should ask the Combines Investigation Branch to review the commission's findings and discuss them with their counterparts in the United States, Britain and other countries with a view to possible action. Dr. Barber further recommended that if the companies are unco-operative, the government may wish to negotiate with some low-cost producers who are not now in the Canadian market. Surely the minister understands the phrase "consumer costs". Surely he realizes that if the White Motor Company, better known as Cockshutt, is contemplating a 7 per cent increase on 1971 farm machinery, now is the time to act.
I suggest that the minister should move today in regard to the Prices and Incomes Commission. He should instruct the commission to initiate, or perhaps the minister himself could initiate, an investigation under the Combines Investigation Act. We are all fully aware of the fact that another country tried to import tractors into this country and in too many instances met with a closed door. One such case is that of the tractors that the U.S.S.R. attempted to import into Canada. A short article in the newspaper suggested that Agriweek disputed findings of the royal commission on farm machinery. The article reads:
It reported last January that Canadian farmers are being forced by large international companies to pay too much for tractors and implements.
"Particularly peculiar" said Agriweek, "is the origin of the tractors which we offered as the solution to the farmer's plight.
We know that the farmers in this country are being policed by recognized international machinery companies. We also know that other tractors could be imported into Canada at a lower price than those now being offered for sale to the Canadian agricultural producer. I think the obligation rests upon the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to initiate an investigation into farm machinery prices, in order that the tractor buyer will be protected from this type of fleecing by international farm machinery companies. I do not think it is asking too

November 26, 1970

much that this type of action be initiated in order to protect the Canadian consumer.


Mr. Ray Perrault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, in replying on behalf of the minister I would say that pursuant to the minister's statement of November 16 in reply to the hon. member, the Prices and Incomes Commission has inquired into the situation. As hon. members may be aware, the first steps taken by the Prices and Incomes Commission when it receives a report of a proposed price increase is to check with the company to determine if the report is true. If the answer is in the affirmative, a preliminary investigation is initiated. If the preliminary report warrants it, a full-scale investigation is conducted, followed by a published report on the situation. Nothing more can usefully be said at this time. However, the hon. member is aware, of course, of the minister's determination to concern himself actively with allegations of this kind.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION-ESTABLISHMENT OF ROYAL COMMISSION TO STUDY ATTITUDE FOLLOWING RECENT EVENTS IN QUEBEC

André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, on
November 23 past, I asked the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) to appoint a royal commission to investigate the CBC French network with regard to the crisis which occurred recently in Quebec and terrorism in general.
At that time the Secretary of State did not give me a satisfactory answer. This is why I should like tonight to ask him the question again.
In my opinion, the French network of the CBC is a controlled agency which does not give an objective information to the extent that it becomes sometimes dishonest. It has become the voice of the revolution however it is a Crown corporation towards which every Canadian citizen pays taxes without having any control on it.
CBC totally ignores the positive side of our democracy, our institutions and our public men but gives the people a false image of the truth to serve its purpose. Besides, since the Canadian people pay taxes, they are entitled to more respect from the CBC.
Mr. Speaker, CBC has become an ivory tower. It is an untouchable organization and more over a national shame. We want a full enquiry and a complete reform of the CBC, and a real clean-up. We want CBC to serve all the Canadian people and not only the revolutionary forces. We demand a complete investigation on the activities and the operations of the CBC French network so that the French Canadians have the same good quality service as our English speaking friends.
We want to know how CBC spends so indiscriminately public money allowing for instance exorbitant expense accounts.
Mr. Speaker, this is a shameless waste of money at the service of violence and terrorism.
I think Quebecers and all Canadians have a right to full information. In view of the fact that the CBC is a
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Crown corporation and a public service we would like it to be a public service and not to be only at the service of certain private interests.
This is why we are doing our utmost to obtain the appointment of a Royal Commission that will allow Canadians to know what is going on in this ivory tower since the Secretary of State denies us any kind of information in this regard.


Mr. Hugh Faulkner (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, as we know, according to the Canadian Broadcasting Act the C.R.T.C. may sponsor research relating to any aspect of broadcasting.
Under another section of the act, the C.R.T.C. may inquire and hold a public hearing following a complaint by a person or a group of persons with respect to any matter within the powers of the commission.
I do not think that the C.R.T.C., up to now, has actually received any complaint concerning the matter with which the hon. member dealt. As the Secretary of State said in the House, the C.R.T.C. has asked some stations for the tapes or transcriptions pertaining to some programs, in conformity with section 4(5) of the C.R.T.C. regulations and with the provisions of the Broadcasting Act.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)



AGRICULTURE-ALLEGED LOSS OF QUOTAS BY WESTERN CANADA DAIRY FARMERS

Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, today I asked a question of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) concerning the declining dairy quotas. I asked the minister if he would intervene to reverse this situation before the dairy industry suffers irreparable loss. In his reply the minister referred to the question as "an erroneous preamble which makes it impossible to answer". He went on to say that no one in western Canada has lost a dairy quota unless he has given it up.
Mr. Speaker, from the hon. gentleman who is responsible for agriculture in this country I found the lack of reply and the manner in which it was delivered very disconcerting. I can understand why at the Liberal party conference at the weekend the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas) made an impassioned plea to delegates to have greater concern for agriculture because the government was weak in agricultural policy. He was putting it mildly, in light of the situation to which I have referred.
I notice that at the same conference the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said he was humble about agriculture. I suppose the comment on that remark would be that he has much to be humble about. But he further said that the Minister of Agriculture keeps him fully informed, so I can understand the Prime Minister's difficulty in this respect in light of the answer I received today. Obviously, we have a real problem in agriculture and I am not just drawing this difficulty out of the air. The Depart-

November 26, 1970
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
ment of Agriculture in Manitoba stated, as reported in the Manitoba Co-operator:
-his department is concerned when a quota is not used by a producer who has gone out of the business. This means, essentially, that the quota has been lost to the province and, if too many quotas are lost, the dairy industry in Manitoba will suffer.
I paraphrased that statement almost in toto in the question I asked today. I refer, also, to the report issued by the Department of Agriculture on the congress taking place at the moment. The report, dated November 25, states:
The National Dairy Council of Canada warned that a continuation of the present federal government policy "may be expected to result in further production declines and could lead to an over-all shortage of milk.
It states, further:
The council says "it would seem prudent... to refrain from adoption of policies which would further diminish production and to press forward as rapidly as possible with new product development, sales promotion and educational programs, and pricing policies designed to encourage a maximum consumption of dairy foods."
I think that is a very responsible basis for the question I asked today. It may be true, as the minister implied, that there is no drastic drop at the moment and there is no drastic redistribution as between east and west, but when the policy was first introduced there was a drastic drop and a drastic transfer of quota allocation between east and west. This is another example of the failure of the government to take into consideration the regional differences that exist in this country, Mr. Speaker.
I refer, also, to the Financial Outlook Bulletin issued by the government, which points out that in 1967-68 there were 165,000 producers in the dairy business in Canada, and in 1969-70 the number of producers had dropped to 114,400. So there is a major problem. In the west it has meant that 10,000 farm families have been driven off the land.
There is a complete failure by the government to take into consideration the social and human aspects of the problem because of their desire to deal in an arbitrary manner with the supply-management problem. This is causing a decline in rural communities and it is creating problems in urban communities. This policy was reversed when it was found to be contributing to the decline in the rural situation. I urge the minister and the government to follow the recommendations of the Canadian
Agricultural Congress and to establish a realistic policy for the dairy industry of Canada which is facing a real crisis.


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) is president of the Agricultural Congress. The hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) appears to imply that it has been the deliberate policy of the Canadian Dairy Commission to transfer subsidy eligibility quotas from western Canada to eastern Canada. This is not correct. Subsidy quotas have never been allocated on a regional basis. They are now, and always have been, allocated on the basis of individual farmers, and the rules and procedures are, and have been, the same in all parts of Canada.
To deal with the charge made by the hon. member it is necessary to go back over the history of subsidy quotas. These were first issued in 1967. At that point they were based on each producer's deliveries in the preceding year, with one important exception. The exception was that a shipper who had delivered less than 50,000 pounds of milk, or 1,750 pounds of butterfat, in 1966 was given a quota for 1,750 pounds of butterfat in 1967. Because of the large number of small shippers in the Prairie provinces, this resulted in the total of the quotas given to producers in those three provinces being very much greater than their deliveries in the previous year.
In 1966, manufacturing milk and cream shippers in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba had delivered 64.4 million pounds of butterfat. The total of the quotas given to those producers in 1967 was 126.8 million pounds of butterfat, almost twice as great, in total, as their deliveries in the previous year. In Ontario and Quebec the same class of producers had delivered 267.6 million pounds of butterfat and they were given quotas for 1967 for 299.6 million pounds. In brief, shippers in the Prairie provinces were given 1967 quotas 97 per cent greater, in total, than their total 1966 deliveries, while the 1967 quotas for Ontario and Quebec producers were only 12 per cent more than their 1966 deliveries.


Mr. Speaker:: Friday, November 27, 1970