1970-11-17

THE LATE BERNARD PILON

Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the House has just lost one of its most eminent members, Mr. Bernard Pilon, member for Chambly since 1962 and Whip of the government party.
The House of Commons is losing not only a member of great ability and exceptional devotion but also a man who had, through his warm humanity and his generous and sympathetic personality, won the respect and the friendship of all. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that I speak for all hon. members, when I say that he will be sorely missed and that his sudden passing leaves a great void here.
To Mrs. Pilon, his family and his friends, I offer, in the name of all members of the House, our very sincere condolences.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: We have just learned, Mr. Speaker, of the untimely death of Mr. Pilon, member for Chambly and Whip of the Liberal party.
Mr. Pilon who was elected in 1962 has always been considered since, by all hon. members with whom he was acquainted, as a kindly man, who liked life and who could control his feelings and reactions. All of us, whatever our party affiliations, have always appreciated his sense of humour; we are all losing a friend.

Of Mr. Pilon, Sir, it can be truthfully said that he had the respect and admiration of all members of this House. He was a warm and affectionate man, and we will all hold fine memories of his work here.

To all his colleagues, to the members of his family as well as to his friends, I extend on behalf of my party, my sincere sympathy.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members in all parts of the House were saddened to learn only a few hours ago of the untimely death of Mr. Bernard Pilon, the member for Chambly. He entered the House in 1962, and it is a measure of the strength of his personality that he very soon became the whip of his party. In this very exacting post, one which, if occupied by a more abrasive personality, could cause a good deal of friction, Bernie, as he was commonly called, won the respect and the admiration
of all with whom he came in contact. Those of us on this side of the House came to know him as a friendly, likeable and pleasant personality. We feel saddened today by his passing and we hope that you, Sir, on behalf of the members of this House will convey to Madame Pilon our deepest sympathy at the great loss which she and the members of her family have suffered in the passing of her husband.


Mr. Real Caouetle (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, as all my colleagues in the House, I was shocked when I heard the news of the sudden death of Bernard Pilon at the age of 52.
Bernard Pilon was a friend of mine. I came to know him as soon as he was elected to the House in 1962. Since then he and I have been members of parliamentary delegations in Iran and India where I had the occasion to appreciate his superb qualities.
AH will remember that Bernard was generous and amiable and that he was more of a humanitarian than a politician.
Mr. Speaker, Parliament has lost a dedicated servant. The electors of his Chambly riding have not only lost a public servant but a friend. As to the government, it is being deprived of one of the most remarkable members it has been our privilege to know.
And so on behalf of my colleagues and on my behalf, I wish to extend to Mrs. Pilon and the family our most sincere sympathy.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasier):: As the
counterpart on this side of the House may I say very briefly how saddened we are at the loss of our late colleague, the chief government whip, Bernard Pilon. It was an honour and privilege to be associated with him in the performance of his duties in the House which he discharged in a fair, unexcited and businesslike manner. I was also privileged to attend three international conferences along with Mr. Pilon as representatives of the Canadian Parliament, and one could not help but be impressed by his Canadianism as well as his great understanding of international affairs. Members in aU corners of the House are saddened by this loss, and we extend to his widow and son our sincere condolences.
Righl Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert): Mr. Speaker, I would not want to presume in any way but I would like to direct a suggestion by way of a question to the Prime Minister. The universal sorrow of members of this House has never been poured out in more abundant
1228

November 17, 1970
Immigration Report
measure than today. While naturally Mr. Pilon would expect us to carry on, has any consideration been given to an adjournment for a period this afternoon in tribute to one who served all so well?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, some consideration was given to that. I am advised it has been a longstanding practice of the House that if the news of the death of a member of the House is received while the House is sitting the House then adjourns for the balance of that day. In this case the news was received before the House began today's sitting.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Oito E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table under Standing Order 41(2) copies in both official languages of a Report on Applicants in Canada by Joseph Sedgwick, Q.C.


Mr. Paproski:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was hoping the minister would have made a statement after tabl ng such an important document as Mr. Sedgwick's report. After all, when a man works diligently for two years and comes up with a few reasonable recommendations, surely it is not enough just to throw the report on the table under Standing Order 41.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak on the point of order, simply for information. In this case Mr. Sedgwick was appointed in July to this task.



SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (A), 1970-71

[Stage Direction]
A message from the Honourable Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General transmitting Supplementary Estimates (A) for the financial year ending March 31, 1971, was presented by Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board) and read by Mr. Speaker to the House.

Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 59 I would like to move, seconded by Mr. Olson:
That in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 58(15),' the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the year ending March 31, 1971, tabled in the House this day, be referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Finance who has expressed concern about possible protectionist tendencies in the United States and the implications of this for Canada. Is it the position of the government of Canada that the protectionist trends in the United States are contrary to GATT or any other international convention, or is it the position of the government of Canada that what is contemplated there does not contravene any international agreement but would simply be against the interests of the development of world trade and in particular of Canada's world trade?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we will have to see how these policies develop in order to judge whether they will be contrary to the GATT or not. It is our belief that the United States will not develop policies contrary to the GATT, and of course we are expressing hope that they will not depart from the generally held belief in the benefits of multilateral trade. I had occasion to express this hope of the government of Canada to President Nixon when I first met him a year and a half ago.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In addition to Canadian ministers
expressing concern and exhorting the United States not to proceed in this way, is the government of Canada contemplating any initiative of a concrete sort such as sponsoring or encouraging a conference of the principal trading nations of the world to consider the menace of rising protectionism and possible methods that might be adopted to avoid such rising protectionism?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In the area of specific measures, Mr. Speaker, next week Canada will be hosting a meeting at the ministerial level of the Canada-U.S. ministerial committee on economic and trade problems, and we will use this meeting to reiterate our firm belief in the benefits of multilateral trade. There are no other international meetings of a specific nature being considered at this time.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I appreciate that opportunities will be taken to present Canadian views to the United States but I am asking whether opportunities will be sought to broaden the discussions? In particular, I should like to know whether the government of Canada is consulting the European Common Market authorities at Brussels as it is well known that they share Canada's concern about possible protectionist developments in the United States? Have there been consultations with the Common Market authorities at Brussels with a view to developing common and more broadly based consultations with the United States?
November 17, 1970


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: When the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce visited Brussels a few weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, he not only expressed concern about the consequences of protectionism which might develop in the United States but also the concern felt by Canadians that protectionism might develop in the Common Market itself. In our discussions of the possible consequences of the entry of the United Kingdom into the Common Market we reiterated these concerns. So the speech by the Minister of Finance yesterday is part of the reiteration of these very serious concerns we have with the development of world trade by the formation of blocs, whether within Europe or within the United States. It is of great importance to Canada that multilateral trade continue to be viewed by the world trading nations as the best way to proceed. We have also had discussions along these lines in Australia and New Zealand and there have been return visits here by some of their officials. We are trying to impress these views upon the world trading nations.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In the event that the United States does not respond to the minister's call for trade liberalization, can the Prime Minister indicate whether his government is preparing a program that would enable industrial development to take place without continental integration?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I respectfully suggest to the hon. member that the question as asked is hypothetical. Perhaps the hon. member would like to rephrase his question.


Max Saltsman: I would like to rephrase it, Mr. Speaker. Is the Prime Minister preparing an alternative program in the event that the talks on trade liberalization are not successful?


Mr. Speaker:: I would think that the hon. member's question as rephrased is still hypothetical.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, may I have a new supplementary question?


Mr. Speaker:: This is the hon. member's last chance.


Max Saltsman: The Minister of Finance also referred to the need of a selective strategy as vital to our future development. Can the right hon. Prime Minister indicate if the government has such a selective strategy and, if so, when can he make it known to Parliament?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In due course, Mr. Speaker.



APPLICATION OF UNITED STATES LEGISLATION TO CANADA

Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: I have a supplementary question for the right hon. Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Has the government of Canada received assurances from the government of the United States
Inquiries of the Ministry
with regard to the president's trade legislation known as HPi. 18970 which is at present moving through Congress, which I know the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has discussed with his counterpart in the United States and which contains very restrictive measure against imports into the United States, especially of manufactured goods? Have we received assurances that this legislation will not be applied against Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not in that specific sense, Mr. Speaker. It would probably be impossible, or certainly undesirable, for the United States to give this specific assurance to Canada. As the hon. member knows, the United States is a member of GATT and it cannot undertake to discriminate either against or in favour of Canada and we do not expect this. Certainly we are not making any representations along that line. We are making representations at the official and industrial levels to ensure that this legislation is not adopted in a manner harmful to the principles of trade which I just enunciated in answer to the previous question. But we are not asking for discrimination in favour of Canada, if that is the hon. member's question.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the government received any assurances that this bill, which will be a very restrictive piece of legislation as far as this country is concerned, will not pass in its present form?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how the member would expect the government to have the assurance that the United States Congress will not pass this bill in a particular form. Of course, we cannot have that assurance from anyone except from Congress itself, and that will be known only when they debate and vote on the bill.


Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalt-Saanich):: In light of Canadian concern over trade restrictions in the United States and other countries and in keeping with the principle of removing the beam from one's own eye before trying to remove the mote from someone else's, would the Prime Minister indicate whether he intends to ask the Minister of Finance to remove government order 36 from the order paper as in this motion the government is attempting to protect the Canadian shirt industry in much the same way as other countries are attempting to introduce protection?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
CANADA-UNITED STATES MINISTERIAL MEETING__



ITEMS ON AGENDA

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister about the Canada-United States ministerial meeting on economic and trade matters which is to be held in Ottawa next week. Will he tell us what items will be on the agenda and what ministers will be representing the Canadian government at those talks?
1230

November 17. 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I do not know. I will ask the Minister of Finance or, hopefully, his Parliamentary Secretary to provide that information when the question is next asked.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Since both the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources according to the roster ought to be here today but are not present, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he knows if the export of energy resources is to be included in the talks? If so, will the Prime Minister undertake to see that the responsible minister makes a statement to the House either before the talks or after indicating what Canadian policy actually is with respect to the utilization of energy resources?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is addressing the Chamber of Commerce in British Columbia and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is in Alberta meeting with Premier Strom and representatives of the oil industry. When they come back I will ask them to consider the hon. member's suggestion.



NATIONAL PARKS


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister in charge of national parks.
Is the government about to sign an agreement with the provincial authorities on establishing a national park between Black Lake and Thetford Mines, as the minister promised during the recent byelection campaign?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, that is certainly not due to such a suggestion on my part, as there is no possibility of establishing a national park there. It is only that the people of Thetford realized they were getting nowhere with Social Credit.



AUDITOR GENERAL


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the President of the Treasury Board if the proposals contained in Bill C-190 reflect the view of the government, as indicated during the preceding session, that a different type of person with greatly curtailed powers is required for the office of Auditor General?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some doubt whether the question as asked is in order. The hon. member, if I understood his question correctly, is asking whether a

bill that has been proposed to the House reflects the views of the government. I doubt whether a question of this kind is in order. I would think that the question might be in order when the bill is before the House for consideration. At present we are initiating discussion on an order which is on the order paper, and I would not think that the question is procedurally correct.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I put the question in a general way which may find favour with Your Honour. Does the minister not agree that it is just as dangerous to curtail the powers of the Auditor General as it is to send a lion tamer into a cage of hungry lions with his hands tied behind his back?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think that the supplementary also implies difficulty. The hon. member might wish to reserve this argument until the bill is before the House for consideration.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister assure the House that any extraordinary expenses which may be charged to the Department of National Defence arising from the rendering of assistance to a civil power will not come from the frozen budget of the department but will be provided by some other means?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. I think I can fairly confidently give him that assurance because otherwise there would not be funds available. In effect we would have to seek any additional funds that may be necessary to pay these costs beyond the budget which has already been set.


John Angus MacLean: I have a related question which I hope Your Honour will accept as being supplementary. Will the tabling of the white paper on defence be delayed beyond the date of early 1971 suggested by the minister in order to give reconsideration to the implications for the defence forces of the present situation and possible recurrences of similar situations in the future?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I do not expect it will have to be delayed for that reason. An analysis is now under way as to the implications for force levels of the operation which at the present time is gradually being withdrawn, but I would not think that would delay the tabling of the white paper.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: wish to direct a supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board who today tabled the supplemen-
November 17, 1970

tary estimates. Can the minister indicate what item in the supplementary estimates includes this additional expenditure?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In
relation to the discussion which has just taken place, there is no item in supplementary estimates (A) to cover this.


PRESENCE OF RUSTY BEETLE IN WHEAT SHIPMENTS______



PAYMENT OF COST OF DAMAGE

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: My
question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Having regard to the strong message that was given to the government yesterday by Manitoba and western Canada and in particular with reference to the beetle damage to wheat, is the government reconsidering the minister's suggestion that at least part of the cost of the damage caused by the beetles should be paid by the farmers? Does he intend to put payment of the cost in the proper place by making the government of Canada responsible for its own negligence?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the government is not negligent in any way, shape or form with respect to the infestation of rusty beetles in wheat. If the right hon. member will phrase his question in a more precise way so that it is capable of receiving an answer, I will be happy to answer it. What I said the other day is still valid. We are attempting to ascertain the location of all or most of this infested wheat. With respect to any portion that is in the bins on the farmer's farm, I said that the farmer is responsible for the management of that grain. The right hon. member has never separated his question so that it is capable of an answer in that respect.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I will recognize the right hon. member in a moment, but I do not think we should enter into a debate during the question period.


John George Diefenbaker: I will make my question simple enough so that even the intelligence of the Minister of Agriculture will make possible an answer. Is the minister going to hook the western farmer for the cost of any portion of clearing up the beetle situation?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, we are not going to hook the western farmer for anything.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture arising from the same message delivered yesterday by western Canada. Is the minister now prepared to withdraw Bill C-176, the marketing bill?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker. The indication I have from all governments in western Canada is that this is a desirable bill.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. My impression was that the by-election was finished but it seems that it is continuing today.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that Commissioner Shuttleworth indicated this morning at a meeting of the Standing Committee on Agriculture that once the grain has been purchased it is then the responsibility of the purchaser of the grain, is the government now prepared to assume its responsibility and pay for the damage that has been done because of negligence in the inspection?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, there has been no negligence in inspection on the part of the government.


John George Diefenbaker: How then did the infected wheat get to Poland and Russia?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I realize hon. members want to ask supplementary questions, but we must get on.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister arising out of a newspaper report concerning a speech made by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion at St. Jerome on Sunday in which the minister is alleged to have said that the FLQ have also controlled the CBC. Is the Prime Minister aware of such a statement having been made by that minister and, if so, does he approve of it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The
answer to the first question is no, Mr. Speaker. Therefore the second question is not relevant. I will have to see the speech and discuss it with the minister.


David Lewis: Will the Prime Minister assure the House that he will make an inquiry not only into the speech made by the minister but also his statement, if he made that statement? If the minister did make that statement, will the Prime Minister explain to the House why no inquiry has been made into FLQ control of the CBC, if the minister is correct?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The first question is a suggestion to the Prime Minister, and I suggest to the hon. member that the second question is hypothetical.


David Lewis: May I rephrase the question and ask whether the Prime Minister will undertake to inquire as to what the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion said on the subject of FLQ control of the CBC and inform the House of the results of his inquiry?

November 17, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will inform myself of the statement made by the minister and then decide if any action is necessary as a result of what he said.
* $ *



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Can he tell us how Michel Chartrand, now detained under the War Measures Act, was able to make a taperecording of a statement and get it out of prison?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I cannot do justice to the hon. member because I did not quite understand his question. I am willing to read it in Hansard and see if I can answer it.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. William Sltoreyko (Edmonton East):: I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether he authorized an invitation sent to Mr. Picard, Vice-President of the CBC, to appear before the Liberal caucus committee on communications to explain the inner workings of the CBC to that group only?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I did not approve such an invitation because I had no knowledge of it. However, I know that our caucus committees, and I hope the caucus committees of the opposition parties, take advantage of every opportunity to get information from experts by asking them to help them in the understanding of problems.


William Skoreyko: If such a move is approved, will the Prime Minister consider having Mr. Picard appear before the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts so that all members can become familiar with the inner workings of the CBC?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Picard does not have to ask permission from me when he is invited to address any particular group of Canadians. He decides whether he will accept the invitation or not. In this case, I repeat, I am not aware of the invitation or of the response. As to whether he will address the broadcasting committee it is, of course, for the broadcasting committee itself to decide whether or not it wishes to invite him. If it does, I am sure Mr. Picard will be glad to attend.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and is supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Edmonton East. Is it government policy that executives of Crown corporations be free to accept or to decline invitations to attend non-public meetings of political parties?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not believe there is any stated policy in this regard, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me that the question of whether they can accept such invitations and participate in a non-partisan way is a matter to be left to the discretion of those people. I should think they would welcome the opportunity if they were invited by members of one party. I am sure they would welcome the occasion to accept an invitation if it was extended by members of any other party.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton V/est):: My question is directed to the Prime Minister and it relates to some of the questions which were asked earlier. In light of the statement made yesterday by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion that those people who have in the past expressed support for even some of the aims of the FLQ were in fact supporting the FLQ and its actions, has the government decided to suggest to the government of Quebec how it should interpret the War Measures Act and, if so, does the government feel that such persons as the president and other members of FRAP should be charged under the War Measures Act regulations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The question appears rhetorical to me. I am sure the minister was not suggesting that the government should press charges against one person or another. If the minister has an information to lay, I am sure he will know how to do it.
Jj:	*	*



COMMISSION ON MEMBERS' AMENITIES-INQUIRY AS TO REPORT

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. Can he tell the House when he expects to receive the report of the commission under the chairmanship of Mr. Beaupre which has been examining the amenities available to Members of Parliament? If the report has been received, can the Prime Minister tell us when it will be tabled in the House?

November 17, 1970


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have not yet received the report. I understand the work is well advanced; I believe it is the usual question of preparing a translation in final form. I expect it fairly soon but I have no knowledge of the exact date.
* sis *



AGRICULTURE


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: May I ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he is now in a position to answer the question I put to him on October 29 when I inquired whether any progress has been made in establishing a fur farm research centre in the vicinity of Ottawa and, if so, what is the target date for the completion of this project?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I will be happy to answer the question briefly. Plans are firm to develop a fur farm research centre as a component of the National Research Institute but the target date for completion of the required facilities is not firm. Meanwhile support is continuing through extramural research contract grants to universities.



POLLUTION


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Has the government yet established pollution control standards for pulp mills as he announced he would do some time in October?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: We have prepared draft regulations and they have been discussed with several of the provinces; they have yet to be discussed with other provinces and they have still to be checked with the industry itself. I hope they are out before the end of the year.



COME-BY-CHANCE OIL REFINERY-PROTECTION OF MARINE LIFE

Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: I have a supplementary question which concerns the proposed establishment of an oil refinery at Come-By-Chance, Newfoundland. Will the minister give the House an assurance that all necessary steps will be taken by his department to protect marine life in the area from the danger of pollution?


John (Jack) Davis: We are keeping a close eye on this development.
Inquiries of the Ministry NORTHERN AFFAIRS



EFFECT OF GAS WELL BLOW-OUT ON PANARCTIC DRILLING PROGRAM AND ECOLOGY

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development arising from an answer, recorded on page 1144 of Hansard, in response to a question about the drilling of a well on King Christian Island? Can the minister tell us whether this well, which went out of control, has now been brought under control, and whether any ecological damage has been caused?
fTranslation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the blowout of the well in question is not under control and according to the latest information, it will be impossible to put the fire out before six or eight weeks. Moreover, I can tell the House that I am informed that the damages do not extend beyond a distance of 500 feet from the drilling point.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: As I understand the minister's answer today and the answer he gave on Friday, two people were fired because, as alleged by the minister, the drilling company, or Panarctic in control of the drilling company, went beyond 1,800 feet contrary to the instructions of the minister. Are those the facts?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, according to the information I have received, the drilling continued beyond the 1,800 foot limit. The president of Panarctic Oils Limited told me that the two representatives of the company on the spot have been fired.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I ask one more supplementary? Would the minister tell the House who authorized the firing of the two men? Was it Panarctic, the drilling company or the minister?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it was Panarctic Oils Limited that took this responsibility towards its own employees.



SUPERVISION OF OIL EXPLORATION OPERATIONS BY GOVERNMENT INSPECTORS

Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I have a supplementary for the minister on this subject. Was any government inspector on the site while this drilling was going on and, if not, will the minister assure us that in future operations of this kind government inspectors will be present to ensure that the ecology is not unnecessarily endangered by oil exploration operations?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am unable to

November 17, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
answer directly to this question. According to the terms and conditions of permits delivered to the companies involved, the latter must abide by the department's written conditions.
As to sending a government's representative in the field, we are in the process of reviewing the regulations on drilling in the North and we might take into consideration the hon. member's suggestion.
Normally, regulations should force companies to act and the latter should be responsible enough to abide by them.



AIR CANADA


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of a report that Air Canada has cancelled a contract it had made with Unitours (Canada) Limited for 15 chartered flights to Cuba, the first of which was to have left tomorrow, can the minister say whether this action was taken by Air Canada on its own initiative or whether any government pressure was applied?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: I can assure the hon. member that it certainly was not taken on my initiative. As far as I am aware there were no discussions with anyone in government, but I should like to reserve final comment until I have had an opportunity to check.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the fact that all moneys available for new housing and repairs at the Eskasoni Indian reservation are depleted, and since some of the people on this reserve are crowded, nine or ten, in run-down, three-room shacks, would the minister do his utmost to allocate further funds immediately at least to pay for emergency repairs? I apologize for not having given the minister notice of this question, but I hope he will give the matter serious consideration.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that I will inquire immediately to find out if there is an emergency situation in Eskasoni and, if necessary, we will take the necessary measures to remedy it.



LONG GRASS PEOPLE-ACTION TO PREVENT WINTER HARDSHIP

Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer a question which was asked me yesterday by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River about the Long Grass people who live on the shores of Lake Williston.
We know that the situation there is quite serious. We have offered to evacuate the Indians involved since the flood occurred, and while we have had four meetings with them, they refuse to leave because they are happy to live in the present conditions.
This year and last year, sums of money were allocated to the construction of houses elsewhere, but the Indians stated that they were still not ready to live in them and that they would advise us when they would be ready to do so. As we do not want to force a bureaucratic decision on the Indians, we await their answer.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development whether he would be prepared to refer this subject matter to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development so it could make a thorough inquiry into the attitude of the native Indian people who want to remain in their homes? If the minister is prepared to do so we would commit ourselves not to take up the time of the House by debating the matter.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would have no personal objection to that suggestion because I have been informed that the Indians have been consulted four times so far. I have asked my people to be there before the end of the month. It would be a good idea to have both sides studied by a committee of the House and I have no personal objection to this.


Frank Howard: I have a supplementary
question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will
appreciate that we are quickly reaching the end of the question period. I think we should limit the number of supplementary questions. Perhaps we should hear briefly from the hon. member for Skeena and the hon. member for Peace River and then go on immediately to a new subject.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, just briefly I want to ask the minister whether he might be prepared to do this tomorrow. I am sure he would get unanimous consent to waive the 48 hours notice if he desired to do so.


Gerald William Baldwin: In approving that, Mr. Speaker, might I also ask the minister, who is sitting with the chairman of the committee, whether or not the committee might look at the question of ecological damage to the Peace-Athabasca delta and also the situation posed by the report of the special task force which looked into the situation surrounding the Mackenzie delta?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Both questions are suggestions for consideration by the minister.

November 17, 1970



FISHERIES


Mr. James A. McGralh (Si. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Has he received and is he entertaining a request to close east coast Canadian ports to foreign fishing fleets?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have received several suggestions to that effect but we are not going to act on them in any way whatsoever.



POST OFFICE


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the minister responsible for the Post Office. Now that he has had the opportunity to discover and look at the slippage that has occurred in the service rendered to the Canadian people by the Post Office, is the minister considering the restoration of the six day a week delivery of mail?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister without Portfolio):: Not
for the moment, Mr. Speaker.


Alfred Dryden Hales: When the minister is considering this matter, if he cannot see his way clear to giving six day a week delivery would he consider at least a six day a week wicket service in all Post Offices?



AIRPORTS


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the arguments used regarding the choice of the Montreal airport site at Ste.-Scholastique and the fact that we were protected against speculation, has the minister given any consideration to the special protection which may be necessary if the location of the new airport near Toronto is reviewed with the Ontario cabinet? I understand three sites will be discussed and there may be some opportunity for land speculation.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have said repeatedly that, first of all, the government wants to have maximum consultation regarding the sites relafing to the new airport in the Toronto region, but that the limitation on that consultation and the extent of it involves the issue of whether or not adequate protection against land speculation can be achieved. With a view to determining that question I propose to meet later this week with the Premier of Ontario with the idea of perhaps working out appropriate mechanism through which we can protect against land
Inquiries of the Ministry
speculation and then move on to the second point, public participation in discussion.


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize the hon. member for Ontario.


Mr. Cafik:: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I was not rising to ask a question as I usually do, but I appreciate your recognition anyway.



PROVISION OF RAPID TRANSIT GROUND FACILITIES

John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, my question is a supplementary directed to the Minister of Transport. In light of the recent statement of the former Minister of Transport, now the President of the Canadian Transport Commission, that the greatest difficulty with air travel today involves ground transportation for passengers to and from the airports, is the government now prepared to take an active interest in and support rapid transit facilities in our major cities?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, it is not just now prepared to do that; the government has been in close consultation with many major cities and I can think of three, namely, Montreal, Toronto and Winnipeg. There has been a considerable amount of discussion on this subject for some time.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I have another supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which deals with the situation in Vancouver. Has the British Columbia government contacted the Minister of Transport asking whether this government will contribute 37J per cent of the cost of constructing a rapid transit system to and from Vancouver airport?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: That was not exactly the nature of the representations, Mr. Speaker. They did not involve the airport but rather a request for federal participation in a general form of rapid transit within the Vancouver area. This is being examined but no reply has been made as yet.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I have a supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question period has just about expired, in fact it is actually three o'clock now. Perhaps I should allow the hon. member for Fraser Valley West to ask a supplementary question and then we will call orders of the day. I apologize to hon. members who have not had an opportunity to ask their questions.


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley Wesl):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the discussions on this question, could the minister advise the House why in his consideration of rapid transit systems to and from airports in major cities there has been no provision for rapid transit facilities in respect of the new bridge to serve Vancouver airport?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: For the simple reason, Mr. Speaker, that a number of authorities on the matter, excluding the authority of hon. gentleman opposite, do not believe this is the best way to proceed on this question. That is why a full and detailed study is being undertaken.
1236

November 17, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps hon. members will allow the Chair to recognize the hon. member for Frontenac-Len-nox and Addington. He has been trying to ask a question for a few days.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Fronienac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. During the coming winter months will the government provide assistance to certain types of winter works in rural municipalities where high unemployment conditions exist?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is my impression that this question has been asked on a number of occasions during the last few days. Orders of the day.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Before you call orders of the day, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might rise on a point of order. In view of the fact that the Minister of Justice has seen all the proposed amendments to Bill C-181, would he advise the House whether he intends to agree to any of them? If he does not intend to do so, it seems to me we are taking a lot of time on something that is just not going to be successful.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will allow the minister to reply but it seems to me that we are jumping ahead. This is a question which might be asked when we go into Committee of the Whole. However, the minister might be allowed to reply briefly to the member's point of order.


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I think the debate has been very useful. I should not like to trespass on the time of the House by declaring my position before we get to the individual clauses.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, November 16, consideration in committee of Bill C-181, to provide temporary emergency powers for the preservation of public order in Canada-Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)-Mr. Honey in the chair.
The Chairman:: Order. May I have order in the committee please? If hon. members wish to hold discussions, I wonder if they would move outside so that we may proceed. When the committee rose last evening clause 8 of the bill had been agreed to. The committee is now considering clause 9.
On clause 9-Arrest without warrant.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, without taking very much of the time of the committee, I wish to move an amendment to clause 9(l)(a) and a similar amendment to clause 9(l)(c) of Bill C-181. I could do this separately or place both amendments in your hands, Mr. Chairman, and you could put them before the committee as you see fit. I move:
That clause 9(1) (a) of Bill C-181 be amended by deleting the word "reason" in line 3 on page 6 thereof and substituting therefor the words "reasonable and probable grounds."
I also move a similar amendment to clause 9(l)(c) as follows:
That clause 9(1) (c) of Bill C-181 be amended by deleting the word "reason" in line 8 on page 6 thereof and substituting therefore the words "reasonable and probable grounds."


Russell Clayton Honey: Order. The amendments presented by the hon. member for York South deal with clause 9 and, in particular, two subclauses thereof. Unless there should be representation to the contrary, it would seem to the Chair that we might deal with these amendments together.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I do not require much time in which to support the amendments I have respectfully moved. I am sure the minister is perhaps even better aware of the difference I am seeking to introduce. I say that whatever may have been the situation on October 16, at this stage the police ought not to have the power to go around arresting people on mere suspicion, without reasonable and probable grounds for that suspicion. I merely draw the attention of the minister and of the committee to a simple fact that everyone knows. If my arithmetic is correct, something like 85 per cent of the persons arrested under the regulation under the War Measures Act were released without charge and less than 10 per cent have been charged to date, unless there is later information. In addition, some others are still being kept in custody.
I suggest that at this stage of the game there is no excuse for varying the usual provisions of our criminal law. You will note, Mr. Chairman, that I am not suggesting the provision that the officer may arrest without warrant be changed. It is precisely because he may arrest without warrant that I believe it is important for the law to contain the kind of language with which a peace officer is acquainted, and which will make him look much more carefully at the situation before he goes around putting people in jail, even for seven days. A person ought not be put in jail without charge unless the police officer has probable and reasonable grounds for suspecting that such a person is a member of the unlawful association or that he has committed, is committing or is about to commit an act described in the earlier clauses of the bill. I do not think this restriction would interfere with his police work.
What this really does in practical terms is put the peace officer on guard. He will know that if he goes around arresting someone without reasonable and probable grounds, that person may go into court at some later

November 17, 1970

date and charge the policeman or police organization, whatever it may be, with false arrest and seek a remedy against such false arrest. I submit that at this stage of the situation in the province of Quebec this added protection for people who might be arrested ought to be in the bill.
In conclusion, I want to say I do not think this would reduce the peace officer's power in any reasonable way. He would still be able to arrest without warrant, but instead of being able to arrest on a subjective conclusion of his own that he has reason to suspect, he would have to have an objective reason for it. He would have to analyse the situation and have some prima facie evidence that would lead him and that would lead a court or any reasonable tribunal to conclude that the arrest was made on probable and reasonable grounds. That is the only distinction. I suggest it is a very important distinction in order to avoid the situation we have had, where 440 or so people were arrested and 390 of them released without being charged. This means that 85 per cent or 90 per cent of these people, or at least most of them, obviously were arrested without probable or reasonable grounds for the suspicion the police officer had. This has been done within recent weeks, particularly during the critical situation that was said to exist on October 16. The committee knows my view concerning what the situation really was, but the critical situation was said to exist on October 16. It is important that from now on the police forces in Quebec, acting under this law whenever it comes into effect, have probable and reasonable grounds for arresting someone under suspicion for the acts dealt with in clause 9 of the bill.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I shall be very brief. When the minister replies I wonder whether he would also give us the up-to-date figures on arrests and releases. I believe a daily box score is kept on these activities now. May I also say that on the face of the argument of the hon. member for York South I do not think I can support his amendment. If the minister does not put his foot in his mouth, I think I shall stick to that position. However, I will be interested in hearing the minister's views on the argument advanced.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member has set for me an impossible task. I will try my best to avoid doing that. First of all, the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants asked for the recent figures. I have them as of ten o'clock this morning for the benefit of the committee. The number arrested is 450. The number released is 397. The number detained is 53. One was re-arrested, 43 were charged and one was sentenced.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
Francois Mercier was sentenced, as I understand.


David Lewis: He pleaded guilty, if I remember correctly.


John Napier Turner: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Public Order Act, 1970
The amendment proposed by the hon. member for York South would change subclause 3 as follows, if I seize the purport of his amendment. It would read: "a peace officer may arrest without warrant a person who he has reasonable and probable grounds to suspect is a member of the unlawful association". I want to say to him that the words we chose, namely the words "reason to suspect" were deliberately chosen. As I pointed out in my speech on second reading, particularly as recorded at page 883 of Hansard, clause 9 is a special measure which the government recognizes does not exist in the ordinary criminal law.
We are dealing with specific short term legislation to meet a specific purpose, namely to attempt to immobilize and render inefficient the FLQ. The requirement "to have reason to suspect" is less stringent than that contained in the Criminal Code which requires the existence of reasonable and probable grounds to believe that an indictable offence has been committed. I refer hon. members to section 435(a) of the Criminal Code. The amendment does not remove the word "suspect" in clause 9(l)(a), and I assume this was done deliberately. However, by doing it deliberately, the hon. member leaves us with a hybrid concept, neither "reason to suspect" nor "reasonable and probable grounds to believe", but "reasonable and probable grounds to suspect", I believe this would confuse the case law even more than it may be confused already as to what the words "reasonable and probable grounds" may mean.
In any event, the amendment is obviously designed to make the condition precedent to lawful arrest more stringent, and in the present circumstances the government does not favour that. We are of the view that the requirement "reason to suspect" is both necessary and reasonable in the circumstances. It is the equivalent of the requirement prescribed in the statutes, principally with regard to matters of national security. I refer to the Official Secrets Act. Section 10 of the act provides:
Every person who is found committing an offence under this Act, or who is reasonably suspected of having committed, or having attempted to commit, or being about to commit, such an offence, may be arrested without a warrant and detained by any constable or police officer.
I want to submit to the committee that hon. members should not be under any apprehension that the words "reason to suspect" means that a person can be arrested without grounds. In order to satisfy the requirement in clause 9 (1) (a) as it is now written, there must be a bona fide reason to suspect that a person is a member of the illegal or unlawful association. In the absence of any bona fide reason to suspect, the provision would not apply. In other words, because of the nature of the conspiracy, because of the difficulty of obtaining evidence, because of the clandestine nature of the conspiracy, we feel that the standard imposed on a peace officer to arrest should be lowered as it is under the Official Secrets Act from "reasonable and probable grounds to believe" to "reason to suspect". For this reason, we prefer to use the concept of reason and suspect rather than the hybrid concept which the hon. member has used
23568-7 j

November 17, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
which is halfway between "reasonable and probable grounds to believe" and "reason to suspect".
I really do not know what the hon. member's words would achieve. In effect, if the clause were amended as he suggests the provision would be more stringent upon the police than it is in the bill, but we believe that in the circumstances we need those words.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, the main purpose I am trying to achieve-and I had hoped the minister might look upon it a little more reasonably than he seems to do-is to remove from the police the temptation to wholesale arrest, as has happened since October 16. I do not see how any Member of Parliament or how the Minister of Justice can look with equanimity at a situation where 450 people are arrested, all of them held in jail and 397 of them released without charge after being in jail for six days, 10 days, 12 days or 21 days. I do not understand how anyone in Canada can look with equanimity at a situation where 90 per cent of the persons arrested are released without charge after being kept in jail, sometimes incommunicado.
I submit that all I am trying to achieve is to let the police know that they must have reasonable and probable grounds even for suspicion, even if it is something less than belief. To say that they must have reasonable and probable grounds for believing would be too much in the present instance, and on that I agree with the minister. However, their suspicion must be based on some reasonable ground. I am not a police officer nor am I an intelligence officer so I cannot tell you what the grounds might be, but as a layman I can see a situation where an officer may have interviewed the 450 people who have been arrested-it may be 460 before the bill becomes law-and as a result of his conversations he has reasonable ground to believe that X or Y was or is a member of the FLQ. This would be reasonable or probable ground for that suspicion. I want to prevent the continuation of the situation which I think is scandalous and unforgivable. It is a kind of excessive zeal on the part of the police which a democratic society should not tolerate.
Perhaps there is an indication of incompetence when 450 people are arrested, with all the consequences that flow from arrest, not only being kept in jail incommunicado but being under the cloud of having been arrested in connection with the FLQ and then released. As I said the other day, I have met some of them. They told me they cannot explain to their children why they were in jail. To my knowledge, two of them lost their jobs. Arrest has consequences; it is not a picnic, it is not a tea party, and when 400 out of 450 people are arrested apparently without grounds because they were released without charge, then I think the situation is very serious. The purpose of my amendment is not so much to affect the end result in the court-one can never foretell that- but to achieve a desirable influence on the police so that they would be less likely to go around picking up anyone about whom they may have a suspicion.

I say to the minister that I am quite ready to suggest to him that I drop the adjective "probable" and leave the words "reasonable grounds". In my submission, the difference between saying that the fellow has reason to suspect and saying he has reasonable grounds to suspect is quite obvious. In the one case it is a subjective reaction. I have reason to suspect, so I make an arrest. In the other case it is an objective test that there has to be a ground for his suspicion that can be looked at objectively by anyone, including a tribunal. The reason for the amendment is to stop the wholesale, scandalous, excessive, incompetent type of arrest which obviously has taken place since October 16.
# (3:20 p.m.)
I repeat that I, as one Canadian, as one member of this parliament, simply cannot tolerate the arrest of 450 people, 400 of whom are released after some days in jail without any charge against them. These people have to carry all the consequences of having been arrested, having been associated with the FLQ when obviously they were not or they would have been charged. They have had to undergo the shame, the humiliation, the inconvenience and the discomfiture of having been jailbirds for six, eight, ten or 21 days without any charge, and without any grounds for their arrest.
If you had the qualification which I suggest should be placed in the bill, then the police officers would be a great deal more careful. They would follow not quite the procedure they follow in ordinary crime because they don't have to believe that a person may be guilty, they have only to suspect he may be, but they would be put on guard that they must have reasonable or probable grounds for that suspicion or else face the possibility later of being dragged into court on a civil suit for damages for false arrest.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I think the hon. member for York South has focussed on the prime objection to clause 9(l)(a). I find the explanation given by the minister to be extremely weak and without the kind of justification that should have been forthcoming for what he has described as a most stringent form of clause in terms of the requirements for arrest.
The minister has suggested, not only on this clause but on various other clauses, that what we are dealing with is a special situation, a particular event of a highly unusual nature, and that the bill is obviously of shortterm duration. Because of these two arguments which he has put up again and again, we are supposed to believe that we should not be concerned that the legislation seeks to confer extraordinary powers. It is my understanding of the operation of a bill that once it becomes law, whether it is in effect for one day, one month, one year or 100 years, it carries with it the same kind of application. To say the least, it was a fallacious argument for the minister to suggest that because this is short-term legislation that excuses the kind of excesses, in terms of power, that it provides in clause after clause. I find that argument totally without substance.
November 17, 1970

The minister says that in order to effect the apprehension of those in the FLQ who are committed to terrorist activities we need this kind of legislation, even though he still fails to define the exact nature of the illegal organization. As long as that is the case I think he is only arguing for the other side, that we should not willy-nilly grant this kind of police power under statute.
The hon. member for York South has proposed an amendment which would bring this clause more in harmony with the present wording of the Criminal Code. He has suggested that we need such vague phrasing as "probable reason to suspect" because that in effect will open the door wide enough to arrest almost anyone. Certainly, that will be the case under the present wording of the clause. But he has pointed out that a large percentage, he might have said 80 per cent or 90 per cent, of those already arrested have been released and presumably most of these, if not all of them, will not be charged. Therefore, they are not guilty of any offence either under the regulations in connection with the War Measures Act, or under subsequent legislation.
I am still waiting for a substantial explanation for the wording "reason to suspect." I would say that "reason to suspect" means absolutely nothing. It is in no way indicative of any kind of objective information or facts that are normally required for due process of apprehension and arrest. It is completely left to the subjective opinion and feelings of the individual police officer.
I would argue that "reason to suspect" means nothing more than how the individual police officer may feel when he comes up to any specific individual. If he gets up in the morning after a poor night, tired and irritable, and he runs into somebody he does not like, under this phrase "reason to suspect" he can place that person under arrest. That is the sum total of what "reason to suspect" means. It has nothing to do with the facts that need to be available for proper arrest. The reason may be good, bad or indifferent. The clause just stipulates "reason to suspect." If the minister is seriously interested in the cause of justice, he will move immediately to accept the amendment.
The minister tells us that we are dealing with a special situation and with short-term legislation. We, in turn, also know that we are dealing with a very serious situation in the province of Quebec which has raised fundamental questions about the effectiveness of the whole police organization. Hon. members and people throughout the country have been wondering about the inefficiency of the police, and about the adequacy of their judgment. How in the name of all that is just and right could the minister be arguing for these kinds of broad, subjective powers to be placed in the hands of a police organization, which, on a number of counts during the past few weeks, has proved itself woefully short of good judgment?
This is completely contradictory. If this bill is to have any esteem at all from the people of the country, and particularly from those in the province of Quebec, then this "reason to suspect" provision must be changed. If we leave it in the bill, it will do the cause of justice a great
Public Order Act, 1970
disservice and could lead to a great amount of injustice. I ask the minister to accept the wording of the amendment, or similar wording. Only then can we avoid the ambiguity and vagueness that are so dangerous in clause 9(1 )(a).


Mr. Gilbert:: Mr. Chairman, I am sure that if we were to ask the minister if abuses had occurred under the similar provision in the War Measures Act, he would agree that they had, based on the figures he has quoted of 397 persons out of 450 being released, and those 450 having been arrested on suspicion.
I am not going to repeat the persuasive arguments of the hon. member for York South and the hon. member for Egmont, but I would ask the minister to study what the hon. member for York South has said with regard to "reasonable and probable grounds." The minister said that the hon. member for York South is really producing a hybrid between "reasonable grounds to suspect" and "reason to suspect," and he argued that the definition of "reason to suspect" really means bona fide reason, otherwise the arrest would be unlawful. I am sure that "bona fide reason to suspect" would satisfy the mover of the amendment, and also the hon. member for Egmont, and would give some direction to officers who are about to make arrests. I am sure the minister would agree that there have been abuses of the powers of arrest exercised under the War Measures Act. He should either agree to the wording of the hon. member for York South of "reasonable ground to suspect" or, to use the minister's own wording, "a bona fide reason to suspect". I should like to hear the minister's comments.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, "reason to suspect" includes "bona fide reason to suspect". The words bona fide are assumed and would not add anything.
There are two standards imposed by our statutes at the moment upon the police. One is "reasonable and probable grounds to believe" in the standard provisions of the Criminal Code; the other standard is the reason to suspect in the Official Secrets Act. We have chosen the latter. I do not want to confuse the law by imposing another standard which would have to be interpreted by the courts if there were charges of false arrest.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Chairman, there is one other matter which I should like to raise in this connection. In earlier remarks, the minister indicated that because of the difficulty in defining "unlawful association" he had to allow sufficient latitude. I suggest that the minister has, in fact, placed the argument on exactly the opposite side. The fact that the wording on which an arrest may be based is so vague makes the danger of abuse that much greater. Surely, if a peace officer were about to make an arrest he would not be utilizing the Criminal Code which provides for "reasonable and probable grounds to believe", when he would have the kind of open door the minister has provided in this clause of the
November 17, 1970

Public Order Act, 1970
bill. In fact, by bringing this clause forward he is encouraging the kind of abuse that may well be made under this bill.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on the amendment. Hon. members will recall that there were amendments to clause 9 (1) (a) and subclause (c) which the committee agreed to deal with together. If the committee is ready for the question, the question is on the amendments. Amendments (Mr. Lewis) negatived: yeas 11, nays 66.


Russell Clayton Honey: I declare the amendment lost.
Shall clause 9 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


David Lewis: On division.


Russell Clayton Honey: The hon. member for Matane. Is the hon. member for Moose Jaw rising on a point of order?


Mr. Skoberg:: No, Mr. Chairman, just a question on clause 9 before it is carried.


Russell Clayton Honey: I shall see the hon. member later. I have recognized the hon. member for Matane.


Mr.   De Bane@: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few comments on subclause (2) of clause 9 which reads in part as follows:
-a person arrested under subsection (1) -
If we abide by the present wording, it would mean that, in fact, peace officers would be encouraged to arrest people without warrant.
I think it would have been better to write:
"Subject to subsection (3), a person arrested on one of the grounds mentioned in subsection (1) , because by using the expression "arrested under subsection (1)", that is "arrested under suspicion", peace officers would be encouraged to arrest people without warrant.
As for me, I would like to bring in two amendments: the first to the effect that the peace officer-


Russell Clayton Honey: Order. I interrupt the hon. member to suggest that he might submit his first amendment, and the committee could deal with it. I understand the second amendment deals with an unrelated part of the section so that might be dealt with at a later time.
Mr De Bane: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My first amendment is to add at line 2 after the words "may arrest without warrant" the words-

__after having as far as possible obtained the authorization from
the Attorney General or from any of his substitutes, by telephone or otherwise.


By that amendment, I would like the agent of the policer officer-


Russell Clayton Honey: Order. In order to conform with the Standing Orders, I think the Chair should put the amendment before the hon. member speaks to it. I shall ask the Clerk to read the amendment.

And the Clerk Assistant (Legal) having read the following amendment:


Mr.   De Bane@: to add at line 2, after the word "warrant" the following words:
-after having as far as possible obtained the authorization from the Attorney General or from any of his substitutes, by telephone or otherwise.


Mr.   De Bane@: The experience we have been through since October 16, Mr. Chairman, goes to show that police officers have often arrested people without having any grounds whatsoever for doing it.
I spoke of the amendment I am introducing to some officials of the Department of Justice. They say that it would be quite possible and "feasible", if I may say so, for the peace officer, in most cases-this is why I used the wording "as far as possible"-to call the district Crown attorney in order to ask for his authorization. I think that this will be necessary, due to some abuses which have taken place since October 16.
Once again, I do not see how my amendment might in the least hinder the work of the police. On the contrary, its sole object is to reduce as much as possible flagrant errors in judgment.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I think that the words sought to be added by the hon. member, in the circumstances of the additional powers that the bill seeks to give respecting apprehension and investigation, would paralyze the effort of the police to attempt to immobilize or apprehend members of the FLQ. In the circumstances it would be impossible for a police officer, in the time in which he would have to operate before making the arrest, to get the specific authorization from the Attorney General. If that were possible, obviously we would have insisted in the first place that they have a warrant specifying the person to be arrested and the charge to be laid. It is because we are contemplating arrest without warrant that we say "without warrant". The circumstances are similar to those found in sections 434-436 of the Criminal Code.


Mr.   De Bane@: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to delay the business of the House, but I call the attention of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) to the fact that the amendment which I propose contains the words "as far as possible". Besides, under this clause, in actual practice anyone could be arrested. For instance, the police could arrest someone anywhere, and if other persons are present, nothing will be easier than to telephone from that
November 17, 1970

place to the Crown attorney and tell him who else is there. I spoke about this problem with provincial government officials who told me that this authorization can be granted on the telephone, and that it is not mandatory in every case, because, as the minister said, obviously this would not be possible in some cases. For this reason, I used the expression "as far as possible". This is the reason for my amendment.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. De Bane) negatived: Yeas, 1, nays 58.


Russell Clayton Honey: I declare the amendment lost.


Mr.   De Bane@: Mr. Chairman, I would like to propose another amendment in order to add a subclause which would become No. 4 and would read as follows: [English]
No employer shall, without penalty, dismiss or suspend an employee merely because of that employee's arrest under this bill.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. I shall ask the clerk assistant to read the amendment.

And the Clerk Assistant (Legal) having read the following amendment:


Mr.   De Bane@: that the following subclause (4) be added to clause 9:
No employer shall, without penalty, dismiss or suspend an employee merely because of that employee's arrest and release without charge under this act.
He said: The amendment I propose is a corollary of the right of peace officers to arrest merely on the strength of suspicion. Hundreds of persons have already been arrested, several of whom were unable to return to their jobs because, according to their employers, the fact that they had been arrested and then released was reason enough to fire them. It seems that, especially because the police have in fact the right to arrest any individual and that, unavoidably, innocents axe arrested and then released, considering our experience since October 16, we should pass a special clause forbidding an employer to fire an employee merely because the latter has been arrested.
I feel that this will not effectively prevent abuses which might result under clause 9(1) of the bill, but at least, it will make it so that persons already arrested, and whose arrest is per se a denial of justice, will not have to pay once more their alleged debt to society, when they are not guilty of anything.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move that the following subclause be added to clause 9.
Public Order Act, 1970


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I submit to the committee that it should reject the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Matane. If there is unwarranted arrest, there is still the right to sue for false arrest; but, in attempting to do what the hon. member is trying to do, we would be interfering, in my opinion, with the civil law of contract, which is a provincial matter.
Mr. Fair weather: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister a question. What is the status of those who have been arrested and subsequently released?


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


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I rise without hesitation to support the amendment, subject to a suggestion which I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. member for Matane. I do not have his amendment before me, but, as I remember it, the motion speaks about a person-

-who has been arrested under this act. But it does not say whether the person had been released without charge or put in jail for that reason.
Therefore, I would ask the hon. member for Matane to agree that the following words be added to his amendment:
-and release without charge-
-so that the amendment would read as follows:
-merely because of that employee's arrest and release without charge under this act.


Mr.   De Bane@: Certainly.


David Lewis: If the hon. member accepts that suggestion and it becomes part of the amendment, I should like to say one or two words in support of it. I appreciate the point the Minister of Justice made, that the relationship between an employer and his employee is basically a provincial matter and comes under the umbrella of contract of employment involving the employer and employee. None the less, there is no reason why we cannot, as part of the penal statute, prohibit the employer from dismissing an employee merely because he has been arrested under this law and later released without being charged. This is why I wanted those words added. I am not prepared to say that, with a person who has been charged and perhaps convicted, the employer should be under any obligation. But persons who are arrested and later released without being charged ought to have their jobs protected by this law.
The minister refused to accept my suggestion or even my amended suggestion that would have reduced the likelihood-although nothing is certain-of the kind of wholesale, excessive arrests which have already taken place. If he is going to give the police the powers, which he now seeks to give them, to continue in the excessive and inefficient way in which they have arrested people to

November 17, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
date, most of whom have been released, then surely there is a moral as well as a social obligation on him and on this Parliament to make sure that people who are arrested by the police without grounds and later released do not have their livelihoods jeopardized. I strongly support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Matane, with the addition of the words I have suggested. Perhaps he can tell me whether he is satisfied with the words, et relache sans accusation. I do not know, Mr. Chairman, whether I should move this as a subamendment or whether you will accept the words from the mover of the amendment as part of his amendment.


Russell Clayton Honey: I understand that the hon. member for Matane will accept the addition of the words suggested by the hon. member for York South. Perhaps the best way to regularize the proceedings would be to ask the committee if it consents to having the motion of the hon. member for Matane amended by the addition of the words suggested by the hon. member for York South. Is there such agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Russell Clayton Honey: This being agreed, I shall ask the hon. member for York South to give to the Chair his words in writing. In order to conform with the Standing Order, the suggested words should be added to the amendment in that way.


Mr.   De Bane@: Mr. Chairman, may I say a few words. The amendment I am suggesting was inspired in its drafting by our Quebec civil procedure and by section 650 in the chapter relating to the specific rules as to the seizure of salaries and wages. Clause 650 reads:
e (3:50p.m.)
No employer shall, on pain of all damages, dismiss or suspend an employee merely because his salary or wages have been seized by garnishment.
The amendment is inspired by the law which already exists. As a result of the action taken on October 16, people were arrested and later released. Some of these people were fired by their employers because of these arrests, even though they were detained for only one or two days. There should be a safeguard for those innocent people who are held only on suspicion.


Mr. Broadbent:: I wish to make a few comments. It has been acknowledged by members of all parties that this is an extraordinary piece of legislation. To understate the case by about 1,000 per cent, it is much more likely that innocent people will be arrested under this act. The amendment introduced by the hon. member for Matane seems to be the minimal kind of assistance that the state should introduce to protect innocent people. Instances have been reported in the press and in this House of people who have been arrested under the War Measures Act and released because of their innocence, who have lost their jobs. This is a very civilized proposal, one which this House should accjept.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Chairman, I have a copy of the transcript of an interview with the Prime Minister on "For-

mat 60" of November 3, 1970. The interviewer at that time asked the Prime Minister:
But surely the concern of the legislator faced with drafting laws such as this, those making exceptions, is to guard against the possible arrest of too many people who have nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorism, for example.
The Prime Minister replied:
Exactly. That is our concern.
The minister must realize that he is adding a penalty to those people who may be employed by an employer who, although he realizes the person was arrested for undue cause, will probably dismiss him. There have been many such cases in this country. Even those who have served short terms and paid their debt to society are being penalized twice. Of 450 people arrested, 397 have been released. These people are faced with the situation where they may have to pay double penalties. They may lose their jobs and, therefore, their salaries. Surely, the minister realizes the situation that exists.
I am amazed at the minister saying this is a provincial matter. This bill is being debated in the federal House. The minister, in fact, is again taking the provincial authorities off the hook by imposing laws to which employees will be subjected. I strenuously object to dealing in this House with laws and the regulations that will be implemented by the provincial authorities. If that is the situation with which we are faced, we should have nothing to do with it.
Employees who are arrested without justifiable cause will be penalized by being held without recourse to any type of representation and, upon release, losing their employment. What kind of society is this? I urge the minister to grant the small concession in this amendment.


John Gilbert: Mr. Chairman, the member proposes a remedy for those people who have been arrested, detained and subsequently released and who have lost their employment. If we accept the explanation by the minister that there is a jurisdictional problem in that it the remedy may lie exclusively within the jurisdiction of the provinces, then I feel that in so far as federal industries are concerned the provision could be effective. There is a way around this which I ask the minister to consider.
If it were made an offence under the Code, punishable by summary conviction, for employers to discharge any person who had been arrested, charged, detained and subsequently released, that would come within federal jurisdiction. I have often said that in my view the minister is a fair-minded, reasonable person. This is an opportunity for him to again exercise this reasonableness that he has exercised on many other occasions.
If it were made an offence, punishable on summary conviction, for any employer to discharge a person who had been arrested, detained and subsequently released, then those people would have some remedy, some measure of protection. This would apply to 397 of the 450 arrested. I am sure the minister does not want to throw these people to the winds by failing to recognize that they should be given some protection. The minister might
November 17, 1970

say they have protection under the Civil Code and can bring an action against the police for damages. The minister knows better than I the difficulties involved.
The member for Sault Ste. Marie and the minister's parliamentary secretary are sitting beside him. They know the difficulties involved in suing the police. It involves time, money and effort and it is difficult to obtain a result. This is an opportunity to make it an offence for an employer to take this approach to people who have been arrested, detained and subsequently released without charge. I am sure the two wise men sitting beside the minister will agree that the minister should exercise his good judgment, wisdom, reasonableness and compassion for people who have suffered thus far.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on the amendment. I will ask the Clerk to read the amendment as amended, because hon. members will recall that by agreement there were words added to the original proposal. Before I put the question, I will ask the Clerk to read the amendment.

And the Clerk Assistant (Legal) having read the following amendment:


Mr.   De Bane@: that the following subclause (4) be added to clause 9:
No employer shall, without penalty, dismiss or suspend an employee merely because of that employee's arrest and release without charge under this act.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)

Amendment (Mr. De Bane) negatived: yeas, 11; nays, 51.


Russell Clayton Honey: I declare the amendment lost. Shall clause 9 carry?


John Leroy Skoberg: A brief question to the minister, because I think this is the most dastardly piece of legislation we could look at at any time. Would he care to spell out his interpretation of the words "has reason" as they appear in 9(l)(a) and elsewhere in the bill?


John Napier Turner: I have no dictionary before me, but "has reason" means "has justification" or "has cause".


John Leroy Skoberg: That answer is typical of what we can expect, I suppose. Really, the intent of my question has been passed over. This is something we must know, as it is something fundamental. It is not enough to look up a dictionary and read what "has reason" means. How will the words "has reason" be defined in practice? Will they cover any situation where a police officer finds something that is not to his liking? I am not looking, now, for a legalistic interpretation but for a practical answer to a question which I believe the people of Canada have a right to expect will be answered.
Public Order Act, 1970


Russell Clayton Honey: Shall clause 9 carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
On clause 11-Seizure [Translation]
Mr.   De Bane@: Mr. Chairman, I wish to explain why I am proposing an amendment to clause 11, which authorizes, in exceptional cases, a search without warrant and the seizure by a peace officer of such objects as may be deemed useful. There is no provision then compelling the peace officer to turn over the seized objects to the court and to conform to the other provisions of the Criminal Code, such as drawing up a report, bringing back the seized objects to the court, obtaining the authorization to hold certain objects. On the other hand, there is also no provision establishing the necessary machinery to allow the person whose objects have been seized to have access to them, as provided in the Criminal Code. I suggest, therefore, that a new subclause (2) be added to clause 11 which would read as follows:
From the time of seizure, other provisions of the Criminal Code related to property seized during a search remain fully applicable.
Mr. Chairman, I move this amendment because, under that clause as it now reads-


Russell Clayton Honey: I will ask the Clerk to read the amendment.

And the Clerk Assistant (Legal) having read the following amendment:


Mr.   De Bane@: that a subclause be added to clause 11, to read as follows:
From the time of seizure, other provisions of the Criminal Code related to property seized during a search remain fully applicable.
He said: Mr. Chairman, I see no reason why, in cases of seizure of property, the provisions of the Criminal Code, particularly those of Section 432, determining the disposal of things seized, should not apply here, since we should bear in mind that the provisions of the Criminal Code are relevant and deemed adequate in all possible and conceivable cases.
I therefore feel they should be specified, to the extent that they apply to a situation.
Thus, would not the person whose property had been seized be given a copy of a statement listing items belonging to him? Therefore, if the Criminal Code provides that in any kind of offence, if articles are seized, certain formalities must be observed, and that the provisions to this effect are judged relevant, I believe that it would be advisable to add this subclause to clause 11 to specify that any provision of the Criminal Code, not inconsistent with clause 11, continues to apply.

November 17, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970


John Napier Turner: In accordance with the ordinary provisions of the Code, once the order to seize has been vacated, either on the expiry of the period of 90 days or of the extra period granted by the judge, the goods will be returnable to the person from whom they were seized. I ask the committee to reject the amendment.


Robert Jardine McCleave: What would be the procedure within the 90 days? Suppose a man was released but his car was still held on police premises. Would the police automatically release the car?


John Napier Turner: If the person was released prior to the expiry of 90 days, the evidence related to the charge would no longer be required and an application could be made to a judge for the release of the property.


David Lewis: With respect to the Minister of Justice, I invite the hon. member for Calgary North and others to look at section 11 and tell me under what authority a person can apply to a judge before the expiry of the 90 days and ask for his property to be returned. The section provides that property may be seized without warrant and detained for not more than 90 days, but there is no suggestion the owner can do anything about it before that period expires. I do not want to get into a legal argument at this point, but it seems to me that when a clause provides authority for a judge to extend the period but does not say he has any authority to reduce the period, the likely judicial decision would be that there was no authority to reduce, otherwise Parliament would say so. I wonder why the minister does not take a few minutes to specify, for example, that before the expiry of 90 days, where a district magistrate or a judge is satified having regard to all the circumstances, upon an application for the release of the goods seized, he may so order. The section would give the court the right either to say the goods were not longer needed and should be released, or to decide they were needed for a longer period and authorize them to be kept.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I do not see any reason why the minister should not make that simple correction so there is no argument in court as to whether or not the court has the authority to do so. I remind the minister of the old Latin phrase inclusio unius exclusio alterius-if you include one you exclude the other. I suggest to him there would be a very strong legal argument that since the clause includes the right of the court to extend the period but says nothing about reducing the period, the likelihood is that at least some judges would say they had not the authority. I think you should give them the authority in specific language.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, this clause is drawn along the lines of Section 432 of the Code which also provides for additional detention but not for earlier release, yet applications are made under that section for earlier release.


Russell Clayton Honey: Is the Committee ready for the question? The question is on the amendment. All those in favour of the amendment will please rise. All those opposed to the amendment will please rise.
Amendment (Mr. De Bane) negatived: Yeas, 11; nays, 49.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 12-Bill of Rights
David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I wish to move that Bill C-181 be amended by inserting therein the following new Clause 12 and that the remaining clauses be renumbered accordingly. I think a copy of this was put on the table some time ago; if not, I may have an extra copy. I think the minister has a copy of it.


Russell Clayton Honey: The table does have a copy of the hon. member's amendment to Clause 12. Does the hon. member for York South wish the Chair to put the amendment at this point?


David Lewis: Yes. Would you like me to read it or would you like to read it.


Russell Clayton Honey: Yes. It is moved by Mr. Lewis:
That Bill C-181 be amended by inserting therein the following new clause 12 and that the remaining clauses be renumbered accordingly:
12(a) Immediately upon the coming into force of this Act, the Minister of Justice shall appoint a supervisory Commission of three persons who shall not be employees of the federal or of any provincial governments or of any police force, and who shall have authority to interview persons arrested under this Act, to ensure that they are treated according to law, that they have had access to counsel, that they do not continue to be detained without adequate grounds and they have been given the opportunity to contact their families.
(b) The said Commission shall have the authority to make public its findings in any way and as frequently as it deems necessary.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, may 1 say first that I am not wedded to that particular language. If the minister were prepared to accept the idea, 1 and my colleagues would be prepared to have him produce something satisfactory.
The point of this amendment is sharpened by what has happened, to which reference has been made a number of times. We have to look at the facts since October 16 as far as we know them, and the facts relevant to this amendment are the following: First, some 450 people have been arrested but some 397 of them were released as of ten o'clock this morning, I think the minister said; second, for some days many of them-perhaps all of them-were kept incommunicado without being given access to counsel. This is now public knowledge. I am not saying this happened in every case because I do not know, but I am not saying this happened in every case because I do not know, but I am saying that it probably happened in every case and that it certainly happened in most cases. These people who were arrested were kept incommunicado for many days without being given the opportunity to see and retain counsel, without being given the opportunity to see their wives or members of

November 17, 1970

their families, or indeed to communicate with them in any way whatsoever in the first week or so.
Later, after the first six or seven days, in some cases that have come to my attention, those in jail were given the right to write a note to their wives. In the cases that have come to my attention the people involved were wives. They were given the opportunity to write a note to their wives, and a policeman or guard at the jail, then read the note over the telephone to the incarcerated person's wife. They were not allowed, in the cases that have come to my attention and this is not guesswork as I have spoken with 10 or 12 of these people, some of whom were in my office, to have their textbooks. Students, one of them from Carleton University and the other from the University of Ottawa, were not allowed to have their textbooks during the time they were incarcerated, although they pleaded for them because they wanted to continue their work. In one case that has come to my attention a wife brought some clothing for her husband who was arrested and he got the clothing after he left the jail. He was in jail eight days and had no change of underwear or shirt or any other piece of clothing and was released without charge but was in.erv.ewed for only ten minutes during those eight days. I cannot tell you how many times this kind of thing occurred, but the fact is these things have happened since October 16, and as sure as you and I are here they will happen again if things are left as they are.
It was interesting to read the report of the Civil Liberties Association of Montreal. It was a report prepared by Mr. Hebert and his committee of three who not only complained about the conditions under which people were being kept under arrest but also cynically pointed out that for some reason they were given a date to visit jails at a time when most of the people who were in jail had already been released. This is the kind of thing he found and reported to the press. I have read the reports and could quote them if I wanted to take the time or if anyone here has not read them. I listened to Mr. Hebert at one time on ihe television, both in English and in French, when he gave a description of what he found.
The minister is going to say again, I have no doubt, as he has said throughout, this is an extraordinary piece of legislation to deal with an extraordinary set of circumstances and to break up an extraordinary terrorist organization. If he is right in all of these things, and I know he is right in at least some of them, then I think the situation requires extraordinary remedies and extraordinary safeguards.
If he refuses, as he has done before, to accept efforts to lessen the arbitrariness and repressiveness of the bill which is before us, then he ought to agree to this suggestion of appointing a supervising commission of three independent people who will make sure that those who are arrested on mere suspicion and kept in jail up to seven days, instead of the longer period under the regulation, are treated according to law and according to a sense of decency and of justice which even our worst criminals get in normal times.
Public Order Act, 1970
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I therefore say to him that precisely because this is extraordinary legislation, and precisely because it is legislation that abridges very seriously a good many normal liberties and rights, this kind of supervisory body should be established. In an amendment which I have seen which the official opposition intends to move an administrator is suggested, although personally I prefer the notion of a commission of three rather than one person. Such a body should be established to provide a safeguard against abuse, against over-zealousness, against arbitrariness and against incompetence. Such a provision should be put into the law because since October 16 we have had experience with all these things, arbitrariness, abuse and incompetence. There is only one way to make sure that will not happen again; that is, by establishing through this piece of extraordinary legislation a special kind of supervisory commission to make sure that those persons arrested are treated properly.
The reason for subclause (b) in the amendment is that I want to be sure, as I assume the minister himself would want to be sure, the new commission would operate under conditions which would ensure that its findings become public so that the people of Canada would know exactly what was happening, since the only final sanction against abuse of the type I have described is the anger and annoyance of the people of Canada or the people of the province of Quebec as the case may be. I do not intend to say anything more now, Mr. Chairman. The evidence of what has happened in the last few weeks makes clear that such a provision is necessary and that such a supervisory commission is desirable. Unless the minister can show very good cause why this provision should not be incorporated in the bill I invite him to accept it. If he does not like my language, but accepts the idea, then we can see his language or the language of his officers because I do not suppose it would be his.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I have to say to the committee I reject this suggestion most strenuously. I do so for a number of reasons.


William Arnold Peters: I am glad to see you are consistent.


John Napier Turner: The first reason is that it would clearly be tantamount under the present circumstances to a deliberate vote of want of confidence in the Attorney General and government of the province of Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Napier Turner: Yes; that is exactly what it would be.


Mr. Orlikow:: You want to give him a blank cheque.


John Napier Turner: Under the administration of justice pursuant to the Criminal Code, and under

November 17, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
the administration of the current regulations as proclaimed under the War Measures Act and under the scope of this bill, the enforcement of those regulations and this bill, as is the case in respect of the enforcement of the administration of justice under the criminal law, is left with the attorney general of the province, in this case of Quebec, who is responsible to the legislature of the province and through the legislature to the people of Quebec.
The Attorney General of the province of Quebec is responsible to the people of Quebec in the same way the 74 members of Parliament elected to this House of Commons also are responsible to the people of Quebec. We are dealing with a federal state and, because the geographical location and the seditious threat relates primarily to Quebec and its relationship to Canada, the primary responsibility for the administration of this bill will lie in this case with the provincial Attorney General. That is clear. The hon. member is suggesting that we superimpose on the Attorney General of Quebec a supervisory commission of three persons, not appointed by the Attorney General of Quebec but appointed by the Attorney General of Canada or the Minister of Justice of Canada, who shall not be employees of the federal or of any provincial government or of any police force, which would have supervision over the administration of justice which by law and under the practice of responsible government is incumbent upon the Attorney General of Quebec.
To whom would this supervisory commission be responsible? It does not have to report to anybody. It has to make its findings public but does not report to anyone. It cannot be held to account. The Attorney General of Quebec can be held to account. If in the view of the people of Quebec or Canada the administration of the regulations or the bill have been improper, he could and would be held accountable.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Do not talk nonsense.


John Napier Turner: Wait. What powers would be given to this commission? By the terms of this amendment there would be the power to ensure that any people who were arrested under this act were treated according to law. That is a judicial function. That would be giving to this commission the power to supervise what is normally left to the Attorney General or the courts. Next, it would ensure that persons arrested would have access to counsel. That is already provided for in clause 12. Then, there would be a provision that these people be not detained without adequate grounds. That is a judicial function, too. Is this commission to be given this supervisory power over the Attorney General and the courts?
Finally, there would be the provision that those arrested by given the opportunity to contact their families. If the right to counsel is inherent in the bill, which it is, then the right to communicate is related to that because the right to contact a lawyer usually involves the right, through the lawyer, to contact the family. But, better than this, the Attorney General of Quebec has already appointed a committee which is to concern itself with the
[Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) .1
administration of the emergency legislation. The membership of this committee is as follows. The chairman is Jacques Hebert, president of the League of the Rights of Man and also a Montreal publisher. The members are Roland Parenteau, an economist, and Jacques Tellier, a priest. The terms of reference are spelled out in this way in French-I am translating:
The Minister recognized its existence, provided its actions were within the frame of reference:
1.	Communications between prisoner and family.
That is provided for.
2.	Care of families-financial and otherwise.
That is provided for.
3.	To see that person arrested does not suffer, e.g. lose jobs,, etc.
(But are not to work in area of ombudsman).
4.	Anything unusual to be communicated to ombudsman.
5.	Report to Minister or ombudsman anything not correct.
The Attorney General of the province of Quebec in the exercise of his lawful authority, the authority for which he bears responsibility to the people of Quebec, has already appointed this type of committee.
If what the hon. member is seeking is an accountability process, the accountability is there under the law to the legislature and to the people of Quebec. The Attorney General of Quebec, or of any province, or the Attorney General of Canada is a good deal more accountable under the fundamental principles of responsible government than would be any supervisory commission appointed under the terms of reference suggested by the hon. member. For these reasons, and because we live in a federal state, I am constrained to reject, as I said, very strenuously this suggestion.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have asked the minister several times whether he is prepared to accept our amendment to clause 15 of the bill. That amendment would be similar to what we have before us now. I had hoped the minister would have said something about that because he had had a copy of it for days. However, I think we might come to the conclusion now that no matter what kind of amendment we move to this bill this government, through the Minister of Justice, will refuse it. My good friend beside me says that he would not give even a choir of angels all this power without some protection. I said the other night, and it has not been denied, that the Prime Minister has done with this bill what he did with another bill that was before the House, the bill on capital punishment. He told the Minister of Justice that no matter what the opposition suggested he should oppose it and this bill should go through without any changes. So we can take it that there will be no changes.


Mr. Benjamin:: Even by a government member.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, but there seems to be some hanky-panky going on in that corner. I am not too sure about that.
November 17, 1970

On the face of it, I would be prepared to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for York South or the amendment we will move in a few minutes. I think ours is superior. I believe any provision that sets up a body to review the abuses that are bound to take place under this bill, which gives extraordinary powers to the police, is good. I and other members of my party will vote for the amendment that was moved by the hon. member for York South, although I think in some respects ours is superior. I will deal with that when the time comes. It is obvious now-and I do not play games when I speak-that the Minister of Justice with his majority behind him will vote down the amendment of the hon. member for York South. There is no question that it is going out the window.
I want to answer the first argument of the minister. He said that the attorney general has already set up a special committee. He knows and we know that this committee has no power under the law. It may consist of a group of friends, associates or colleagues or even a group of good minded citizens, but if the attorney general and the police said "Tomorrow we do not want you around the jail, get out" that is what would happen. This is the weakest part of the minister's argument. It is a pretty good bluff for the news media but I, as a lawyer, do not swallow it. I am sure that neither the hon. member for York South nor his party will swallow it, either. There is no power under the law that permits the committee to protect people from the abuses that are bound to take place under the bill before us. That is the first point I am making. When I said "hogwash" when the minister was speaking, I meant it. It is straight hogwash.
The Minister of Justice knows how to sell. But let him not try to sell us something that has no merit. He is a tremendous salesman. That would be the first characteristic I would describe if I were writing his biography in the Parliamentary Guide. That kind of salesmanship, when we are dealing with possible abuses, does not go very far.
I am supporting the amendment of the hon. member for York South because we want some body created by law with some powers in view of the fact we are now setting aside the Bill of Rights and giving the police extraordinary powers. The minister keeps referring to the attorney general, but he is actually giving to the police the right to detain people without counsel and to hold them for a period of time. We tried to reduce the period of time from 90 days to 30 days and we put forward other amendments with regard to this. These prisoners can be denied counsel and many of them are held incommunicado. We heard the hon. member for York South describe the conditions. I have raised questions at times regarding the right under the Criminal Code, and even under our immigration laws, to detain people for 80 days or 90 days without charges being laid.
I have much respect for the RCMP, and I have said that before, but I still say that the police are not angels. They are normal human beings and we know what human behaviour is. You are arming policemen with special powers, and of course the attorney general could not possibly personally review 500 or 600 cases. That
Public Order Act, 1970
would be an impossibility. What we are asking is that a committee be set up, or an administrator appointed, with special powers to review the abuses that might take place. An accused, after a reasonable length of time, can make an application to obtain counsel and have his case reviewed. Surely, that is reasonable.
The Minister of Justice has tried to assume the image of a reformer. He has tried to reform the Criminal Code through a bill called the omnibus bill, and I have questioned whether it brought about many reforms. He has tried to reform the law on bail. He spoke with great affection about reforms to the law to the Canadian Bar Association when they met in the Chateau Laurier Hotel. After the meeting all the lawyers went home and said the minister is a great reformer. They said, we at last have a great new Minister of Justice in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am glad to hear this applause. You are rejoicing now but you will soon be crying because abuses will take place under this bill. I cannot believe for one moment that any lawyer on that side of the House-I will separate you people-who has had any experience at all, or any Member of Parliament who has some knowledge of civil rights, would not say that the opposition's suggestion to establish a review board or committee to review abuses under the act was a reasonable one.
I want to mention another argument which the minister has put forward every time we moved an amendment. He keeps saying "This is not our responsibility; we are handing it to the province of Quebec".
Mr. Fair weather: That is the very reason we need protection.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I agree. The minister says "we are handing this to the province of Quebec and they are going to take care of all the abuses". As I said last evening, as soon as this bill becomes law the minister will say "I cannot answer those questions. I do not know who is in jail. I do not know whether 50 per cent of the citizens of Quebec are in jail. That is for the attorney general of the province to worry about. If they are detained illegally without proper reason or purpose, that is not our concern, it is that of the attorney general of the province of Quebec".
I agree that at present both the government of Canada and the government of Quebec happen to be Liberal, but even that association does not give the minister or his government any reason to escape their responsibility. We have to take a few moments to analyze what is going on here. To start with, the government brought in the War Measures Act. We supported it because we were told, upon our request, that a bill would be put before the House. At least the government kept its promise in that regard and we have the special bill. That is why we are supporting it. However, if you take a look at the defence of Canada regulations, which were a part of the War Measures Act during the war and the regulations that

November 17, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
were part of the War Measures Act when it was invoked on October 16, you will see that both are identical. When the federal government invoked the special regulations during wartime, it assumed its responsibility. Why is the government not assuming its responsibilities today? This is straight politics and it makes one wonder. I say that there has been a lot of politics played in implementing this measure. It makes one wonder whether there was anything in the trucks that left Quebec before the provincial election. This is straight politics.
I plead with the minister once more. We are coming to the end of this debate. Surely, in the name of reason, he will agree to set up a special body to review possible abuses under this bill and accept the amendment of the hon. member for York South. I am not inflexible over this nor I believe is any member on this side. However, I hope the minister will be prepared to rise in his place and say he thinks our amendment is superior. But what he wants to do is say, "We are not accepting anything. We are going to fight you to a standstill. We are going to create an all-powerful police state in the province of Quebec."
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
We have heard a lot about special status from those people for a long time, and even about two nations.


Mr. Clermont:: That was your leader.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The hon. member says that was my party. I can readily pick out for him references in Hansard during the Pearson years which indicate that idea came from him. The hon. member happens to be chairman of the Finance Committee. He had better stay with that subject rather than deal with justice. What we have here is a special law for the province of Quebec, a special law to deal with a certain association. There may be other associations in Canada besides the FLQ which believe in violence. In fact I think there are, but the government has picked on Quebec. I am surprised that some of the members from Quebec have not shown their anxiety about this.


An hon. Member:: They know the situation.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The government is saying to them, "We are going to give you this kind of arbitrary legislation and you must take it whether you like it or not. We can throw up our hands when it goes through because if things go wrong we can blame the province of Quebec when we are on the hustings."


Mr. Bechard:: Nonsense.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Look at the bill-arrest without warrant, search without warrant, detention for such a length of time, and all this in unusual circumstances. Why, the door to the house of the Secretary of State was kicked in because his name happened to be the same as that of somebody else sought in connection with the FLQ. Yet, the government members say there is no abuse. If my
house is in Westmount and there is somebody by the name of Woolliams who is suspected of being in the FLQ, is my door going to be kicked in? My hon. friend opposite shakes his head.
Surely, when there are abuses there should be somebody to review them. Members of the government say, "Oh well, we will trust the police." But if such a thing as this can happen to one of the ministers of the Crown, then what about the poor little average citizen? What is going to happen to him? That is why there should be a review body provided with power to review the observance of terms spelled out in the Bill of Rights and which exist in the common law of the country.
This bill can create a police state. I say with the proper respect, Mr. Chairman, and in its proper perspective, that when we hand a document like this to the government, together with the War Measures Act, we hand them the same kind of powers as were handed to Adolph Hitler. Of course it can be said that he was crazy, but these documents might fall into the hands of a few people who are crazy, too. All I am asking is that the citizen who is abused have some place where he can get a remedy. I plead with the minister, but it seems to me I am just wasting my time. It is like pleading before a prejudiced court, when you know the judges have made their decision in some club even before you arrive at the court house door.


Albert Béchard: It's a pretty good speech.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I hope you take it to heart. I am sure the reason I am being interrupted is that I am getting at the consciences of good men like yourself. I have sat on committees with you, and I know you think well and think right.
Has the minister looked at our proposed amendment? We kept our speeches to a minimum on this bill so as not to delay its passage. The minister must agree with that. We did so knowing we would come to this type of amendment and, even with all the powers granted by the bill, if the amendment were adopted some protection might be given to the citizen. Now we have reached such an amendment, and the minister's answer is no. The minister said he was not going to decide on our amendment until we got to it. Mr. Chairman, he had decided before this debate started. He closed his mind. It was only open until the the Prime Minister told him, "No amendments."


David Lewis: He might as well have had the bill adopted
by the Liberal caucus.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I understand he makes better speeches in caucus than he does in Parliament. I know that from talking to some of the Liberal backbenchers.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Chairman, I will not be long because it will not take me very long to say what I want to say. We have agreed in principle to these powers being granted. We went along with the very broader powers under

November 17, 1970

the War Measures Act regulations. We are quite prepared to provide the authorities with the additional powers they may need to seek out these terrorists and to deal with them. But, Mr. Chairman, there is not the slightest excuse tor the government refusing to establish some machinery of review, which would not interfere in any way with the effective searching out of these terrorists but which would at least provide individuals affected with some degree of review, and which would also eventually let the people of Quebec and the people of Canada know what took place.
The minister speaks of federalism. He speaks of the power being given under this bill to the attorney general of the province of Quebec. Mr. Chairman, I throw this in the minister's face. He is simply using a concept of federalism to slough off his responsibility. I do not want to be abusive. I realize the government has been under a lot of pressure and difficulty. These are difficult days, but I say to the minister in all sincerity that there is not the slightest excuse, and one cannot possibly justify powers of the sort granted under the War Measures Act regulations or the powers being granted in this bill, without providing some right of review. As to the mechanics of it, I have an open mind.
For the minister piloting this bill through the House, and for the government as a whole, to refuse to lift a hand, even to lift a finger to provide some protection to individuals who are effected-this I cannot understand. I do not want to be offensive or personal. I noticed a good many members opposite smiling when others were discussing this matter. I
I realize perfectly well that the majority of the people of this country today are not really interested in the question that is raised in this amendment. I realize that the only thing the great majority of the people of the country are interested in is searching out the terrorists. But I say that is not the slightest excuse for members of this House not being interested in this question. It may very well be that this bill will be adopted without any provision for review, either along the lines indicated in the amendment sponsored by the hon. member for York South, or in the later amendment to be sponsored by the hon. member for Calgary North. However, I say this House would be derelict in its duty in creating the powers set forth in this clause without setting up a reasonable method of review. There is no way the Minister of Justice, or any member on the other side of the House, could possibly justify what they are proposing to do.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I wonder whether the Minister of Justice has communicated with his colleague, his partner in federalism, because federalism is a partnership as well as a good many other things, about the proposal for a review procedure suggested by my hon. friend from Calgary North and my hon. friend from York South. Have the propositions proposed in these amendments and their implications been discussed with the Minister of Justice of Quebec? I should like to have an answer to that
Public Order Act, 1970
question before I continue. If there have been discussions, what was the answer?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, very early in the administration of the regulations pursuant to the War Measures Act I discussed with the Attorney General of Quebec the proposition of appointing the type of committee that has been appointed under his jurisdiction and responsible to him, the ombudsman and the people of Quebec. That has been done.


Mr. Fairweather:: Under no statute has it been done. We have to remember that we are debating in the context of a situation where it took a court order to get the fundamental right of counsel for people who were incarcerated under the War Measures Act; it took application to the courts and a decision by a judge. We have to discuss these review implications under the-I was going to say threat but I do not want to be abusive-alarming context of a speech made last Friday in the National Assembly by the Minister of Justice of Quebec. That speech was one of the most flagrant abuses of what I would have hoped was a cooling off period in a very grave situation, the worst I have seen since the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion tried to inflame us at an earlier stage.
It has been suggested seriously that citizens of one part of Canada be fingerprinted and made to carry identification cards. The Minister of Justice now suggests that this is clearly unconstitutional. It is in this mood that we are earnestly proposing-and as my colleague has said, with considerable flexibility as to which proposition is accepted-a simple procedure so that justice will be seen to be done. I suggest there is very good evidence that justice has not been seen to be done in connection with many of the arrests under the War Measures Act.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I do not think I have used inflamato-ry language here but I challenge, in fact I dare, the Minister of Justice to come here after the dinner hour with a review procedure authored by himself that would fit the joint amendments that we have proposed. He would see how quickly this Parliament would accept his proposals. That is a challenge and I should like to see it accepted.


Mr. Wahn:: Mr. Chairman, I believe members on this side of the House are as interested as those on the other side in protecting the rights of individuals who may be detained under this extraordinary legislation.


David Lewis: Show it.


Ian Grant Wahn: It is important that there should be a review group which has access to those who are detained. The only question is whether this review group should be established under federal legislation or by the provincial government which has the responsibility for the administration of justice under our constitution.
As I understand it, the provincial government of Quebec has already established a review group. That

November 17, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
review group has functioned under the War Measures Act and has pretty well established its independence. In effect, the amendment proposed by the opposition indicates a lack of confidence in the administration of justice in the province of Quebec and a lack of confidence in the government which, under the constitution, has been given the responsibility for administering justice in that province. We do not share that view. We do have confidence in the administration of justice as carried out by officers in the province of Quebec.


David Lewis: It made the War Measures Act necessary.


Ian Grant Wahn: As I understand it, we do not accept the amendment as proposed by the opposition.


Mr. Murphy:: Mr. Chairman, as pointed out by the hon. member for St. Paul's, members on this side of the House are as concerned, I am sure, as members on the other side. I, too, feel that there should be a review board but I cannot accept the amendment offered by the hon. member for York South.


David Lewis: Rewrite it.


Charles Terrence Murphy: I am going to suggest that if you give me a moment.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: You want to clear it in caucus first.


Charles Terrence Murphy: I cannot accept the proposition that any review board should have the power to determine whether the people arrested should be freed. In giving the board that power we would, in effect, be giving them the power of a court.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Exactly.


Charles Terrence Murphy: I cannot accept your proposition that such a board should determine whether people detained or arrested should continue to be detained. This, too, suggests that the board should have the power of a court of law. My view of federalism is that the provincial governments cannot exercise the powers granted under this bill unless those powers have been granted specifically to them. Surely, if we have the authority to give them that power, we must also have the authority to put certain restraints on it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The responsibility.


Charles Terrence Murphy: I would be prepared to accept a review board which would have the power to interview persons arrested under the act to ensure that they have had access to counsel and have been given an opportunity to contact their families.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: We are getting close to it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question before he sits down? He sat down.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order, please. As the committee must now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, it is my duty to leave the chair.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, there have been some consultations through the usual channels about the procedure for tomorrow and Thursday and it is likely that there will be an opposition motion by this party which will affect both days. While there is no wish to inhibit the course of this very serious and important debate, if it should appear later on this evening that the bill might be concluded with reasonable dispatch tomorrow, we would not want to take that opportunity away from the House. This is a prelude to my asking the leave of the House to suspend until ten o'clock this evening the right to file the usual notice under the appropriate Standing Order, for an opposition motion.
I have discussed this matter with other hon. members. I think it is quite well understood and that everyone will accept it.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to agree with the suggestion without having investigated all the implications that may flow from it. I hope there are none that have not been brought to my attention. There seems to be a disposition on the part of the members of the House to proceed with and complete the committee stage, perhaps even third reading, of Bill C-181.
[DOT] (5:00p.m.)
Perhaps we could also request unanimous consent to defer private members hour today, so that we could proceed with this bill. Hopefully, we shall come to the point of knowing, with certainty, what is to happen tomorrow. We are prepared to designate both tomorrow and the next day as opposition days. If deferring by a few hours the time when the motion ought to be filed would be helpful in this situation, we would be glad to agree.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, at this point I rise merely to say that we are prepared to agree to the request of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) namely, that the members of the official opposition shall have until ten o'clock tonight to file their motion for the next two days. I refrain from commenting on the other point because, it seems to me, it is a matter for the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) to consider.


An hon. Member:: A great Canadian.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abifibi):: Mr. Speaker, I only want to say that we are prepared to agree to the suggestion of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), providing that we are acquainted early enough and in the usual manner with the contents of the motion he would like to bring before the House tomorrow.
[Mr. Wahn.)
November 17, 1970


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), who would have taken up the initial part of private members' hour with that distinction which has always marked his speeches in the House, has agreed. I think, if he had proceeded with his proposal regarding Sir John A. Macdonald Day, he would have shown that one of the characteristics of that distinguished Father of Confederation was that form of tolerance which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner, Ottawa-Carleton) has not displayed so far in this debate. After having made those preliminary remarks, I say we are prepared to consent.


Mr. Speaker:: There seems to be consent and agreement for adopting the numerous proposals which have been made by the various members who have taken part in this debate. It is so ordered.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: Before we return to committee of the whole, may I draw to the attention of hon. members that the following matters will be considered if and when there is an adjournment debate later today. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Pensions-Old age security-Action on increase before Christmas; the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Thomson)-Broadcasting-Performance of North Battleford satellite television station; and the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski)-Grain-Production and receipts policy-Farm consolidation program.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-181, to provide temporary emergency powers for the preservation of public order in Canada-Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)-Mr. Laniel in the chair.
Gérald Laniel: Order, please. The House again in committee of the whole on Bill C-181, to provide temporary emergency powers for the preservation of public order in Canada. Is the committee ready for the question?


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, in asking parliament to adopt this bill the Minister of Justice, on behalf of the government, is asking the people of Canada to adopt the kinds of controls to which we have never agreed in peacetime in the history of Canada. Part and parcel of this bill is the right to search, the right to arrest without warrant and the right to hold people without permitting
Public Order Act, 1970
them to contact their families or counsel. We, in our party, have been criticized because we voted in support of this bill on second reading. We did so because we felt that this was a lesser evil than the War Measures Act and because we thought that the minister, in the light of his statements and expressions of the past couple of years which tended to show, as my colleague for Calgary North suggested, that the minister was a progressive sort of person, would accept reasonable amendments. Mr. Chairman, the longer this debate continues the more it becomes obvious that we were wrong in our judgment. By refusing to approve any and every amendment, the Minister of Justice is asking parliament to approve a bill which lays down the stringent conditions I have enumerated very briefly. And, not being satisfied with that, Mr. Chairman, the minister suggests that the federal government and Parliament should thereafter wash their hands of the bill and permit the attorney general of one province to administer it.
When the amendment proposing an independent review committee was brought in, the Minister of Justice tried to argue that the amendment was not necessary because the Attorney General of Quebec had already agreed to the establishment of a committee which, according to the Minister of Justice, had the powers which this amendment would give to such a committee. Actually, that committee has no power under the law. That committee can only do those things which the Attorney General of Quebec permits it to do. The Attorney General of Quebec can pay to it as much or as little attention as he chooses.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is right.


David Orlikow: I will not go into the record of the operations of the present government of Quebec under the provisions of the War Measures Act. I say to the Minister of Justice that if he is not disturbed about some of the proposals which have been made by the Attorney General of Quebec, he is possibly the only so-called Liberal in this country who is not disturbed.
Let us look at the speeches and statements which the Attorney General of Quebec has been making. He has proposed that every citizen of Quebec be required to carry an identity card. I presume that means photographing and fingerprinting and everything else that goes towards making up a real identity card. He has implied that the freedom of the press may need to be restricted. He has also implied that the fundamental and traditional freedoms which citizens of Canada have enjoyed ever since there has been a country may have to be restricted.
I for one, Mr. Chairman, am not prepared to vote for a bill which would give some other person, the Attorney General of Quebec, the right to restrict the rights of citizens in Quebec in the way in which the present Attorney General of Quebec has indicated. The Minister of Justice may have a very short memory; I suggest that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion ought to have better memories. This is not the first time the people of Canada and the people of Quebec have had to deal with attorneys general who thought that there were reasons-good reasons so far as

November 17, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
they were concerned-tor restricting the rights of the citizens of their province. I remind the members of the committee and the Minister of Justice that the former premier of Quebec, Mr. Duplessis, was also the attorney general of Quebec. Under his regime we had the padlock law in Quebec. Under his regime in Quebec the asbestos strike was smashed, with the use of police, in a bloody way. Under his regime we had the strike at the Gaspe copper mines in which the present Prime Minister was involved.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
We have had varying experiences with the attorneys general of Quebec. I am only talking about Quebec because this bill will have effect, at present at least, only in Quebec. When Mr. Duplessis was carrying on as he did, when Mr. Duplessis was passing the padlock law, he had virtually the unanimous approval of the press and of the legislature of that province. As I say he enjoyed, virtually, the unanimous approval of the press and the approval, or at least their acquiescence through silence, of the Members of Parliament from Quebec. We, who are not in Quebec, are being told not to pay any attention to all these things. I wonder if the Prime Minister would change his views about the kind of regime they had in Quebec when Mr. Duplessis was premier? I wonder whether the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, who lived through the days when these things were taking place in the province of Quebec, has forgotten what Mr. Duplessis did? Have they asked themselves what Mr. Duplessis could have done in that province had there been the legislation that is being proposed today?


Albert Béchard: That regime is gone.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What makes you think other human beings are better today?


David Orlikow: We have the usual objections from the silent members from Quebec whose only purpose in Parliament is to stand up to vote when told how to vote. I will not be very long. I will then be happy to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary or the hon. member if they would like to defend Mr. Duplessis. The Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head. I say to him that the legislation being proposed today is foursquare with what Mr. Duplessis did during his time. Because I feel this way, I have no intention of voting for this bill.
The Minister of Justice will not accept any amendment which calls on the Attorney General of Quebec, or any other province which may have to use this legislation, to keep in mind the democratic rights of their citizens. The Minister of Justice has shed the liberal views which he expressed so often with regard to bail and the right to counsel. I do not agree with terrorists and separatism, but people have a right to say what they think. They do not have the right to kidnap people, kill them or plant bombs, but in this country they have the right to say what they think. This bill will help certain groups in Quebec which do not believe that people have this right and want to put the clamps on them. I do not support that feeling.
I wish to record some thoughts of a man who is much more eloquent than I, although unfortunately he seems to have changed his views. I wish to read some views which he held before entering politics. I will quote from the November 14, 1970 issue of the Winnipeg Free Press. It contains a summary of a book which will be published shortly by the Oxford University Press. The name of the book is "Approaches to Politics". By whom was the book written? It was written by our Prime Minister, Pierre Elliott Trudeau. I am quoting for the benefit of the members from Quebec and the Liberal backbenchers who feel certain that what now is being done is right and necessary, namely abridging the freedoms of their people:
Democracy recognizes that one person may be right and ninety-nine wrong; that is why freedom of speech is sacred. The one person must always have the right to proclaim his truth in the hope of persuading the ninety-nine to change their point of view-
One can say that the power of government rests on a psychological disposition on most people's part that it is good to obey and bad to disobey. Why is this belief so universal? Partly because the majority seek only their own comfort and pleasure: When those ends are assured, they ask no more than to conform to a given social order and to obey political masters who work to maintain that order. Few men are aroused by injustice when they are sure of not being its victims themselves.
If that is not a classic illustration of what is going on in Quebec today, and how the government of Quebec is dealing with the situation, I have not heard of one. I wish to read another short paragraph:
Citizens must take care to delegate to (the state) no more authority, no more force, than are strictly necessary to establish a just social order, protect that order from harm, and make sure it will progress.
I suggest that the government is not heeding these words of the Prime Minister because they are giving the government of Quebec a great deal more power than is necessary or wise.


Mr. Laflamme:: Mr. Chairman, I would merely point out to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat that when the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) was speaking about federalism a few minutes ago, he also meant no doubt the respect of the rights and powers of the provincial ministers and premiers.
Mr. Chairman, I agree with the hon. member for St. Paul (Mr. Wahn) that even though the motion moved by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) seems to show a real concern for justice, nevertheless it is a sort of insult and reflects a desire to control the Quebec Minister of Justice, casting doubt as to his ability and authority to administer the legislation he is responsible for.
Despite the good intentions expressed a while ago by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), what is basically wrong with this motion is that the federal government is trying to say to a provincial government answerable to its electors: Gentlemen, we are going to control you, that is, subject you to the control of a group which, even though independent-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!

November 17, 1970

[253


Ovide Laflamme: Perhaps my hon. friend does not agree with me but it is nonsense to say to a minister responsible for the administration of justice in a province: "We do not think that you have the legal capacity and the authority to act; there may be abuses in the discharge of powers which you are responsible for administering under the constitution and instead of you, who are responsible before the Quebec National Assembly and the voters, we would rather deal with a group of individuals, of public servants who are not responsible before the people".
This is the true meaning of the amendment and this is why, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that under the cover of these good intents, what is at stake is the lack of confidence in the capacity of the Quebec Minister of Justice to administer the laws of this country.


Gerald William Baldwin: I wish to comment briefly in response to the remarks of the hon. member. I think he has placed his finger on the defect in the argument that has been made from the other side, that we are giving to the Minister of Justice of the province of Quebec powers for which he does not have constitutional responsibility in the usual exercise of his duties. Parliament is being asked to give him extra judicial, extra curricular powers in lieu of a judge.
Under our system of jurisprudence and criminal law, it has always been the courts which decided whether, in the circumstances, bail should be granted. By giving the Quebec Minister of Justice the right to file a certificate, we are giving him the right to decide whether there is just cause for detaining a person in jail, over and above the usual causes. These powers far exceed those he inherited when he took office, and in these circumstances responsibility lies upon us to make sure there is accountability for the exercise of these powers. We recognize that certain individuals are invested with authority by the people of a province; there are those who exercise authority as members of a cabinet. This is a situation we accept. But we are now being asked to delegate extraordinary powers which do not normally fall within the ambit of any member of an elected government, powers usually exercised only by judges who are appointed for life and who have a special responsibility to sit in judgment upon their fellows.
9 (5:20p.m.)
When this authority is given to a minister, I think we can do nothing less than make provision for these elected officials to account for what they have done. Remember, the minister of justice of a province is a human being, subject to making a misuse of his powers, in the same way as the Minister of Justice, or myself, or anyone else. No human being can be excluded from the possibility that he will misuse extraordinary powers. Surely, it is not asking too much when we proposed that a commission or an administrator be set up to scrutinize the manner in which these extraordinary powers are exercised, nothing more and nothing less. If they feel we have gone too far, I ask the government to tell us how far they are prepared to go.
Public Order Act, 1970


Mr. Alexander:: I have not taken an active part in this debate, feeling that those on both sides of the Committee who have advanced arguments have done so admirably. We are not concerned at this moment with whether a person, be he the Minister of Justice for Quebec or the Minister of Justice for Canada, is to be trusted or not. We are concerned about human frailties, frailties which become more pronounced in times of stress. When we consider what we are being asked to do now in terms of conferring extra powers, I believe we must of necessity impose some kind of a safeguard, whether those suggested by the New Democratic Party or those which will be suggested on behalf of this party. I am not particularly interested in the mechanism; possibly something could be done on the basis of the principle which, I believe, has been accepted by the hon. member for St. Paul's and by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie.
It seems to me the lawyers among us are beginning to clear away some of the haze. What is happening is beginning to stir their consciences as members of the bar trained in the law with a duty to seek justice not only for those who are innocent but also for those who are guilty.
It is time for us to assess what we are being asked to do. We supported the invocation of the War Measures Act and its regulations on the understanding that legislation would be introduced to meet the particular circumstances. In so doing, we had expected the government would show a reasonable attitude toward proposals and ideas which would be advanced from this side of the chamber so as to produce legislation which would truly reflect the wishes of this grand body. It seems to me that what we have been witnessing has been an exercise in frustration. Surely the minister realizes that the extra powers we are asked to confer are of such a nature that abuse could arise because of human frailty, yet for some reason he is reluctant to move in this area of law reform, though it is precisely his interest in this field which I have admired in him as he goes across the country speaking. Apparently he is not prepared to accept safeguards, and I find this attitude wholly unrealistic, wholly inconsistent with what he is preaching in the land. I cannot understand it. I do not doubt that this legislation is needed. But in its present form it is loaded to an unprecedented degree in favour of peace officers, in favour of the Crown, in favour of the Attorney General and in favour of the Government of Canada.
It has been said that with the invocation of the War Measures Act, Canada will never be the same again. I hope we have not reached a point at which, in attempting to protect the innocent, we have not forgotten about their rights entirely. Someone has to be the conscience of the government if we are to be consistent with the new thinking of the Minister of Justice, if we are to be consistent with our democratic way of life, if we are to be true to our democratic institutions. It is all very well for the minister to say that his responsibility ends with the proclamation of this measure and that its administration can be left to someone else. Surely, this is not a realistic attitude. I trust he will take into account the views of those who have spoken earlier on this subject.

November 17, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
My good friend from Sault Ste. Marie is a lawyer of great capacity. He has made a marvelous contribution to the Justice Committee, as the Minister of Justice knows, and I was glad to see him stand up, because I know his conscience is beginning to bother him. I hope the minister will give serious consideration to this plea which comes not only from the opposition but from members of his own party who believe that some amendment of this measure is needed. I trust he will consider it with sympathy and understanding because, in my view, to ignore it would imply a grave lack of judgment; it would be a serious error.
As I said earlier, I am not particularly concerned about the form the amendment might take. Very often I do not like to think that the government is in possession of all the expertise, with the help of its advisors, but in this case the minister has all the facilities he needs at his disposal. Let the government come up with something it thinks is reasonable in terms of a review of the administration which will be acceptable. Let it come up with something that will show it is not only worried about those who are guilty but also about those who through abuse and the over zealousness of police officers may be affected although innocent.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I cannot do as good a job in outlining the tremendous dangers which will exist as a result of this bill as the hon. members for Peace River, Calgary North and York South. I do not want to repeat what they have said. I rise simply to reply very briefly to the hon. member for Montmorency. The hon. member implied that because I was critical of the Attorney General of Quebec, I somehow was doing him an injustice. I have not seen a newspaper in Canada which has not editorially been extremely critical of the proposals and suggestions the Attorney General of Quebec has been making.
I do not question the right of the Attorney General of Quebec to propose any legislation which comes within the jurisdiction of the province of Quebec. I do not question the right of the government of Quebec to pass that legislation because, after all, in our democratic society the people of Quebec at a future date will indicate, by their support or rejection of the government, what they think of the measures the Attorney General of Quebec brings forward in the way of legislation. I would not presume to question what the Attorney General of Quebec wants to do in Quebec when it is within his jurisdiction.
What we are being asked to do is pass legislation which has never before existed in Canada; legislation which restricts and limits the rights of the people of Canada or, at the moment, of those in the province of Quebec. The Attorney General and the police in Quebec will administer the law and look after the regulations. People laughed yesterday when we read that the police- I do not know whether it was the Montreal police, the Quebec provincial police or the RCMP-were asked to pick up a 21-year old man whose name happened to be Gerard Pelletier, and went to the house of the Secretary
of State. I am not one of those who always criticizes the police but that to me indicates some lack of judgment, and that is putting it mildly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh!


David Orlikow: If that happened to me I would be unhappy, to say the least. This is the kind of power we are being asked, through this legislation, to give the Attorney General and the police in the province of Quebec. If we are to live with our consciences in the future and not have the feeling that we have done something which will be detrimental to the people of Canada for years to come, the least we can do is provide for an independent committee or commission which will have the power to look after and protect the rights of citizens who are affected.
We are told this is a bad amendment because by-adopting it we would write into a future statute a restriction on a provincial attorney general. Surely, since it is a federal statute we are being asked to vote upon and endorse, we have the right to do that. Surely it would not be too much to ask the Minister of Justice to say to the Attorney General of Quebec, "If you want this kind of legislation and if you need it, we are prepared to bring it in; but we think you ought to have this kind of committee.'' This would not be a committee set up by some kind of verbal or written order on the part of the minister, which he could revoke tomorrow, next year or whenever it suits him, or the moment the committee starts being critical of him. Surely the Minister of Justice should say to the Attorney General of Quebec, "If you want this legislation you must write into your statutes the provision that there will be an independent committee."
I do not think we would quarrel about the three people who might be appointed. Certainly we would not quarrel about the appointment of Mr. Hebert. I would be prepared to accept the view of the Attorney General of Quebec and the Minister of Justice that it was a good committee. But let us have written into the law of the province that wants to use this legislation which we as Members of Parliament are being asked to approve that there will be an independent committee. Then if people's rights are infringed, if they are held too long and are not permitted counsel, talk to their families or have books and newspapers to read, the committee will have the power to do something other than just plead with the Attorney General of the province.
We are told that this committee might take the place of the courts, but that is not true and the members who put forward that argument must know it is not true. We are concerned that this bill takes from the courts the traditional rights the courts have always had. A lawyer representing an accused who is being held can go to the courts, as they did in Montreal last week, with a writ of habeas corpus asking the judge to protect the rights of the person involved. After listening to argument on behalf of the Crown and the defence, the court can decide whether the person ought to be released on bail. We are not questioning the right of the courts to do that; we are saying that this bill sets down conditions under which the courts will not be able to fulfil the judicial function they have had since the beginning of this coun-

November 17, 1970

try. It is that kind of thing which I am not prepared to support. The hon. member for Montmorency may be prepared to support that kind of repressive legislation, hut I am not.
Before I sit down I would urge the Parliamentary Secretary, who so noticeably disagreed with my comparison of this legislation with the kind of power a former Premier of Quebec, Mr. Duplessis, assumed and exercised, to get on his feet and tell me publicly how I am wrong and how this legislation differs from the kind of power Mr. Duplessis so effectively used so anti-democratically in years gone by.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, at the conclusion of my remarks I shall have a suggestion for the Minister of Justice regarding the point that is now being pursued. First I should say that I am one of those, and my colleagues pretty well joined with me, who agreed beforehand that when we entered this debate we would treat this as emergency legislation and emphasize that aspect of it. Up to now I suggest we have done so. Perhaps that is why the civil rights aspect of the matter has not been dealt with by the opposition as fully as would normally be the case. In that regard, when the long-range legislation comes before us to replace this legislation which will expire next April, there will be far different emphasis placed by the opposition on the things in this bill which will undoubtedly be carried over into that legislation.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I say that until now, we have treated this as a serious, emergency matter. The fact that a man I knew in Halifax, Mr. Cross, is still held somewhere in the province of Quebec by terrorists, and is held successfully despite tremendous police and armed forces searches, to me indicates we are dealing with a conspiracy that is not the fly-by-night work of amateurs but the work of experienced, skilled and resourceful persons. I have had that thought very much in mind throughout this whole debate, even though sometimes it is pretty hard to believe it is a serious matter when we do not see the galleries filled with people, or when the Prime Minister of this country is away from the House so much during what we are told is a period of tremendous national crisis. I can accept those things, however, because I knew Mr. Cross and I know he is still held somewhere against his will and is being used as a pawn in a very dangerous game in which all Canadians have a stake.
These are the questions which have prompted many of my colleagues and myself to become involved in this somewhat drawn-out debate. It has been drawn out much beyond the time we expected. Last Friday, for example, I believe the official opposition took up five or seven minutes to deal with points which we knew had not been dealt with already. We were not inclined to take up the time of the committee. But, sir, when we have a point we can dig in our heels as well as others. This heel-digging is on the matter of the awesome powers to be granted the Attorney General of the province of Quebec.
In effect, the government of Quebec has come to Ottawa and asked that we provide an extraordinary
Public Order Act, 1970
police force for use in that province. The whole tenor of this legislation is that the administration of law and order in the province of Quebec is to be beefed up by an almost superhuman pouring in of resources from all parts of Canada. We have been good enough to give the Attorney General and the Premier of Quebec those powers and those resources without quibbling. No one has said the army or that extra Royal Canadian Mounted Police should not be there. As a matter of fact, the reverse has been the case. I recall the leader of the New Democratic Party a few days ago asking whether the RCMP had been withdrawn. He was told they had not been withdrawn.
We do not mind the federal government or the provinces coming in to help the authorities in Quebec during a critical period. No one has quarrelled about this at all. But there must be limits. The Minister of Justice himself imposed one limit when he did not invoke the regulations of the War Measures Act for ever and a day and when he did not word this legislation in such a way that it would be in effect for ever and a day. There is an expiry date in this legislation. Therefore I must say to myself that somehow the authorities of the province of Quebec and the minister got together to discuss the type of regulations that should be passed, and the Minis.er of Justice told them he would put a time limit on the regulations. I think that is a fair inference to be drawn from what has gone on; otherwise why that time limit was imposed, would be incomprehensible to any sensible mind.
We are dealing with ideologies of a terrorist movement. This movement will not come to an end by the time this legislation expires next April. We will not be able to put the gravestone on it by next April. It will still be there; the problem will still remain, albe.t in an altered form because of the steps we are taking now. In other words, I am saying that the minister has recognized there should be some limit on what was requested by the Bourassa government in Quebec and certain limits have been imposed. Not all the bite there could be has been put into this legislation or the predecessor regulations. There are still some restraining influences.
We have dealt with the difference between the word "reason" used in this bill and the words used in the Criminal Code. The word "reason" represents a res raining influence. Therefore, the Minister of Justice and the government have decided these powers should not be absolutely unfettered but that there should be limits on what the government of Quebec is able to do with this massive federal outpouring of help into the province at this critical time. It is as simple as that. There are some restraints on the powers. There is a restraint on the time this bill will be in force. That was a decision of the government. Why, then, can we not make suggestions concerning one further restraint which is not a very large one?
We suggest there should be power of review so that the methods of operation of police forces which kick in the door of the Secretary of State or arrest a person because he has the same name as another person could be examined. It is ironic that the two abuses which have

November 17, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
been drawn to our attention involve identity. The Secretary of State apparently has the same name as someone who is wanted, and a person who was picked up in Hull has the same name as somebody else who is wanted. This would lead one to wonder how prepared the administration in Quebec was to deal with this problem.
The case for some provision in this respect has been made over and over again by hon. members. Even members on the other side have now joined us, such as the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie, one of the adornments of the Justice Committee, and the hon. member for St. Paul's who I believe is close to being skeptical of the intransigence of the minister. There are others, because one would expect that within the ranks of large "L" Liberalism there would be some with small "1" liberal consciences.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: They are well hidden.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Perhaps they are; but because of these extreme measures the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie has started to burst the bonds and perhaps we will hear more from others. We are not asking for much; we are asking for some kind of hobble to be put on the otherwise wide open, loping gait of the Attorney General of the province of Quebec. We want him to come back to earth and run properly once in a while. We are suggesting that there should be a provision such as that contained in the amendment of the hon. member for York South, the amendment of the hon. member for Calgary North, perhaps a compromise of the two or one that the minister himself could bring in. We have good and serious reason for asking for this.
We are surprised that the Minister of Justice, who normally is a most affable person and accepts amendments not only in the Justice Committee but in this House, will not accept this amendment. I do not know who in the cabinet committee has some power over him so that he can only say no; perhaps it is the Prime Minister. We hope he will unflex a little when we are bringing in perfectly reasoned amendments and putting forward a perfectly reasoned point of view.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Since the minister makes much of the fact that we must not question Mr. Choquette in Quebec city, why does he not call Mr. Choquette over the supper hour and say, "The House of Commons is debating the matter of the large police force we have sent you, the regular army and the extra RCMP, and some questions are being put. We cannot understand why the door of the Secretary of State should have been kicked down, how the guys remained in the clothes closet when young Lortie was picked up, and things like that. Perhaps you could suggest something". Perhaps the minister could put this on a friendly basis, because he is a friendly and amiable man, and have this man-to-man conversation.
We do not want him to call on Mr. Choquette humbly, and I do not think the latter would answer the Minister of Justice humbly, but perhaps the minister could suggest to him that we are faced with the problem that we do
not want high, wide and handsome or hell-west and crooked powers given to the government of Quebec; that we are not inclined to do that, despite the mutterings of the hon. member for St. Boniface which I cannot quite hear. They would probably not educate me but I would like to know what is being said, if it is going on the record, because sometimes one does not hear remarks and these inane things get there anyway.
I suggest to the minister that he call Mr. Choquette and point out to him the honest dilemma in which we find ourselves. Perhaps Mr. Choquette will have an answer. Perhaps we can put a federal presence in the committee of three from the city of Montreal; but that in itself may not be a good solution. However, I suggest it might be a good idea to have a federally-appointed authority which would supervise. We provide the bodies so at least we should have some say as to how they are used. I make that suggestion perfectly seriously to the minister in the hope that his gentlemanly flexibility will come back to him and that he will be able to give us some comfort when we raise a serious issue of conscience at this important time.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Chairman, I want to make two points briefly. One is an elaboration of the argument put forward by the hon. member for Peace River. He pointed out correctly that the point made by the Minister of Justice about the criminal law being administered by the Attorney General of Quebec is politically inappropriate in this context, that we are creating in Ottawa an extraordinary set of laws which extend the powers of search, of arrest, of detention, and so on. This is a federal act that does not fit within the normal ambit of the Criminal Code. It is creating extraordinary powers for a given period of time. It seems to me that this argument justifies accepting the amendment before the committee.
The point I want to make is a political one. If we are seriously concerned about what may be called the civilized and democratic leadership in the province of Quebec, we as the federal Parliament have a very important obligation to create a body that would supervise the implementation of these extraordinary new powers being bestowed upon the Attorney General and the police forces of Quebec. I say this because it is what I call the civilized and democratic leading element in the province of Quebec that has been most vocal in its criticism of the federal government, and it is mainly this group of French Canadians in the province of Quebec that should concern us very much. It is they who are pointing the finger at Ottawa and saying, "There are your centralizers, your authoritarians. It is Ottawa that is taking away French Canadian freedoms in general". It seems to me that this political argument has to be faced very seriously.
If the federal government is to impose the kind of restrictions it is imposing upon the province of Quebec- restrictions with which, I should point out, I do not agree at all-we have an obligation as the federal Parliament to propose the establishment of a supervisory commission which will ensure the fair implementation of these new laws. That is one point with which I would like the Minister of Justice to deal. If this matter is entirely from people such as Claude Ryan, leaders of the CNTU,

November 17, 1970

university professors and many other people who have a genuine commitment both to democracy and to the province of Quebec and who will be saying, "There they go again. The government in Ottawa letting us down in this important question of civil liberties".
The second point I want to make-and it is quite different-concerns the attitude of the Minister of Justice toward all our amendments. I heard earlier this afternoon on what I can reasonably call very good authority that when this bill was discussed in cabinet a decision was taken not to alter one semicolon: no amendment was to be accepted. I was told that the instruction given to the Minister of Justice was that nothing whatsoever was to be accepted in the way of amendment. If this is the attitude of the cabinet and of the Minister of Justice, we are doing two things that should not be done: we are using up valuable time in Parliament-


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but it being six o'clock I do now leave the chair. The committee will resume at eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Russell Clayton Honey: Order. When the committee rose at six o'clock it was dealing with clause 12 and an amendment thereto by the hon. member for York South.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Chairman, before the supper adjournment I was relating that I had heard from a good source that it had been decided in cabinet not to accept any amendment to this bill, even to the point of not changing a single comma or semicolon. I put it to the Minister of Justice that the attitude he has revealed during the serious discussion of amendments put forward from all sides of the House seems to confirm that story about the cabinet decision.
I would like him to reply to this suggestion because if it is true that before the bill was introduced it was decided that no changes would be acceptable, two conclusions can be drawn. The first conclusion is that this procedure would completely vitiate the whole purpose of the committee stage of a bill, which is supposed to provide an opportunity for amendments which would not change the basic intention of a proposal. Many amendments have already been presented which would not change the basic proposal of this bill and which were aimed at providing certain protective guarantees for innocent people, but the minister has either cavalierly dismissed them or resorted to the most arid kind of legalistic arguments in defence of his position.
What is particularly bad is that a bill of this nature should be so treated. It would be bad in general to operate on this basis during committee stage of a bill, but on committee stage of a bill which so transforms the
Public Order Act, 1970
state of civil liberties in Canada it is particularly reprehensible that such a rigid attitude should be taken by the minister and/or the cabinet toward the members of this House and therefore toward the people of Canada.
Before we spend the rest of this evening and conceivably all of tomorrow in debate, or in the event that we adjourn the debate until next week to continue it for another day or two, would the minister please tell us if we are wasting our time, because if we are we might stop this discussion. Let us get on with other business that should be before the House concerning problems facing the country. We should not be talking just for the sake of talking on amendments. I would like to hear what the minister has to say on this point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, despite the sense of frustration expressed by my colleague, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, I dare to express the hope that the Minister of Justice is a reasonable man.


Robert Jardine McCleave: He is unreformed, Stanley.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well, maybe my approach will not work, but I am still going to try it. I am still going to believe that the Minister of Justice is a reasonable man and that he will listen to the kind of appeal that is being made to him from this side of the House with respect to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for York South. May I remind the minister and hon. members who are present that when the Prime Minister told the House on October 16 about the proclamation of the War Measures Act, he made this statement which is to be found at page 195 of Hansard for that date:
To those who will voice concern at the extent of the powers assumed by the government under this procedure, I can only say that I sympathize with their attitude, and applaud them for speaking out.
In other words, Mr. Chairman, in speaking out about the powers given to the government we are only doing something that the Prime Minister himself applauds. He went on to say:
I hasten to suggest, however, that the legislative record of this Parliament in the field of individual liberties contributes unequivocally to its credibility and good faith.
In other words, Mr. Chairman, the Prime Minister gave as a justification for the resort that the government was making to the use of extreme powers the fact that this Parliament's record with regard to individual liberties is one that has established its credibility and good faith. What we are asking in this amendment to clause 12 is for Parliament to maintain that credibility and good faith.
In case the Minister of Justice is tempted to say to me that those words of the Prime Minister applied to the proclamation of the War Measures Act and to the regulations brought in thereunder, whereas we are now dealing with a bill to take the place of all that, may I remind him of what he said when he introduced Bill C-181 on November 4. I shall quote a few of his words from page 884 of Hansard. I am overlooking two or three pages

November 17, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
before that. These are the words of the Minister of Justice on that occasion:
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
I say to Your Honour that those of us In the government did what we had to do with great reluctance. We did what we did because it had to be done. Some of the measures we have had to adopt in the short run and for a short term are philosophically abhorrent to us.
This is the Minister of Justice telling us that the things the government felt it had to adopt as set out in this bill are philosophically abhorrent to members of the government. He went on to say:
We intend as soon as we can to turn once more to the road of law reform and the continuing enhancement and protection of civil liberties.
Mr. Chairman, I urge as strongly as I can that no particular credit is due to any government or to any Parliament which asserts that it is protecting civil liberties when there is no storm, when there is no difficulty. What counts is what you do when the storm is on. Civil liberties that are protected when all goes well are just run-of-the-mill. It is a government or a Parliament that will protect civil liberties when there is fear and hysteria, when there is the argument of necessity and convenience, that has something of which it can boast.
I plead with the Minister of Justice to stand by the statement of the Prime Minister, that he counts on the legislative record of this Parliament in the field of individual liberties. I call on him to stand by his own words, that he wants to get back to the continuing enhancement and protection of civil liberties as soon as possible. It is no promise of any value and it is no guarantee at all to tell us that this will be done when all our troubles have melted away. If the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice meant those words, let them show it by their attitude toward this amendment.
I for one am not persuaded that we now need Bill C-181. I might concede to the government an argument on its side with respect to what it did on October 16. I did not agree with the course the government took, but I concede an argument on its side. However, I submit that the only argument that had any weight was the need for surprise, the need to do certain things right away. That necessity has disappeared and there is a strong argument today for doing away with the proclamation of the War Measures Act and for suspending this bill and not going any further with it.
If the government is not persuaded to do that, then I say the least it should do is stand by its own philosophical protestations. It should stand by its own statement of high principle as expressed by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice. It should see to it that in the administration of this legislation which is abhorrent and repugnant to the government there is a leaning over backwards to protect civil liberties.
What is asked in this amendment is that there be an independent commission with the rights, powers and obligations set out in the proposal made by the hon. member for York South. It is an attempt to keep alive the credibility and good faith of this Parliament that the Prime

Minister talked about on October 16. If we do not do that, Mr. Chairman, then those words the Prime Minister used that morning were just hollow mockery. Here is our chance right now to demonstrate their credibility.
Like other members from this group and from the official opposition who have spoken, I am prepared to concede that the formula proposed by my colleague is not the only one. Maybe the formula proposed by the hon. member for Calgary North appeals more to the Minister of Justice, or maybe he himself has some other proposal. I urge very strongly, however, that we cannot bring in this kind of repugnant, abhorrent, repressive legislation, we cannot listen to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice say that they do not like it and applaud those of us who speak against it, that they want to get back to the maintenance of civil liberties, and then do nothing about it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I hope the appeal made by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal, others in the Conservative party as well as in this party to the Minister of Justice before five o'clock had some influence on him, and that during the course of this evening he will admit that the hon. member for York South is making a reasonable request. I hope there will be a reasonable response from this minister who I still want to believe is a reasonable man.


Gérald Laniel: Is the committee ready for the question?


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, as mover of the amendment I wish to take a few minutes to deal with the minister's argument. I for one resent the red herring that he dragged across the path and which the hon. member for Montmorency mentioned, namely, that this amendment is an expression of non-confidence in the government of the province of Quebec and in the Attorney General of that province. Mr. Chairman, I throw that back at the minister. If such a law applied to the New Democratic government of Manitoba and was to be administered by my friend the Attorney General of Manitoba, I would make precisely the same suggestion. It is of no consequence at all who the Attorney General is or what government is involved. It is of consequence that no human being is an angel. It is of consequence that none of us is free of the corruption of power and none of us is free of the abuse of power if we are put in certain positions. I do not care what government it is or what Attorney General it is-the same principle would apply.
The suggestion that we are insulting the government of Quebec in expressing non-confidence in Mr. Choquette is irrelevant, although let me add, Mr. Chairman-this has nothing to do with the amendment-that some of the suggestions that have come from the Attorney General of Quebec worry me very much as a Canadian. Some of the suggestions about identity cards and additional powers on a regular basis for the police of that province, some of the suggestions about censorship, and so on, which he is now making are very worrying to me. I remember Mr. November 17, 1970

Maurice Duplessis and the Duplessis days. 1 hear uncomfortable echoes of the Duplessis-ism which the Prime Minister condemned 20 or 30 years ago. I hear uncomfortable echoes of Mr. Duplessis type of interference with civil liberty in some of the suggestions Mr. Choquette has made.
That is not the reason for this amendment, however. The reason for this amendment is that in my view and in the view of those who have spoken from this side of the House it is important to have this type of safeguard in the law. Like all members on this side of the House, I believe in federalism as much as does the Minister of Justice. I do not see how a country like Canada, large as it is, with regional interests and regional preoccupations, can be governed in any way but by an appropriate federal system. I accept that in any federal system the likelihood is that the day-to-day administration of justice would have to be in provincial hands: it is not practical to think that all police investigations across the country could be run from one centre like Ottawa, or that all the rules relevant to the courts in the provinces could be made in one centre. You cannot do that in a country like Canada, particularly when one of the provinces has a body of law that is different from that of the other provinces. That is accepted and no one is suggesting any interference with it.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
It is a thoroughly bad and unacceptable principle to suggest that the Parliament which has the duty of passing a law has not the duty to make it the best law. That is what the principle is: we have the duty to pass a law; we have the duty to make it a good law. We must make it the best possible law. To suggest that we cannot do so because of some jurisdictional difficulty is to talk, in my opinion, utter irrelevancy. It is our duty in this Parliament to make this law as good as it is possible to make it. What does this mean in terms of this particular bill?
We have before us, as the government admits, as the Minister of Justice admits and as almost everyone admits, a bill that interferes seriously with the normal civil rights and liberties of Canadians. That is what this bill is about. This bill extends powers to police, extends powers to the Attorney General, enables arrests without warrant, enables search without warrant, enables detention without charge for seven days, enables the Attorney General to say, "This man shall not be let out on bail", and enables him to keep a person 90 days in jail before the authorities are forced to set a trial date. All these interferences with the normal rights and liberties of Canadians are what this bill is about, Mr. Chairman. It is a basic aberration of decent law.


An hon. Member:: For five months.


David Lewis: The hon. member for York Centre says, "For five months." One of my colleagues said it is all right to sin for five years but not for five months, or vice versa. That is not the point at all, Mr. Chairman. The point is that you do not need it for those five months. Nobody is suggesting that this amendment interferes
Public Order Act, 1970
with what the bill is trying to do. I say that it is an interference with the liberties and rights of Canadians. That being so, I suggest, as other hon. members have, that when we pass this kind of bill Parliament has the duty to adopt all possible safeguards to make sure that these extraordinary, undesirable, repugnant powers are not abused.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: And if we pass this bill without taking these safeguards, then all the talk about belief in liberty, all the books that the Prime Minister has written and all the speeches the Minister of Justice has made, are sheer, hollow hypocrisy. Therefore I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that it is important to have these safeguards. It is not a matter of wilfulness; it is a matter of absolute necessity to have safeguards that will avoid the abuses that I detailed before five o'clock this afternoon, and I could go on doing so for another half hour. We must avoid doing what has been done, because the abuses have been intense and painful in hundreds of cases-not in one, two, ten or twelve cases, but in hundreds of cases already in only six or seven weeks. Therefore, I just do not dare think of the kinds of abuses that could occur in the course of five months.
One obvious way to make sure that these abuses will not occur, that the extraordinary powers will be used as properly as possible, is to have some kind of supervision over the use of those powers. The Parliament that has the duty of passing this law has the duty of providing that kind of supervision. The reason I began my remarks when I moved the amendment this afternoon by saying that I have no pride of authorship and that I would be pleased if the minister would bring in his own wording was that, of course, there are various ways of approaching this matter. It is possible, for example, to say in the amendment that the Minister of Justice shall, with the consent of, in consultation or in co-operation with the Attorney General of the province affected, set up such a body to supervise the way in which these powers are exercised. It is entirely possible to do that.
It is also possible to say, for example, that this commission to be appointed by the Minister of Justice shall consist of citizens of Canada resident in the province affected. There are various ways in which it can be done and I invite the minister and members of the committee to suggest a way that will be satisfactory to all. It is possible to include the suggestion embodied in the amendment which I gather will be moved by the hon. member for Calgary North. He was good enough to send me a copy of it. It provides that an administrator-if I remember the amendment correctly, it is to be a judge- be appointed.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is right.


David Lewis: It is possible to include that provision. I do not care how it is done. None of my colleagues or, I believe, anyone on this side of the House cares particularly in which specific way it is done so long as it is done
1260

November 17, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
within this law. It is no use saying that the Attorney General of Quebec has appointed a committee of three. I have not taken the trouble to look through Hansard, but may I be permitted to say that for a number of days there have been questions asked in this House about such supervisory authority. There were questions for a couple of weeks to that effect. I think the Leader of the Opposition asked a question about it. I remember I asked a question about it. Requests were made by church bodies in this country, including church bodies in Quebec, that that be done. Nevertheless, it took the Attorney General of Quebec a few weeks to appoint this committee and they were the worst weeks from the point of view of abuses because many of the abuses occurred in the first week or two. By the time this committee was appointed things were a little less abnormal than they had been during the first two weeks.
I suggest it was not accidental that time was taken before this committee was appointed. It was not accidental that the Attorney General of Quebec wanted a couple of weeks to pass with the police having complete freedom to do as they pleased and to abuse the powers of the regulations made under the War Measures Act-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: -as in fact they did.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: The Attorney General of Quebec, Mr. Chairman, wanted to give them this freedom for a couple of weeks and only after two or three weeks had passed did he finally yield to the request of church bodies, the Civil Liberties Association and members of this Parliament. No doubt there were messages sent through the Minister of Justice to the Attorney General of Quebec, and only after that length of time and after those pressures had been applied did he appoint the committee.
That committee has no powers. If tomorrow he decides he does not want it any more, if Jacques Hebert says something Mr. Choquette does not like, there is nothing to prevent his saying, "Speak to me no more, Mr. Hebert. Your committee is hereby dissolved," and it would be so dissolved. Or he could say, "You can go to jail, No. 1; but you cannot go to jail, No. 2. Why? Because I say so." There is no legal authority for what that committee does. The authority is only that which Mr. Choquette gives to it. He who gives can take away in that kind of system and in this kind of situation.
What we require, if we are serious about supervising the exercise of these abnormal and repugnant powers, is a provision in the law for such supervision as I have mentioned, so that neither the Minister of Justice, the Attorneys General of Quebec, Manitoba or British Columbia, nor any man across this land can play footsie with such a committee and do as he pleases with it. He should not have the power to appoint or not appoint, to give terms of reference and change them on Monday, alter them on Tuesday and forget them on Wednesday.
This is what happens when you do not have the legal basis for this kind of body-and a legal basis is what we need.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
It is unfortunate-this is a fact of history-that most of us in a democracy take our civil liberties for granted. As my friend for Winnipeg North Centre said, when there are no storms and when everything is quiet, all of us accept these things and take them for granted. We do not realize their importance until we lose them. The unfortunate fact is that those people who do not lose their liberties are frequently not moved by the fact that others have lost them. I had that experience in the 1930s when I returned to Canada, having been a student in England. I travelled a great deal through fascist and nazi countries, Italy, Austria and Germany. I saw and studied what was happening in those countries.
I tried to describe the situation to audiences in this country in 1935, 1936 and 1937. It was extremely difficult to get the average, decent Canadian even to imagine the possibility that such horrors could in fact exist. This was because our liberties were untouched. Canadians simply read about these things in the newspapers. Canadians felt sympathy for those living across the ocean but were not vicariously touched. We were spectators. The same is true of Canadians today. Most Canadians are not affected by the hardships felt by 397 Canadians. The civil liberties of most Canadians have not been interfered with. However, 397 Canadians have had that experience without ground, reason or justice.
I have read a great many writings by social philosophers. It is my conviction that when you permit a few people in a society to be humiliated by taking away their civil liberties, everyone in the society suffers; a little is lost from every human being in a collectivity which permits degradation and humiliation of a human being in that society. That is the basis upon which our philosophy ought to be structured, Mr. Chairman. It is the framework within which we ought to consider this bill. If these powers are needed, let us make them as narrow as possible. We must take every precaution to ensure that they are not abused by the people who must exercise them. It is not the Minister of Justice or the Attorney General of Quebec who will apply these powers; it is the police forces. That is entirely different from the elected representatives in legislatures or in Parliament.
I listened to the Minister of Justice throughout the debate on all the amendments. I watched him as the discussions were going on. I have no doubt he is unhappy because he is not willing, able or allowed to make the kind of provision that would give some control over the exercise of these repugnant powers. If I do not make an appeal to him it is because I have watched him throughout this debate and I have reached the conclusion that I will get nowhere by making that kind of appeal. I get fed up begging to a stone wall and a stone heart.
If the minister, as the guardian of the liberties of Canada-which is what the federal Minister of Justice ought to be-is ready to do his duty, this is the kind of

November 17, 1970

amendment he ought to accept because it does not in the slightest reduce the powers of the police. It does not interfere with the purpose of the bill; it merely sets up machinery for supervising the exercise of those powers. If the minister does not accept this amendment or the one which will be proposed by the hon. member for Calgary North, I will reach conclusions that it would not be polite to utter.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask a 14-word question: Did the minister speak to the Minister of Justice of Quebec since six o'clock?


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Chairman.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Lewis) negatived: Yeas, 44; nays, 54.


Russell Clayton Honey: I declare the amendment lost.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
On clause 14-Acts, etc., deemed done under Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act, 1970.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I would like to present an amendment that will follow clause 14. So there will be no misunderstanding, I am presenting it in English and in French.


John Napier Turner: Who translated it into English for you?


Russell Clayton Honey: The Chair will put the amendment at this time. It is moved by the hon. member for Calgary North:
That Bill C-181 be amended by inserting therein, next after clause 14, on page 9 thereof, the following:
'T5. (1) The Governor in Council, as soon as possible after the coming into force of this act, shall appoint a person holding judicial office under Her Majesty in right of Canada, who shall be called the 'Administrator', and who shall inquire into and report to Parliament from time to time upon the administration of this act and of the Public Order Regulations, 1970.
(2)	The Administrator shall have the powers of a commissioner appointed under the Inquiries Act and shall continue as Administrator for such period after the expiration of this act, whether by effluxion of time or by proclamation, as the case may be, as is necessary for the carrying out of his duties under this act.
(3)	The Administrator shall have power to review and confirm, vary or revoke a certificate filed by an Attorney General of a province under subsection (1) of section 7 or an order made by an Attorney General under subsection (2) of section 9, or to make an order fixing a date for trial."
And renumber clause 15 accordingly.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: As this amendment will follow clause 14 and could be numbered 14(b), could clause 14, which is just procedural as to when this act shall be implemented and for how long, be put before we discuss clause 15? It is just a matter of procedure.
23568-9J
Public Order Act, 1970
e (8:49 p.m.)


Russell Clayton Honey: I think the hon. member is correct. If the committee agrees, clause 14 would be carried, subject to the amendment of the hon. member for Calgary North.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 14 agreed to.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: November 17, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
opposition it would seem to me that his credibility as a reformer has been knocked to pieces.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The amendment continues:
"The Administrator shall have the powers of a commissioner appointed under the Inquiries Act and shall continue as Administrator for such period after the expiration of this act, whether by effluxion of time or by proclamation, as the case may be, as is necessary for the carrying out of his duties under this act.
We then go on to say:
"The Administrator shall have power to review and confirm, vary or revoke a certificate filed by an Attorney General of a province under subsection (1) of section 7 or an order made by an Attorney General under subsection (2) of section 9, or to make an order fixing a date for trial."
Section 7, to which reference is made in the last paragraph, provides:
A person charged with an offence under section 4 shall be detained in custody without bail pending his trial unless
(a) the Attorney General of the province in which the person is in custody has not, within seven days after the later of the time when the person was arrested or the coming into force of this act, filed with the clerk of the Superior Court of criminal jurisdiction in the province a certificate-
We deal with this; we say the Administrator shall have the power to review and confirm, vary or revoke a certificate in these circumstances. All the Attorney General has to do with reference to such a certificate is say a person is detained for just cause. When we are talking about the Attorney General, of course, we are really talking about all the agents of the Crown who will have the power to act in the name of the Attorney General; we are really talking about the police who are given powers under this bill. We say the Administrator should have authority to go behind this certificate, review it and, if he thinks fit, revoke the certificate in question. Surely this is reasonable. Our amendment says, also, that the Administrator shall have power to make an order fixing a date for trial if a charge has been laid.
Mr. Chairman, I have said before but perhaps this is an occasion upon which I should repeat it, the most cherished thing which a democracy allows us is liberty. I am not thinking, now, about liberty to be as free as a hog on ice. I am talking about the liberty which we sometimes give up in part in order that we may enjoy an even greater freedom in society. Unless provision is made in this bill for a review procedure, for a trial date to be set, for the right to counsel, we shall tonight be setting back 700 years the system of jurisprudence in Canada. As far back as 700 years, after the passing of Magna Carta, no freeman could be held in gaol after an application had been made for trial. Surely any Canadian citizen should have the right to a trial. It is common decency that these shortcomings in the bill should be corrected. These were the rights for which people fought so hard 700 years ago and they have been granted ever since. So this government, led by a Prime Minister who is supposed to be a civil rights advocate, is turning back the pages of history

700 years-and what have Canadians done to deserve this?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The poet Byron put it better than I
could when he wrote The Sonnet on Chillon:
Eternal spirit of the chainless Mind!
Brightest in dungeons, Liberty! thou art,
For there thy habitation is the heart-
The heart which love of thee alone can bind;
And when they sons to fetters are consign'd-
To fetters, and the damp vault's dayless gloom,
People are held in gaol for seven days; people are held in gaol for 21 days; people are held, maybe, for 90 days. They can be kept in dungeons. We can chain the body, we can chain the physical being, but we can never chain the mind. Even the kidnappers of Laporte will find that out. Though they may have chained him, though they may have kept him in captivity, they could never chain the mind of that man. You can chain the body, but you cannot chain the mind of man. In man's mind there rests the very seed of freedom and that is what Byron had in mind. So I say as he said:
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Their country conquers with their martyrdom,
And freedom's fame finds wings on every wind.
Chillon! Thy prison is a holy place,
And thy sad floor an altar-for t'was trod,
Until his very steps have left a trace
The great lesson from this sonnet is that this person was incarcerated for so long when civil rights had been set aside, as Byron penned it, that as he walked around the pillars of the jail he left markings on the pavement of the prison. What did the poet say? He said:
-May none those marks efface!
For they appeal from tyranny to God.
That is my belief. I know we have pounded the Minister of Justice long on this point, but knowing his training, background and everything about him, how can he refuse to allow this kind of amendment which would permit a review when abuse had been committed? What is wrong with an amendment of that kind? What harm will it do to law and order in Quebec and everywhere else in Canada to have people's cases reviewed, whether they be the most guilty of criminals, in order that they may be brought to a court of justice? Surely no minister and no government in their right senses could turn down this amendment.
If we were cutting down the powers in the bill I could understand the minister saying he needs more power, but we are not cutting down one of the powers given in the 14 clauses that have been debated by Committee of the Whole. All we are asking for is what Canadians have asked for throughout the generations during which we have adopted the traditions in which this nation is steeped. All we are asking is that decent men and women who may be detained without charge, without the right
November 17, 1970

of bail, without the right of counsel, without any communication with their families and without even the decency of having clean laundry, be given the right of a board of review headed by an administrator independent of parliamentary institutions.
If there is abuse, is it not better that the Minister of Justice and the government be aware of it, or even embarrassed by it? Would the Minister of Justice not rather be embarrassed than be a political animal? I say to him tonight there is no justification for the men here, particularly those who are lawyers and who know the traditions and the basis of stare decisis behind our common law, to sit and oppose the reasonable request we have made.
The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie knows what I am talking about. He said he would look at this matter differently if the power was not given to an administrative body. He said this is an independent but an administrative power because that body would be acting in a judicial capacity. To save him that embarrassment we have now put forward the most reasonable suggestion that this body should be headed by a judge steeped in the tradition of our common law and with an understanding of our parliamentary and legislative measures. What harm could come from that? I say as Byron said:
And when thy sons to fetters are consign'd-
To fetters, and the damp vault's dayless gloom,
Their country conquers with their martyrdom,
And freedom's fame finds wings on every wind.
The prison was a holy place because of the marks that person left. That is what the hon. member for York South meant when he talked about his trip through Europe. People have said this afternoon that we should trust the Attorney General. Let me say that the people of Germany trusted Hitler, and this was contrary to every good principle. The freedom we have in Canada does not come only from the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice, the Premier of Quebec, the Attorney General, the Leader of the Opposition, any Member of Parliament or of the cabinet. Freedom comes from the law. Our children leave our homes to go to school and arrive there safely, not because the Premier guarantees their safety but because the law guarantees that they will arrive at their school doors in safety.
It is all right to say that there is a committee set up, but that committee can be hired or discharged with a wave of a hand. Germany may have had committees in the days of Hitler, but how long did they last? Promises were made and promises were not kept. The government has been given great power and it has been given the confidence of the Official Opposition in this crisis. Let me say to the minister through you, Mr. Chairman, that even when we questioned the government, which would not tell us why it needed these extraordinary powers, we said because it is the government and the people of Canada gave it responsibility to govern, we would accept its word.
Now when we ask for one reasonable amendment based on the arguments we have put forward, the minister will say-I know this to be the case-we should be
Public Order Act, 1970
turned down. It is my hope that my words or the words of someone will impress the government. I hope the government will decide to set this measure aside until a Liberal Party caucus has been called with asks the Prime Minister this question, "Do you want to go ahead now with this kind of law in this kind of fashion?"


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the arguments put forward so ably by the hon. member for York South and the hon. member for Calgary North who expressed the feelings of many members on all sides of this House. Our problem is to reconcile what we are doing in passing an extraordinary law, with safeguards. I had hoped misguidely or naively that the Minister of Justice, who I think in his heart agrees with what has been said this afternoon, would come up with an amendment providing safeguards because of the powers provided in this measure.
No government, no matter which party may be involved, should be given these powers without safeguards as to how the powers are used. There should be some means of checking whether or not the powers are abused. Whether the government is composed of Liberals, Progressive Conservatives, members of the NDP or the Ralliement Creditiste, they are but men who can err and misjudge in the exercise of the extraordinary powers they have been granted.
The minister made much of the amendments of the hon. member for York South and the hon. member for Calgary North. He contended that this type of amendment would impose upon an officer of the Crown in another jurisdiction instructions as to how he should administer law in his jurisdiction. The minister and others suggested that this would be an insult to the Attorney General of Quebec or the Attorney General of any other province. There are two assumptions one can make after hearing that argument. If one were to assume that the Attorney General of Quebec or of any other province were likely to abuse or misuse this power, one must also logically assume that some safeguard in this law is necessary.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
But let us assume the best. Let us assume that the Attorney General of the province of Quebec will in his best possible manner and on his own ability administer this law with the best intent, and let us assume that he is the most honest and upright Attorney General that one could ask for. Assuming that to be the case, it seems to me it would be an insult to such a man not to have this safeguard, because he would be the first person to ask for and to want safeguards in respect of powers which he is obliged to use.
If the federal Parliament, in passing legislation which grants extraordinary powers, does not provide safeguards in respect of those extraordinary powers, I think any self-respecting Attorney General of any province in Canada would be insulted. I find the argument put forward by the Minister of Justice and some of his colleagues specious and one that falls to the ground.
.1264

November 17, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
Mr. Chairman, I repeat what has been said earlier. None of us is wedded to the words contained in the amendments put forward by the hon. member for Calgary North and the hon. member for York South. Our main point is that the Minister of Justice has led us down many paths but he has yet to tell us that he will accept the idea of having some safeguards. I hope he would at least agree that the idea is good in law and in principle. If he would accept that much and, even if he would not accept the amendments of the opposition parties, come forward with his amendment, he would do his bill and this House a great deal of good which we are badly in need of at this time.
One hates to think unkind thoughts or bring up past memories about a person one might know in this chamber, but I remember when I received mail from the National Liberal party headquarters prior to and during their leadership convention. I received the brochures of all the candidates of the Liberal party. I wish I had with me tonight the brochure which came out on behalf the person who is now Minister of Justice for Canada. I wish I could have laid my hands on it tonight-I tried to do so over the supper hour-because I would like to read to the hon. gentleman what was in that brochure concerning him, his record and his stance and why he should be the leader of the Liberal party of Canada. Much of those words, methinks, would haunt him now. That brochure made him sound better than the second coming. We got, instead, the first coming and he is now the Prime Minister.
The hon. gentleman who occupies the position of Minister of Justice has much to live up to concerning what is alleged to be his record and his position on civil liberties and the law, as well as about how the law should serve the people. All that has been said about him, and all that he has said about himself, does not stand up today unless he is prepared to at least agree to have some safeguards in this legislation. If he rejects both the first amendment and the amendment now before us, then he should come forward with his own amendment. If the minister will accept the idea only and not our words or the wording of the amendment, and provide the better words which he thinks should be used, he will receive agreement from members on all sides of the House. I
I am not one who has had any training in the law; therefore, I shall not comment on the legalities of the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Calgary North. It just seems to me to make sense to one who considers himself to be Joe Canadian. I add my voice to that of many other members in this House. I hope that some of our colleagues to your right, Mr. Chairman, will now decide to ask the minister to agree that this item should stand, so that overnight the minister could think about it and come to this House tomorrow, or whenever this bill comes up before us again, with his amendment and his words to provide safeguards. I say this because no government made up of men of any political party should be without these safeguards. If I have any hope left at all, it is a very small hope that the minister will agree to at least do this. I hope he will give himself a

little time to reconsider, accept the idea and bring in his amendment.


John Gilbert: Mr. Chairman, there is no man more deaf than he who will not hear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Gilbert: We have had an example of that in the past few days in respect of the amendments brought forth by members of the opposition. We in the New Democratic Party support the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Calgary North. In spirit it is much the same as the amendment brought forward by the hon. member for York South. In respect of both these amendments an approach has been made to the minister on the basis of reason. The members of the opposition used all their persuasive powers in an effort to persuade the minister that he is wrong in not agreeing to the appointment of a supervisory commission or an administrator as a safeguard of abuses which have occurred and which probably will occur with regard to this legislation.
The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby presented a political argument to the Minister of Justice in which he stated that the unity of this country is very necessary and that we must have the strength and support of the people of Quebec in the development of the unity of a federal state in Canada. The minister has turned a deaf ear to this. I remind the minister that back in 1943 or 1944 the Liberal government passed an Order in Council under the War Measures Act which had the effect of deporting Japanese Canadians. Who administered that Order in Council? None other than the RCM Police.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
The minister is well aware of the abuses that resulted from the enforcement of that Order in Council. What happened as a result of those abuses? The government was so ashamed that a commission was set up to investigate the property losses these people suffered as a result of having been transferred inland because of the Order in Council. The government paid millions of dollars to these people, but this was not adequate compensation. All the terms of reference of that commission were concerned with property losses and not with the loss of dignity, of political rights, and so forth, that these people suffered.
I am sure that the Minister of Justice at the time the Order in Council was passed would have welcomed some sort of supervisory regulation that the hon. member for York South and the hon. member for Calgary North proposed as an amendment to the bill, because it would have meant there would have been a body or a person that would have studied the abuses that were perpetrated by the RCMP. Now we have another Order in Council affecting the FLQ. I repeat that of the 447 persons arrested, 397 were released without charge. Surely there has been great abuse of the powers granted to the Attorney General of Quebec and exercised by his officers.
November 17, 1970

I had hoped that a minister who could say on second reading that this bill was philosophically abhorrent to him, would insert safeguards to protect the rights of people who have been injured as a result of this legislation. I would like to think that we have a Minister of Justice who is like a King John with the Magna Carta rather than a King John with a mini carta, because this bill represents a mini carta which restricts the rights and suppresses the freedoms of people. It is totally repugnant to all who believe in the democratic processes in this country.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I want to speak for a moment or two on this amendment because I believe it is the final opportunity the government has to prove to members of this House that it is justified in asking for extraordinary legislative powers. In fact, throughout the course of the debate the minister again and again in defence of the bill indicated that particularly wide-ranging powers were required. I as one member in this House have not agreed with this fact. Certainly, most of the members of the minister's party, as well as members on this side of the House, have agreed with it.
I think it is interesting, however, that the amendment now before the House is proposed by the official opposition which has in the main supported the government's action with respect to this bill. For that reason, if for no other, I think the minister should be giving this amendment every consideration. If in fact the minister seeks not only to do justice but to make sure it is well evidenced to the country, I think he has a very serious obligation not only to the official opposition in the House but to the many Canadians who are most disquieted by the steps that the government has taken.
The request for the kind of judicial commission that was proposed first by the hon. member for York South, and now by the hon. member for Calgary North, is not for something that has been framed within the reference of any particular party; it is, in fact, echoing the sentiments of many Canadians. The minister himself has received requests from a number of respected groups which have communicated with him since the War Measures Act was invoked, asking for the kind of independent commission that would ensure that these wide-ranging powers are not abused. I
I think many millions of Canadians have been more than willing to accept the government's action-which is not one with which I agree-provided the government is prepared to give the kind of objective assurance that these powers will not be seriously abused. It is not just the members of this House but important groups in this country, such as the Canadian Council of Churches to mention one, which communicated with the government at an early date asking that this kind of assurance against these wide-ranging powers be instituted in the law.
I find it incredible, as I think many members in the House do, that the minister should be asking for the kind of powers that are spelled out in the clauses of this temporary public order bill without, at the same time, offering the kind of basic safeguards that are only sensi-
Public Order Act, 1970
ble in light of the action that is being recommended through this legislation. What assurance have we that elements of the broad powers that are given to arrest and detain on suspicion will not be abused? Where can the minister indicate that that kind of assurance will stand up where it will matter most to those who will be affected by the application of this act?
I think that this is the last and most important opportunity for the minister to state very clearly to members of the House and, therefore, to people generally what kind of definite assurance and safeguards there will be with respect to the very special and extraordinary powers that are being requested under this temporary legislation. Unless the minister can do more than give the personal assurance which he gave today, unless he is able to present an amendment or accept the amendment before him to ensure that this safeguard exists, Parliament and the people of this country will not have been well served.
I recall an earlier day when the Prime Minister was warning the people of this country against the danger of extremes and the importance in times of great pressure in one direction to have an equal or countervailing pressure in the other direction. The government has asked for, in the person of the minister presenting this legislation, extraordinary powers to be placed in the hands of the police and in the courts. It is inconceivable to me that any minister on behalf of any government should be asking for these powers in this situation without offering a visible and tangible expression of a device that would give assurance to the people that such powers will not be abused.
Verbal assurances about the wisdom, good faith or judgment of specific individuals are worth nothing more than the communicated statements that they are. I feel that this statute cannot be received with any respect by the thinking people of this country unless the government and the minister are prepared either to accept this amendment, which goes to the heart of making these special powers close to being responsibly carried out, or put forth amendments of their own to that effect. I trust that before we conclude the debate on this amendment the minister will ask, as one member suggested earlier, to have this matter stood in order that he may consult his officials and bring in an amendment which he might find more acceptable, or consider the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Calgary North so that it may be accepted by all members of the House.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I cannot disguise the fact that I am very impressed by the eloquence to which I have been subjected during the past three or four hours, and that I have been impressed by the sources of that eloquence. I think that the government tried to prepare a piece of legislation, based on the experience of the weeks in which the regulations passed pursuant to the War Measures Act were in force, specifically directed to the threat it was intended to combat, namely, the FLQ and allied and successor organizations

November 17, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
operating out of Quebec. The purpose was to mobilize only those extensions in power for the law enforcement authorities that in our opinion were needed, namely, specific extensions of the power to arrest without warrant, to detain before a charge was laid for a specific period of time, to search without warrant and the other powers that have already been described in detail to this committee during clause by clause review of the bill.
We have been conscious of the fact that we had to draft and cast those powers in terms that did not go beyond the scope needed to meet the threat. We were also conscious of the fact that we did not want to interfere with the ordinary liberties of Canadians as they have been built up through the traditions of our country, whether at common law or by statute, any more than they had to be interfered with. I have tried to meet every argument that has been broached on the floor of this chamber since debate on clause by clause began; I have tried to meet it with counter argument which may or may not have been persuasive in so far as the total membership of this committee is concerned. In any event, I have tried my best to outline the government's position.
I want to assure the committee that before this debate began and during the course of the debate we have tried to assess, and I personally have tried to assay,i the value of each argument supporting each amendment. In the final analysis the government will have to bear the responsibility of the action we are taking, and we understand that. We also recognize that what we did depends in the long run on a value judgment which only history will verify or rebut, and there being no certainty in human affairs there is no one here who can fully determine what the final accounting or verdict will be. But we did what we did because we felt it had to be done. We used the vehicle and the tool of the bill before the committee because we thought that it struck the proper balance between extension of the power of law enforcement agencies on the one hand and restriction of individual liberties of Canadians to the minimum necessary to achieve its objective on the other hand.
I have considered the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Calgary North; he introduced it with verve and eloquence tonight. But I must reject it and recommend to the committee that it be rejected for basically two reasons. First, it offends against the principle, under our federal structure as it operates at the moment, in law enforcement, that the administration of justice under the Criminal Code and under those measures akin to the Criminal Code is the responsibility of the Attorneys General of the provinces. Just as the amendment introduced by the hon. member for York South implied a supervision of the discretion inherent in the responsibilities of a provincial Attorney General, so the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Calgary North has, to my mind, the same objective. It is he, the Attorney General who is responsible to the people of Quebec, to the legislature of Quebec, who must bear the ultimate accounting for how this will be administered, just as I, within the general content of this bill and of the criminal law, have to bear responsibility for that-

That brings me to my second ground for objecting and it is this: I believe in responsible government. I believe that under the British parliamentary system, the person charged with the institution of criminal proceedings, the person charged with exercising that sometimes awesome discretion and the person who under the terms of this bill has the discretion either to suspend bail or not, either to detain a person or not to detain him, or to institute prosecution or not, must be someone responsible directly to the people. All that is his responsibility under the Constitution as it operates in this country. He has to exercise that responsibility in weighing what the public interest will be. He has to weigh that public interest, not for political motivation-indeed, under our tradition, which binds Quebec as it does the federal government, he cannot institute or withhold proceedings on the basis of that consideration-but in the best interests of the administration of justice. That is his responsibility, as it is mine within the sphere within which I am appointed to operate.
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.
When I read the third paragraph, in particular, of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Calgary North, when I see that the administrator who would enjoy judicial office, holding judicial office, would be given the power to review and "confirm, vary or revoke a certificate filed by an Attorney General of a province under subsection (1) of section 7"-that is the clause in the bill relating to the granting or withholding of bail-I do not believe that a judge should be given that responsibility or held accountable for that responsibility of an Attorney General of a province, given to him under the biU.


An hon. Member:: They are all the time.


John Napier Turner: Not in the enforcement of extraordinary measures like this for which he has to take responsibility in the long run. Secondly, I do not believe that a specially appointed judge should have an overriding responsibility under clause 9(2) of supervising what an ordinary judge, under that clause, would have done in terms of detention before charge and the extensions that may or may not be allowed. In effect, that would be one judge superimposing his judgement on another. I know that the hon. member for Calgary North referred to the administration of the War Measures Act during the last war. At that time, by executive action people were detained. They were detained for unlimited periods and without charge and without trial.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What about this bill?
November 17, 1970


John Napier Turner: That is completely different from this bill, because the detention is limited to seven days or three days, the charge must be laid and the trial must be brought on. It is not detention without any recourse whatever. I can understand in that situation, when the whole administration was centred in Ottawa, when there was no charge and no trial, that there was argument for some system of review-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This is only semi-totalitarianism.


John Napier Turner: -but that does not apply under these circumstances. The detention is public. The arrest is public. There is a maximum period put on the detention. There is a maximum period put on the time that a charge can be delayed. There is a maximum period put on the period after which a trial must be brought on. I submit this to the committee with the greatest respect: I do not believe that the comparison is valid. I have listened and digested what hon. members have said, and in all seriousness I submit to the committee that both the principle of federalism on the one hand and the principle of the responsibility and accountability of an Attorney General on the other, an accountability as sensitive as any which the British parliamentary system has imposed on any officer of Parliament, are offended by this amendment.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: He is
not accountable to this Parliament.


John Napier Turner: But I am accountable to this Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister a question? The minister says he is accountable to this Parliament. Is he prepared to be accountable for every action that is taken under this legislation by the Attorney General of the province of Quebec? Would the minister answer that question?


An hon. Member:: That is a silly question.


John Napier Turner: The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands has added a little sting to that question so he will have to excuse me if he gets a little venom back. I say this: If the responsibility under a federal statute lies with the Attorney General, he is responsible to his own legislature and the people of Quebec and he will be held responsible, but if the responsibility lies in Ottawa I will be held responsible.
Under our Criminal Code and under the bill, the primary responsibility for the administration of justice lies with the Attorney General of the province and he is accountable to the people and to the legislature of that province. In so far as the jurisdiction rests with me and with the government for the content of this bill, we are jointly and severally responsible to this Parliament.
Public Order Act, 1970


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: You
will be washing your hands of this bill in two weeks' time.


Gérald Laniel: Is the hon. member for Peace River rising for the purpose of asking a question?


Gerald William Baldwin: I should like to ask the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, if it is not a fact that the jurisdiction of the federal government for narcotics and restrictive trades practices with respect to prohibitions and sanctions rests squarely within the criminal law of Canada, and is it not the Attorney General of Canada who launches prosecutions and is in full charge of the proceedings in these matters?


John Napier Turner: Yes, that is so-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, indeed.


John Napier Turner: -but under the Criminal Code and under any statute for which responsibility is not otherwise allocated, under section 27 of the Interpretations Act the responsibility lies with the provincial Attorney General.


Gerald William Baldwin: Is it not a fact that all the extraordinary remedies which are granted are remedies not under the Criminal Code but under offences created by this new legislation?


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Chairman, that is not a fact. This bill contains certain departures from the ordinary criminal law. Aside from that, it is administered as the criminal law is administered.


Mr.   De Bane@: Mr. Chairman, I think that a bill which gives to a large number of persons who are not accountable to any higher authorities the power to arrest people on mere suspicion, a bill which allows seizure and search in a systematic fashion, a bill which prevents any recourse for damages, a bill which has already destroyed reputations, a bill which permits a tear in the very fabric of democracy, namely the involvement of politics into the judiciary process, a bill which, I would say, is contrary to an almost natural law, by convicting a spouse who helps the other to escape after he or she has committed an offence, a bill which allows the emprisonment of anyone at the Queen's will, without the assurance of a trial within a set time, a bill which does not even define the fact of being a member of the illegal association, a bill which is retroactive without any set date as to this retroactivity, a bill which infringes upon the first principle of legality, i.e. to be clear, to the point where some of the best criminal jurists claim that under this bill, a lawyer cannot, without violating subclause (e) of clause 4, defend members of the FLQ for a special fee, is of such an exceptional nature that it makes necessary the equally exceptional amendment that is proposed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Chairman, I do not think that the Minister of Justice has seriously tried to deny the need

November 17, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
for some powers of review in connection with the rather extraordinary powers created under the War Measures Act regulations and the powers to be created under this bill. Earlier this afternoon the minister took the position that the province of Quebec had established some sort of committee. He has always taken the position that the administration of this bill is the responsibility of the government of the province concerned and that the Attorney General concerned is accountable to the legislature of his province.
I say, Mr. Chairman, that we are considering this bill after the War Measures Act regulations have been in effect for several weeks. The context in which we are considering this bill is that the province concerned has made no adequate provision for review. I repeat that: the context in which we are considering this question tonight is that the Attorney General and the provincial government concerned, for one reason or another have made no adequate provision for a review of the extraordinary powers created by the regulations of the War Measures Act.
It is all very well for the Minister of Justice to say that this is the responsibility of the province concerned. I say to all my hon. friends opposite that they are putting this before the House and that they are apparently going to reject any provision for review in the full knowledge, which not one of them can contest for a moment, that the government concerned has not made any adequate provision for review.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: As far as the action taken by that government or this government is concerned, the people of Canada will never know what has taken place under the War Measures Act except in so far as journalists may make that knowledge available.
The Minister of Justice does not seriously try to argue that there should not be some power of review. I know that he talks about the accountability of the Attorney General of the province to the legislature and he also talks about his own accountability to this House. I want to speak to him very frankly now, Mr. Chairman. If he were seeking these unusual powers, I hope he would have sense enough to want a review body; and if he did not have sense enough to want it, I hope that I for one would insist that such a review body be formed. I do not think this minister should be given powers of this sort without some power of review. Tonight we are being asked to accept a rejection of any provision for review in the full and certain knowledge that the province concerned has not itself made any adequate provision for review.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Get out of that one.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That cannot be challenged. I do not think there has been anything like this in the history of our country in peacetime. I cannot understand my hon. friend opposite putting forward such a proposition. This
is not a necessary part of dealing with terrorists. The refusal to establish a review commission is not designed to strengthen our society; it is not designed to protect our society. I do not say that the refusal is calculated deliberately to weaken our society, but that would be its inevitable effect.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It could not be justified in wartime. Whether or not certain things have been necessary in wartime, they have been carried out. But we are not so weak in this country, neither is our society so weak that we need to provide these unusual powers without any review. When the minister spoke, he bristled a little. He suggested the time has come for us to be frank. The time has passed when we should be polite about this matter. The time has come for us to be frank. It seems to me this government should answer questions frankly. In particular, what is this government afraid will be disclosed if such review is provided?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is all I have to say, Mr. Chairman.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman,-


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Where are the Liberals? We want to hear a Liberal.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take many minutes because I have already expressed my views about the importance of the review. But the minister keeps repeating the jurisdictional aspect of this matter. He displays a "holier than thou" attitude and keeps saying, "I believe in federalism", as if the people on this side of the House do not.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: The comments of the great Minister of National Defence show the kind of arrogant attitude that the cabinet has adopted in this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: It is an attitude which the members of this arrogant government always take.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member should not talk about arrogance. Let him consider his party's leadership campaign.


An hon. Member:: Stand in your place.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, all of us in this House believe in federalism and in Canadian federalism. Almost everyone in Canada believes in it. There are ways to make that federalism strong and there are ways to make it weak. There are ways to make people the friends of

November 17, 1970

federalism and there are ways to make martyrs of the enemies of federalism.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: That is precisely what the government's attitude does: it makes the demagogic separatists in Quebec, and even those who are a long distance from the views of the separatists, point at Ottawa as the centralizing, insensitive capital of Canada and at this government as one that ignores the needs of the people of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Every time a government or a Parliament passes this kind of law aimed at a certain region of the country and which deals with people as 400 people in Quebec have already been dealt with, something happens: you make every one of those 400 people resent Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: And you run the risk of making them martyrs with their ideas. How do you avoid that? You avoid the social consequences of this kind of extraordinary bill by appointing, I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, some kind of review and supervisory body. Then everybody in the country, whether he be in Quebec or elsewhere in Canada, will know that the Parliament which gave the police in Canada, the police of a province, the police of a city, the Attorney General of a province-
Mr. Fair weather: And the armed forces.


David Lewis: -and the armed forces these extraordinary, repugnant powers, powers contrary to the basic principles of our society, is making sure that these powers will not be abused. There is no guarantee that they will not be abused unless you have some kind of supervisory body. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Calgary North is a thoroughly reasonable one. The minister is outraged by the suggestion in the amendment that the administrator will have power to review the decision of the Attorney General to withhold bail. What is outrageous about that, when the administrator is to be a judge?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is quite right.


David Lewis: According to the normal practice in our society, it is the court that decides whether a man shall be let out on bail or held in jail.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: If the minister had accepted the earlier amendment that suggested this provision should be included in the bill-and I still do not see why it should not be-this part of the present amendment would not be needed. At present the Attorney General has the arbitrary power to say, "This man shall remain in jail." He is under no obligation to give reasons; the certificate does not have to say why. He merely has to say that in his 23568-101
Public Order Act, 1970
opinion there is just cause for that man to stay in jail for another 30 days, 40 days, half a year or one year until the date of trial. It may be one month or one year away from his arrest. I have known these things to occur.
If you give the Attorney General that kind of arbitrary power, what in heaven's name is so outrageous when you say that a judge in the capacity of administrator under this law shall be able to review the way in which the Attorney General uses that power? I say to the Minister of Justice, what is so outrageous about that? In what way does this interfere with provincial rights?


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: In no way.


David Lewis: If I had time I would go through the Criminal Code to illustrate my point. Until this bill was introduced I confess that I had not looked at it for a long time, but I would be ready to bet there are sections in the Criminal Code-I am referring to the passing-off sections and others like them-that give the federal Minister of Justice certain powers. There is no absoluteness and there cannot be any absoluteness in this regard.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: There is also the Parole Board.


David Lewis: One must also include the Parole Board. One must consider the situation. What is the situation? At present the situation is that this Parliament is required to pass a special law to deal with an extraordinary state of affairs, so says the minister. He wants extraordinary powers, says the minister. I do not think they are now needed, but if they are there ought to be extraordinary precautions to ensure that these extraordinary powers will not be abused.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: This is all that the amendment of the hon. member for Calgary North seeks. Neither his amendment nor the one that was before the committee previously interferes with any of the powers. It does not remove the power of search, the power of arrest, the power of detention, the power to withhold goods seized, or any other power. It merely states that a supervisory person, a judge, shall look over, supervise, report on or deal with the way in which these extraordinary powers are exercised. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the minister's refusal to accept this kind of amendment is very suspect. It may be that he and the government of Canada have not the courage to undertake their responsibilities for fear of what someone in Quebec might say.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: If that is the case, it is shameful and all the pretensions about liberty and rights are hollow pretensions of which the minister and the government ought to be ashamed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: I ask, what is wrong with the amendment?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What is wrong with the government?

November 17, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970


David Lewis: All the amendment asks is that a judge, who has had training in these things, be required to look into these matters. He is given very limited powers. Generally speaking, the powers that he is given under the amendment are powers set out in the Public Inquiries Act; they are not powers which my friend, the hon. member for Calgary North, has created or that his leader or anybody else has created. They are powers now contained within the statutes of Canada. Those powers are used all the time by people investigating all sorts of things across this country, by commissions and bodies that governments and Parliaments have set up for decades. The administrator, or judge, has no more powers than every other commission of inquiry has had, precisely on the basis of the same law. What in the name of heaven is wrong with that suggestion?
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
If there was the slightest inclination on the part of this government, not only to deal with the situation in the province of Quebec but to deal with it in a decent, democratic and sensitive way, they would accept the amendment of the hon. member for Calgary North.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I will first deal with the point I brought to the attention of the minister. I do not know whether he caught my question properly. I attempted to point out that when he was trying to relate the functions of the Attorney General of Quebec or the Attorney General of any province to this bill, and to the powers given by it, to the ordinary function under the Criminal Code, I think he was wrong. Only in respect of offences created under this bill is there given the extraordinary power of detention and refusal of bail. The minister may have some exceptions in mind, but this is my reading of the bill.
The attitude of the minister emphasizes a dillusion-ment under which many members of this House labour. They think we need only to pass legislation and need not be cornered about its implementation or worry about the impact. I deny that. When we accept the responsibility of enacting extraordinary legislation-I am not quarrelling about the type of legislation that lies beyond our scope under this amendment-we cannot absolve ourselves by saying that having passed the bill, we can forget about it. We cannot leave our responsibilities outside this House. We cannot park our consciences at the door. The conscience of each hon. member of this House is with every police officer when he arrests, detains and places in an institution for continued detention a person charged under this act. Parliament is responsible when the Attorney General of the province of Quebec signs a certificate indicating that there is no just cause for allowing a person to be admitted to bail.
I have no complaint in so far as this bill is directed against those who are guilty of the type of terrorist activities which have concerned us. However, almost 400 people have been picked up and detained in custody for a considerable period of time. We must admit that there have been some abuses in the operation of this legislation. Because we are afraid that abuses will continue
when these powers are given to certain people, we must ask for a means of review so that abuses will be limited. When abuses are brought to the attention of the administrator, he must be compelled to report them to this House. This House will then have the opportunity to hold accountable those who are delegated with the authority. Without a safeguard of this kind this House is not fulfilling its duty under the democratic process.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, it appears that the committee is about ready to decide on the amendment to the second last clause of Bill C-181. In view of that, I ask Your Honour under Standing Order 6(5)(a) to request permission of the Speaker to extend the sitting until the Committee of the Whole has completed consideration of Bill C-181 or until eleven o'clock, whichever is earlier.
The Depuly Chairman: In view of the request made by the Minister of Agriculture, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 6(5) (a) to interrupt the proceedings of the Committee of the Whole in order to permit the House to decide on the motion which will be proposed by the minister.
Mr. Speaker resumed the chair.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That the sitting be extended until completion of the Committee of the Whole stage of Bill C-181, or eleven o'clock p.m., whichever is the earlier.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Before putting the motion I must remind members that Standing Order 6(5)(a) permits the Speaker to put the motion and at the same time ask members who oppose the motion to rise. If ten members or more rise, the motion is defeated.
And more than ten members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I declare the motion lost.
And the House having resumed in committee:


Gérald Laniel: It being ten o'clock, it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the House.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, November 12, as reported at page 1090 of Hansard, I put the following question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau):
Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the right hon. gentleman's statement a short while ago that he thought old age pensioners might be able to get

November 17, 1970

through the winter without an increase in their pensions, but that he hoped they would not have to, can he now say whether there will be an increase in the old age pension before Christmas?
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
The first reply of the Prime Minister was as follows:
Mr. Speaker, without agreeing with the premise of the question, which is not exactly in the terms I put it, I can only say what the Minister of National Health and Welfare has been saying, namely, that in due course he will announce the government's policy on these matters.
I tried again, by way of a supplementary, to obtain some assurance that something would at least be started before Christmas but I am afraid I was not successful. I asked the same question in different words on Monday, November 16, as recorded in Hansard at page 1188, when I put it this way:
Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister? There being 39 days to Christmas, has the Prime Minister yet decided in what way he is going to say "Merry Christmas" to Canada's old age pensioners?


An hon. Member:: Ho, ho, ho!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I got no answer to that so far as Hansard indicates, but I believe a number of hon. members did say what 1 have just heard-"Ho, ho, ho!"
Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the Prime Minister if he felt that my reference to what he said was not exactly correct. He did not quarrel with the general terms of my quotation but relied on the fact that I had paraphrased him a bit. Actually, I did paraphrase him by making his words softer than the press had reported. Following an interview with him outside this chamber on Friday, October 9, the press had reported the Prime Minister as saying he thought pensioners could get through the winter-I changed "could" to "might"-but it would be too bad if they had to, and he hoped it would not be necessary. I have seen reports of this interview in papers like the Ottawa Citizen of Saturday, October 10, and the Winnipeg Free Press of Monday, October 12. At any rate, it was clear that the message of the Prime Minister was one which had the effect of giving old age pensioners some hope. The headline of the story in the Ottawa Citizen was, "More Dollars for Aged". The headline of the same story in the Winnipeg Free Press was, "Pensioners Promised Action".
I think this is most unfair. It has all the earmarks of a cruel hoax for the Prime Minister to say these things and give the impression that something is going to be done, yet continue to stall in this House to the point at which it will become legislatively impossible to deal with the matter before Christmas. After all, the old age pension cheques for the month of November are probably made up already and before long the December cheques will be in production. If anything is to be done before Christmas, it must be done right away.
I remind hon. members that the situation respecting our senior citizens is getting worse and worse. The difficulties they face, in getting by on the amount they have, whether by way of pension or other income, are increasing day by day and week by week. Figures which
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion were given in answer to a question of mine some days ago, figures which are to be found in Hansard, show that 27 per cent of the people of Canada who are 65 years of age and over qualify for the full amount of the guaranteed income supplement.
In order to qualify for the full amount of that supplement one has to have practically nothing else at all. I am not now talking about the 57 per cent who qualify for some part of the guaranteed income supplement and thus are living below the poverty line. I am saying that 27 per cent of all the people in Canada 65 years of age and over are in the position that apart from what they get by way of old age pension and guaranteed income supplement they have nothing else. That means they have to get by on $111 and some cents a month. That means they are destitute.
In these days, in light of today's cost of living and in light of today's standard of living, which may be very nice for those who enjoy its affluence but which is repressive for those who cannot enjoy any part of it, I suggest this is criminal and immoral and that Parliament ought to be given the chance by the government to act on the matter of a substantial pension increase right away, certainly before Christmas.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, as Shakespeare once said, "once more into the breach, dear friends. Questions relating to old age security posed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) have been debated at ten o'clock in this Chamber no less than five times in the last year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Old age pensions began in Canada in 192 <[DOT] The first pension which was based on a means test was administered by the provinces and was cost-shared on a 50 per cent basis with the federal government. This pension was in the sum of $20 per month. The old age pension continued unchanged except for the amount of payment until 1952. By the same year the pension had increased to a total of $40 per month. Shortly after World War II Canada's concern for its senior citizens was reflected by the action of the government of the day which in 1951 appointed an all-party committee of the House and the Senate to study the old age pension.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That was in


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Yes, 1950. The study carried out by this all-party committee was most comprehensive and reviewed pension plans then in effect in all parts of the world. The major recommendation of this committee which was unanimous, proposed the introduction of a flat-rate benefit program. The new pension program adopted by the government was called the old age security program and came into effect on January 1, 1952. The same basic rate of $40 pension per month still applied, but because the means test was eliminated many more of Canada's senior citizens were included.

November 17, 1970
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Since the introduction of the old age security program in 1952, payments have increased as follows: July, 1957, $46 per month; November, 1957, $55 per month; February, 1962, $65 per month and October, 1963, $75 per month. Since 1963 old age security has been escalated to the present rate of $79.58 through the introduction of a cost of living clause. In 1966 legislation was introduced bringing the guaranteed income supplement to the old age security program into effect and commencing on January 1, 1967, a maximum rate of $30 per month was established for the guaranteed income supplement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Parliamentary Secretary, but his time has expired.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But he has not
answered the question.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We covered 20 years in three minutes-pretty good.



BROADCASTING-PERFORMANCE OF NORTH BATTLEFORD SATELLITE TELEVISION STATION

Mr. Rod Thomson (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, the other day I asked whether the government would enforce standards required for licencing of TV stations. I had reference to the satellite in respect of North Bat-tleford through station CKBI-TV at Prince Albert.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
I should like to refer briefly to a telegram I received from some of my constituents. They say that there is unbelievably poor TV reception in the Battlefords despite thousands of names on petitions sent to the TV broadcasting commission. On this telegram there are 79 names. This is not the first time the people in this area have tried to do something about the problem. The board of trade in North Battleford and many citizens on their own have attempted to have some action taken.
I asked a question on the Order Paper on November 24, 1969. These are some of the things we have done in an effort to get the attention of the minister in respect of the unbelievably poor television reception. I had assumed that when a station received a licence to broadcast it would be forced to live up to certain minimum standards. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, how you would explain the situation to your constituents or perhaps to your grandchildren if you had only one TV picture, if there was a hockey game on between Toronto and Montreal and if during the last period the score was tied and Montreal were advancing on the Toronto goal and then the picture faded out.
This is the type of thing that happens. I have heard about these things from many people, and not always in polite terms. I believe it is high time something was done about this situation. I do not want to hear excuses from the other side concerning what is wrong. I want to hear what is to be done to make the situation right. We have a TV signal that comes and goes like a yo-yo. I do not think this is necessary. If something cannot be done about this, let us give the licence to somebody else so

that we will have at least one good TV signal in North Battleford. In Ottawa, for instance, there might be eight or ten channels including three French channels. The rest of the country is talking about two channels, and we cannot even get one in our part of the country. I suggest it is time something was done to correct this problem.


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Faulkner), I would like to give the following information to the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley in reply to his question.
A representative of the Canadian Radio-Television Commission recently checked the technical facilities of station CKBI in Prince Albert. A representative of the Department of Communications also visited them. Subsequently, the licencee, Central Broadcasting Limited, decided that a micro-wave relay connecting North Battleford to Altican could ensure better service in North Battleford.
The company therefore applied to the Department of Communications for authorization to establish such a relay and we are now waiting for such a licence to be issued. We hope the hon. member's constituents will receive better service.



GRAIN-PRODUCTION AND RECEIPTS POLICY-FARM CONSOLIDATION PROGRAM

Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, on October 29 the minister in charge of the Wheat Board tabled a program of proposals respecting the western grain industry. While the proposals are vague in many areas, one fact emanates abundantly clearly. That fact is that the contents of the new plan are based to large degree upon the task force report which outlines the Liberal government's agricultural policy platform for the seventies. This report is documented by a group of professors and accountants.
The grains program basically outlines three objectives. First, a program of supply management which could more appropriately be referred to as bureaucratic production control encompassing new marketing methods and new quota programs. It also outlines an objective of providing an income stabilization program which would be basically financed by the producers themselves. Another proposal involves an announcement that the government intends to withdraw support in the area of storage, that is, the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, certain interest costs on export sales and the provisions covering any shortfall incurred in pool accounts. All of these collectively will reduce the net income to the producer and place the vagaries of the international marketplace squarely on the shoulders of the producer.
Above all, while achieving these goals it is suggested another development will occur and it is also included in the proposal. However, I must say that there is very little
November 17, 1970

accompanying background information and direction in this area. I am referring to the suggested proposal to encourage the adjustment of farm units into more efficient sizes. I believe that this is where more information is required.
It is for that purpose that I rise in this debate tonight. I raised the matter on November 9 and November 16. One answer that I received from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) was that the problem I raised was much too broad to be covered and dealt with in the question period. I raised the matter again yesterday in an attempt to elicit more information with respect to the government's direction and policy in this area, and inquired specifically whether a policy would be announced before the convening of the agricultural congress. To that question I received a negative answer.
The minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board said that it was his desire to have the proposals thoroughly aired before proceeding with the legislation. He envisaged a debate involving the producers, the farm groups, members of the grain trades and anyone else interested in the grain industry. Yet the government's position respecting the consolidation and laying out of its intended procedure in this area have not been clearly defined. It seems to me that with such encompassing proposals, which strike at the potential disbanding of existing farm units, I as a Member of Parliament have the prerogative to ask how we can ever discuss this policy with any degree of intelligence and skill without having all the pertinent facts and without knowing the intentions of the government.
The task force report put forth some very direct proposals respecting farm adjustment and rationalization. I would simply like to ask the minister through you, Mr. Speaker, if we are to assume that the government will be following along the lines proposed in the task force report. Then we get back to the age-old question about what constitutes an economic, viable unit, what size it will have to be and whether it is the intention to doom the family farm to extinction only to have it replaced by a few corporate structures, probably vertically integrated conglomerates.
One has only to analyse the intentions of Bill C-175 and Bill C-176 and examine some of the evidence that was tabled in the committee on agriculture to conclude that it seems very obvious the government is moving in this direction. It seems to me that the government is set on a deliberate course of destroying rural Prairie life as we now know it, and in its stride bringing about the destruction of our rural communities. I believe the Canadian Economic Council on rural development also
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion bears out this fact. The saddest aspect of all is that through government measures people are being literally coerced into making undesired adjustments, with little or no recourse in so far as their options or alternatives are concerned.
If we are simply being asked to propose and agree to the policies and programs which are being brought forth in the name of efficiency, such as those contained in the task force report, the grains policy and the various bills-
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must advise the hon. member that his time has expired.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I have only three minutes and so I must be very brief in my replies to all the matters raised by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). First of all, I want to say categorically that the task force report, both in its findings and recommendations, does not constitute government policy. I think it is a great disservice to the task force, and indeed to the farmers of Canada, for members of the opposition continually to go around the country attempting to perpetuate that myth.
So far as the proposals in connection with the agricultural stabilization fund are concerned, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang) has made it very clear-and the hon. member has confirmed this tonight- that he wants to have a thorough discussion of this question and he is willing to make adjustments in the proposals before drafting the legislation that is to follow, in order to put whatever the consensus is into effect. At the congress which is to be held here next week there will be ample opportunity to discuss the proposals in the task force report. Indeed, that is what the meeting is for. I am sure the hon. member would be the first to get up in this House and criticize me for determining, in advance of that meeting, what the government will and what it will not accept in respect of the task force recommendations.
I see my time is about up, Mr. Speaker. In conclusion I wish to say it is absolutely wrong to contend that the government is attempting to do away with the family farm, or for that matter rural Canada. We have taken many measures, not to weaken that sector but rather to strengthen it and that is what this government, in particular the Department of Agriculture, is dedicated to do.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Wednesday, November 18, 1970