1970-11-23

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Andre Ouellei (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a document on the assistance Canada will contribute in connection with the cyclone and the tidal wave which have afflicted East Pakistan.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask leave of the House to make a motion under Standing Order 43, under which it is possible to do so without notice if there is urgent and pressing necessity and if there is unanimous consent-


An hon. Member:: No.


An hon. Member:: That is typical.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Liberals say no before they know what it is all about.


An hon. Member:: We know you.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, now that there is agreement on the part of all parties in the House to the principle of a guaranteed annual income, I feel that there is urgent and pressing necessity that this fact be reflected in the government white paper on social security that is shortly to be presented. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis):
That this House urges the government to Include in its white paper on social security, to be presented shortly, a definite provision for a guaranteed annual income for all Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member, who knows the rules so well, has himself indicated that for this motion to be put at this time would require the unanimous consent of the House. I have to inquire whether there is universal agreement among all hon. members.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is dissent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who said no?


Mr. Speaker:: In the circumstances the Chair regrets that the motion cannot be put at this time.
[DOT] [DOT] [DOT]



CRIMINAL CODE


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43 I wish to move a motion on a matter that is of urgent and pressing necessity, particularly in view of the strong stand taken on this issue at the Liberal policy convention held in Ottawa over the weekend.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Winona Grace MacInnis: I am glad I have got unanimous support. This is the first time I have ever been one up on my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre. I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), to move the following motion:
That this House urges the government, at an early date, to introduce legislation to remove abortion from the Criminal Code.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion. Is there agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity and therefore the motion cannot be put to the House at this time.



MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY ACT


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-197, to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (bumpers).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Barry Mather: The purpose of this bill is to require that automobiles manufactured after January 1, 1972, and used in Canada be equipped with bumpers capable of withstanding impact into a standard barrier at five miles per hour without damage. Modest as the requirement may appear, it will mark a significant safety improvement over the protection offered motor vehicles and passengers at present by the costume jewellery type of bumpers now in use.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
November 23, 1970
Questions
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs) moved: the first reading of Bill S-5 (from the Senate), respecting weights and measures.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Orlikow: How much did Telesat Corporation agree in June to pay RCA Limited of Montreal for the privilege of delaying the ANIK Communication Satellite decision until September and, of this amount, how much has been paid to RCA and is it intended to pay the remainder?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Minister of Communications):: The following information has been supplied to the Minister of Communications by Telesat Canada: In consideration of RCA Limited agreeing to extend the validity of its proposal for the construction of the spacecraft beyond 1 July, 1970, Telesat Canada agreed to pay RCA Limited $3,600 per day to defray the costs incurred as a result of this extension commencing 8 June 1970. This understanding was terminated 31 July, 1970, by the Board of Directors. The amount owed to RCA Limited pursuant to this understanding is $194,400 and payment is expected to be made in the near future.


AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC SHARE OFFERING IN TELESAT CANADA
Mr. Orlikow: When is it anticipated that the government will make available to the general public one-third equity participation in Telesat Canada?


Eric William Kierans: According to Section 10 of the Telesat Canada Act, it is the Board of Directors of Telesat Canada which has the discretionary authority respecting the timing, the price and the share allotment of any public share offering, although the approval of the Governor-in-Council must be obtained. Telesat Canada officials advise that they do not foresee an immediate public share offering.


ANIK COMMUNICATION SATELLITE PROGRAM-PAYMENTS TO RCA
Mr. Orlikow: How much money has RCA Limited of Montreal received from the federal government and/or its agencies on matters related to the ANIK Communication Satellite Program and what was the purpose of each specific expenditure?


Eric William Kierans: In so far as the Department of Communications is concerned: The Department of Communications has paid no money to RCA Limited of Montreal on matters related to the Anik Communication Satellite Program. Since Telesat is not part of the Canadian Government, or an agency of the Government, it should be assumed that details as to payments by Telesat were not expected. However, the management of the Corporation has provided the minister with the following figures: Program Definition Phase:	$3,500,000.
Sustaining Engineering:	360,000.
Extension of validity of RCA proposal beyond 1 July,	1970:	190,000.
Total:

In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: The department funded the Study Program for a Canadian Domestic Communication Satellite. The study was carried out in 1968 and RCA Limited was paid $274,347.00. The design concepts in the study were presumably the basis for the RCA's proposal of the ANIK satellite.


PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION-NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES RECEIVING MORE OR LESS THAN $6,000 YEARLY
Mr. Broadbent: 1.	How many women employed by the Public Service of Canada in the latest available year earned less than (a) $6,000 (b) more than $6,000 a year?
2.	How many men employed by the Public Service in the latest available year earned (a) less than $6,000 (b) more than $6,000 a year?
3.	How many women employed in the Public Service are ranked in the senior officer category?
4.	How many men employed in the Public Service are ranked in the senior officer category?


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliameniary Secreiary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Department of Supply and Services and the Public Service Commission as follows: 1. (a) 2,162; (b) 1,459.
2.	(a) 792; (b) 3,735.
3 and 4. As at September 30, 1970, two women and 479 men held appointments in the senior executive category.


CANADIAN CONTRIBUTION TO UNITED NATIONS FUND AND INTERNATIONAL PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION
Mrs. Maclnnis: What is the estimated financial contribution by Canada in the current fiscal year to (a) the United Nations fund for population activities (b) the International Planned Parenthood Federation?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The answer is: (a) $1,010,000; (b) $505,000.


November 23, 1970


DVA-LONDON, ENGLAND OFFICE
Mr. Marshall: 1.	How many war veterans receiving assistance under the Pensions Act are being serviced out of the Department of Veterans Affairs office in London, England?
2.	Is the DVA office in London, England being closed and, if so, for what reasons?
3 How many government employees are there in the DVA office in London, England?
4. Will alternate employment be provided for those employees and under what conditions?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1.	There are 2,218 war veterans residing in Great Britain who are receiving a pension under the Pension Act. The only service provided by the London office to these pensioners, and to the widows and orphans of pensioners, relates to the benefits available to them under the Veterans Charter and is similar to that given by the Foreign Relations Division in Ottawa to veterans residing outside of Canada, including the United States of America.
2.	The DVA office in London will be phased out gradually as the workload diminishes; however, the office will not be closed in the immediate future.
3.	Eight; one classified officer and seven locally-engaged staff.
4.	Arrangements affecting staff members whose positions become redundant will be discussed with them individually as the occasion arises.


BUILDING OF C.B.C. TELEVISION STATION IN AREA OF NORTH SHORE OF ST. LAWRENCE RIVER
Mr. Blouin: Will the government consider building a CBC television station in the area of the North Shore to extend the French and English networks across the North Shore of the Saint Lawrence River, as well as to mining cities of the hinterland and the Northern side of the Gaspe Peninsula and, if so, will the work begin in the near future?


Hon. Gerard Pellelier (Secretary of Stale of Canada):: The CBC recognizes the need for improving television along the North Shore of the St. Lawrence and it has plans for extending the English and French television networks in these areas. A survey of the requirements of these areas is about to be completed, but it is not possible to set a date for the introduction of these services until certain technical obstacles have been overcome.


INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LOANS
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many loans have been made by the Industrial Development Bank, and to what companies and/or individuals have loans been made and what was the amount of each loan?
2.	What investigation is made into the background of the applicants for the loans before payment is made?
23568-15*
Questions
3.	What guarantees are obtained against the possibility of bankruptcy of the recipient of the loan?
4.	How many companies and/or individuals receiving Industrial Development Bank loans subsequently went bankrupt and how long after they received the loan did each go bankrupt and what was the amount of the loss to the Industrial Development Bank as a result of such bankrupties?
5.	Are there any personal guarantees required of the applicant against bankruptcy and, if not, are any being considered and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: In so far as
the Industrial Development Bank is concerned: 1. and 4. While the IDB provides comprehensive aggregate data on its operations in its Annual Report, it has not been the practice nor is it considered appropriate to make public information concerning individual accounts.
2, 3. and 5. The IDB Act assigns to the Board of Directors the responsibility of managing the Bank. In examining loan proposals, all reasonable efforts are made to investigate the credit-worthiness of applicants to determine whether they meet the credit criteria laid down in Section 15 (1) of the Act.


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES- CHANGE IN PERSONNEL DUE TO UTILIZATION OF COMPUTERS
Mr. Robinson: As a result of the use of computers by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, how many employees have been (a) laid off (b) hired?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: (a) None, (b) 115.


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES- MAN-HOURS SAVED BY UTILIZATION OF COMPUTERS
Mr. Robinson: How many man-hours have been saved as a result of the utilization of computers by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources during each year since computers have been used?


John James Greene: Records of man-hour utilization are not kept m the detail which would be required to give a precise answer to this question. In the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, computers are utilized, largely,' in support of scientific research where they improve the backup of research projects and enable scientists to undertake studies not otherwise practicable
PUBLIC UTILITIES INCOME TAX TRANSFER ACT____


PAYMENTS TO PROVINCES
Mr. Fortin: vv iia l dinuum am each province receive under the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act?


Edgar John Benson: In fiscal year 1969-70, the provinces received under the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act, the following amounts' Newfoundland, $933,917; Prince Edward Island, $236,-

November 23, 1970
Questions
206; Nova Scotia, $1,824,116; New Brunswick, $130,632; Quebec, $3,176,119; Ontario, $8,795,404; Manitoba, $1,007,869; Saskatchewan, $31,335; Alberta, $7,037,642 and British Columbia, $477,161. The payments made in fiscal 1968-69, the first year payments were made under the authority oi the aforementioned statute, appear in the Public Accounts of Canada, 1969, Vol. II, page 6.10.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-CONSTRUCTION OF HEADQUARTERS IN THE NORTH
Mr. Nielsen: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to construct a new Armed Forces Headquarters building in Yellowknife or elsewhere in the Northwest Territories and, if so (a) will public tenders be called for the construction of such a building (b) what is its purpose (c) how many personnel is it intended to accommodate?
2.	Has the government caused a survey to be made of available accommodation in the Yellowknife area which may be suitable for leasing for the purpose of accommodating Armed Forces Headquarters personnel and, if so, what are the results of such survey?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: 1. Yes, at Yellowknife; (a) tenders were called by Defence Construction (1951) Limited; (b) to serve as the Administration Building for Headquarters Northern Region; (c) 42.
2. Yes, however no suitable rental accommodation was found.


INSTRUCTIONS FROM HEALTH AND WELFARE DEPARTMENT, MANITOBA TO FEDERAL DEPARTMENT THAT ALL CORRESPONDENCE BE CONDUCTED IN FRENCH
Mr. Dinsdale: Have instructions been received from the Department oi Health and Welfare of the Province of Manitoba, that all correspondence between senior officials of that Department and the federal Department of National Health and Welfare must be conducted in French?


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.


APPOINTMENT OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE BY SECRETARY OF STATE
Mr. Dinsdale: Has the Secretary of State appointed an Advisory Committee made up of cultural agency heads and, if so (a) what is its function (b) what are the names and addresses of each member
(c)	how many times has it met and what are the costs involved
(d)	what recommendations have been made by the Committee
(e)	which recommendations have been adopted by the government?


Gérard Pelletier: An Advisory Committee composed of the heads of cultural agencies is in the process of being established.


CANCELLATION OF PUBLICATION OF NEWSPAPERS AND PERIODICALS DUE TO INCREASE IN POSTAL RATES
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	How many newspapers and periodicals have ceased publication since the increase of postal rates in Canada?
2.	What are the names of these publications?
3.	Where were they published?
4.	What was their circulation in each case?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister without Portfolio):: 1. Not known.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not known.
4.	Not known.


PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE-MAN-HOURS SAVED BY UTILIZATION OF COMPUTERS
Mr. Robinson: How many man-hours have been saved as a result of the utilization of computers by the Privy Council Office during each year since computers have been used?


Mr. Barney Danson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: The Privy Council Office does not use a computer in its day to day operation. However, the Secretariat of the Constitutional Conference has a typewriter terminal provided by the Computer Services Bureau which is used for a text editing service and in the current conversion of a manual information retrieval system to a computerized operation. No records are available from which to obtain a precise estimate of the man-hours saved in these operations.


PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE-NUMBER OF PERSONNEL LAID OFF OR HIRED DUE TO UTILIZATION OF COMPUTERS
Mr. Robinson: As a result of the use of computers by the Privy Council Office how many employees have been (a) laid off (b) hired?


Barnett Jerome Danson: (a) None, (b) None.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	How many bushels of wheat have been supplied under the Canadian International Assistance Plan during the past six months, and to what countries and for what amounts respectively has such assistance been given?
2.	How much wheat is it planned to give by way of assistance during the next year, and to what countries and in what respective amounts?
Return tabled.

November 23, 1970


PRESENT STAFF OF THE OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Coates: 1.	What is the present staff of the office of the Prime Minister?
2.	What are the names of the people comprising the staff?
3.	What are their positions and what is the salary of each?
Return tabled.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I direct this question to him because he may not be able to be present in the House later and a favourable answer would greatly expedite the proceedings of the House. Is the Prime Minister now prepared to support a provision for an independent review in the public order bill, as has been urged upon him by the policy conference of his party?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the Prime Minister might be allowed to reply at this time to the question put by the Leader of the Opposition. Nevertheless, I think I ought to bring to the attention of the House that we are somewhat anticipating the order of the day. It is my understanding that later in the day we are to consider the bill in Committee of the Whole, including the amendment to which the Leader of the Opposition has referred. On the other hand, I appreciate that this is a matter of importance, and the Prime Minister might be allowed to reply, with the consent of the House.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, does the House consent?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister, in order to expedite the debate, not consider supporting some amendment along the lines suggested by us in the debate last Tuesday? This is an important matter. The amendment seeks to establish review machinery. Such action would expedite the debate and would put us on all fours on this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I respectfully suggest to the hon. member for Calgary North that this really is the kind of question that should be asked when we are in Committee of the Whole.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: But the Prime Minister will not be here then.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the Prime Minister whether he would graciously consider answering my question?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the members of his party would graciously remain silent while I answer it, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Some hon. Members; Sh, sh-h-h!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is not going to be that good. The position of this party has been that we are not trying to invade the constitutional responsibilities of the province. I noticed that the Leader of the Opposition, while in Winnipeg over the weekend, accused the government of seeking confrontation with the province of Quebec and therefore worsening the separatist situation. I noticed that the young New Democrats also accused the federal government of holding the province of Quebec in a colonial status and stated that we should not continue this overbearing position.
I submit that the amendment proposed by the opposition along the lines of establishing such a commission would precisely be doing that, seeking confrontation with the province of Quebec in a matter of its jurisdiction and, as the New Democratic Party suggests, treating the province of Quebec as a colony. The position of this government has consistently been that in matters of provincial jurisdiction such as the administration of justice, the province would not be looked upon by the federal government as a Big Brother to see whether it does its job well. The resolution adopted by the convention stated in the final part that a way must be sought to do this without infringing upon provincial autonomy. We have found no way of doing what is suggested without appearing or in fact endeavouring to oversee the province of Quebec in its rightful operations.
I must add that the Minister of Justice and I have both had communications with the authorities of Quebec. Twice today I spoke with Premier Bourassa trying to find a way in which we would at least be able to go some distance in ensuring that a statutory committee would be established to consider the application of this Act in Quebec. I must say that a way was not found. I bow to the Premier of Quebec in that he has undertaken to ensure that administration of justice under his authority is done well. As the House knows, he has set up a review commission of members of the civil liberties union to look into the abuses which might happen under the administration of that Act. I can go no further than to report to the House that if the province of Quebec does not want to consent to the statutory establishment of such a committee, it is not our intention to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

November 23, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Has the Prime Minister requested the province of Quebec to establish its own independent review, Mr. Speaker? If so, has he received any assurance from that province that it will do so?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I raised that question with the authorities of the province of Quebec after it was made clear that establishment by federal statute would be considered by them as an infringement. I asked if they would consider establishing such a commission. The reply was that they have such a commission now in operation, that one had already been set up. They saw no need to give it a statutory existence because they already have an ombudsman who can perform, in the event that the committee should fail, the operation of surveillance of the administration of justice.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is the Prime Minister himself satisfied that the province of Quebec has provided an adequate, independent review of the exercise of the powers that this House is being asked to provide?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think I can truthfully say yes, Mr. Speaker. I know personally two members of the commission which has been set up by the province of Quebec; I have already had occasion to talk to one of the members of the commission on a personal basis in the past little while and I am convinced you will not find more honourable or independent-minded people to survey, to oversee, the administration of justice in this particular case.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmoni):: In light of the fact that the legislation under discussion is in contravention of Article 11 of the International Charter of Human Rights, does the government intend to consider indicating to the United Nations that we are withdrawing our support for this article of the declaration?


Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whiiby):: On a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker, did the Prime Minister state to the House that the Premier of Quebec made it clear to him that it would constitute an infringement of provincial rights for the federal government to establish such a commission?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I do not necessarily say he used the expression "provincial rights" but he did use the expression "provincial autonomy" and spoke of the ability of the province to administer itself within its own areas of jurisdiction without big brother looking over its shoulder, and I think he was perfectly right in that contention, personally.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: In view of the Prime Minister's indication that because of the explanation by the Premier of Quebec he will bow to the wishes of the Minister of Justice, can this House and the country take it as a precedent that Liberal party policy as defined at a Liberal party convention is to be secondary to the wishes of a provincial premier wherever there is joint jurisdiction?



POLLUTION


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: want to direct a question to the Prime Minister arising from a statement by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to the effect that the United States has 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?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I was not
aware of that statement before it was made. I will consult with the minister and ask him what he has in mind in terms of follow-up.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May 1
ask the Prime Minister whether it is the government's intention to move under Article 10 of the treaty or under Article 45 of the Hague Convention to deal with this matter before pollution reaches a stage where protest will be of very little value?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will take the hon. member's plea to the minister and ask him to report to me on it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I want to ask the Prime Minister about a similar statement made by the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry in New York to the effect that Canada would be prepared to withhold vital resources from the United States if the United States does not deal with the question of Great Lakes pollution. May I ask whether this was a statement of government policy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have not heard of that statement, Mr. Speaker. If he has been accurately quoted I think the minister will have to indicate to the House and to the government how he intends seeing this happen. I am not aware that the minister made a statement in those terms.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State.
Can he tell the House whether the CBC has sent an invitation, as it usually does in similar cases, to Francois Girod who has just made an inflammatory statement in Algeria with regard to the FLQ?


Gérard Pelletier: I could inquire, Mr. Speaker. I am not aware of any such invitation, but I shall ask the CBC whether an invitation was extended.
November 23, 1970


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice.
Will there be police supervision over the visit of Francois Girod to Canada and will this man be declared a member of the FLQ as soon as he enters the country?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: 

NATIONAL SECURITY


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Justice. On November 9, 10 and 12 I asked the Minister of Justice a question with reference to restricted and prohibited weapons and whether the necessary proclamation had been made in accordance with section 82 of the Criminal Code prohibiting these types of weapons and stopping their sale to kidnappers and gangsters.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the problem about the type of weapon to which the hon. member referred at that time and to which I take it he refers now, the 30M-1, is that the rifle is, first of all, definitely semi-automatic and not a machine gun. It is not currently prohibited or restricted; in other words, it can be bought and sold quite lawfully and without the necessity of any kind of permit. The Governor in Council may add to the list of prohibited and restricted weapons by virtue of the legislation that this Parliament passed a year or so ago if the weapon concerned is not a shotgun or rifle of a kind commonly used in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes. At the moment I have no definite information whether the M-l that I have described above is so used. In any event, consideration of what further weapons should be prohibited or restricted is a primary responsibility of my colleague the Solicitor General, who is in the course of seeking advice from the RCMP in order that if necessary, and if appropriate, recommendations can be made to cabinet.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I take it from the answer of the Minister of Justice that there is no proclamation at the present time forbidding the sale of these weapons. In view of the fact that a newspaperman walked into a war surplus store even after I put these questions to the Minister of Justice and purchased the kind of weapons that were used in the kidnappings, would the minister or the Solicitor General now assure the House that action will be taken immediately, since these were the type of weapons used in the kidnapping?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the additional information now given I would be very glad to press the examination of this subject.
Inquiries of the Ministry POLLUTION



GREAT LAKES-ALLEGED VIOLATION OF BOUNDARY WATERS TREATY BY UNITED STATES-SUBMISSION TO INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the allegation by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources at Burlington that the United States is in violation of the Boundary Waters Treaty in dumping pollutants into the Great Lakes, is the government proposing to take this matter to the International Court of Justice or some other international tribunal?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I take it that ministers who make this kind of statement have some idea of how they are going to follow up on it, and I will ask the minister how he intends to follow it up.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: In view of the numerous speeches that have been made by several ministers, does the government intend to take a firm stand on pollution at the United States-Canada ministerial conference, or are we merely going to shout at them like small boys?
* sf:



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. Having in mind the announcement by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation over the weekend that it intends to divide its radio service and seemingly its listeners too into two parts, AM and FM, and to add new stations throughout the country, can the Secretary of State say whether he was apprised of this decision and, if so, whether he approved of it?
fTranslation]


Gérard Pelletier: No, Mr. Speaker, I learned of that decision through the newspapers just like everybody else. I have already received representations against that decision and I have communicated them to the Corporation as I will convey those implied in the hon. member's question.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State. In view of the fact that he is scheduled to appear before the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee tomorrow morning at 9.30, could he obtain from the corporation a breakdown of how this new policy is to be applied across Canada and the priorities in allocation of funds between development and expansion of the one good part of the CBC, the radio service, and funds for bilingual stations and/or complete TV coverage across Canada?

November 23, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Gérard Pelletier: I will do the utmost to secure that answer by tomorrow morning, Mr. Speaker, but I cannot promise it. I have the impression that a comprehensive study will have to be undertaken, if all the facts involved are to be taken into consideration.
IEnglish]



ARREST OF CERTAIN NEWS BROADCASTERS UNDER WAR MEASURES ACT

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Secretary of State is now in a position to give an answer to a question I have asked over the past ten days about three members of Radio-Canada who were taken into custody and regarding whom it was said by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion that they had a code system whereby they were able to communicate with the FLQ.


Gérard Pelletier: Once again I must deceive the expectations of the right hon. member, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the impertinence of the hon. gentleman is exceeded only by his ignorance of the question.

tTranslation]



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. Since the poor results
achieved by the Quebec police forces in their search for the kidnappers of Messrs. Cross and Laporte have established the incompetence of police officers in that province, would the Solicitor General say whether he has considered lending them the RCMP police dogs?



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION

[Stage Direction]
PERFORMANCE OF ILLEGAL ABORTION IN PROGRAM *'WEEKEND"
Mr.   Jean-R. Roy@Timmins: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State. Following last night's CBC "Weekend" program and because of the insignificant answers Members of Parliament receive from the CBC to their letters, would the minister make an inquiry and report to the House whether the performers in a criminal illegal abortion shown on the program were paid for their performance, second if next week's
proposed opinion poll report is meant to influence rather than report public opinion and, finally, if the purpose of all this is justifiable or the usual CBC effort to increase ratings by offending a large segment of the Canadian viewers?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



COMBINES


Mr. W. B. Nesbiit (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Will he instruct the officials of the Combines Investigations Branch of his department to investigate thoroughly all aspects of the so-called price war presently being carried on by several major grocery chains?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what particular aspects the hon. member is concerned about. We would investigate any apparent violation of the law, of course.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, will the minister in particular investigate the degree of control which permits chain stores to charge 10 per cent more on numerous items in small cities compared with what they charge in large cities only 15 or 20 miles away, and will the minister request the officials of the branch to investigate the possibility that some of the major chains may be trying to force a number of small businesses in small towns out of business by this so-called discount war?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am not sure whether the hon. member is urging me to implement some form of price control.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Can Parliament and the country now anticipate a change in the government's regional development program as a consequence of the resolutions passed by the Liberal conference?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that we have very efficient programs which we intend to improve further. We are very seriously considering the recommendations made at the Liberal conference.
[Mr. Nowlan.l
November 23, 1970



CRIMINAL CODE


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact that delegates to the recent Liberal policy conference voted by more than four to one in favour of removing abortion from the Criminal Code, will the Prime Minister now be guided by that democratic decision of his party and submit such legislation to Parliament this session?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we have already stated in the Speech from the Throne what we will do this session.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister what the purpose of such a debate as that promised would be?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



TRANSPORT


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darimouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I regret the absence of the Minister of Transport but I understand this is not his day to be here. In his absence may I direct a couple of fairly serious questions to the Parliamentary Secretary or to the Acting Minister. In light of the very serious charges made by the President of the Atlantic Container Line Limited in respect of the adequacy of the container terminal at Halifax, would the minister institute an immediate investigation to determine, first, the adequacy of the pier itself, second, the adequacy of the tugboat services and, finally, whether the port of Halifax and the users of the container service, which just started this weekend, are about to undergo a loss of business as a result of what appears to be poor planning?


Mr. Gerard Duquei (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the hon. member that the minister is very well aware of this situation. He has requested that a survey be conducted immediately and he will probably be able to answer the hon. member's question tomorrow or within a few days.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Public Works. Are there any plans under way to construct additional protection in Halifax harbour for the new container pier in order to prevent danger or difficulties for ships in stormy weather?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, a very great investment has been made in the
Inquiries of the Ministry
harbour itself, I think something in the nature of $15 million. There is some suggestion now that in order to protect that investment we may have to put in another $2 million to fend off rough water.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Has any decision been made in this regard or can the minister indicate that a decision will be made shortly?


Arthur Laing: No, Mr. Speaker, no decision has been taken yet. I assume that the decision will depend upon experiences such as we are having with the first vessel.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that the third report of the Canadian Council on Rural Development, which has just been published, indicates that the disparity between urban and rural incomes is increasing, can the minister say whether the forthcoming white paper on social security will deal with this problem?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the over-all incomes position of those people in a low-income situation with be reviewed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, following the rather intensive discussions over the weekend, is the minister now in a position to tell the House with some degree of precision when the white paper on welfare policy will be tabled in the House?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Soon.


John Carr Munro: As the Prime Minister indicated, Mr. Speaker, we expect to have it tabled very soon indeed. I cannot give the precise date at this time.



PUBLIC WORKS


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Minister of Public Works. In order to stimulate employment this winter, particularly in the Atlantic area, would his department accelerate the building of wharves which are badly needed as this work would alleviate unemployment this winter?


Mr. Speaker:: It would seem to me that the hon. member's question is in the form of a submission or representation to the government. He must assume that his submission has been taken into account.

November 23, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY



REMOVAL OF HEAD-END TRAINMEN FROM PASSENGER TRAINS-IMPLEMENTATION OF ARBITRATOR'S DECISION

Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Is the minister aware of a recent decision of an arbitrator giving Canadian Pacific Railway the immediate right to remove head-end trainmen from passenger trains without regard for the age or length of service of the men involved? If he is aware of this, would the minister or one of his officials enter into discussions with the CPR to persuade the company to implement the arbitrator's decision in such a way as to avoid hardship among long-service employees?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member's request is a very moderate one. I have already taken steps to ask for a full report on the situation, the basis upon which the arbitration decision was made and what, if anything, can be done to make the decision effective in a more humanitarian way than the report indicates could be the case.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the minister for having given consideration to this matter already. May I ask him whether he would inform the House or otherwise make public as soon as possible what steps he is taking to achieve that purpose?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, before I commit myself to anything I want to see the report I have asked for this morning from my officials.



FINANCE


Mr. Sleven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to direct my question to the Minister of Finance but since he is not here I shall direct it to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. First I should like to congratulate the former general manager of the Calgary Football Club on their wonderful victory.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: I also wish him well in the Grey Cup.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance to show his influence and enlighten his colleagues so that Edmonton will obtain a substantial grant to help it build the first enclosed coliseum, after the inclement weather we saw yesterday on television.


Mr. Speaker:: Again, this question is in the form of a representation and the hon. member must assume that it will be taken into account.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. It has to do with a subject which has been discussed before, namely, the serious and overwhelming unemployment situation in the city of Cornwall. The other day the minister said that some public works would be proceeded with. The people there tell me that this will not provide the employment required. Considering all the circumstances, has a decision been arrived at yet whereby this very needy city will be named as a designated area so that industry may be encouraged to locate there?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have expressed my view before that questions of this nature referring to individual cities are not in order. The question, therefore, is not in order.


John George Diefenbaker: Then, Mr. Speaker, without specifically mentioning Cornwall, since other areas in Canada where unemployment is as high as it is in Cornwall have been designated, may I ask why those cities have been designated and Cornwall has been left out?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Joseph Gaston Isabelle: 

AIRPORTS


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolieiie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
As two important contracts have been awarded by the government regarding the Ste. Scholastique airport could I ask the minister if definite agreements have been concluded between Quebec and Ottawa regarding the development of access roads in connection with the Ste. Scholastique project?


Jean Marchand: Not yet, Mr. Speaker.


Roch La Salle: I should like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Can the minister say whether the establishment of special zones will be announced in the near future in view of the road works which will be undertaken in connection with the Ste. Scholastique project?

November 23, 1970


Jean Marchand: We are almost constantly in contact with the province of Quebec on that matter, Mr. Speaker, and we hope to be able to announce-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.

{English']



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. Would the minister consider referring the annual report of the Penitentiaries Branch to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs so that the committee may continue its visits to the penitentiaries across the country in order that we may be better informed in this matter?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be very glad to make such a recommendation.
sjs tjs s|s



NATIONAL DEFENCE


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. If he deems it proper, I wonder if he would advise us whether he has replied to the president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, Mr. Edwards, with regard to amendments to the Public Service Staff Relations Act which would have the effect of extending collective bargaining to the Canadian Armed Forces? If so, would he indicate the nature of his reply?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not yet answered this letter. Perhaps an acknowledgement has been sent, but a substantive answer has not yet been sent.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Could the minister inform the House whether or not the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion was stating government policy on the weekend when he argued against the view that working people in Canada should be given effective authority in areas of decision-making hitherto regarded as the prerogative of management only?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows the question cannot be placed in those terms.
Inquiries of the Ministry



BILINGUALISM-PAYMENT OF BONUS TO PROTECTIVE STAFF MEMBERS

Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Since bilingual employees of the Public Service and bilingual secretaries of Parliament benefit from a 7 per cent premium for being bilingual, could the Prime Minister, as the great defender of this cause in Canada, tell us why the bilingual members of the Protective Staff are not granted this premium?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows that the
employees he refers to come under the House of Commons. The question must therefore be directed to Parliament, through the Chair.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. In view of the scandalous presentation on television last night of an abortion, would the Secretary of State consider bringing all the estimates of the CBC before the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts immediately.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gérard Pelletier: I am willing to consider this proposal, Mr. Speaker, but I do not have the authority required to take, by myself, the action requested by the hon. member.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for Information Canada. In view of the continuing anxiety of disadvantaged Canadians to learn dates of introduction of legislation on veterans pensions and social security, and in view of the difficulty in extracting these answers, would he use his influence to get this information and pass it along through his new department to the many Canadians in need?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

November 23, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION



REPORTED STATEMENT BY MINISTER OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION ALLEGING FLQ CONTROL

David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Last Tuesday in the absence of the minister I asked a question of another minister arising out of a report of a speech he is alleged to have made in St. Jerome a week ago yesterday in which he is reported to have said that Radio-Canada was being controlled by the FLQ. I should like to ask the minister to inform the House whether he made such a statement and, if he did, whether he has presented the evidence of that statement-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for York South is aware, I believe, of the rule regarding questions related to statements made outside the House.


David Lewis: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister whether he has evidence that the CBC or Radio-Canada was under the control of the FLQ or FLQ sympathizers and, if he has such evidence, did he present it either to the Solicitor General of Canada or the Attorney General of Quebec?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member may ask questions of the minister relating only to his ministerial responsibility. A question in those terms directed to the minister in question is not in order.


David Lewis: May I rephrase it again, Mr. Speaker. Assuming that the minister was reported correctly-he may not have been-he has made a serious allegation, so may I ask the first part of my question as to whether the minister has evidence or information to justify his statement that Radio-Canada was controlled by members or supporters of the FLQ?


Mr. Speaker:: I certainly do not want to appear obstructive, but again the hon. member knows he cannot ask the question in this way. Perhaps he can ask the question directly of the Secretary of State as to whether he has such evidence.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, obviously I have to bow to your order-


Mr. Gibson:: Get bowing.


David Lewis: -but when a minister of the Crown is reported to have made so serious a statement I thought he ought to have the opportunity to say whether he made it or not. May I then ask the Prime Minister the same question I asked him a week ago and, if I remember correctly, I asked it of the Minister of Justice too. I asked whether he knew that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion is reported to have made such a statement and, if my memory serves me right, the Prime Minister said he would inquire. May I now ask him if he has inquired whether the minister made such a statement, and if he is satisfied there is evidence to that effect?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I understand from the minister he has not made such a statement, Mr. Speaker.



ESTABLISHMENT OF ROYAL COMMISSION TO STUDY


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Secretary of State.
I would like to ask him whether his department is considering the appointment of a royal commission on the actions and attitudes of the CBC during the recent crisis in Quebec.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion has been made many times, I think, to the CRTC which has every authority under Section 15 of the Broadcasting Act to conduct any investigation it deems appropriate in respect of broadcasting, both public and private.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the hon. minister.
Has he himself made any representations on behalf of the members who had already made them to the CRTC, so that the undertaking of such an investigation can be considered and ordered as soon as possible?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I have had conversations in this respect with the chairman of the CRTC.



INFORMATION CANADA


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister in charge of Information Canada. Would the minister make available to the House all the subjects which Information "In" has now under survey in Canada, such as the one regarding blind allowances that was announced by one of his departmental chiefs the other day?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister without Portfolio):: will be glad to do that, Mr. Speaker. I also appreciate the question previously directed to me, but while we can give a great deal of information about bills that exist, we can give none about bills that do not yet exist.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, when the minister is doing that will he also prepare a script or something of that sort to show, for his own convenience, where the resolutions adopted by his party's convention differ from the stands taken by the Prime Minister?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Orders of the day.

November 23, 1970



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, November 17, consideration in committee of Bill C-181, to provide temporary emergency powers for the preservation of public order in Canada-Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)-Mr. Laniel in the Chair.
The Deputy Chairman:: Order, please. When the committee rose on Tuesday, November 17, 1970, a motion by the hon. member for Calgary North to insert a new clause 15 in the bill was under consideration. The text of the proposed clause will be found at page 1261 of Tuesday's Hansard. Shall the motion carry?


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Chairman, in light of what the Prime Minister said today in response to questions from the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Calgary North and others, I think we have to review this situation because in my view the Prime Minister has misinformed the House as to what the issue really is. There is no question at all about the distribution of powers between the provinces and the federal government with regard to civil law. That is set out very clearly. Section 91(27) of the B.N.A. Act provides that the federal government shall have jurisdiction in respect of:
The criminal law, except the constitution of courts of Criminal Jurisdiction, but including the procedure in criminal matters.
The Depuiy Chairman: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but I would like to remind hon. members that they should hold their private conversations outside the chamber so that other interested members might listen to the remarks of the hon. member for Peace River.


Gerald William Baldwin: I quite agree with you, Mr. Chairman. I assumed that a great many members thought they were still in the more jovial circumstances of yesterday and the day before.
There is that clear and precise definition of the jurisdiction of the federal government. For a great many years, the Criminal Code of this country has made it absolutely clear that questions with regard to bail lie exclusively under the jurisdiction of the federal government. There are a number of sections, from section 463 on of the Criminal Code, which constitute a code dealing with this issue of bail. On this issue of bail, as is proper, jurisdiction has been given by the federal government to the courts and to a judge. What the Prime Minister said today, and what the Minister of Justice said previously, in my view indicates that there is a cowardly skulking behind a misinterpretation of the constitution. That is the situation, nothing more and nothing less.
Certainly, in so far as this bill we are now dealing with creates new criminal offences, the Prime Minister is absolutely right. The procedure in connection with the administration of justice lies within the hands of the provincial government, and under the special aegis of the
Public Order Act, 1970
provincial attorney general. So it does, Mr. Chairman, with regard to the question of arresting without warrant. But every one of the problems posed by this new legislation, every one of the remedies sought by this party for the purpose of trying to provide some form of safeguard, ultimately comes back to the question of bail.
When the federal Parliament presumes by this bill to take away from the courts and put in the hands of a provincial attorney general the right to say whether or not bail shall be granted, which is the total effect of the provisions I am referring to, it is not proper. In fact, it is wrong for the Prime Minister and for the Minister of Justice to say that this is a matter which lies squarely within the jurisdiction of the provincial attorney general. He is given that extraordinary power because it has been taken away from the courts. This amendment proposed by the hon. member for Calgary North asks, if you take this extraordinary step of depriving courts and judges of the right of deciding whether or not bail shall be granted and give that power to the attorney general of the province, then why not have a means for reviewing that procedure? That is all we are asking.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
I suggest that the statements made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice bear no resemblance to the facts and no resemblance to the law. The Liberal convention was a little wiser than they in urging this sort of review process in respect of bail. That is the essence of one of the great contributions to criminal law in this country and the United Kingdom, the right of a person charged with an offence and detained in custody to go to court and seek bail. He is brought before a J.P. or a supreme or county court judge; the question of bail is argued and the attorney general, through his agent, is a party to the proceedings. The attorney general can argue against bail because of the nature of the offence or, if bail is to be fixed, he can ask that it be in an amount large enough to ensure the appearance of the accused at the time of trial.
This government wants to take this right away from the courts and put it in the hands of the attorney general. To say that this is the constitutional right of the attorney general under the British North America Act is absolute drivel, Mr. Chairman. The Minister of Justice knows that and so does the Prime Minister, or they should know it.
All we are asking is that the kind of safeguard in respect of the granting of bail which, since time immemorial, has been intertwined with the principles of criminal law in this country, be maintained. I can only assume, by reason of their obstinacy and obduracy, that this government long ago entered into a secret covenant with the province of Quebec not to change this bill one iota. This is the only inference I can draw from this refusal to agree to this very reasonable proposal.


Mr. Brewin:: Mr. Chairman, my colleague and friend, the hon. member for York South, has already indicated the approval of this party for the amendment before us. The Prime Minister's remarks in answer to a question

November 23, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
from the Leader of the Opposition today clearly require something of an answer.
In effect, the Prime Minister has told this House that the government is not going to give effect to a resolution of the convention of his party which voted in favour of the creation of an independent review tribunal to serve as a check against abuses of power under this legislation.
I suggest the resolution represented the grass roots view of the people of this country, and it gave support to what this party as well as the official opposition has been saying in this House during the last week. I believe it was evidence of the very deep concern of the people of Canada that the legislation introduced to meet the emergency caused by FLQ activities should not be unintentionally abused or misused in such a manner as to cause injustice to innocent citizens.
What is the excuse offered by the Prime Minister-today? It is that there is some constitutional or other reason concerned with the relations between federal and provincial governments which makes it impossible to take this very small step to make sure that injustices are not consequent upon this legislation. The Prime Minister has a deserved reputation as an expert in the field of constitutional law. I join with the hon. member for Peace River in saying that in this particular case this is constitutional drivel. If the Prime Minister derived his opinion from the alleged view of the Prime Minister of Quebec, then in so doing I think he abandoned a matter of proper federal concern.
It is this act and this Parliament which has created a series of new and very sensitive offences, offences of a political nature, affecting the welfare of Canada as a whole. To suggest that there is something wrong in this Parliament, when it creates these new and sensitive political offences, saying "we want to take action to provide some sort of remedy against the abuse of these powers because by so doing we are interfering with some provincial jurisdiction", is to fly in the face of the realities and the facts. There is nothing new in this. When this Parliament passed the Narcotics Act, the whole administration in the field of narcotics was given to Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers appointed by a force under the jurisdiction of this Parliament. So, this proposal is not an insult to the people of Quebec; it is a recognition of a sensitive field.
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice are fully aware of the fact that time and again the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that political rights are federal in nature and not a provincial concern at all. Case after case, many emanating from the province of Quebec, draws a clear distinction between civil rights, which are of a provincial nature, and political rights which are rights of the citizens and all people of Canada, to protect those rights against any invasion that may flow
It is because this amendment seeks to protect the rights of the citizens of Canada that this Parliament clearly has the jurisdiction to approve it. This Parliament has created offences involving great dangers to the political and a constitutional right, and indeed a duty and obligation, fundamental rights of all Canadians; this Parliament has

from the application of this bill. I say to the Prime Minister that he is guilty of a too ready acceptance of the proposition apparently made by the Prime Minister of Quebec.
Parliament has the authority to do what is asked in this resolution, and Parliament would be neglectful of its duty if it failed to do so. Any such flimsy constitutional pretext as that advanced by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice is no justification for failure or abnegation of our duty as Parliament.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with the rights of the individual under the provision of this bill. If it becomes law, fundamental freedoms could be interfered with to a degree that was never contemplated except in time of war. When the Bill of Rights was before the House of Commons, members of the Liberal party presented their views. I do not have here quotations to indicate the attitude taken by the then leader of the opposition and afterwards prime minister, the Right Hon. Lester Pearson, nor of the Liberal leader in the Senate today, the Hon. Paul Martin both of whom contended that the Bill of Rights was vacuous and of no consequence. They said that it could not be other than a pious declaration of rights. Indeed, if I had the adjectival capacity that they possess I could nearly fill a book with synonyms in respect of the view they were expressing. They ridiculed it and said it was simply for show.
Apparently the liberalism of that day has not altered because recently, when the Drybones case was argued in the Supreme Court of Canada, the law officers of the Crown appointed by the Minister of Justice fought bitterly against the Bill of Rights being accepted as an effective instrument for the protection of individual rights. They fought the Bill of Rights. They opposed it over and over again. That was a strange attitude for members of a so-called Liberal government to have taken before the Supreme Court of Canada. However, the Supreme Court of Canada did not accept those arguments advanced by counsel representing the government of Canada. Yet in this legislation the government is preventing the Bill of Rights from being operative so long as this legislation is in effect, o (3:10 p.m.)
Over and over again the Minister of Justice said, and he repeated this the other day as I listened to him in one of his television appearances, that the rights of the individual are not being unnecessarily abrogated or interfered with. Unlike the Prime Minister who, after having supported the concept of Civil liberties over the years, today brushed aside any suggestion that individual's rights should be preserved with a so-called constitutional argument which was completely specious, I find the Minister of Justice, as a recent convert to this principle, to be in a most difficult position. This is especially true when he argues a case that is not very strong. It is never difficult to know his feelings, on the basis of what one sees and hears. Knowing his position is weak, he has attempted to argue the unarguable. This was an amazing attitude to take.
November 23, 1970

After all, this Liberal convention met. I do not know how many hundred resolutions they moved. I can only conclude that, for them, participatory democracy means the right to express their opinion but not the right to have those matters which the majority of the convention supported accepted by the Liberal government of the day. It is an interesting attitude. Apparently those people did not understand what they were doing. The majority who voted were blind. They did not realize that a commission of the nature suggested by the hon. member for Calgary North is wrong and unconstitutional. Well, 492 advanced intellectuals who sat at the feet of Gamaliel, the Prime Minister of Canada, and placed this matter before the convention in an objective way, took the stand that action should be taken along lines suggested by the hon. member for Calgary North.
Did they not know what they were talking about? Did they lack intelligence? Why was it that the members of the Liberal party in the House of Commons turned out as a phalanx to argue against the amendment that was suggested and finally passed? It was interesting to read what took place there. I was impressed by many of the arguments advanced. I must say that the Minister without Portfolio in charge of Information Canada ought to give consideration to what the Liberal leader in Manitoba said. Mr. Asper, who spoke with asperity, said the whole concept of the just society was a farce.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: In effect he said, "Where, oh where has the just society gone?". If Information Canada would just let Mr. Asper sing the song, "Where, oh where, has the just society gone," it would be a top ranking record and would be popular in all parts of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
Some hon. Members; Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: And where has it gone? Sir, I speak with the utmost seriousness. I have followed the course taken by the Attorney General and the Minister of Justice of the province of Quebec. It represents his interpretation of a law passed by the government of Canada, or a law brought about by the promulgation of the War Measures Act.


An hon. Member:: You were not speaking to him?


John George Diefenbaker: No. I have to find somebody I can understand.
Some hon Members: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: The Minister of Justice of the province of Quebec has shown an attitude with regard to this matter that is not in keeping with the position he occupies as custodian of the Queen's conscience, law and justice in his province. He indicates that he wants power,
Public Order Act, 1970
absolute power, unchallengeable power. I suggest that Lord Acton's maxim is just as true today as it has ever been, that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That is what has happened here.
hat right has the government of the province of Quebec to say to this Parliament, "You shall not look after the interest of the freedom of the individual; we have that responsibility." The hon. member for Peace River set out that situation in respect of this bill. To deny an individual the opportunity of applying for bail is the most serious denial of the individual's rights, whoever he is and whatever crime he is alleged to have committed. As I see it, no province can endeavour to say to this Parliament, which has the responsibility of passing this law, "We do not want any safeguards placed around those who are unfairly treated or who claim that an injustice has been done."
Those Liberals who voted on this matter apparently said this view is not acceptable. At that Liberal get-together the proposition was advanced that if a person against whom there is no evidence has been taken into custody and thereby suffered the indignity of arrest and the denial of freedom, he should be entitled to compensation. This party has recommended that. The Liberals who met lecommended that very step, which means that they accepted the view that many who are being picked up are guiltless but will for all time to come bear the stigma of having been taken into custody, however innocent they may have been.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The vote was 841 to 49.


John George Diefenbaker: In that connection the vote was 841 to 49, overwhelmingly in favour of action along that line being taken. Are we going to allow the current Minister of Justice of the province of Quebec to say to us, whose law he is relying on, "You shall not have any right to determine how the rights of the individual shall be protected. That is a proposition that has no constitutional merit whatsover.
Now the Prime Minister has said that nothing is going to be done. When he says nothing is going to be done, it is never done. You know, he believes in his own form of securing the opinions of those who sit behind him. He goes, to each of them and says, "Whenever I want yoi.hr opinion I will ask for it, and give you the answer." That is the situation now. He says, "I will give you my opinion so you will be in a position to give an opinion". By what he said earlier today, he has denied the House the right to do that for which it has a constitutional responsibility, as pointed out by the hon. member for Peace River. It is impossible to justify the course being taken by the government. It is far removed from the days when the right hon. gentleman was a cornerstone for the preservation of civil liberties, not only in the province of Quebec but across this country. When he gives his ipse dixit it is final and absolute. Even so, I like to think there are members of the government who are prepared to think for themselves about a matter that deserves their thought and consideration rather than following the course of the right hon. leader who, when criticized, invariably

November 23, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
finds it necessary to leave the chamber. That is the reason Parliament has become a shadow and a caricature.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
When the Prime Minister says, "This is what we are going to do", the Minister of Justice says, "Me too". All the government members with one accord applaud the decision, regardless of whether it is in keeping with their own views on civil liberties or on other matters. There is no use making an appeal any more because we face a solid membership in the government.


Colin David Gibson: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I knew that the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth, for whom I have always held a tremendous respect, would immediately applaud. I wonder how far the government will have to go in carrying out those things that are unacceptable to civilized people before the hon. member finds it necessary to even utter a qualified doubt.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: What was the purpose of this great week end Liberal meeting? They met, they talked, they recommended, they went home and what they recommended has already been forgotten. These recommendations have been put into a position from which they will never be rescued. The Prime Minister has said, "Thumbs down. They had their right to speak. I permitted Liberals from across Canada participatory democracy." Incidentally, that is an expression that was invented by Mao. He said, "I have given them their opportunity to speak. They spoke, I spoke and the matter is closed."


Mr. Goyer:: Mr. Chairman, we have never witnessed so much mental confusion as since Bill C-181 has been before the House.
We seldom see a party so determined to fight against an act such as the War Measures Act, so systematically, irresponsibly, day after day.
How strange that the very parties which asked the government to act with greater moderation, with regard to the events in the province of Quebec, should be so opposed to this bill which meets almost completely the suggestions made during the debate on the War Measures Act. Indeed, they apply themselves irresponsibly, chaotically, to rejecting, day after day, every clause of the bill.
It is a rare thing for the leader of an opposition party to say in advance that his party will vote for the proposed legislation and say today: Let us be careful, the legislation is getting so important-although it is good and the party has decided to support it that its administration should not be left to the provinces. In other words, a provincial government should not be trusted or the administration of the measure left to a provincial Minister of Justice. In my opinion, this attitude towards

the provinces is irresponsible and fails to respect the various jurisdictions recognized in the constitution.
There have been unfounded charges, even some odious assumptions. I have in mind what the leader of the opposition said on the last day we discussed the amendment now before us: Has the Quebec government anything to hide? If the leader of the opposition is aware of details hidden by the provincial administration, let him stand courageously and tell the House. The people shall then judge the government. But to voice insinuations and slanders against the people and the government of Quebec is acting in a totally disrespectful manner. It is neither in Toronto nor out West that the leader of the opposition should state charges; let him come to Montreal and say the same things in front of Quebeckers.
The New Democratic Party is behaving scarcely more responsibly. In fact, during the last few days, the members of that party have spoken as if they were shocked and constantly pitied the separatists whose liberties were being restricted. The legislation is not aimed against separatists, but strictly against terrorists-


Gérald Laniel: Order. The Chair wishes to remind the hon. member that the debate deals with a motion to amend clause 15 of the bill now under consideration and that it must not extend to the entire matter of urgency measures which has been discussed on second reading and when clause 2 was under consideration.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Chairman, when it is suggested that an administrator be appointed in order to supervise the administration of justice in the province of Quebec and to report to Parliament, this means acting as arbitrator of conditions beyond our jurisdiction.
When it is said that the Quebec Minister of Justice must fulfill the prerogatives conferred upon him by the Constitution and by the population under the supervision of an administrator, then the Canadian Parliament states bluntly and before the fact that the Minister of Justice is not to be trusted.
If this principle has any legal basis, we must be consistent and admit that it also applies to ourselves and in future every time we are in a difficult political situation our ministers will have to be kept under supervision.
Is the population willing to trust its leaders and to allow those it has entrusted with power to take a stand on the way they are carrying out their duties?
Now, the New Democratic Party states: We respect Quebecers and we believe that, today, they are being discriminated against by the law, as are the separatists. But, what solution does that party offer? It is satisfied to say: Let us exercise greater control over the government that Quebecers have elected, over the powers that the Constitution gives that province.
Is that showing respect either for the Constitution or for Quebecers? I suggest that by acting in this way one implies that Quebecers are irresponsible and unable to govern themselves, and that is deplorable.
This wish to appoint a federal administrator who would check the way Quebec administers the law
November 23, 1970


Roch La Salle: Mr. Chairman, I seize the opportunity to state my views on this very important bill. I want to say once more that I unhesitatingly voted for the War Measures Act when it was put before the House, as we did not have much choice and it was absolutely necessary. I have, I repeat, no regret that I gave it my full support.
Of course, we had been assured that within the next few days, special legislation would be submitted, with the participation of Parliament. We were told that after taking into consideration suggestions emanating from all political parties, a special legislation, adapted to today's needs, albeit of a temporary nature, would be brought forward.
It seems to me that the participation of Parliament was not very significant. The bill was introduced and, if I am not mistaken, not a single amendment has been accepted by the government.
Of course, this bill affects Quebec in a particular way, since the problem under discussion exists in the province of Quebec.
I did not want to miss the opportunity to discuss the proposed amendment. It has been said earlier that the opposition has been trying for several days to demolish the bill clause by clause. On the contrary, the proposed amendment does not change anything at all in the wording of the clause put forward by the government. Why do they refuse to establish a commission or a supervisory committee, or to appoint an administrator-which would amount to the same thing and change nothing at all in the bill-in order to give the innocent people who have been annoyed without reason by the War Measures Act the assurance that the special measure now before the House will not have the same effect for them?
As a Quebec member who has studied seriously the wording of the act, I wonder if the federal government can intrude in the affairs of the provinces. At any rate, it seems that the general wording of the act which will be applied everywhere in Canada does not include any dis-
Public Order Act, 1970
tinction on this matter. The act must be enforced everywhere in Canada. It is not even wondered if Quebec will accept it or not. The duty of the administrator would be to prevent abuses. I have the clear impression that this is only an assurance.
In my opinion, this is not a lack of confidence in the Quebec Minister of Justice or in the persons responsible for the administration of justice, because of the temporary nature of the act. The application of the War Measures Act has nevertheless permitted the arrest of many persons, in Quebec, for serious reasons and, sometimes, for not so serious reasons. I wonder, as a Quebec member, if it is not incumbent on me to ask the government to devote all its attention to this amendment that I consider valid.
Should the federal government appoint such an administrator, this would be contrary to provincial competence; maybe the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) could, prior to moving third reading of this legislation, provide for a provision enabling each province to appoint such an administrator if found advisable.
But, I precisely wonder if this would not be interfering with provincial jurisdiction.
At least, it should be made clear in the legislation that each province may appoint an administrator to prevent abuses.
I fully agree with the principle of the measure and, in that respect, I took position right from the beginning. Since the introduction of this legislation was considerably delayed, I feel that despite fierce resistance by opposition members, some understanding could have been shown.
Mr. Chairman, I feel it is also important not to leave the impression that we want to muzzle not only the people but also the press and the information media, for if there has been respect recently for the opinions of certain Quebec personalities having some sense of responsibility, I think that it is also important to respect certain opinions and to acknowledge that the measure before us is in principle very valid, even if it contains some alarming weaknesses. But these concerns could be dissipated if an administrator were given the responsibility to supervise the administration of the law.
The amendment before us is necessary and I believe that this is an excellent opportunity for hon. members to demonstrate their goodwill, even if I feel that it would not be desirable for every province to appoint such an administrator, in view of doubts concerning the division of jurisdictions, which I continue to have myself. But the provinces would all be responsible to that administrator as long as the legislation under consideration would remain in effect.
I take this opportunity to tell the House that I voted with great pleasure for the War Measures Act which I believe was necessary since we had no choice.
I recognize that after a number of days, we could have considered making this amendment I would not say more flexible but at least susceptible of reassuring those who could be embarrassed, especially the innoncents because,

November 23, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
whether we like it or not, there is always the possibility that, although they have proven their innoncence, some defendants might feel embarrassed to have been arrested under this legislation.
I recognize the merits of this legislation but before I support it I would require at least one proof of the government's goodwill.
I would not want to be blamed for having supported a piece of legislation which could make it possible for Parliament to abuse the powers given to it and, under the circumstances, Mr. Chairman, I believe the minister responsible for the administration of this act as well as the hon. members from Quebec who have a tremendous responsibility in respect of this act which affects Quebeckers in a very particular way should seriously think about the opportunity of letting this province appoint an administrator. This, in my view, is essential.
Any abuse attributable to this act would be condemna-ble as would be any other abuse of power. For the last couple of days, the government has been accused of wanting to break down a certain political party in Quebec by adopting this measure. The statement made last night by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has demonstrated how false that is.
I should believe that in the mind of all hon. members, this bill is not aimed at destroying a third party which nonetheless has succeeded in obtaining considerable number of votes through democratic processes, and if this legislation were to tend in that direction I would clearly vote against it.
Honestly, I think this bin should provide for a means of exercising some sort of supervision and I have already pointed this out several times. In fact, rejecting the amendment which will be proposed to that effect would be like saying: "We intend to stick to the letter of the bill and we consider that the participation of the opposition amounts to absolutely nothing".
As a member of this House, as a citizen of Quebec, I certainly cannot vote freely for this bill as it stands, when the government has refused to study any amendment proposed by members of the opposition. This bill will be passed but not thanks to the participation of Parliament, solely because of the government participation. In view of that attitude, I am sorry but I cannot vote in favour of this bill. In fact, unless I am assured that the federal government will accept the appointment of an administrator authorized to exercice some control, or if at least the provinces are allowed to exercice it- unless a province were to refuse to do so-neither the federal government nor myself, as a member of a federal political0 party, can be blamed for having refused that assurance. On the contrary, the province will be blamed for not providing itself the right of revision if it has the opportunity to do so under the legislation.
Therefore, I hope government members will reconsider their reasons for their stand and allow all those who are in favour of the revision, that I find necessary, to get the amendment approved, considering the temporary nature of the legislation. I repeat that revision provisions would

in no way interfere with the essence of the act. Their application may not be necessary but should cases of abuse occur, I would be very proud to have fought for their inclusion. To refuse this is to refuse to give us evidence of the goodwill of members and risk at the same that authorities exceed their powers.
As far as I am concerned, I am against abuse of authority, Mr. Chairman.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Dollard made the kind of speech that one expects from an ex-parliamentary secretary who would like to be a cabinet minister in the near future. He suggested that only those people from parties that had no representatives in Parliament from Quebec could be so irresponsible as to propose the kind of amendment we are now discussing.
Over the weekend the Liberal party held a convention here in Ottawa. I do not know whether the hon. member was there, but if he was, then certainly he could not have listened to what the delegates had to say about precisely what we are discussing at this moment. The national party conference of the Liberal party endorsed by a substantial majority a resolution calling for the creation of an independent review board to serve as a check against the abuse of powers under the bill as long as it is in effect. Was that convention irresponsible, as the hon. member for Dollard claimed those members of this Parliament are who suggest the creation of an independent review board under this bill?
The resolution approved by the Liberal party conference yesterday called for the creation of a review board under the legislation to help ensure that democratic principles are preserved and abuse is minimized. It added that establishment of the board would not necessarily be an expression of lack of confidence in the Attorney General of Quebec. Is the hon. member for Dollard suggesting that the delegates to the Liberal conference were irresponsible in voting precisely along the lines of an amendment proposed to the government by members of the opposition but rejected every day by the Minister of Justice?
I suggest that the hon. member for Dollard is the kind of lap dog that the Prime Minister wants; that he will do anything the Prime Minister wants as long as it gets the hon. member for Dollard ahead. The members of this Parliament and the people of this country cannot expect any defence of civil liberties from the hon. member for Dollard, who is only interested in his own civil liberties.
The hon. member for Dollard suggests that the bill is aimed at terrorists and not at separatists.
* (3:50 p.m.)
Everyday, until this weekend when the Prime Minister went on television to make a distinction between terrorists, of whom there are a few, and separatists, of whom there are many more, members on that side including the hon. member for Dollard were trying to create exactly
November 23, 1970

the opposite impression. They have been trying to create the impression that separatists are terrorists, and it the hon. member for Dollard questions that then-


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege.


Gérald Laniel: The hon. member for Dollard on a question of privilege.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Chairman, I never in any way suggested in the House or outside that a terrorist was a separatist, or that a separatist was necessarily a terrorist. I always made the necessary distinctions, and if the hon. member can prove that his statement is accurate, I shall readily comment on the evidence that he will submit. Otherwise, I ask him to withdraw his remarks.


Gérald Laniel: Order. I should advise the hon. member for Dollard that his question of privilege is unfounded, and it is simply a correction. I do not believe that assertions made by an hon. member in the House can become the subject of a question of privilege, unless they involve the member's integrity. However, the hon. member for Dollard will have the privilege to rise again later to put the facts straight or to explain them further.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I cannot say I heard every word the hon. member for Dollard has uttered during this debate, but I have read every word the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion has said in this House as well as outside this House. I remember, and hon. members can go back to the speech made on the first or second day of the debate on the War Measures Act, when the Minister for Regional Economic Expansion intimated that there were between 1,000 and 3,000 members of the FLQ, that the FLQ had infiltrated all the important positions in the province and had been able to get people into positions in radio so they could broadcast their instructions in code. We have never had from the minister the slightest evidence that the charges he made in that speech, or in subsequent speeches, were true. Not only have we not had this evidence, but obviously he has not given the evidence, if he has any, to the Solicitor General or to the Secretary of Slate who is in charge of the CBC because there have been no dismissals, no arrests and no charges to substantiate that kind of irresponsible charge which was made both inside and outside the House.
We were told by the hon. member for Dollard that these amendments challenge the constitutional rights of the Province of Quebec. I am not going into detail on the constitutional questions, since I think they have been dealt with in detail by a number of members who are much more competent than I am. All I say to the hon. member for Dollard, as I have said on another occasion, if the Attorney General of Quebec wants to bring legislation before the National Assembly of Quebec which is within their jurisdiction he has every right to do so. If
Public Order Act, 1970
the National Assembly of that province passes the legislation, and it is not challenged in the courts, it will become the law of 1hat province.
What we are being asked to do here today, and what the hon. member for Dollard does not seem to understand or if he does is not concerned about it, is pass legislation which will be implemented and administered by the Attorney General of Quebec. I have no m ention of voting for the kind of legislation which would restrict the rights of the people in any province of Canada along the lines the Attorney General of Quebec has indicated he would like.
We are being told that it is showing a lack of confidence in the government of Quebec to ask for this k.nd of an amendment. Let me say I have no confidence in the Attorney General of Quebec. I remind the hon. member for Dollard that the Attorney General of Quebec has called for a system of identity cards, with wh.ch the Prime Minister does not agree. I remind the hon. member for Dollard that the Attorney General of Quebec, and I think the Prime Minister of that province, have intimated that they look with favour on some form of press censorship. The hon. member for Dollard may not mind press censorship but I, for one, have no intention of voting for anything which would lead to press censorship today or any other time.
I remind the hon. member for Dollard that a member of the Liberal caucus of the Province of Quebec, Mr. Bienvenue, made the kind of attack on press and radio representatives in Quebec City which, in all probability, has never been made before in any province or city in this country. The hon. member for Dollard may not be interested in civil liberties but some of us are. The hon. member may not realize that the kind of legislation we are passing today, and the kind of legislation which Mr. Choquette would like to see in the Province of Quebec, would have been greeted with hosannas by Premier Duplessis. He would have loved to have had the kind of power which this legislation would give to h'm. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion had some experience in fighting Mr. Duplessis but they seem to have forgotten a great deal about it.
I can only conclude from the remarks of the hon. member for Dollard that he not only does not know about Mr. Duplessis, but he would not have minded the kind of legislation Mr. Duplessis would have liked to have used or the kind of action Mr. Duplessis took. I say to him that what he is supporting now goes much further than the kind of power Mr. Duplessis ever had or used. If he wants to vote for it that is his responsibility, but I have no intention of supporting that kind of ridiculous and nonsensical legislation.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I can certainly be brief as I only wish to make three or four points which I feel should be made at a time when we are coming very close to a vote on the amendment.
The amendment before the House is a very simple and clear one. It would provide for the appointment of an administrator, to be a member of the judiciary, with the

November 23, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
power to appoint other people to be administrators in order to investigate and remedy abuses which may arise as a result of the implementation of this measure. The amendment also gives the administrators the power to review and confirm, vary or revoke a certificate filed by an attorney general where someone may be put in jail for 90 days. If the attorney general files a certificate that the man is there for just cause or reason, then that is it. Of course, it is very easy to do this because it just involves a matter of bureaucracy.
What we are asking is very simple. We are asking for review machinery very similar to that suggested in the amendment moved by the NDP, except we may have gone a little further by suggesting that the administrators would be members of the judiciary. I agree with what has been said in this regard. We do not care about the makeup of this review board. All we want to have is a review board to be used against abuse.
The question to ask today is what evidence is there of abuse. Just before answering that question, let me say that I cannot believe we can have this kind of legislation administered by any human being in office anywhere in Canada, whether it be within provincial or federal jurisdiction, without there being some abuse. We must come back to the premise that the only protection the individual has is that given under the rule of law. Without that protection, we have no protection.
Has there been abuse to date? We know there have been abuses. We know this by the number of arrests and the number of people who have been detained without charge under the War Measures Act or under the Criminal Code. We know that Gerard Lortie, a student in Hull, was picked up, even though he had voluntarily given his name to the police. He told them he was not the man they were looking for but thought he better tell them he had the same name. We know from reading the newspapers he was held in custody, and that is the only way we can get facts from this government. We know he was held incommunicado for a period of time without the right to retain counsel or see his parents, even though they went to Montreal. We know the door of the house occupied by the Secretary of State was kicked in. If he had not been the Secretary of State he might have been thrown in jail.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I believe that right now, and I make no apology for this statement, there are men who are being detained in custody in the province of Quebec who were friends of the Prime Minister when he was a young man. These men are being held in solitary confinement. The Prime Minister, with his background and with the knowledge that people are involved with whom he was associated, apart from anything else, should review the situation to find out why these people are being held in solitary confinement. This is the type of difficulty that now exists. Today the Prime Minister said, when we questioned him, that he does not care if 492 delegates to a Liberal Convention ask for similar review machinery. He said, in effect, that he is the dictator of his party; that so long as
he is Prime Minister he will make the decisions and that the convention will not tell him what he is to do. So, he turned down the suggestion and he turned it down in this House.
The next question is, how long should we continue to debate this bill when this government has an overwhelming majority? The government intends to ram it through. I am too logical a person to waste my time in this House of Commons arguing something when I know that, with one or two exceptions, the Liberal government intends to ram this bill through. Let us review what the Minister of Justice said. He came up with some rather novel arguments the other day when answering me. Let us see what he did have to say in this regard. He gave basically the same answer the Prime Minister gave, so we know that his instructions have come from the Prime Minister. He said:
The Attorney General of any province, accountable as he is to the legislature, accountable as he is through the legislature to the people, must be more sensitive to the administration or to the possibility of the maladministration of justice than any commission responsible to no one. I do not think that any paraphernalia or any superstructure of review can in any way derogate from the fundamental responsibility of an Attorney General under the British parliamentary system. There is no way in which that can be done.
It is this House that is passing this legislation. We are the ones who are thrusting it on the province. The premier of Quebec may have asked for this type of legislation, but possibly the Prime Minister has had two or three conversations with him and he has said that he does not want this review machinery because there is a committee in existence. Let me make one fundamental point now. This committee is composed of a voluntary group of good living citizens in Canada who are trying to operate under very difficult circumstances. However, this committee has no authority in law to go into the jails, to examine the situation or hold any hearings. It may be a desirable thing and so on, but really it has no power. The committee is composed of people who are good citizens and good people. They would not have volunteered to act in this capacity if they were not. But there is no power in law that gives them the right to go into the prisons where these people are detained any more than there is in respect of members of the John Howard Society, the Red Cross or anybody else.
Surely, when we have legislation such as that put forward by this government there should be certain safeguards. We are giving the power to the police to detain people without charge, without the right of appeal and without the right of communication with their families. So, surely when we are setting up that power structure in a province, a review committee should be established by law. As we have said before, we do not mind if the government does not like the kind of review committee suggested by the Conservatives. We say to the government, suggest your own committee. Perhaps it should be established by this bill or, as one member said, perhaps the province should set up the committee and appoint members from among the judiciary. The constitution is quite clear and it is hogwash for the Prime Minister to hide under the constitution as he has on many occasions.
[Mr. Woolliams.l
November 23, 1970

We have set out our amendments and our views. We have laid these before Parliament and yet this government says it will not listen to anything but will ram this bill through. What is so sad is that the Prime Minister appeared on the TV network last evening and left the impression that Parliament had already vetoed any review machinery because it had not chosen to hang its hat on the NDP amendment or on our amendment. The Prime Minister left the impression that Parliament had already voted on the total review machinery. He left the impression that Parliament had spoken and there was nothing more to do. That, to me, was a falsehood. Whether it was intentional or otherwise I leave to him, because he is the only one who knows what motivated him. But the suggestion is there. I want to remind the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that we ask men like yourself to stand now and be counted because we have a Prime Minister who will not listen to the convention, to the cabinet or to the backbenchers of his own party who have set him up like a dictator. This legislation makes him appear to be a dictator.
Some good French Canadian citizens of the province of Quebec believe the whole deal is a hoax and that the Prime Minister manufactured this crisis. Only history will show whether or not there was a real crisis. However, the kind of psychology this gentleman used is the kind which creates a crisis which would split this country apart rather than unite it as has been suggested. What has this government told us? They have turned us down flatly. There is nothing more we can do. I want to emphasize that I, and Members of Parliament over there, know that the Minister of Justice is unhappy. I know that lawyers over there are also unhappy about this legislation. The reports in the press would indicate that the only ones who defended this legislation at the Liberal convention were a few Members of Parliament who were put there almost as hired counsel on behalf of the Prime Minister's position.
There is only one other thing I should like to say-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: All right; so long as it is not your civil liberties that are involved you do not mind. People even write to me to that effect. As I pointed out last time I spoke when I referred to Lord Byron, it is only when a person has lost his civil liberties that he becomes concerned. I ask the Minister of Justice to stand up against his own Prime Minister. Maybe it is time for one or two ministers to show what kind of calibre and integrity exists in the executive. It would be far better to resign today with your principles than continue in office without them. Once this Prime Minister gets you under his thumb you will gradually lose your principles. The Prime Minister is endeavouring to use you as a means of implementing what he knows is wrong.
[DOT] (4:10p.m.)


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to emphasize the obvious failure of the government to be responsive and responsible, even in the face of the
Public Order Act, 1970
expressed wishes of its own party supporters. That fact has been well documented. The amount of obstinacy that can be seen in a government is really incredible, when it will not even listen to the group of people one would most expect to support the position it had taken. The fact that the rank and file of the government party's supporters at a national meeting could indicate, by majority vote, that the government had failed in a very grave way to respond to the request for a review clause in this bill is nothing short of shocking.
What is just as shocking is the misleading impression created by the government, both in this House and throughout the country, that it was prepared to deal with this issue on the broadest possible front in the belief that a united stand in this House, or as close to it as could be approximated, would be important in resolving the question. Therefore, in dealing with the regulations under the War Measures Act, both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice made it very clear there would be a process of consultation with regard to the drafting of legislation to be submitted as a temporary public order bill. As is well known, some consultation did occur. However, I believe even the Minister of Justice will confirm the fact that during the periods of consultation prior to the introduction of this bill he was not able to provide a detailed summation of what the bill would contain.
Now that the bill has been introduced, we have seen a complete unwillingness on the part of the government to continue what was supposed to have been a policy of constructive consultation. There has been an unwillingness on the part of the government to accept the amendments presented by the NDP and by my party at their face value, as being important and reasonable contributions to the bill. Not only has there been an unwillingness to do so, but there has been a stubbornness that has been nothing short of unbelievable with respect to this important piece of legislation. Surely the process of consultation which took place before the introduction of the bill must now be considered a farce by most people because the government has proven itself unwilling to consult on the most important details of the bill. To say the least, it has shown a willingness to hide behind arguments that are unsound, arguments that do not in any way face the facts.
As recently as this afternoon, the Prime Minister has argued that to place a review clause in the legislation would call the competency of the provincial government into question. I would think that is a total misreading of the responsibilities of this House and of the joint jurisdiction that exists with regard to the courts and the processes of justice. As has been emphasized by the hon. member for Calgary North, through this amendment we are not asking for a review body that could only be viewed as some kind of federal intervention. What we are seeking is an assurance, under law, that there will be a review board which will ensure that justice is not only being done but will be seen to be done. The fact that the government refuses to respond in any reasonable fashion to that request must make this legislation not only dubious but in direct opposition to the best interests of the people of the country.

November 23, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
Time and time again within the past few days the Minister of Justice has argued that we must be prepared to allow particular anomalies in this legislation such as retroactivity, the provision that might allow a husband or wife to give evidence against a spouse, and the provision with respect to the period of time that a person may be kept in jail before he is brought before a court. Time and time again he has said that because of the nature of the situation, because of the grave difficulties in Quebec, because of the crisis, these are temporary and special powers that the government would not normally seek, but which it must ask for in this instance.
I am not saying that I have accepted that argument, but at least it is the one that the Minister of Justice has put forward. It is one with which he feels comfortable. If that is an argument on behalf of special powers which, to use the words of the right hon. member for Prince Albert, place the rights of many Canadians in cold storage for a period of time, why is the minister not willing to ask for special assurances, for a special review board, and for a special protection under the law so that the abuses to which reference has been made could not in fact take place? It seems unreasonable to me that on the one hand the minister would ask for these special and extraordinary powers, and on the other hand not be willing to examine with his cabinet colleagues, and with the authorities in Quebec, special and extraordinary powers to protect abuses under this legislation. In short, he is asking for a very special and extraordinary privilege without introducing the kind of guarantees and protection which we in this House have a right to expect.
Our debate on this bill, even that part of it dealing with the question of a review board, may seem somewhat remote to people generally throughout the country. However, I think it is important to let them know that we are acting in their best interests, that we are in fact ensuring that justice will be done. Editorial after editorial has supported our position. The party which supports the government, the people who have given overwhelming support to the government for introducing the War Measures Act regulations and this temporary public order bill, have said that at the very least there must be some kind of review commission to ensure that not only will justice be done but that it will be seen to be done.
In arguing this afternoon along the kind of arid, and in this instance somewhat theoretic line about constitutional interference, the Prime Minister has avoided facing the basic questions involved in this issue. He has misled the House and misled the people into believing that the matter of constitutional haggling is more important than justice being done for millions and millions of people in this country.
Anyone who has examined what has happened under the administration of the War Measures Act regulations, anyone who is aware that more than 80 per cent of the people arrested were subsequently released without being charged, must realize that more people are going to be arrested, detained and searched who really in no way, shape or form are related to the acts of terrorism involved. I think that the people of this country who may have been quite willing to place their good faith in the

government will now have to think very seriously about withdrawing that good faith, because it is quite apparent that the government is not prepared to act in good faith on this bill. In the face of a request by its own party it has committed itself to a course which is both obstinate, unwise and unjust.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Gérald Laniel: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Woolliams) negatived: yeas, 33; nays, 63.


Gérald Laniel: I declare the amendment lost.
On clause 15-Expiry.


Mr. Rose:: Mr. Chairman, as I rise to introduce the final amendment that our party has to offer in order to make Bill C-181 at least somewhat less repressive, I should like to assure the Minister of Justice that my words will not include another musical criticism of his previous performance.
Given our experience earlier in this debate, Mr. Chairman, when the minister has been impervious to all reasonable attempts by opposition parties to "liberalize" this present bill, and given the sweet glow of euphoria that undoubtedly envelops the government following the great Liberal potlach here this past weekend, I am not particularly optimistic that my words will go very far in moving the minister.
Many more persuasive speakers than I have taken part in this debate. Sound and reasonable arguments have been presented in order to make less objectionable some of the features of Bill C-181, popularly known as the "Son of War Measures" in our caucus. All of these arguments have been to no avail and most were rejected out of hand by the minister. I think all of us who listened to the debate last week and again this afternoon feel that legitimate concern for the erosion of civil liberty was expressed by all parties, both inside and outside the House, except perhaps by some of my friends in the Creditiste party. I do not think they are particularly concerned about it.
One of our main concerns is the concept of retroactive guilt. I do not want to repeat all the arguments, but I do know that many people are concerned that membership in an organization that was not illegal before the War Measures Act was proclaimed could be considered retroactively as an offence, meaning that a person could be guilty of doing something that was within the law before the proclamation. Another worry which we have heard expressed this afternoon by some of the opposition parties and also by the Liberal policy convention, relates to the institution of a review board or commission to take care of possible excesses that may occur under this bill. The motivation prompting these suggestions is that, while
November 23, 1970

Parliament is responsible for passage of this legislation, it has little or no authority in its administration. We heard the minister, in response to questions in the House, say, "Yes, we passed the War Measures Act but the administrative responsibilities are under the attorneys general of the various provinces and therefore, if there are excesses there is very little parliament can do about them at this time."
This fear has been expressed by many members and the government rebuttal to the concept of a review commission or tribunal can be summed up something like this: "If you are making this kind of suggestion about a review tribunal, then you don't trust the provincial attorneys general and in a federal state you must be prepared to do this."
I should like to say to the minister now that I do not share the same confidence in the attorney general of Quebec that he seems to possess. I hasten to say that I see my job here as an opposition member as one of trusting no one.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mark Willson Rose: Perhaps I will make an exception of the former parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. I think our professional opposition responsibility is to look with a cynical eye and lack of trust at all kinds of legislation because that is what we are paid to do in this Parliament. I wonder what the government's posture would be if the reigning government of the province of Quebec had been other than Liberal? I wonder if the same arguments would prevail? Mr. Chairman, the minister's response to the reasonable amendments, and there have been many, to Bill C-181 convinces me that he is being backed by popular opinion and reinforced by a substantial majority. This public opinion, coupled with the majority, automatically makes his decisions right, or so he feels. I think this posture is somewhat equivalent to that of an army private who, when questioning a decision of his sergeant is told, "Sure, I am right; if you don't believe me, count the hooks." But there is no democracy in truth, Mr. Chairman, and I know that saying itself is a truism. The truth is the truth regardless of how many people or how few people believe it at any one time.
I should like to believe that Canadians are very concerned about what we do here with regard to their civil rights, but I am not convinced that great numbers of them care about it one way or the other since it does not strike them personally. We have all spoken a great deal on this subject but I wonder seriously how many Canadians are really listening. Indeed, when I speak in this House I wonder how many parliamentarians are listening. Judging from the catcalls opposite, I realize I have gained a few listeners; some at least have remained awake.
I should like to read to the House, Mr. Chairman, the
opinion of one journalist who has something to say on
Public Order Act, 1970
the topic of people caring. J. R. Dahling writing in the Columbian, the newspaper of that great city of New Westminster, of November 12, 1970, has this to say:
It seems as if "Johnny Canuck" has an aversion to the examination of problems in their early stages. Perhaps because it must capture his interest, and more important, his time. Much rather he prefers to have many of the social problems of his country (province or city) swept under the rug.
Unfortunately for the whole nation, these problems do not lie quietly under the rug but multiply and fester until they erupt violently. And then the glib and heavy-handed pseudo-messiahs uttering glib and heavy-handed pseudo-solutions arrive with bugles blowing and flags flying like a Hollywood version of the U.S. cavalry.
It is only too true that very drastic measures are necessary, not because drastic measures were always necessary, but because we "Johnny Canucks" did not want to believe there was a problem-we did not believe our "honest" politicians when they tried to tell us before it got out of hand.
This correspondent certainly expresses a view considerably more pessimistic than the one I hold. But I should like to emphasize that my disagreement with this correspondent is more a matter of degree than of kind. For those who prefer the words of a more learned and highly placed official of the Crown, may I quote a statement made by Mr. Justice O'Halloran in 1953. Admittedly, His Lordship was speaking with regard to a matter different from the one we are discussing. The circumstances involved a different context. On that occasion he said:
... it is rather remarkable to suggest that the judgment of a political head of a department shall be substituted for that of a court. The Minister at best is a transient holder of office, subject to all the vicissitudes of political climate and a party policy that completely envelop a man who is responsible to the political expediency of parliament and who belongs to the party in office which humanly seeks to remain in office.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Mr. Justice O'Halloran's words, though they apply to another context, might well apply to the matter we are considering. The minister has repudiated our attempts to establish, under this bill, a review commission. I have searched my mind-


An hon. Member:: That didn't take long.


Mark Willson Rose: -to discover the reason behind the minister's repudiation of that reasonable amendment suggested by the opposition. We were trying, I think, to make Bill C-181 a little more humane. The opposition was well intentioned. I think any action designed to make government bills more humane ought to be encouraged. There are some people who are very concerned about civil liberties but there are many others who are not.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mark Willson Rose: In searching my mind, and this took a little time-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mark Willson Rose: -to learn why the minister was so obstinate,
I concluded that I could do no better than ask orally and

November 23, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
aloud those questions I have been asking myself privately. They are as follows:
Will the softening of this public order bill, Bill C-181, weaken in the eyes of the minister the validity of invoking the War Measures Act in the first place? If, as described by the government, the War Measures Act is a blunt instrument, does not this bill risk being tagged with the same description? Another question I have asked myself is this: Has the Attorney General of Quebec informed the government that unless he receives these extraordinary powers in full measure-I am referring to the powers contained in Bill C-181-he will resign, thus throwing the Bourassa government once more into a renewed state of shock. My third question is this: Is this really a right wing law and order bill designed to appease the sabre rattlers throughout Canada, the ones who see in all change a symbol of creeping permissiveness to be stamped out forthwith. Also, does Bill C-181 somehow affect the minister's future political goals?
I think these are valid questions. I do not know the answers; I can only pose the questions.
I wish to propose an amendment to clause 15 of the bill. I propose to extend to Parliament the right that the government now holds of limiting the period of the enforcement of the bill to April 30, 1971. At present clause 15 reads:
This Act expires on the 30th day of April, 1971 or on such earlier day as may he fixed by proclamation, unless before the 30th day of April, 1971 or before any earlier day fixed by proclamation, both Houses of Parliament, by joint resolution, direct that this Act shall continue in force until a day specified in the resolution, in which case this Act expires on that specified day.
My amendment is as follows. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North:
That section 15 be amended by adding the following words as subjection (2),
(2) a Notice of Motion in either house signed by ten members thereof and made in accordance with the rules of that house, praying that an earlier day for the expiry of this Act shall be fixed by proclamation, shall be debated in that house at the first convenient opportunity within four sitting days after notice thereof is given, and renumbering the first paragraph of Section 15"(1)".
I have two copies of this particular amendment for distribution. In 1969, Mr. Chairman, the Bill of Rights contained an amendment affecting the War Measures Act and asserted the right of Parliament, for the first time, to fix an earlier date for the suspension of that act if any ten members should signify their intention in writing to hold a debate. We know that clause 15 contains a paradox, in that Parliament has the right to extend the special powers beyond April 30, but only the government can shorten the period. This, as I have said, is wrong, because Parliament ought not to be placed in a position that is subordinate to the duly elected autocracy.
There are two conditions under which I think Parliament can invoke the right to "pray for an earlier expiry". I think I have used the correct words. One of those
conditions involves police excesses and injustices, of which we have heard a great deal this afternoon and on previous days. There must be, as I said, police excesses and injustices causing mental and physical anguish to those arrested on suspicion only. When those conditions exist, Parliament ought to invoke the right requested. The second condition involves the lack of demonstrable need, because of a return to normalcy in Quebec, that the civil rights of all Canadians which are unnecessarily being restricted should be withheld no longer. Under those conditions Parliament ought to avail itself of this right to end the special powers as unnecessary.
I hope that the minister and his colleagues will consider this amendment. Last week the minister said that the invocation of the special powers and the consequent loss of personal freedom was based on a value judgment. He indicated that the government was prepared to take the risk consequent upon this value judgment. That is all very well. I do not think the minister ought to be congratulated for pontificating on what is obvious. Everybody knows that with special powers comes a corresponding loss of freedom. We know this. I know this, and every Canadian knows and is prepared to accept this. There is to be some loss of freedom. The value judgment tells us that much. It is not the loss of freedom we object to; we want to know how great will be the loss of freedom, and for how long a time. In order to meet the need, and in order to meet this real or imaginary challenge to the state, we must be prepared, as we have said we are, to lose some freedom. The question is, how much freedom will we lose? That is what separates our position from that of the government. This is where we disagree and where we part company with the government.
I hope that this reasonable amendment to give to Parliament the right to shorten the life of the bill will be accepted. It ought to have the right so to alter the expiry date. That right ought to be shared with Parliament which, as we are all told, is the highest court in the land.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the amendment is to alter the termination clause to provide that ten members, by signing a resolution, can have a debate commenced in this House calling for a termination of the law prior to April 30, 1971, the date when the bill, or at that time the law, will terminate. We deliberately made this a short term, terminating April 30, 1971. It has been made quite clear that if we feel the responsibility given to the government can be terminated earlier, we will do so.
We also made it quite clear that the bill cannot be extended beyond April 30 without approval by a joint resolution of both Houses of Parliament. In other words, we are in the hands of Parliament if it is necessary to extend the bill beyond April 30, 1971. We believe that is the proper position to take. Parliament will be consulted before April 30, 1971 if we intend to extend the operation of the bill. We only ask for authorization of Parliament, if the situation warrants it, with regard to the exercise of initiating termination of the bill prior to April 30, 1971.

November 23, 1970

Parliament is setting a maximum date. The maximum date we have asked for is April 30, 1971. Having accorded us the maximum date, we hope that Parliament will accord the government the discretion of withdrawing the bill prior to that date. There is no infringment of Parliament. The date is clearly stated in the bill. In order to extend it beyond the maximum date, we will require the approval of Parliament. Surely, the government should have the discretion of analysing the situation in order to determine whether the bill should expire prior to that date.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I suggest the minister was not very logical in his explanation. It is consistent with the adamant position the minister and the government have taken on every suggestion that has been made, but it is not logical. This amendment does not suggest removing the discretion of the government. This amendment does not remove from the clause the discretion in the government to terminate the bill prior to April 30, 1971. This amendment merely asks that Parliament continue to have the right to review the operations of this exercise and to be able to say whether the judgment of the government that it should not be terminated on a certain date is right.
The suggestion is made for two very good reasons. One is simply that it plagiarizes the amendment to the War Measures Act contained in the Bill of Rights which has precisely the same kind of provision. I am aware that invoking the War Measures Act was not for a definite date. Therefore, the minister will argue that is the reason for having the provision. He need not say that because I understand it. None the less the principle involved is that when extraordinary powers are invoked and exercised by a government, Parliament should have the right to say how long the government will exercise those extraordinary powers.
The fact that Parliament has set a termination date of April 30 and, as the bill suggests, the government will be given the right to terminate it earlier if it sees fit, does not remove the duty of members of this House of Commons to be able to debate the issue. That is the meaning of my hon. friend's amendment. On a motion signed by ten members, Parliament will debate whether the bill should continue until April 30, 1971, or, to pick a date out of the air, terminate on February 28, 1971. What the minister is refusing is not quite as nice as he put it. The minister said, please leave us with a discretion.
The minister is, in effect, saying that unless we use an opposition allotted day, introduce something under Standing Order 26 or some other gimmick like that, Parliament shall not have the opportunity to debate whether this bill ought to remain in force until April 30, 1971. The minister insists on having an act which muzzles this Parliament until he is ready to let Parliament do something about it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: If the minister is not insisting on that, I ask him what harm there is in the amendment. What possible
Public Order Act, 1970
harm is there in accepting the proposition of the hon. member for Fraser Valley West? In what way does it interfere with the powers of the bill? Members opposite keep on cackling in support of the minister. 1 challenge any one of them to tell this committee in what way this amendment would interfere with the powers under the bill. In what way would it interfere with the powers the police may exercise or with the discretion which the government has under this bill? It would interfere in no way whatever with anything else in the bill. It merely gives ten members of this chamber the right to inscribe a motion on the Order of the Day-


An hon. Member:: Every day of the week.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, the amendment calls for only once but I like the idea of presenting a motion every day of the week, if necessary, to protect the interests of Canadians.


An hon. Member:: Now, we know.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. The hon.
member for York South.


David Lewis: Hon. members are saying, "Now, we know". The thought comes to my mind that it does not take much knowledge for them to cackle in that manner. Hon. members ought to recognize, (a) that this amendment does not call for every day and, (b) that no one in his senses would do this every day. That is not the issue. Even the Minister of Justice did not suggest that as his reason for opposing it. Now that the minister has had the wise and careful advice of the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth, he will no doubt be a great deal more enlightened than he would otherwise have been. I cannot really expect the members of the Liberal party to listen any more respectfully to me than they listened to their own convention delegates on the week end, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Osier:: Will the hon. member permit a question? I wonder whether I heard the hon. member correctly? He said that when appeals under Standing Order 26 were made that these, as well as opposition days, are gimmicks. If they are gimmicks, and those days could be used for the purpose of advancing the business of the House or the feelings of the opposition, I wonder whether it is fair to use these gimmicks as much as they are used?


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I hope the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre will forgive me if I return to the subject rather than answering his inane question. I will return to what I was saying at the time the consciences of the Liberal members caused them to start cat-calling. I seriously suggest to the minister and members opposite that the amendment moved by my friend does not in any way weaken the contents of the bill, interfere with the rights of the police under the bill or with the discretion left with the government. It merely adds the possibility of ten members of this House instituting a debate as to whether the bill should continue in force.

November 23, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
If hon. members opposite are honestly worried about this motion being moved every day, if that interjection was not merely for some purpose other than honest worry, I will now move a subamendment to this amendment providing that this may be done only once between now and April 30, 1971. Hon. members opposite are not going to get away with dishonest interjections. If someone will write out the subamendment for me, I will move it.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


The Chairman:: Order. I understand that the hon. member is moving a subamendment to his amendment.


David Lewis: Not to my amendment, but the amendment of the hon. member for Fraser Valley West.


An hon. Member:: Seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton-W entworth.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Russell Clayton Honey: Perhaps the hon. member will continue his remarks. I am sure that in due course the Chair will get the sub-amendment in writing.


David Lewis: We are putting it in writing, and you will get it. The likelihood is that it will not be necessary, because the rules provide that a debate on a given subject can take place only once in a session, and for this reason the amendment itself is probably sufficient; it will be voted on only once and cannot be repeated. But if hon. gentlemen opposite want this concession and if, as a result of this concession they will vote for the amendment, I will move it.
I say to the minister that his refusal to accept any amendment at all is altogether unreasonable, and he ought to have been willing to accept this one, which in no way interferes with the powers he maintains he needs or with the powers the Attorney General of Quebec maintains he needs. It is some kind of recognition that not only the Prime Minister, not only the members of the government, not only the members of the Liberal party, but all Members of Parliament have a responsibility for this law and for its implementation as well as for the length of time it will exist in force.
I therefore move, in accordance with what I have said:
That the amendment be amended by adding after the word "given" the words "provided that such a motion should be made only once before April 30, 1971."


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: My purpose in rising is merely to point out that some hon. members seem to have failed to read clause 15. The bill requires merely a resolution by both Houses of this Parliament to extend its life for a year, 18 months or two years, whatever may be the date specified in the resolution. It is not as though the legislation will be called back for discussion in a month. What about the period beyond April 30, 1971, when the bill could not be amended? It would not be in order to advance any amendment at that time to a resolution which might be advanced by the government to extend the life of the legislation. I ask hon. members who are the guardians of the civil liberties of this country: what is your answer to that? The bill could be extended
for 18 months on the strength of a vote by the government majority, and Parliament would be muzzled by a dominant cabinet at all times.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This is precisely the effect of the refusal by hon. members opposite to accept the amendment to this clause. It is not the period to April 30, 1971 that the opposition is concerned about; it is the period after that. The minister knows I am right when I say the danger lies in the fact that the government could ask for an extension, lasting, perhaps, a year, at which time the legislation would not be subject to review. For this reason, and all the more for the other reasons which have been advanced, the amendment should be accepted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon.
member for Edmonton West is to be commended for making the point he has just brought to the attention of the House. In keeping with what he has said, I should like to draw to the attention of the Minister of Justice the fact that even if the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West were not accepted the claim the minister made that the government can discontinue this act on its own initiative would disappear if there were a resolution agreed to by both Houses to continue the act beyond April 30, 1971. True, the resolution must contain a specified date, but knowing this government's concern for civil liberties it might be five or ten years off. Once a date has been put in after April 30, 1971, even the government by proclamation could not provide that the act should expire on a date earlier than that. This clause really needs the amendment proposed by my hon. friend from Fraser Valley West or some rewriting to make it much clearer than it is at the present time.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order. So that the House may proceed with the consideration of Private Members' business, it is my duty to leave the chair.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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)-Canadian National Railways-Non-payment of minimum wage-Retired employees' pensions-Government action; the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte)-Inquiry of the Ministry-General de Gaulle's funeral; the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Roy)-* Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-Performance of illegal abortion on program "Weekend".
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' business as listed on today's paper, namely, Notices of Motion.

November 23, 1970



PRIVATE MEMBERS' NOTICES OF MOTIONS


Jack Marshall: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of providing loans and grants to encourage the building and improvement of fishing facilities along the Atlantic coastlines for the better collection and storage of all marketable species of fish.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am putting forward this motion today because I have witnessed the unnecessary loss of livelihood by fishermen in my own district, and I presume a similar situation confronts fishermen in other parts of the Atlantic provinces. I was prompted to submit this motion because of a situation which exists in my district which takes in some 250 miles of coastline and embraces many small fishing communities which depend solely on the inshore cod fishery. During the season when the fishermen are fishing for cod many other species of fish, including flounder, mackerel, herring and salmon, are attracted to the nets. Since the fish plant on which the fishermen must depend to buy their fish is only prepared to accept the cod, the fishermen have to throw back the other species of fish and loss of income results. Along 200 miles of the northwest coast, which I represent, there is only one fish plant and during the season it is only able to handle the cod.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
In one community last year when codfish were very scarce, the fishermen of the community as well as others had literally to discard thousands of pounds of other species of fish because the fish plant could not handle them. Strangely enough, many of the other species of fish are worth much more than cod, and the fishermen were deterred from selling this fish due to lack of storage and cooling or freezing facilities where the fish could be kept for other markets.
Many buyers in the provinces are prepared to buy other species of fish but cannot be on hand immediately it is caught. Nevertheless they are ready to handle it if the facilities are satisfactory. The federal government, in co-operation with the provincial government, are now granting up to 90 per cent of the cost of a long liner under their boat building program, and it is very evident that codfish stocks are being depleted. I say that a similar type of program should be instituted immediately to make available similar types of grants or long term loans to groups of fishermen in a community on a co-operative self-help basis. This would enable them to market the other species of fish by building small holding units with cooling and freezing facilities to keep the product at the proper temperature for sale to the market.
I have visited the industrial development branch of the Department of Fisheries and Forestry and have seen
Fisheries Storage Facilities
plans of this type of facility which could be built for as little as $20,000, though I would venture to say that on a self-help basis it could be built much move cheaply. In communities where government community stages already exist, cooling facilities could also be installed and would afford a much wider scope for fishermen to earn a livelihood. I have also found in my visits to fishing communities that much government money is being wasted by building wharves and breakwaters on contract. A great saving could be effected if this type of fishing facility were built by the fishermen themselves under the supervision of the engineering staff of the Department of Public Works.
The fisherman in Newfoundland has the native ability and knowledge, passed on through generations, to know where and how a breakwater should be built for the greater benefit of all concerned. I have seen too many hundreds of thousands of dollars wasted on breakwaters and wharves which were built for political advantage, of no avail to the fishermen concerned and at too great a cost to the taxpayer.
If I can quote another example of taking other species of fish, through the initiative of the industrial development branch of the Department of Fisheries great value has been placed on lump spawn, and a market for this spawn has been found in Germany and other countries. Through this branch of the department a buyer from Germany came to Newfoundland and contracted to purchase lump spawn, which previously was not even considered of any value. For this spawn the fishermen is paid more than twice what he gets for cod; but again lack of cooling facilities prevents him from taking advantage of the market for this type of product, with the result that again he loses a source of income. I know of other experiences where fish buyers refused to buy salmon from the fisherman in his community due to lack of ice. Upwards of a hundred men could have been employeer if the facilities to store the salmon and prepare it for market had been available.
Irish moss is another product which the government spent many dollars to find; yet the market for a new product which brings income to fishermen has gradually deteriorated due to the fact that proper facilities are not available. The government for some reason or other will not realize that studies and surveys must be supported by facilities to take advantage of a product.
How many times do I get replies from the Department of Public Works to my requests for breakwaters and wharves and dredging to the effect that, since the catch and the number of fishermen are decreasing in a particular community, there can be no justification to spend the money? Little do they realize-or they do not want to realize-that the reason for the decrease in the catch and the number of fishermen is that there are no facilities in the first place.
It is time we gave our fishermen some credit for initiative and decision to an industry which is the lifeline of my province. In this fast advancing age of science and technology all they require is a little guidance and assistance. I am sure that my motion would have the support

November 23, 1970
Fisheries Storage Facilities
of those in the Department of Fisheries who are more closely associated with the fishing community; and while I appreciate especially the work of the industrial development branch of the department, I hope my motion will receive the consideration that I feel it realistically deserves.
Therefore, I plead with the minister to consider this motion very carefully. May I suggest respectfully that there be a few test cases at strategic locations in the Atlantic provinces which depend on the fishery to evaluate the proposal which I put forward today, and I hope that I will have the support of my other colleagues who must have experienced like circumstances in their districts.


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, first of all may I compliment the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) for his interest in, and concern for, the fisheries which are so vital to Newfoundland and to the welfare of Newfoundland fishermen. The Department of Fisheries and Forestry is, and always has been, acutely concerned with the improvement of facilities to enable fishermen to handle their catch and to expand and diversify their operations. The department has programs along this line and others designed, in one way or another, to increase fishermen's incomes and to improve their standard of living.
Many changes are presently underway that directly or indirectly affect the orderly development of the fisheries in Newfoundland. Resettlement, improved transportation, the swing from the salted to the frozen product, the harvesting of new or under-exploited species and stocks, and new catching and processing techniques, are just a few examples.
These factors make it difficult to come to hard and firm decisions about the location and type of facilities for handling fish. In the past we have built community stages at suitable places where fishermen can handle their own fish, especially for salting. There is now the feeling that fishermen should devote their full time to fishing-which is, of course, their principal occupation and the thing that they do best-and have their catches processed by workers at appropriate shore facilities. This would tend to produce more uniform and better quality salt fish.
Recently the government announced an expansion of its fishing vessel construction assistance. Under the new regulations, financial assistance-35 per cent of the approved cost-will be provided for eligible fishing vessels of all types built of any materials, 45 feet in length and over. For vessels 45 feet to 75 feet in length, funds in the amount of $2 million have been appropriated by the Department of Fisheries and Forestry, and applications from vessel owners are now under consideration.
For vessels more than 75 feet in length, assistance is available through the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce by way of grants paid directly to shipyards after approval by the Department of Fisheries and Forestry. An expenditure of $3 million is projected for this
program. This assistance is helpful in enabling fishermen to obtain larger, more up to date and more mobile boats which will make it possible for them to use different kinds of gear and catch additional species of fish, and, through this diversification, allow them to extend their fishing season. All these factors, details of which I will provide in a moment, may mean that we shall eventually have fewer but better serviced fishing centres for better boats where there will be improved unloading and handling facilities, better wharfing, haul-out and so on.
e (5:10 p.m.)
In the program for community fish processing and handling facilities, federal expenditure between the fiscal year 1953-54 and 1968-69 amounted to $4 million. Fifty-three community stages for saltfish were built, and 22 fresh fish holding units, as well as related marine works. The purpose was to meet the problems of Newfoundland fishermen in previous years, such as low individual productivity and indifferent quality of fish produced. In addition to the Newfoundland program, two fresh fish holding units were constructed in Nova Scotia and one in New Brunswick.
The department reviews the operation of this program every year with a view to assessing the use made of the individual units and the benefits accruing to fishermen. With some exceptions, the program is felt to have met its purpose in Newfoundland. As I intimated, no new community stage program is planned for the current year.
There are instances where some kind of facilities such as those proposed by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe-something perhaps more elaborate than a community stage for fresh fish holding unit- would be desirable.
The 1970 report of Imbucon Services, a firm of consultants, recommends consideration of a program of licensed landing centres for the inshore fishery, a place for receiving fish and providing a number of services to fishermen. Part of the costs of the proposed operation might be covered in part by a levy on all fish moved over a dock serviced by the unit.
In co-operation with various provincial administrations the department undertakes fisheries development programs on a joint share basis. From April 1, 1962 to March 31, 1971 federal contributions in the Atlantic coast provinces will total just over $6 million, of which $2,758,000 will have been spent in Newfoundland. I should like to include details of these expenditures along with my remarks. Perhaps I might have the indulgence of the House to table these figures, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has asked for consent to table certain figures. Does the House agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the hon. member asking that they be tabled or put in as part of Hansard?

November 23, 1970


James Aloysius McGrath: As an appendix to Hansard.


Eymard G. Corbin: Does the hon. member ask that they be appended to Hansard?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member have permission to append this to Hansard?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will it be appended to Hansard or put in as part of the hon. member's speech?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the hon. Parliamentary Secretary will agree, and I think this is the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), there has been a general practice that such information be included as an appendix to Hansard rather than part of the speech. There is some concern with reference to the printing of Hansard if we have voluminous material put in the body of the speech itself. If hon. members of the House will concur with me on this matter, and the Parliamentary Secretary will agree, perhaps the order we should make is that the information be printed as an appendix to Hansard. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For text of above document see Appendix].


Eymard G. Corbin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the fiscal year 1970-71 alone we have ten shared-cost projects in Newfoundland and five of these are for the west coast. These are experimental and development work on queen crab and mussels, exploratory work for crab and mussels from Barrie Bay to St. Anthony, a survey of Irish moss resources in the Port au Port-St. George's area, a survey of eel resources and experimental pair seining operations in the Port aux Choix area with a view to future vessel conversions if these are commercially feasible.
The other five are for other areas of Newfoundland. They are exploration for sand launce and capelin on the Grand Banks and off the south coast, development of capelin and herring traps and trap skiffs on the south and southeast coasts, a survey of inshore waters for commercial stocks of mussels and clams on the east coast, a study of the economics and feasibility of air transport of fresh fish to mainland and overseas markets and fishermen's technical upgrading. This last provides for an interchange of information on developments, techniques and equipment between fishermen with a view to improving their technical capabilities.
Then there is the Newfoundland bait service. This provides bait depot facilities for the benefit of Newfoundland fishermen at strategic locations in the province. It is a carryover of a provincial program for which the federal government undertook responsibility under the terms of union.
Fisheries Storage Facilities


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. I am trying to relate the Parliamentary Secretary's remarks to the wording of the resolution before the House. It seems to me the hon. Parliamentary Secretary is giving a complete review of all the activity of his department in the Province of Newfoundland. I respectfully submit to Your Honour that he should address himself to the resolution.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have been listening carefully to the Parliamentary Secretary who has been relating his remarks generally to fishing facilities in the Atlantic provinces. It may well be, however, that as quickly as he can he might move to a more specific discussion of the resolution.


Eymard G. Corbin: I would thank you, Mr. Speaker, but with respect I must point out that the various activities of fishermen in Newfoundland are interrelated to the point that one cannot consider a proposal separate from these various activities. I am endeavouring to point out to hon. members that, in spite of the fact that I tend to agree in principle with the remarks of the hon. member, there are grounds for agreeing that the department is working in the sense he wants. I will come to that point shortly, Mr. Speaker.
The fisheries groundfish loan program for 1969-70 was designed to overcome problems of fish processing companies which suffer a shortage of working capital and which were unable to obtain financing through regular commercial sources. In the five Atlantic coast provinces, and this includes Quebec, there were 42 participating companies of which 17 were in Newfoundland, with total loans amounting to more than $3,500,000 of which $2 million were in Newfoundland.
Federal responsibility under the Newfoundland fisheries household resettlement program, and this has a direct bearing on the remarks of the hon. member, which was begun in 1965, were transferred in the current year from the Department of Fisheries and Forestry to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. A new federal-provincial agreement has just recently been negotiated extending the program for a further five years. Federal expenditure under the household resettlement program to March 31, 1970, totalled more than $5 million. Another $2,500,000 is provided for in the current year's estimates.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


James Aloysius McGrath: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is rising on a point of order.


James Aloysius McGrath: I say to you, Sir, with great respect, that the resettlement program and all the details the Parliamentary Secretary is going into have absolutely nothing to do with the resolution before us.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would think the relationship is a very broad one and, without having any particular

November 23, 1970
Fisheries Storage Facilities
knowledge of the Newfoundland resettlement program to which the Parliamentary Secretary has referred, I suggest to him that perhaps he might indicate how it is related to the motion.


Eymard G. Corbin: With due respect, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might refer to the motion put before the House.

___the government should consider the advisability of providing loans and grants to encourage the building and improvement of fishing facilities along the Atlantic coastlines-

Surely, we're not going to build these facilities in the outports from which people have been moved. This, I think, is pertinent to the hon. member's motion. I believe the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) is simply trying to confuse me, Mr. Speaker, so I will carry on.


An hon. Member:: Did you lose your place.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are doing very well.


Eymard G. Corbin: As I was saying, federal expenditures under the household resettlement program to March 31, 1970 total more than $5 million. Another $2.5 million is provided for in the current year's estimates. The activities of the Fisheries Prices Support Board in 1969-70 included, in addition to the loan programs which I have just mentioned, a saltflsh deficiency program and a frozen groundfish stabilization program. The former was to assist salted cod fishermen who had experienced severe price declines as the result of oversupply and currency devaluation in traditional markets.
There were 5,400 payments in the Atlantic coast provinces for a total amount of more than one million dollars. Of these 4,700 payments in the amount of $950,000 were made to Newfoundland. The objective of the Frozen Groundfish Stablization Program was to forestall distress selling of frozen groundfish and to raise the market price of selected groundfish products to a point where basic costs were covered. Before this program was started the market price for cod blocks was 21 cents per pound. Before the end of the year the market price had risen to 26 cents and 27 cents. The program has been continued this year and the market price for cod blocks had risen to 30 cents per pound. The quantities of frozen groundfish acquired by the board in the five Atlantic coast provinces under the program were 17.5 million pounds valued at $4.25 million. Of these, 13 million pounds valued at $3,200,000 were in Newfoundland. During the peak production season the Fisheries Prices Support Board purchased 17.3 million pounds of cod blocks, 26 per cent of production, at prices ranging from 23 cents to 26 cents. Before the end of the year the entire inventory was returned to the industry at cost.
The Canadian Saltflsh Corporation is now a going concern with the president and the headquarters operations based in St. John's, Newfoundland and the chairman in Ottawa. Newfoundland has joined the corporation and

Nova Scotia and Quebec are considering joining. It is not clear if and when these provinces will actually join. New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island are watching the corporation's activities with interest, but their production of salt fish is relatively small.


James Aloysius McGrath: What does this have to do with additional storage?


Eymard G. Corbin: The corporation had to commence operations after the season had already started. However, initial prices were announced on May 31 before the fishermen started fishing. They were revised upward on July 1 this summer in the light of market conditions. These opening prices were higher than the fishermen had received in past years.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I hesitate to refer to this matter, but I do have to say very respectfully that the matter of pricing and the particular board to which the Parliamentary Secretary is referring are not directly related to the motion. I would respectively ask the Parliamentary Secretary to return to the subject matter of the motion.	.


Eymard G. Corbin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think I appreciate your point. I shall endeavour to follow your directive. Perhaps I would be permitted to conclude my remarks to the satisfaction of hon. members opposite. Programs of benefit to fishermen in the Public Works sector in the Atlantic region include construction of wharves, breakwaters, shipways, and their repair and maintenance; the dredging of harbours and other related works. At the present time about 1,500 wharf facilities service fishermen in varying degrees. Of these, possibly 800 are truly fishermen's wharves. The Department of Public Works spends from $5 million to $7 million a year on support services to fishermen. There are 353 fishermen's wharves in Newfoundland. The Department of Regional Economic Expansion also has many programs related to the fisheries. There are quite a few projects under the Area Development Incentives Act. Payments for these in Newfoundland in 1969-70 amounted to $625,000, and in 1970-71, $500,000. Under the Regional Development Incentives Act project payments for 1970-71 amounted to $557,000. I hope the foregoing will reassure the member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe that the government is doing all it can to encourage the improvement of our Atlantic coast fishing facilities.


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), in his opening remarks, very directly put before the House the problem faced by all fishermen in this area. I must say that while listening to the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary I felt he almost successfully ignored the resolution. What he put before us really sounded like the Atlantic coast segment of the annual report of the Department of Fisheries.


James Aloysius McGrath: That's right.
November 23, 1970


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I am not suggesting he was quoting directly from it, but it is the kind of review we expect to come from the department in a document of that kind.
Now, with what does the resolution concern itself? It raises a specific question about the need for better facilities for the collection and storage of all marketable species of fish. The hon. member proposing the motion put before the House the fact that fishermen in this area are taking fish which are potentially marketable but are suffering a loss of income because there are no available means for keeping the fish in proper condition and for getting them to market.
[DOT] (5:30p.m.)
This is the question we should be discussing but which the Parliamentary Secretary failed to discuss. He made some reference to the difficulty of coming to firm decisions during a period when technological changes are taking place in the industry. I suggest that when we have an immediate, practical problem concerning fishermen placing fish on the market, fish which otherwise will simply go to rot, it is not good enough to sit back and say, "Things are in a state of flux. We may be getting technological changes that will provide an answer to this kind of problem ten years from now."
The hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe suggests that we should do something now to deal with an immediate problem before these fishermen are forced out of the industry. Because of the decrease in their catch of cod and the unavailability of marketing arrangements for the other species they land, they can no longer afford to stay in the industry. That seems to be the kind of problem that has been placed before us.
I do not claim to have much knowledge of the particular problems of the Atlantic coast fishery. From observations I was able to make some years ago at first-hand and from discussions I have heard both in this House and in the committee, I know the problems are very different from those on the Pacific coast. On the Pacific coast we have developed techniques of mobile collection and mobfie storage facilities, so that by and large the fisherman is not faced with this particular problem. We have fish-buying camps which move into the fishing areas during the fishing season. These are equipped with ice refrigeration. We have packers that travel the coast quite frequently, pick up fish from the fish-buying plants and take them to the processing plants or direct to the fresh fish markets. I do not know if anything like that would be applicable to the fishery in Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe, but it seems to me this is the kind of practical consideration that the hon. member is suggesting should be give by the House, by the government and in particular by the Department of Fisheries and Forestry to this question.
That is the question to which the Parliamentary Secretary should have addressed his remarks, rather than giving us a rambling review of the whole ambit of the activities of the Department of Fisheries on the Atlantic coast, with which many of us are already familiar having read the annual reports and listened to statements made
Fisheries Storage Facilities
in the Fisheries Committee. I hope that before this hour is concluded the House will give favourable passage to the resolution as an indication that we want to see practical and immediate steps taken by the department to deal with the problem which the hon. member has said exists.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Speaker, I was truly interested in listening to the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Corbin). This is the first time that we hear him speak on the problem of fisheries. I was struck by one thing: his comments applied mainly to Newfoundland.

The motion presented by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) affects not only the province of Newfoundland but the whole of the Atlantic provinces. The Parliamentary Secretary dealt mainly with the problems in Newfoundland, but I think the motion is more encompassing than that. The Parliamentary Secretary said the department had introduced shipbuilding grants. Mr. Speaker, if we increase the fishing facilities we must also increase the cold storage facilities. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) made a very interesting suggestion about mobile facilities. I shall later seek further details on that point. While the Parliamentary Secretary was speaking I noticed that his predecessor was trying to assist him. I suspect that he also wants to participate in the debate, so I shall not be too long. This motion is one that I commend to the House. It refers to-
-the advisability of providing loans and grants to encourage the building and improvement of Ashing facilities along the Atlantic coastlines for the better collection and storage of all marketable species of Ash.
The House is aware that a bait freezer and cold storage subsidy program was suspended last year and that the suspension was to last for approximately two years. Following my inquiries the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) wrote to me as follows:
The Fishery Products Storage Regulations which came into effect in 1967, provide for assistance towards the cost of construction and equipment or modiAcation required for refrigerated storage of Ashery products and authorize the Minister of Fisheries to make a payment to the applicant "of one-third of the cost of the commercial facility but in no case shall the amount of the payment exceed one hundred and Afty thousand dollars."
However, due to the necessity of reducing government expenditures, we have had earlier this year to suspend payments under these regulations. It seems unlikely that funds will be provided for that purpose in the next Ascal year and therefore no new applications are being accepted. I can assure you, however, that if the Anancial climate improves the regulations will again become operative.
Within the last couple of weeks the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has stated that the government is anxious to get the economy moving again. Therefore I submit that this program should be reintroduced. The Minister of Fisheries did not openly condemn the program;

November 23, 1970
Fisheries Storage Facilities
simply suspended it for a year or two. I can see the government has been on a savings binge, if one wants to call it that, for the past several years. I commend it for that. But the people who have suffered are those at the bottom of the ladder, including fishermen and pensioners. Be that as it may it seems the government now wants to increase expenditures to get the economy rolling again.
The minister's letter saying "if the financial climate improves the regulations will again become operative" seems to support the motion that is before the House. However, the Parliamentary Secretary did not state whether the department was in favour of this type of program. Mr. Speaker, srsch a program would stimulate the economy and reduce unemployment in some parts of the country. The fact is that individual fishermen cannot afford to provide themselves with proper cold storage facilities. Often when fishermen reach port, buyers cannot buy all the fish they have caught; therefore, the fishermen have either to throw away the surplus fish, try to find another buyer or find some place in which to store them. Proper storage facilities would remedy the situation.
[DOT] (5:40p.m.)
Over the past several years I have had many inquiries from groups of fishermen asking that this type of program be reinstituted. Several co-operative movements in my riding have inquired about it because at present they do not have proper facilities. The government might say they want to save money and cannot provide a subsidy to everybody who asks, but if they do not want to accept this motion in its entirety perhaps they could provide low-interest loans. The fishermen then could operate on a co-operative basis as they have been doing.
This type of motion lends itself to many types of facilities other than cold storage. The fishermen could have loans made available, or grants, in order to improve facilities. I know of a case where a canal had to be dredged by the fishermen themselves because it was badly needed for the coming season and the Department of Public Works would not carry out the work. The fishermen did it, but they were not compensated. If loans or grants were made, in the long run it would save the department money. The fishermen would be willing to accept loans, if not grants, to improve their facilities. This motion is a good one, Mr. Speaker, and I feel that it should be supported.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, this motion will obviously commend itself to all members of the House, so I shall not take up too much time because I know the House is ready to come to a conclusion on it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: The motion merely calls upon the government to consider the advisability of providing loans and grants: we are just asking the government to take this matter into consideration. We heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Corbin) read a precis on the annual report of that
department which was not relevant to the motion before the House. We had hoped that he would have addressed himself to the motion because it is a very important one, underlining as it does a serious deficiency in the Department of Fisheries and Forestry for which the Parliamentary Secretary now has some responsibility.
Every year in my constituency we have the spectacle of hundreds of thousands of pounds of fish being dumped into the water because there is no space to hold them until buyers can be found and the fish can be transported to market. This resolution merely calls upon the government to provide these facilities and, in effect, preclude the necessity for this terrible waste of a very valuable high protein food. There are many fishermen within the city of St. John's, and a number of fishermen in the small areas surrounding St. John's, but there are no fish plants: there are only two small units to receive the catches. There were two large plants in the city itself but they were forced to close because of market conditions and other factors of which I am not fully aware.
Certainly, if cold storage units were built at strategic points along the coasts of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick-and X offer my own constituency as an example-it would preclude this terrible waste of high protein food and would help the fishermen. The catch could be held until it was determined whether there was a market for it. Fish is a very perishable product, and under the present circumstances, if no buyer is immediately available there is no alternative but to dump it and the fishermen is in the unhappy position of labouring for naught.
This is a very serious matter, Mr. Speaker, and I regret that the Parliamentary Secretary did not seem to comprehend its importance. I hope the House will be constrained to allow this matter to come to a conclusion. By this motion we are asking the government to consider the advisability of providing loans, etc., to provide fishermen with the facilities to store the catch until a market can be found.
The Parliamentary Secretary referred to bait holding depots. These can be utilized and called upon; the precedent is already there. We could have depots to hold groundfish or herring and the product could be preserved until marketing conditions improved. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would urge the House to give favourable consideration to this most important resolution which affects so many of our fishermen and means much to them.


Mr. Tom H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond-Delia):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join the previous speakers in congratulating the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) for bringing this motion before the House. The plight of the fisheries industry along the Atlantic coast in general, and Newfoundland in particular, has been of very great concern to us all. I am pleased that the hon. member who moved this motion has given the government another opportunity to demonstrate, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Corbin) has done during this debate, what action has been taken to
[Mr. Comeau.l
November 23, 1970

improve the lot of the fishermen and their families. Nevertheless, I agree with the mover of this motion that there is need for more facilities on the Atlantic coast.
The measures which the government has taken, and those programs which are on a continuing basis, are designed to assist the Newfoundland fishermen to help themselves. They are proud and rugged individualists who dread any thought that they might end up on the dole. These people have a tradition of working for a living and are not looking for handouts. Yet no one would deny that the typical Newfoundland fisherman is hard pressed. For long hours, in rough seas and using the most primitive of equipment, he earns $900 a year. He earns $900, on the average, for a full year's fishing. The over-all income of the average family in our outports in Newfoundland is only about $2,300. That is less than $200 a month. More than half of this income derives from what we call transfer payments. More than half of the $2,300, in other words, is made up of old age pensions, family allowances, unemployment insurance and welfare cheques paid under our new Canada Assistance Plan.
As I have said, to be on the dole is still thought to be degrading in Newfoundland. I wish that were still the case in British Columbia. Unemployment insurance, because they believe it is somehow related to production, is a little more respectable. So are old age pensions. But welfare, straight welfare, is only a last resort and one which this government rejects as a solution to the problems of these fine workers.


James Aloysius McGrath: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am trying desperately to relate the hon. member's remarks to the motion before the House, and I find it very difficult to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has heard the point of order raised by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). He knows, as do all hon. members, that remarks must be related at all times to the matter before the House. I am sure the hon. member can relate the remarks he is making to the motion under consideration.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Thomas Henry Goode: 1 thank the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). The point I am trying to make is that the government must assist these people by providing facilities. It must understand that the situation which now exists, which I have been trying to outline to the House, is intolerable. Until we understand the situation that these people face, I do not think we can say whether this notice of motion is worth while or not.
I should like to discuss in detail the problems of the inshore fishery. That would, I think, take into account the hon. member's position. About one year ago, in a report published by the Atlantic Development Board the following appeared:
-the inshore fishery throughout the Atlantic provinces is an instrument of poverty. Far to many men, boats and equipment are being applied to a basically limited resource.
This is what the Atlantic Development Board said, and those words apply to the motion we are discussing this
Fisheries Storage Facilities
evening. Long-run trends are disturbing. In Newfoundland, for example, the number of inshore fishermen has risen over the past decade despite a 25 per cent drop in the landings of fish. The inshore catch has fallen from 200,000 metric tons in 1956 to around 150,000 tons at the present time. Real incomes, however, have remained relatively constant because the price of fish has gone up faster than that of most other goods and this has offset the decline in the number of fish caught. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion-


James Aloysius McGrath: Question.


Thomas Henry Goode: Therefore, in conclusion, I agree with the hon. member's notice of motion. I compliment the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe for bringing it before the House. I certainly do not wish to talk it out and therefore I shall resume my seat.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Essex):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's notice of motion covers the entire Atlantic coast. In the four minutes remaining I shall try to talk about a small part of it. I believe his motion is a worthy one. Before embarking upon my speech I think I should say that the government has been doing in a very energetic fashion what he suggests it should do. For two years at least it has carried on such activities under the capable leadership of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand).


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member was Parliamentary Secretary to one of those ministers. Things have now changed.


Eugene Whelan: I do not think things have changed very much, Mr. Speaker. Actually, in these areas we are moving a little faster than before. The motion before the House deals with an important aspect of the fishery, namely, collection and cold storage facilities. Although important, it deals with only one aspect of a very complex activity. This activity is broader than that with which the motion on the Order Paper attempts to deal. These cold storage facilities are closely related to the number and location of fishermen, the number and size of fishing vessels used by fishermen, the volume of the catch, the availability of harbour facilities, the location of processing plants, and so on.
Moreover, the Atlantic coast fishery is experiencing significant changes. Fishing effort is increasingly oriented toward deep sea activity, with larger and more sophisticated fishing vessels, while inshore fishing is receding in importance. As the previous speaker said, there is still a great deal of inshore fishing and we should like to see a change in this area. As he pointed out, we can provide subsidies for sophisticated fishing vessels and encourage their construction. In addition, Mr. Speaker, more of the catch is being processed into fresh and frozen fillets and less is being cured. Also, more landings are concentrated in locations with large processing plants.

November 23, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
It must be readily apparent that it would not be wise to adopt a new general policy to provide for better collection and cold storage facilities, let alone a set level and amount of financial assistance, until we can see where it fits into the general fisheries development policy. The definition of such a policy will incorporate the matter of collection and storage facilities. The prime responsibility of fisheries development, of course, lies with the Department of Fisheries and Forestry. However, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion has since its inception had a direct interest in this significant regional economic activity.
Several of DREE's activities are specifically oriented toward the Atlantic coast fishery. Financial assistance is available for new fish processing plants and for the modernization and expansion of existing plants under the Regional Development Incentives Act. Assistance provided under this program since July 1, 1969, amounts to $1.7 million. The federal-provincial agreements under the fund for regional economic development for northeast New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island also included substantial fisheries development programs. DREE is also contributing in a significant manner to the development and rationalization of the Newfoundland fishery by way of the Newfoundland resettlement program. Again, DREE is at present negotiating renewals of ARDA agreements with the provinces of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret very much that I have to interrupt the hon. member. I must advise the House that the hour set aside for the consideration of private members' business has expired. I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
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 in committee of Bill C-181, to provide temporary emergency powers for the preservation of public order in Canada-Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)-Mr. Laniel in the chair.
Gérald Laniel: At five o'clock, the Committee of the Whole was considering clause 15 of Bill C-181, particularly the amendment moved by the hon. member

for Fraser Valley West. The Chair feels it might be useful at this time to read the amendment:
That section 15 be amended by adding the following words as subsection (2):
(2) a Notice of Motion in either House signed by ten members thereof and made in accordance with the rules of that House, praying that an earlier day for the expiry of this act shall be fixed by proclamation, shall be debated in that House at the first convenient opportunity within four sitting days after notice thereof is given,
and renumbering the first paragraph of section 15"(1)".
The hon. member for York South moved the following subamendment:
That the amendment be amended by adding after the word "given" the words "provided that such a motion should be made only once before April 30, 1971."
Is the committee ready for the question?


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I rise to point out that I realize the provision in the bill for the possibility of extending it beyond April 30, 1971, by joint resolution of both Houses of Parliament, and that my subamendment relates only to April 30, 1971. I think it is in order to have it worded that way, for two reasons. First, my mind boggles at the thought of the government asking for an extension of this legislation or at Parliament granting such an extension. Second, a resolution that may become necessary or possible seeking an extension of this bill can contain the discretion of the government to terminate the force of the bill before the date set out in such resolution and can also contain a provision for ten members of the House to be able to place a motion on the table which, if it does not contain such provision, an amendment can be moved at that time. While the point raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West drew a very important matter to our attention, it does not negate the value of either the amendment, or the subamendment.
I moved my subamendment in response to a challenge from the other side concerning a motion being lodged with the House every day. As I considered it over the dinner hour, I felt that one might have thought of that earlier. It is a good suggestion even though, as I indicated earlier, it will not be necessary. It is a good suggestion that a motion of this kind be moved only once during the first period, and I hope the last, that this bill remains in force. It is a good idea to have that provision.
With that wording in the amendment, Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether it is possible to persuade the minister to accept it. With the subamendment there is now a limitation of one motion prior to April 30, 1971. If so, all that I said earlier, which I will not repeat, holds true. There is not anything in the bill that is interfered with in any way by this provision. With the safeguard of only one motion written into the amendment, it seems that the minister, the government, members opposite and this House in general should not have the slightest hesitation in providing this extra parliamentary safeguard of a motion moved by ten members of the House. I rose merely to make these comments in support of both the amendment and the subamendment.
November 23, 1970


John Napier Turner: I said before the dinner adjournment, Mr. Chairman, that there is provision in clause 15 to give Parliament control over any extension beyond April 30. Any extension has to be endorsed by resolution of both Houses of Parliament. I said we could not accept the amendment nor the subamendment because Parliament has the initial guarantee that the bill cannot go beyond April 30. For the earlier termination, it remains necessarily within the discretion of the government to analyse the situation.
If in the period between now and April 30 any opposition party or any Member of Parliament is dissatisfied with the administration of the bill, there is always the option under Standing Order 26 for leave to make a motion for the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration. Under Standing Order 43 a member, by way of unanimous consent, may in the case of urgent and pressing necessity previously explained by the mover, introduce a motion. There are also available the opposition days.
What disturbs me about the amendment, even if the motion were available only once, is that it takes the control of the business of the House away from the government. It prevents the government from discharging its responsibility of initiating business for the consideration of Parliament. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre made the point that if by proclamation endorsed by both Houses the bill, or the force of the law, were extended, there is nothing in the clause as it presently reads to provide for its termination by proclamation after it had once been extended. I would be prepared to meet that point.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the minister is prepared to recognize the point, how does he propose to meet it?


John Napier Turner: When I have the floor at an appropriate time I will propose adding the words, after the last line of the clause, "in which case this act expires either on that specific date or at such earlier date as may be fixed by proclamation." This would meet the point which the hon. member raised. But I cannot get the floor to make that amendment until the committee has dealt with this one.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before we vote on this amendment and subamendment, I feel inclined to ask the minister whether he was serious in suggesting we would be able to deal with this kind of circumstance under Standing Order 26 or under Standing Order 43. Surely the minister is aware of what happens to attempts to move motions under Standing Order 43.


An hon. Member:: Because you don't consult the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope that brilliant intervention is on the record. The hon. member
Public Order Act, 1970
says, Because you don't consult the government." In other words, his concept of the rights of an opposition is that it is entitled only to such rights as the government is prepared to give it. I do not believe that even the Minister of Justice goes that far. If the government were prepared to give unanimous consent for a motion under otanding Order 43, it would mean the government was prepared to discontinue the use of this legislation and, hence, would be able to do so, through the exercise of its own rights under the bill. So that argument falls to the ground. As for using Standing Order 26, the minister is well aware of the problems we have with Mr. Speaker in getting motions accepted under that order, and if we do succeed all that follows is a general discussion. In my view, the seriousness of this issue is such as to warrant a built-in right to deal with this question without the matter being left to the judgment or opinion of Mr. Speaker.
I would point out that this right is included in the part of the War Measures Act which was amended by the Canadian Bill of Rights and I believe the request we have made is a legitimate one, namely, that Parliament should be put on all fours with the government in terms of having the right to seek the ending of this legislation. I am glad the minister is prepared to make the minor amendment to which he referred a moment ago to correct the situation to which I drew attention at five o'clock, but it does seem to me we should not be asked to rely on Standing Order 43 in connection with this important measure and that we should be on even terms with the government as far as this important aspect is concerned.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I have listened to some strange arguments in this House during the years I have been in it, but this is the first time I have heard it suggested that what should or should not be contained in a particular piece of legislation should be related to the Standing Orders governing this chamber. I can understand such an idea being put forward jocularly amid the cross-fire which sometimes takes place during debate, but to hear the Minister of Justice seriously suggest that the point raised in an amendment should be met by what appears in our Standing Orders seems amusing to say the least.
K we were to follow that logic through, the obvious thing to do would be to pass an amendment to the Bill of Rights saying, in effect, that Parliament should be governed by the wishes of the government as far as its timetable is concerned. I believe the minister would not suggest, on reflection, that all the proceedings in this chamber should be ruled by the wishes of the government. Since the Bill of Rights makes provision for a motion, set down presumably on reasonable grounds, calling for a debate it is surely not out of place to incorporate a similar provision in a measure so closely related to the War Measures Act as this one.


John Napier Turner: May I ask the hon. member a question? Is he not aware of one substantial difference between the two measures to which he has referred? There is no termination date attached to a

November 23, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
proclamation of the War Measures Act, but there is a termination date in this bill.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: That reminds me of a phrase one sometimes hears, that it is not really safe to be just a little pregnant. That covers the substance of the argument as far as I am concerned. But I must say I found myself resenting the suggestion by a minister that our position in relation to a bill should be influenced by whether or not the government has control over the business of the House.
Amendment to the amendment (Mr. Lewis)) negatived: Yeas, 26; nays, 65.


Gérald Laniel: I declare the amendment to the amendment lost. Is the committee ready for the question on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West? The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Chairman, I was about to ask a question after this particular matter had been disposed of. Perhaps I might retain that right.
Amendment (Mr. Rose) negatived: Yeas, 33; nays; 58.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


Gérald Laniel: I declare the amendment lost. Shall clause 15 carry?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, thank you for retaining my dubious point of privilege in this matter. May I ask the Minister of Justice a question, which I think is a rather serious one, arising out of the effect of the act or regulations-


Gérald Laniel: Order. Is the hon. member rising on a question of privilege?


Robert Jardine McCleave: No; the hon. member is rising to ask a question of the Minister of Justice. Now I shall have to start all over again, Mr. Chairman. What I wanted to ask the Minister of Justice was a very serious question arising out of the fact that sooner or later either the regulations passed under the War Measures Act or under this particular legislation will cease to have force and effect. I should like to know what happens when we reach the deadline for the operation of this legislation, and I presume of the regulations, of April 30, 1971. Supposing a person is serving a 15-month term, by reason of his membership in the FLQ, which expires beyond April 30 of next year. I want to find out for the committee and for the country what will be the legal effect of that situation.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, subject to any other action taken by Parliament, any action taken under this legislation while it is validly in force will, of course, persist until completion of sentence.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Then I ask a supplementary question. Would this legislation remove from that person any right to parole or to time off for good behaviour if the person

concerned were still serving his sentence when the act and regulations expired on April 30, 1971?


John Napier Turner: No, sir.


Mr. Hogarth:: Mr. Chairman, as undertaken by the Minister of Justice a moment ago, I move the following amendment:
That Bill C-181 be amended by striking out lines 18 and 19 on page 9 and substituting the following:
"in which case this act expires either on that specified day
or on such other earlier day as may be fixed by proclamation."


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman,
I should like to say that I appreciate the fact that the minister has met the point that I raised just before five o'clock. The amendment that he has proposed seems to do that. We welcome it and shall, of course, vote for it.


An hon. Member:: Don't commit me.


David Lewis: You may have to move a subamendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman,
I am getting some legal, if non-parliamentary, advice to the effect that I should try to move an amendment to add the words, "or if advancing the date is proposed by ten members". But it has been made clear that the government does not look kindly on what ten members might do.


An hon. Member:: Ten Liberal members.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, one thing we are getting tonight is absolute honesty from members on the other side. A few minutes ago I was told that if only I would consult the government before moving motions under Standing Order 43, they would be all right. Now we are told that if ten Liberal members ask for something, then that is all right. At least we understand the place that the Liberals have in Parliament for anyone who is not a Liberal.
Before I had these interruptions from the right and the left I was merely going to say that I wish the minister had taken the same attitude toward some of the more important points that we have raised during the course of this debate.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I think there is a question of paternity here. I think 60 per cent of the credit for paternity should go to the hon. member for Edmonton West, 30 per cent to the hon. member for Fraser Valley West or the hon. member for York South, and 10 per cent to that little, small "1" liberal band that met in Ottawa over the weekend.
Amendment (Mr. Hogarth) agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 15 as amended
carry?
November 23, 1970


David Lewis: On division.
Clause 15 as amended agreed to.
On clause 3-Unlawful association.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 3 carry?


John Napier Turner: 
Gérald Laniel: The Chair wishes to bring to the attention of the committee the fact that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Westminster to page 3 of the bill relates to two clauses. In view of the fact that only clause 3 is before the committee at this stage, the Chair feels we would need unanimous consent to put the two amendments at the same time, otherwise the Chair would be forced to limit the discussion to the amendment to clause 3. Does the committee agree that the Chair put the two amendments together?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Gleave:: Put the one on clause 3.
And so on. The question that the hon. member for York South and the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands put to me was: What kind of governmental change are you talking about? May I quote from the second paragraph of the preamble, which refers to:
-accomplishing governmental change within Canada with respect to the province of Quebec or its relationship to Canada_


Gérald Laniel: There seems to be disagreement, so the Chair will put the amendment to clause 3. It is moved by the hon. member for New Westminster: That Bill C-181 be amended
(a) by striking out line 10 on page 3 and substituting the following :
"mental change within Canada with respect to the province of Quebec or its relationship to Canada as that"


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Why do you not put that in the clause?


John Napier Turner: Exactly. That was the point that the hon. member for York South and the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands made, and I referred them to certain authorities on statutory construction. I also refer to section 14 of the Interpretation Act, which reads:
(1) The preamble of every act shall be deemed a part thereof, intended to assist in explaining the purport and object of the act.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
I felt this was clear. However, in order to remove any doubt-and I might say the hon. member for Calgary North made this point in his reference to Driedger in the early part of the debate-I am prepared, with the courtesy of the committee, to have my colleague the hon. member for New Westminster, in the absence of my Parliamentary Secretary who has been called away from the committee by a death in the family, move the appropriate amendment.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mellowness such as this is beyond me. Could we start over again?
The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar, unless the hon. member for Peace River is rising on a point of order.


Gerald William Baldwin: No, Mr. Chairman. I looked back but did not see the hon. member rise.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Chairman, I wanted the discussion to be on clause 3 instead of taking the two clauses together. I should like the mover of the amendment to explain the purpose of the amendment.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Mr. Chairman, in respect of the change to clause 3, in the definition it automatically brings about the change in line 39 on page 3, so the two definitions coincide. One is merely consequential upon the other.


Gerald William Baldwin: We are going to agree to this amendment, but it has been called to my attention by the learned author of "Woolliams on Statutory Amendments" that the way to get an amendment through is to call to the government's attention the mistakes in the legislation, rather than having the audacity to move an amendment, and then when the time comes the government will move the amendment themselves.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That Bill C-181 be amended
(a) by striking out line 10 on page 3 and substituting the following :


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the amendment just moved by the hon. member for New Westminster, (Mr. Hogarth) I find somewhat strange that only the

November 23, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
province of Quebec should be mentioned. The following text is suggested as a substitute for line 10 on page 3: "mental change within Canada with respect to the Province of Quebec or its relationship to Canada as that"
I wonder why the act could not apply to all the other provinces, if the need should arise.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member will notice that the second Whereas on page 1, in the preamble, at lines 12 and 13, stipulates as follows: -governmental change within Canada with respect to the Province of Quebec or its relationship to Canada-
The only effect of the amendment would be to transfer words from the preamble to clause 3.
It is obvious that the bill is restricted to the FLQ whose purpose is to bring about "a governmental change with respect to the Province of Quebec or its relationship to Canada" through force or violence.
The bill is not limited to Quebec but to the FLQ which seeks to accomplish a governmental change in Quebec or with respect to its relationship to Canada.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice a question.
If I am not mistaken, the amendment would delete the terms "a peu pres". The amendment would read as follows:
__"un changement de gouvernement identique ou a peu pres
identiques."
Does the amendment of the hon. member strike out the words "a peu pres"?


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Chairman, the last words of the amendment are:
-"changement de gouvernement identique ou a peu"
-but the following line will be the same, beginning with the word "pres", so that both words are not struck out.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Chairman, this clause seems somewhat vague when it refers to " un changement de gouvernement identique ou a peu pres identique a celui preconise par ledit Front de liberation du Quebec. Either it is the same or not-


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, lines 8 and 9 only are changed. Line 10 which starts with the word "pres" remains the same. The amendment ends with the word "peu". Therefore, the words "a peu pres" remain in the text.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice what would happen, for instance, if a similar situation occurred in another province. Would Bill C-181 apply anywhere in Canada or would it be limited to a particular territory?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, the law will apply throughout Canada and will affect the FLQ or any successor association.
[Mr. Laprlse.l


Alfred Pullen Gleave: What I really want to know, Mr. Chairman, is whether this amendment will limit the application of this measure to the province of Quebec.


John Napier Turner: No.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Then what is the purpose of the
amendment?


John Napier Turner: The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the definition of the purpose of the FLQ is properly set out in clause 3 and does not merely depend upon the relationship between clause 3 and the second paragraph of the preamble. This was pointed out to me by the hon. member for Calgary North and the hon. member for York South.


Mr. Matte:: Mr. Chairman, after reading clause 3 and the amendment, I remain quite puzzled because one might even wonder whether, in this clause, we really want to condemn the means used by the terrorists or whether it is not precisely the purpose sought by those resorting to these means. We seem to condemn both. The purpose might be highly commendable, but the means could be wrong.
After reading the amendment I find that this is anything but clear. We wonder where we are going. Which means that if, for instances, force and terrorism are used as a means to achieve another purpose, it would be accepted. Should the amendment not simply state that those who use or want to use force and violence as a means to achieve a purpose, are guilty anywhere in Canada?
Why should this legislation apply solely to Quebec? Why condemn all those using violence and terrorism to reach objectives that are not necessarily condemnable?
With this amendment and under section 3, the aim is condemnable as such. In fact, Section 3 reads in part as follows:
__any group of persons or association that advocates the use
of force or the commission of crime as a means of or as an aid in accomplishing the same or substantially the same governmental change within Canada as that advocated-
I cannot see at all why the proposed change could be acceptable that is not what should be condemned but the means and it could be done by anybody even outside Quebec.
This amendment to Section 3 could be interpreted as meaning-as stated by the Quebec Minister of Justice- that the underworld could use terrorism, machine guns and bombs, that it is acceptable for underworld as we should not be unfair to them. But when it is a political matter, action is an absolute necessity. I quite agree on this but let us write a law designed to check violence and terrorism whatever the purposes. Indeed, one could very well resort to violence and terrorism for very noble objectives.
This is why I find this amendment complex and prejudicial to Quebeckers.
November 23, 1970


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the hon. member that we should be against terrorism and crime. This bill only deals with force used or crime used to overthrow a government in Quebec with respect to the rest of Canada, whether by the FLQ or another association that might succeed it. I agree with the hon. member, but the target of this bill is the FLQ.


René Matte: In other words, Mr. Chairman, in order that we may come to understand each other, we could easily, through this clause, attack the P.Q. for instance. What is the opinion of the hon. minister in that respect?


John Napier Turner: It is only the overthrow of the government by persons or groups of persons who advocate the use of force or crime or violence, which is faced. Therefore-


René Matte: Mr. Chairman, I understand as far as the use of force and terrorism is concerned. 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-


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. The Chair wonders whether the hon. member for Champlain is discussing the amendment before the House or clause 3 itself. At the present time, we have before us an amendment which, if I correctly understand the English version, seems to link this legislation to the province of Quebec. At this stage, it might advisable not to go too far with other points that could have reference to clause 3.


John Napier Turner: 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 association that advocates the use of force or the commission of crime as a means of accomplishing governmental change within Canada-" All these words have to be taken as a whole. The words "force" and "crime" cover everything.
I do not see the problem faced by the hon. member. I appreciate his viewpoint; however, I believe that he should not worry.


Mr. Asselin:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask an explanation from the Minister of Justice?
The words "the same governmental change" have an extensive and at the same time a quite restrictive meaning. What would happen, for instance, if some members of the FLQ kidnapped a prominent government figure or a member of Parliament to force the government to enact legislation designed to nationalize, let us say, Bell Canada? That could happen.
The words used now are "the same governmental change". A similar definition appears in the Criminal Code about sedition. What would happen if the FLQ
Public Order Act, 1970
resorted to violence to compel the government to enact legislation?
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Let us take as an example the nationalization of Bell Canada. Suppose some people kidnap the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) and tell this government: We shall not free the minister unless you nationalize Bell Canada. Would such a tactic be considered an effort aimed at a governmental change? Then, the law is neither comprehensive nor clear enough.


John Napier Turner: This would apply
merely to a change or an overthrow of government. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it could not be clearer.


Roch La Salle: Just one comment, Mr. Chairman. On page 1, line 11 of the bills it says:
... as a means of accomplishing governmental change within Canada with respect to the Province of Quebec ...
Would it not be passible to simply say: "as a governmental change within Canada with respect to the provinces or their relationship to Canada"?
I do not see why the Province of Quebec is the only one mentioned, as if the FLQ could be active only in Quebec. I wonder if this is not simply a question of a special law for Quebec. I am aware that under the circumstances, this is maybe so ...


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, according to the FLQ manifesto, its purpose is to overthrow by force the Quebec government or the Quebec government in relation to the rest of Canada, i.e. to separate Quebec from Canada by force.
In order to limit the object of this bill, only the FLQ is mentioned, the goals of which must be defined, namely overthrowing the Quebec government by force, by crime, or separating the Quebec government from the rest of Canada, by force or by crime.
Such are the goals of the FLQ and that is why the scope of the bill is so restricted.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put another question.


Gérald Laniel: Order. The hon. member for Joliette.


Roch La Salle: I would like to ask the minister whether in his opinion the FLQ has any intention whatsoever of undermining the Canadian government.


John Napier Turner: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I did not understand the question.


Roch La Salle: I would like to know whether, in the view of the minister, the FLQ will attempt or has attempted to destroy the Canadian government.


John Napier Turner: Perhaps, in relation to Quebec, yes.

November 23, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970


Mr.   Malle@: Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back to the wording of the amendment which reads as follows:
-aid in accomplishing the same or substantially the same governmental change within Canada with respect to the province of Quebec or its relationship to Canada-
I have this question which I want to ask the minister: Let us suppose the FLQ or some other similar group advocated the use of force and terrorism as a means of supporting Canadian federalism, an assumption not provided for in the bill before us, what would happen? It could very well happen that a group of terrorists most anxious to reaffirm Canadian federalism could resort to force as a means of consolidating such a system.


An hon. Member:: To oppose the other one.


Mr.   Malle@: When we discuss the purpose, it becomes obvious that we are off the track. What could the minister answer to that?


John Napier Turner: This is not provided for but the Criminal Code certainly has provisions with respect to the use of this type of violence.


Mr.   Malle@: Then why should we pass emergency legislation if everything is provided for in the Criminal Code?


Gérald Laniel: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Hogarth) agreed to: Yeas, 95; nays, nil.


Gérald Laniel: I declare the amendment carried. Shall clause 3 as amended carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Clause 3 as amended agreed to.
The Depuly Chairman: The Chair is wondering whether it should not come back to clause 4 and ask if it is the wish of the committee to put the consequential amendment that was proposed by the hon. member for New Westminster. Does the committee agree that the Chair should put the amendment to clause 4?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On clause 4-Offence and Punishment.
The Depuly Chairman: It is moved by the hon. member for New Westminster that clause 4 of Bill C-181 be amended as follows:
by striking out line 39 on page 3 and substituting the following: "Canada with respect to the province of Quebec or its relationship to Canada as that advocated by the unlaw-"
Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Amendment (Mr. Hogarth) agreed to.
Clause 4 as amended agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
[Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)J
The Depuly Chairman: Shall the preamble carry?
On the preamble.


Mr.   De Bane@: Mr. Chairman, I would only like to suggest another wording without, however, bringing it in as an amendment. I would propose the following text:
ATTENDU que c'est la conviction indefectible du Parlement du Canada que les hommes et les institutions demeurent libres seulement si la liberte a comme fondement le respect des va-leurs morales et spirituelles et la suprematie du droit;
ET ATTENDU qu'un groupe de personnes ou une association qui s'appelle Front de Liberation du Quebec menace et compro-met l'ordre public au Canada en preconisant de recourir 4 la force et au crime pour changer de regime politique du Quebec et les rapports de cette province avec le reste du Canada, ou pour y contribuer, et qui, de fait, a eu recours aux meurtres, menaces de mort et enlevements de meme qu'a d'autres me-thodes comme la contrainte, l'intimidation et la violence;
ET ATTENDU qu'a la suite de 1'approbation par la Chambre des communes du Canada des mesures prises par Son Excellence le gouvemeur general en conseil, en application de la Loi sur les mesures de guerre, pour mettre fin k la menace d'insurrec-tion dans la province de Quebec, etant bien entendu que l'autorite invoquee a cet egard ne devra etre maintenue que provisoire-ment, le Parlement du Canada desire s'assurer que des mesures legales et efficaces soient prises et continuent de l'etre eontre ceux qui recherchent ainsi la destruction de notre regime demo-cratique, et convient en outre que toutes les mesures ci-apres, jugees necessaires en raison de 1'etat d'urgence actuelle, ne soient prises que sous 1'autorite et en conformite d'une loi d'ex-ception quant au fond et provisoire quant a son application.
Mr. Chairman, I did not want to suggest this version as an amendment, since after all one must profit from past experience. Also, having received a letter this morning from the chief translator of the legal division, I want to explain why I made certain remarks about the French wording of this bill.
I am very sorry I gave the impression by those remarks that I wanted to question the work or the competence of the legal translators.
I admit that the adamant and contemptuous attitude which my amendments met with made me lose my temper at times, and on some occasions my words went beyond my thoughts. This was an error on my part for which I beg the legal translators to forgive me, for they are often wrongly attacked and even imposed upon by people who are far from having their competence and who know nothing of their profession.
I admit that I have not sufficiently kept in mind, during my speeches, the conditions in which legislation is translated and the reasons why it is not possible, in some cases, to present a French version in which the translation is not felt.
Indeed, the federal legal system is strictly Anglo-Saxon, entirely based on common law, and this empiric and obscure labyrinth is so far from Cartesian thought and French clarity that the French have yet to find a translation for the words "common law".
Therefore, common law and the English legal language have absolutely nothing in common with French law or the French language and when translators are asked-as they are-to have the French version of a text of English
November 23, 1970

criminal law correspond exactly with the English version, they are required to do an impossible thing.
When moreover, they are requested to do so in record time because those who drafted the English text took up practically the full time allowed for preparation of a bill to lick their style contorsions into shape, then I do not have to wonder who is flouting whom when it is claimed that both languages have equal rights. It is not only the translators who are being flouted, but also Canada's French-speaking community as a whole.
I offer no solution to the problem. I am merely stating an undeniable fact, which I consider to be worthy of consideration.
In concluding, I will repeat my most sincere apologies to our legal translators. If I have spoken of them unfairly, I ask their forgiveness as I had not the slightest intention of causing them prejudice. They are, as I know perfectly well, more skilled, hardworking and competent than many other public servants, although they get less consideration and retribution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I rise merely for two or three minutes to indicate that the preamble makes statements which some of us in this chamber do not accept as being facts of the situation in Canada, either now or on October 16 and the days that followed.


An hon. Member:: They are Liberal facts.


David Lewis: I rise merely to underline that the preamble states in the second paragraph:
AND WHEREAS the public order in Canada continues to be endangered-


Gerald William Baldwin: That is not what Pierre says.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, there has not been any evidence given by the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice at any time during these discussions-


Colin David Gibson: Of course there has.


David Lewis: -not the slightest evidence, to justify the statement that the public order in Canada continues to be endangered. There has been evidence that in the province of Quebec there has functioned, and probably still functions, a criminal conspiracy called le Front de Liberation du Quebec that has engaged in awful criminal acts which every Canadian and every member of this Parliament condemns. But, Mr. Chairman, there has been no evidence to support the kind of thing this preamble says.
All through the debate on this bill, both on second reading and at committee stage, I have been waiting to hear from the minister statements of fact justifying the reintroduction of the repressive legislation which we have now under the War Measures Act. This reintroduction in the form of a new law, even though it is limited in time, serves merely to reinforce the point we have made many times. I am certain that the Canadian people
Public Order Act, 1970
are beginning to realize now, and will increasingly realize, that they were got given the information to which they were entitled for the introduction of so reactionary and repressive a measure as the War Measures Act and so reactionary and repressive a measure as has been discussed in committee clause by clause.
The Minister of Justice has not given us anything to justify this measure at the present time. There is no evidence that the public order or Canada is being threatened at this time. There is evidence of the failure of the police to find kidnappers and murderers; there is ample evidence of that. There is evidence of the failure of the police authorities to find the members and supporters of the FLQ. But there is no evidence to support the statement in the second paragraph of this preamble.


An hon. Member:: What does your mail say?


David Lewis: There was no evidence, Mr. Chairman, at the time when the War Measures Act was introduced-


An hon. Member:: That is enough.


David Lewis: -nor was there evidence at the time when the War Measures Act was proclaimed, that there was a state of apprehended insurrection in the province of Quebec.
Time and time again we have asked the government to explain what it meant by the statement that there was confusion in Quebec; what it meant by the statement that there was an erosion of will in Quebec; what certain ministers of the government meant by stating that the CBC was controlled by the FLQ; what they meant by stating that every high place in Quebec was infiltrated by FLQ; what they meant by statements such as that made by the Minister of Justice, that, the people of Canada will never understand the reason for it unless they are given all the information. Since October 16 none of these statements have been explained and none of the information to which the people of Canada are entitled has been brought forward. There was no evidence of an apprehended insurrection on October 16, and there is no evidence that the public order of Canada is threatened today.
As far as I am concerned, and I am sure as far as my colleagues are concerned, the preamble makes statements that have not been proven to this Parliament or to the people of Canada. I could not let it pass without repeating my condemnation of the government for its failure to give the information and my apprehension about a government that reintroduces the evil, repressive measures of the War Measures Act in this bill without even finding it necessary to tell Parliament or the people of Canada exactly what makes this kind of repressive measure necessary at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Gérald Laniel: Shall the preamble carry?


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
November 23, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
Gérald Laniel: Shall the title carry?


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Gérald Laniel: Shall I report the bill?
Bill reported.


John Napier Turner: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I shall be voting for the third reading of this bill but I shall not be voting happily. I shall be voting for it because it is a temporary measure, because despite its weaknesses it is an improvement on the War Measures Act. Above all, I shall be voting for it because it gets rid of the War Measures Act, the invocation of which has not yet been justified by this government. Those are my reasons for voting for the bill on third reading. I want to make it perfectly clear to the government, to this house and to the people of Canada-


An hon. Member:: You had better find a better one than that.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Did I hear somebody over there say, "You had better have a better one than that"?


Mr. Ricard:: The member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay).


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Well, you had better have a better one than this. I want to make it perfectly clear that this is not a good law. It has serious faults, and in one way at least it is a very bad piece of legislation. It is very bad despite all the demands of the members of this House, despite the demands of many independently-minded citizens of this country and despite the demands even of a majority of delegates to last weekend's Liberal convention in Ottawa.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
This government has stubbornly refused even to consider the establishment of an independent review commission to guard against abuses in the operation of this act. Today the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said that in some way this would involve, on our part, an act of mistrust toward the government of Quebec. It is this Parliament and not the National Assembly of Quebec which has this legislation before it, legislation which we all recognize abridges on a temporary basis the civil rights of Canadians. This Parliament is responsible for taking this action. I submit that it is not too much for members of this Parliament to demand, as we have demanded, that there be guarantees against abuse.


An hon. Member:: But you will vote for the bill.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is suggested that somehow this would involve a lack of respect on our part for the government of the province of Quebec. Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that I suffer from a very grave lack of respect for any government which will not provide for a reasonable
[The Deputy Chairman.]
review in connection with the abrogation of civil rights, as provided in this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It follows from this that I lack respect for the government of Canada, for the government of Quebec and for my hon. friends opposite. The government of Quebec and perhaps the governments of other provinces will be using the special powers passed by this Parliament. I do not see how it can be said that it would somehow be derogatory to the province of Quebec if we were to insist upon an independent board of review. I have not heard any member opposite seriously try to justify the absence of an adequate review provision. Not one member has risen in his place, sir, and really attempted to justify the absence of a board of review, although I notice that quite a number of them tried to hide behind the Constitution and constitutional provisions that just do not exist.


Robert Jardine McCleave: That is right.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: There is no question at all that jurisdiction over criminal procedure lies with this Parliament. If for any reason it seems to the government to be more politic to have such a board of review established by the government of the province of Quebec rather than by this Parliament, then let it obtain that assurance from that province. The government's attitude and the Prime Minister's attitude today was that a committee of civil libertarians should be allowed to visit the jails. The suggestion that this constitutes an adequate arrangement for review is nothing short of fraudulent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I say, Mr. Speaker, that anybody who pretends that a committee of civil libertarians constitutes an adequate board of review deserves nothing but the contempt of this House. I say that the government's attitude toward this proposal has been at least consistent with its attitude toward all the other proposals put forward by parties in the opposition. Obviously, the word went out that there should be no changes whatsoever in the bill except in so far as they might be put forward by the government itself. Why is that, Mr. Speaker?


An hon. Member:: Vote against the bill, then.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Hon. members over there are to dumb to understand anything.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, the opposition have shown their good faith in voting for the principle of the bill on second reading. Why is there all this stubbornness?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I might say that all the static from the rabble opposite is a pretty good indication of their present attitude.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
November 23, 1970


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Colin David Gibson: What about the thousands of letters sent to us?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Why is there this stubbornness? Is it an indication of some god-like complex on the part of the government, or is it simply the result of the cocksureness of a government that believes it is not capable of error? Others may be subject to human error, but not this government!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They think they have the divine right to rule.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Part of the reason, I suggest, is that the government has become blindly arrogant in this matter. I say again that I have no choice but to vote for the measure if I want to get rid of the War Measures Act and the regulations under that act. I certainly want to do that. But I warn the government that we in the opposition will not forget the contempt that it has shown for Parliament, the contempt it has shown for the rights of individuals in this country and the contempt it has shown for the right of the public to be involved in this whole affair.
We shall be demanding an accounting from this government on behalf of all the people of Canada. The government has refused to establish an independent board of review, and no doubt it will also refuse our demands for an independent commission of inquiry to look into this whole sorry mess. If it were less arrogant it would not dare refuse that request. The arrogance of this government and its supporters passes all understanding, and therefore it is hard to say with any assurance what it may or may not dare to do.


An hon. Member:: Why vote for the bill, then?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: So, Mr. Speaker, it is with regret that I have to vote for this measure.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I shall vote for this measure in order to get rid of the War Measures Act. But I want to make it clear, most emphatically, that I am not doing so out of any sense of confidence in this government, because I have no confidence in it whatsoever.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the third reading of the temporary emergency powers bill constitutes the final chapter in the legislative program which began with the kidnapping of James Cross and the kidnapping and murder of Pierre Laporte. Nevertheless, this is not the final chapter in so far as the consequences which will flow from the action which the government has taken are concerned. I submit that for years to come the results will be seen in the province of Quebec, where extraordinary powers have been abused and used for political intimidation and harassment.
23568-18}
Public Order Act, 1970
In years to come historians will scan the record to see what evidence the government had of an apprehended insurrection. I suggest, sir, that they will scan the record in vain. They may find the apprehended insurrection as groundless as the imaginary military coup which the late Right Hon. Mackenzie King dreamed up in order to frighten some of his ministers into supporting him on the conscription issue.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
I want to point out that throughout this entire discussion, beginning with October 16, the position taken by the New Democratic Party has been consistent and clear-cut. On October 16 we made it clear that we had two objections to the resolution which was introduced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on that day. The first was that we had received no evidence whatsoever that there was a state of apprehended insurrection in Canada. We still have no such evidence.
I think it is rather significant that when the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson was asked on television to endorse the government's action in invoking the War Measures Act, he refused to do so on the ground that he did not have sufficient information. The former Prime Minister is in exactly the same position as the rest of us. We did not have information on October 16, and we still do not have any information that would justify curtailing the liberties of 21 million Canadians because of a state of apprehended insurrection which has neither been proven nor outlined.
Our second objection to invoking the War Measures Act was that we claimed that the regulations passed under the War Measures Act constituted an unnecessary abridgment of civil liberties in this country. The best proof of that is the bill which is now before us. The government has introduced legislation which is less repressive and less arbitrary than the regulations under the War Measures Act. The provisions in the regulations under the War Measures Act which were most heinous have been somewhat softened in the legislation now before us.
In the debate on the War Measures Act, members of this party maintained that the government could have acted under the provisions of the Criminal Code. There are adequate provisions there dealing with treason, seditious intention, seditious conspiracy, possession of offensive weapons and so on, which adequately provide the government with the necessary powers to deal with a terrorist conspiracy in the province of Quebec. As an alternative, we suggested that if the government wanted additional powers they should have asked Parliament for additional police powers. There were two powers which we indicated might be necessary: first, on a temporary basis to extend the length of time of detention and, second, to permit without warrant the search of private dwellings for explosives and other offensive weapons.
The Prime Minister wrote the party leaders asking for suggestions with respect to either temporary or permanent legislation to deal with emergencies. In a letter to the Prime Minister dated October 23, I set forth on behalf of the members of this party the additional

November 23, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
powers we were prepared to grant on a temporary basis along with the safeguards which we insisted should accompany any additional powers granted to the police authorities.
When the government introduced Bill C-181 which is now before us, we voted for second reading of that bill because we had committed ourselves to considering the request of the government for additional powers if the government could justify the need for more powers. I quote what I said in the House of Commons on November 4, as recorded at page 893 of Hansard:
I think we have to question whether such restrictive legislation is required in a situation which the government itself contends no longer constitutes an insurrection. I think Parliament should grant the police the powers necessary to apprehend terrorists and kidnappers, but I do not think the government has shown us that it needs powers as wide and as repressive as those which are contained in this legislation.
At that time the members of my party said that we had serious misgivings about this legislation. We thought it was too arbitrary and too repressive. In our opinion, up to that time the government had not given any justification for declaring that public order in this country was in danger. Since we said we were prepared to consider the request of the government for additional powers which they felt were not contained in the Criminal Code, we allowed that legislation to come before the Committee of the Whole in order that in Committee we might get two things from the government-some justification for the declaration that public order was endangered and the more repressive and heinous sections of this bill removed or at least modified.
Every member of this House knows the result of the debate which took place in Committee of the Whole. The minister was completely adamant and inflexible. He refused to accept a single amendment presented by the opposition parties. The most reasonable requests were rejected out of hand. The government used its huge majority to smother every attempt to make this legislation less repressive and less objectionable. The result is that on third read ng we have before us a measure which in the opinion of this party is completely unacceptable.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is
unacceptable because the legislation goes far beyond the additional temporary powers to detain and search without warrant which we talked about at the time the War Measures Act was invoked. This legislation still retains the power to hold a person who has been arrested for 90 days before a date for trial is set. A person can not only be held for 90 days without bail, but if the trial is set some time in advance, bail can still be denied. An accused person could be detained for months before being given the opportunity to have his day in court and have the properly constituted authorities decide whether he is innocent or guilty.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
The second feature of this bill to which we take strong exception is that it takes from the judiciary the right to
[Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands) .1
grant bail and vests that power in the Attorneys General of the provinces. When an accused person asks for bail, the agent of the Attorney General is the prosecutor; he can give the court the reasons why in his opinion no bail should be granted. What the minister has done under this legislation is to make the Attorney General and his agent not only the prosecutor but also the judge and the jury; they have not only the right to argue against bail being granted but the right to deny bail no matter what the court might think.
In defending this indefensible piece of legislation the minister has trotted out a new doctrine of justice, that of political accountability. I say that this is the most dangerous and the most sinister doctrine I have ever heard outlined in this Chamber. The minister says the Attorney General, to whom this legislation gives the right to deny bail, is accountable. To whom? He is accountable to the legislature in which his colleagues have a majority. Mr. Speaker, that is not a great measure of accountability.
Second, the minister says the members of the legislature are accountable to the electorate. But what if the majority of the electors do not agree with the ideas of the accused? Is the fate of accused persons to be determined by a show of hands? Are we to have people's courts in this country as they have in mainland China? Are we going back to the days of the Roman mob when a man's fate depended on whether the crowd held their thumbs up or turned them down?
We in Canada have been proud that under our system of justice any individual, though the majority of the community might disagree with him, has the right to be tried before a competent court of jurisdiction, by due process of law. The minister now tells us that accused persons will be judged by a count of heads, a show of hands. If the minister's theory of political accountability is put into effect, what will happen to minorities? The measure of a country's system of justice does not depend on the rights granted to majorities. The measure of a nation's sensitivity to justice depends on the rights it grants to minorities-even to a minority of one.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If we
come to a point where the treatment of an accused person is determined by a political officer and is dependent on political accountability to elected members and the electorate, we have moved from the idea of the rights of a minority to a position in which we allow the majority to determine what happens to an accused. I say that the government, by this legislation, is substituting political justice administered by elected officers for judicial justice administered by persons who are free from political pressure and political influence.
Our third objection to this legislation relates to the retroactive feature in clause 8 which we say is abhorrent to all who believe in basic civil liberties. This clause states that mere presence at FLQ meetings some time in the past warrants a presumption of guilt and constitutes proof that an accused person is a member of the FLQ
November 23, 1970

unless he can prove otherwise. If he cannot prove otherwise, he is liable to five years' imprisonment.
How does one prove that one is not a member of an organization, Mr. Speaker? How does one prove a negative? This is the one clause in the bill on which I thought the minister would relent, because it is the one part of this legislation with regard to which there has been almost unanimous condemnation. I notice that the Attorney General of Ontario, Mr. Wishart, speaking in the legislature said he hoped Parliament would amend the retroactive feature of the new bill which requires a person who had attended meetings of the FLQ to prove he is not a member of that organization. I notice that the former Premier of Quebec, Mr. Bertrand, said he objected to the retroactive clause because, and I quote:
It places the onus of guilt on persons who "used to be members of the FLQ one or two years ago" before the movement was declared outlawed.
He added:
There is a danger here to human liberties-liberties which have taken men ages to acquire.
Almost every reputable newspaper and most of the outstanding editors of this country have condemned the retroactive features which are to be found in this legislation.
I believe the bill before us is even more dangerous because it represents a delegation of powers to persons who are not accountable to this parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: During the time this legislation was going through committee of the whole, the minister gave us bland assurances on almost every clause that our fears in this respect were not well founded. The fact is, of course, that the administration of this bill will not be in his hands; it will be in the hands of the Attorneys General of the province, in particular, of the Attorney General of the province of Quebec.
I recall that on November 4 when I was speaking on second reading of this bill, the minister interrupted me to contend that the Bill of Rights was still in effect in spite of the fact that the War Measures Act had been invoked. If this is true, the Attorney General of the province of Quebec has been breaking the law for weeks on end, and I ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) what he has done about it. Has he raised his voice? Has he done anything? Day after day when we asked the minister about the fact that persons detained in Quebec have been held incommunicado-and the Attorney General of that province has publicly so admitted-he said he would convey our concern to the Attorney General of Quebec.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
The Prime Minister talked today about the review committee which had been set up in the province of Quebec. That committee has made some reports on its activities. Mr. Jacques Hebert, president of the Civil Liberties Union, stated publicly that, contrary to what
Public Order Act, 1970
they had been told by the Attorney General of Quebec, they found that very few of the prisoners' families had been apprised of the situation or advised that they had the right to visit. Mr. Hebert said that the committee had been told by several prisoners that they had been victims of psychological and sometimes physical methods that are absolutely unacceptable.
When I raised the matter in the House, the Minister of Justice said, "Well, that is the responsibility of the Attorney General of Quebec". When I asked the minister whether he would investigate the statement made by Mr. Jacques Hebert and his committee and report back to the House, the minister said that he would consider it. He has never replied in the House nor told us what was the result of his investigations into the treatment of the persons who were detained. The fact is that the powers granted under the War Measures Act have been abused, and abused abominably. The author of those regulations the Minister of Justice, has merely stood in this House ringing his hands like an outraged virgin.
This is what has happened since October 16. Ninety per cent of those arrested and detained have been released, presumably because they were innocent. Many of them have lost their jobs, their reputations, and I am afraid in some cases have lost their faith in the system of justice in this country. The powers that were granted under the War Measures Act have been used to settle old political scores and to harass political opponents. It is not without significance that many of the people who were picked up were members of the FRAP organization, a municipal political organization that was endeavouring to get some seats on the municipal council in opposition to the overwhelming majority of Mayor Drapeau.
It is also not without significance that a large number of those picked up belonged to the Parti Quebecois. I disagree heartily with the separatists of Quebec or of any other province. I think that anyone who wants to take Quebec or any other province out of confederation is stupid. But as long as those who advocate such policies propose to do so by constitutional and democratic means they have as much right to express their views as any member in this House. If they can be abused, harassed and detained, then it is only a matter of time till other groups get exactly the same treatment. Individuals have been kept in prison anywhere from three to 21 days, then interrogated for a few minutes and dismissed. But dismissed embittered, and having lost faith in the judicial process in this country.
The Attorney General of the province of Quebec is already showing an appetite for more arbitrary powers; he is now asking for emergency powers for the provinces which they can invoke on their own without having to refer to the federal government or the federal Parliament. He is asking for censorship of the press, for exceptional powers of arrest and for identification cards which will require every citizen to be photographed and fingerprinted. He is now talking of taking action against teachers who are accused of political indoctrination in the classroom. Who is to decide what is political indoctrination? What started out as a measure to stop terrorist activity is now moving into repression against ideas.

November 23, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
When you start to suppress ideas, to decide what teachers will teach and what students will study, then you have started down the road toward a police state.
The Attorney General of Quebec says that the powers for which he asks "are not to remove civil liberties but to give us an efficient police force". The police force does not need more power; it needs more competence. We all remember the persons who were arrested on the basis of mistaken identity, and the police who raided the house of the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) at four o'clock in the morning. It may be that to the police in Quebec the Secretary of State is a suspicious looking character, and it may be that Westmount is a questionable area. But surely the police in Quebec ought to know who is the Secretary of State for Canada and where he lives. If he can be treated in that way, then can you imagine what would happen to an humble citizen living in St. Jacques or St. Henri.
Let me speak bluntly. The antics of the police in Quebec during the last few weeks have made the Keystone cops look like James Bond. These are the law enforcement bodies to whom the Minister of Justice is now handing powers that could result in unjust imprisonment, arbitrary arrest and conviction on the basis of past association. This is why we have been pressing the government, as have members throughout the opposition, to set up an independent commission, board of review or tribunal to ensure that the powers granted by this Parliament will not be abused.
I am going to move the following amendment, and then if I have time left I will take a few moments to say something about it. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett):
That Bill C-181 be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole House for the purpose of reconsidering clause 12 with a view to the inclusion therein of a provision for the establishment of an independent body to review the administration under the said bill.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
The Prime Minister said yesterday in the House, and last night on television, that the setting up of an independent body to ensure that the powers under this legislation were not abused would constitute a lack of confidence in the government of Quebec and, particularly, a lack of confidence in the Attorney General of Quebec. That is a specious argument. Let us look at the logic of the situation. The province of Quebec asked the government of Canada for extraordinary powers. It was given those powers under the War Measures Act. The government of Canada is now asking Parliament to give to the province of Quebec extraordinary powers. I submit that before this Parliament is asked to give such arbitrary and extraordinary powers to any provincial government we have the right to insist that extraordinary safeguards shall be written into that legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is not
a matter of whether we trust the Attorney General of Quebec or of any other province. I would not be prepared to give these wide, sweeping powers to any Attorney General whether he be in the province of Quebec, Manitoba or any other province of Canada, because the Attorney General of a province is accountable only to his own legislature. We are being asked to pass this legislation. Surely there ought to be a body accountable to us which will supervise the exercise of these powers and see they are used with proper discretion so as to safeguard the civil liberties of the citizens of Canada.
When the Prime Minister says, as he did this afternoon during the question period, that the opposition parties in asking for such a review board are indicating a lack of confidence in Quebec, or we are trying to make Quebec a colonial state, I ask the government whether the delegates attending the Liberal policy conference this weekend tried to insult the province of Quebec and make it a colonial state. Were they as ignorant of the Constitution as we are on this side? Did the delegates attending that conference not understand the implications of this situation?
Surely the hon. members opposite tried to persuade the delegates to accept the government's rejection of this proposal, but could not do it because even their own members attending the conference know perfectly well that it runs contrary to all the sense of decency which Canadian people have that such powers should be given to any man or any government without some safeguards to protect the innocent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: To tell us that a committee of volunteers through the John Howard Society or the Civil Liberties Association will do this without any power and without any authority, who can be kicked out of office and be treated as Mr. Jacques Hebert of the Civil Liberties Association has been treated in Quebec, is not good enough. They could not even get the facts or the truth, and I could not even get a report from the Minister of Justice. Is this the travesty we are to have in respect of a review of these powers?
I say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that we have had some black pages in Canadian history in respect of violations of basic human rights. In 1919, at the time of the Winnipeg general strike, we had the deportation orders. In the 1930s we had prosecutions under section 98 which outlawed the Communist Party, drove it underground and put men in jail. During the war we had regulations under the War Measures Act which allowed the picking up of Canadian Japanese, interning them and confiscating their property, although at the end of the war the Prime Minister of Canada at that time had to stand up and say there was not one proven case of sabotage by any Canadian Japanese. These are not things we like to look back on.


An hon. Member:: Why do you bring them up, then?
November 23, 1970


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I will tell the hon. member why we bring them up. Then we had the padlock law, a vicious restraint of our civil rights. Now the Minister of Justice is to add his name to this catalogue of wrongs and injustices. I say to the minister he will be remembered in Canadian history as the man who in this critical hour did more to destroy the civil liberties of the people of this country than has ever been done before in peacetime. It is not enough in normal times for the minister to go to seminars and teach-ins.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member although his time has not quite expired. Some hon. members have brought to the attention of the Chair that it is ten o'clock. I will not put the motion now because I have a slight reservation about it. It may not be too important, but it seems to me that the hon. member has proposed an amendment which may be doubtful in that it refers to clause 12. It may be clause 14 the hon. member should attempt to amend. Perhaps it is the Bill of Rights that the hon. member is attempting to amend. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) seems to agree with my suspicion. If it is the Bill of Rights the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) wishes to amend, he cannot do it by an amendment to clause 12 of the bill.
In any event, it is such an important matter that I would want to consider it, and I will not declare the amendment out of order without hearing argument. The hon. member might consider in the meantime whether it would not be easier to move an amendment to the effect that Bill C-181 be sent back to Committee of the Whole for the purpose of reconsidering clause 14, rather than clause 12.
In any event, it being ten o'clock, a motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been made.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, on November 4 I asked the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mack-asey) a question regarding the payment of less than the minimum federal wage to employees of the Chateau Laurier Hotel in Ottawa. The minister replied:
I expressed this opinion two weeks ago and gave my department the authority to proceed in the matter in the usual manner. I refer to the application of the rules and regulations under which the Department of Labour normally proceeds in
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
such cases. I presume that advice is now being sought from the appropriate department in regard to proceeding further.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question dealt with the Canadian National pension plan. But speaking first to the original question put to the Minister of Labour, it appears at this time, which is more than two weeks after November 4, that the situation at the Chateau Laurier Hotel has not been clarified. It is my information that there is hesitation on the part of some departments of government to take any action to find out whether the Chateau Laurier Hotel falls within federal or provincial jurisdiction. It is very ironic, to say the least, that at one time the CNR Chateau Laurier Hotel was quite prepared to be within federal jurisdiction so far as the payment of wages and other conditions were concerned, but now that the federal minimum wage is more than the provincial minimum wage they have the audacity to suggest that they are under provincial jurisdiction.
Even though there may be a case in Canada-I understand there is one in Alberta in respect of Jasper Lodge- regarding whether or not a certificate of collective bargaining can be granted under provincial or federal legislation, I cannot understand why the appropriate department of government will not move in respect of the Chateau Laurier Hotel and decide that it should be governed by federal legislation.
A supplementary question was asked of the minister in respect of the CNR pension plan. In view of the CNR labour-management question which is before the country, and the fact that labour is asking that pensions be put on the bargaining table, I think it is only right that we be assured that the CNR will consider putting its pension plan on the bargaining table.
We are aware that the unanimous report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, which in effect took no position concerning collective bargaining, suggested that persons already on pension should be given the same consideration that pensioners received some time ago. At the same time it was suggested that there should be an escalator clause. This suggestion received the unanimous agreement of the House of Commons. It would seem appropriate therefore, that a minister should answer to the House in respect of whether Canadian National plans to do something similar about its pension plan. I am given to understand that Canadian National has communicated with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson), but neither the Minister of Labour nor the Parliamentary Secretary would be in a position to answer for the Minister of Transport so I shall defer that question until another time. The most important questions at this time are why the Chateau Laurier is not paying the federal minimum wage, and why no action is being taken on the part of the Canadian National management to act at least in part on the recommendations of the committee which were adopted unanimously so far as pension plan is concerned.


Mr. Ray Perrauli (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, within its jurisdiction, this

November 23, 1970
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
government is determined to provide decent wage standards lor the working people of Canada. While 30 per cent of Canadian workers are organized, the percentage stands at 50 per cent in those industries within federal jurisdiction. Many workers, particularly in the unorganized sector, are in low-paying jobs. Some time ago the federal government established minimum wage legislation. Periodically, this federal minimum wage has been increased. Today it stands at $1.65 an hour, the highest in Canada.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) believes it is a major responsibility of the government to continue to assure, by law, an adequate minimum wage and to secure compliance with the rules and regulations which form the Canada Labour (Standards) Code. The Department of Labour and the minister support the view that Crown corporations like the CNR are bound to comply with the federal minimum wage legislation, as are all other industries coming within federal jurisdiction.
A short while ago the minister instructed his officials to proceed with action designed to establish beyond all doubt the obligation of the CNR to pay at least the federal minimum wage. It is not the minister's prerogative to determine in law whether federal minimum wage statutes apply to all phases of Canadian National operations. Without any doubt, however, if legal ambiguities are resolved in favour of federal jurisdiction, the Minister of Labour will continue to enforce vigorously federal minimum wage provisions on behalf of all Canadian National employees.
With respect to the hon. member's other observations, the Department of Labour shares with him a hope that the outstanding differences between the CNR and its employees will be resolved satisfactorily. The minister has stated in this House that the report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications should be required reading, not only by the CNR but also by the unions in view of the report's wide-ranging recommendations for both management and labour.
One current dispute between the CNR and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers is at the conciliation stage, as is a dispute between the CPR and the same union. Other disputes between the CNR and the unions representing most other categories of railway employees are at the direct negotiation stage, that is, no conciliation officer or board has been appointed. The specific question of pensions is dealt with in the demands presented by most unions involved in the current negotiations. The Department of Labour's industry specialist, Mr. Arthur Gibbons, is keeping in very close touch with the parties and the proceedings. The government is sure that both parties realize the importance of the negotiations. I thank the hon. member for directing these important inquiries to the Department of Labour.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY-GENERAL DE GAULLE'S FUNERAL

Mr. Rene  Maite@Champlain: Mr. Speaker, the question I asked last week was rather important although it was received with indifference by the Right Hon. Prime
Minister (Mr. Trudeau). Since 1968 we have been getting used to that eloquent silence which is a manifestation of the childish and offhand streak in his personality. The carnations (oeillets) that he often wears in his buttonhole do not make us forget the blinkers (oeilleres) on both sides of his head. He refuses to see anything but his own opinions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would call on the hon. member to speak on the question to be discussed at the present time. The hon. member must be relevant, that is, deal with the question which he had asked in the House earlier. As he has not received the reply which he expected, he is entitled under Standing Orders to discuss the matter later, but he must only deal with the subject of the question.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)


René Matte: Why, Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister keep silent instead of answering the questions that are put to him? It is a rather simple question. Had he any reasons for refusing to attend General de Gaulle's official funeral? Is it because all the eminent chiefs of State went to Paris on that occasion that the Canadian Prime Minister has not deigned to do so? Does he have any complexes in front of Nixon, Heath, Kosygin, Saragat and the pleiad of other chiefs of State? Does he question the value of the greatest man of contemporary history? Why turn up his nose at the remains of the one who had the last word with such famous men as Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin? Why does he not recognize France's great saviour?
Some concepts of the General undoubtedly gave rise to discussions, if not dissensions, but are those sufficient reasons to show the whole world such pettiness? The President of the United States has not always been in agreement with the General, nor has the British Prime Minister. Yet, they were there. So was the head of the U.S.S.R. Such occasions are surely not the right time for a show of petty spite.
It took a prime minister like ours to dare bring shame to our country. God knows that the prime minister is fond of travelling. He goes here and there, skiing, scub-ba-diving, cruising, etc. He keeps saying that he wants his privacy to be respected. We know how he has run down newspapermen-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must interrupt the hon. member. I have recognized him for a question and not a speech on the subject of the Prime Minister. The matter before us now is General de Gaulle's funeral and not whether the Prime Minister has answered the question or not.
The hon. member might perhaps on another occasion ask the Prime Minister why he did not answer his question. If there is no answer he will be able to give notice to the Chair and discuss the matter later. At present the matter under consideration is the funeral of General de Gaulle and this has nothing to do with the silence of the Prime Minister.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to justify the question.

November 23, 1970

Does the immobility of the Prime Minister on that occasion become as sensational as his social activities and his trips? Never has a country been represented in such a strange way. Therefore it is important that we should be told the true reasons of his refusal to attend the funeral of General de Gaulle. France and Canada have many reasons to maintain frank and sincere ties of friendship. Pettiness, spite, differences of opinion must not alter these ties. It can be said that this is a tempest in a teapot; 1 will answer that very often such tempests mark the beginning of useless hostilities.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister should speak frankly. He does not have any valid reasons to offer-as his silence implies-he should say so frankly. In the meantime, he can always draw inspiration by reading General de Gaulle's memoirs.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister and of his Parliamentary Secretary the hon. member for York North (Mr. Danson), who are both presently attending a meeting here in Ottawa with representatives of the American government, I wanted to answer the hon. member for Champlain, but, after the Chair's two appropriate reminders, I think I have nothing to add.
I would have gladly brought to the attention of the Prime Minister or of his Parliamentary Secretary the remarks of the hon. member for Champlain, but really there is nothing to draw anyone's attention to. I only have to say that the Canadian government was very honourably represented at the funeral of General de Gaulle by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp).



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION-PERFORMANCE OF ILLEGAL ABORTION ON PROGRAM &quot;WEEKEND&quot;

Mr.   Jean-R. Roy@Timmins: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I asked the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) a three-part question regarding last evening's CBC "Weekend" program. For reasons known only to himself, the minister decided to ignore the question and not answer, but I hope an answer will be given this evening for I am sure that if the minister had seen this program he would have felt the same concern and disgust as I did. It is of little use to express this concern to the CBC's officials, Mr. Speaker, for these officials have even more disregard for the representations of citizens and MPs than the minister.
Part of the program in question to which I am objecting was the presentation of an abortion, beginning with a call from a girl in Vancouver to a Los Angeles abortion clinic, continuing with the surgical intervention, the vacuum suction procedure of the abortion, and ending with the post-surgical care to the patient. My first question, Mr. Speaker, is whether the performers in this presentation were paid directly or indirectly for their performance in a criminal, illegal abortion, but many more questions come to mind. Was the patient an ordi-
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
nary individual really going through an abortion, or was she an actress? Were her abortion fees, air fare and other expenses paid with taxpayers' money? How was this young lady found, and how did the CBC stage the event? Did the doctors or the clinic receive any direct or indirect remuneration from the CBC? Was the program seen and/or approved by top CBC management?
At the end of the program the CBC announced a proposed opinion poll, the results to be shown next week. Mr. Speaker, I am curious to know if this poll will be taken to influence public opinion rather than report on it. Is the patient, coming from Vancouver, part of the diabolical plot involving that group of ignorant young ladies who gave Your Honour such a trying time and showed such disrespect for this House and the democratic process earlier this year?
Is this program part of such a plot to influence public opinion, or is it the reflection of sympathy by the producer and some CBC officials for the cause of free abortion? Their stupidity in contravening the proposed House of Commons debate by showing a program in such bad taste is morally offensive to very many Canadians. Mr. Speaker, the minister, I submit will be party to the connivance if he allows this report to be shown, probably after much editing, many staged interviews and the usual rating-affecting, distorted impact scenes have been taken. If the top CBC officials have any such control, then surely they are prostituting their mandate by agreeing to such programs.
The final part of my question, Mr. Speaker, asked the purpose for which this program was produced. Is the reason justifiable, or is this just another attempt by the CBC to influence program ratings by showing another program offensive to the morals of many Canadian viewers who pay for this nonsense? With each new, additional and questionable program of this type, Mr. Speaker, the goals, objectives and purposes of our national networks become more and more suspect. One network, the CBC, seems intent on the destruction of the moral values and fibre of our society. The other branch of the corporation, Radio Canada, seems intent on the destruction of our elected governmental bodies and our democratic system.
It is true that Parliament has given the top CBC management an autonomy which practically places this organization out of reach of all authority. Unless those responsible can stop delegating their authority to all sorts of irresponsible people down the line, and unless they have the courage and judgment to accept their responsibility and make the decisions necessary to stop this gross abuse of our national television system, they should resign. No program which offends the morals of people is justifiable, and this latest example goes much beyond the bounds of decency and objective programming.
I hope that the minister will insist on full answers and explanations with regard to these questions and will accept the duty inherent in his position of giving explanations to the House. I am supported, Mr. Speaker, in this submission by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Sullivan) and many other hon. members.

November 23, 1970
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Mr. James Hugh Faulkner (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State): Mr. Speaker, the reply from the corporation is as follows: The question of legal abortion has been a matter of public interest for some time now. It was one of the questions discussed very recently at the Liberal party convention, and the CBC considers that the "Weekend" item was entirely justified. No performers were used in the item, nor were fees paid by the corporation to any of the participants. The CBC, however, did pay the American producers of the item in Los Angeles. The opinion poll commissioned by 'Weekend" will be carefully taken over a number of weeks, not just next week, to discover what public opinion is with regard to the question of abortion legislation.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.20 p.m.
November 23, 1970



APPENDIX


[Stage Direction]
Estimated Aggregate
Province	1962-63	1963-64	1964-65	1965-66	1966-67	1967-68	1968-69	1969-70	1970-71	9 years