1970-11-13

PRIVILEGE


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, in answering a question yesterday from the hon. member for St. John's East-he was trying to help me and I am grateful to him for that- with respect to the Ryerson affair, I had meant to say only that no specific request for financial assistance had been received by me from the company. I had meant to table the correspondence which I was holding in my hand at that time, but at the last moment I saw on Dr. Brisbin's letter that it was marked "Confidential". This was when I went into a meandering account of the contents of that correspondence.
I am afraid that when I said, to quote my words as reported in Hansard at page 1092, that "there was no specific mention in their letter of the actual possibility that it was going to be taken over", I may have misled the House. Therefore, to avoid any confusion, now that Dr. Brisbin himself has given copies of his file, may I give copies of my file to members of the House and table the said correspondence?


Mr. Speaker:: The minister is seeking the assent of the House to table certain correspondence to which he has referred. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to report to the House an event of more than ordinary significance. This is the bringing into operation last night of the reactor at the Gentilly Nuclear Power Station, on the St. Lawrence River downstream from Trois-Rivieres.
Gentilly not only is the first nuclear power station in Quebec, it is the first of its kind-a prototype. Like the other nuclear plants in operation or under construction in
Canada, it uses natural uranium as fuel and heavy water as the moderator, but where the coolant in the others is pressurized heavy water, the coolant in Gentilly is boiling light, or ordinary, water.
Having in mind the many difficulties and complications that were bound to transpire, some predictable and others unforeseen, it would have been understandable had those responsible declined to make any forecast of how long it would take them to do the job. What the AECL/Hydro-Quebec team in fact did was set for itself, and publicly announce, a tight four-year schedule.
Despite technological innovations, despite a strike that halted work for five months, despite delays in deliveries of key items, despite numerous other problems, they made it. It was four years ago this past October that the first sod was turned at the site; it was on November 2 four years ago that excavation started.
At the outset, one of the primary, declared aims of the signatories was to have engineers and technologists of the province of Quebec take a leading part in the design, construction and operation of the station. This policy was observed, not just to the letter but in the spirit as well. Personnel from Hydro-Quebec and Quebec industrial firms participated in all stages of the design. Hydro-Quebec staff were trained to operate the plant. Every document and drawing pertaining to the station was produced in the two official languages. The conventional part of the station-that is, that portion outside the nuclear system-was designed by a team of Quebec consultants. Hydro-Quebec acted as prime contractor at the site, with responsibility for station construction.
The result of all this has been the establishment in Quebec of a solid body of knowledge, experience and skill upon which to draw and build when the time comes to commit nuclear power stations of commercial size in the province.
I should like to close these remarks, Mr. Speaker, by extending congratulations to all those who had a part in the Gentilly project. I congratulate them for their magnificent achievement and for bearing testimony to the fact that the barriers and frontiers so much talked about these days do not stop men of good will from co-operating in a constructive way. Nuclear science is alive and well in the province of Quebec.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join very briefly with the minister in commending those who are jointly responsible for this venture and innovation in connection with the development of power through this means. I am particularly glad

November 13, 1970
Gentilly Nuclear Power Station that at this time the minister is able to announce that this development is taking place in the province of Quebec. After listening to his comments about the problems which have been experienced may I say it is most commendable that they were able to surmount them. I hope that other developments will follow which will provide some means of utilizing the power to be generated at this plant.
Finally, I trust that the difficulties we have been experiencing in this country in the last few weeks will not blind the government to the necessity of providing other sources of jobs for the people of the province of Quebec particularly and in the country as a whole. The difficulties we will be facing this winter certainly justify the government turning its attention to the development of a program along the lines of some of the proposals made during the course of the debate yesterday.


Mr. Rod Thomson (Ballleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I too should like to extend my congratulations and best wishes to Hydro-Quebec and Atomic Energy of Canada. I visited the Gentilly plant just a few weeks ago and was quite impressed with the possibilities of this new style, if you will, of producing atomic energy. The fact that we have been able to produce something different from what is being produced in any other country in the world points up more than ever the necessity for much more research if we would remain ahead in this field.
To be quite frank, if I were a customer for a heavy water or atomic energy plant I would be inclined to wait until this type of plant has been tried out because it has an advantage, as indicated by the minister, in terms of lower capital cost. It also saves a considerable amount in regard to heavy water and heat exchangers, and should also mean lower operating costs for heavy water atomic energy plants.
As indicated by others, this type of plant, particularly if sold in quantity to nations abroad, will provide jobs at a highly technical level for Canadians. I should like to suggest to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce that they get busy and go out and sell some of these plants.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abilibi):: Mr. Speaker, I do feel the engineers and staff of Hydro-Quebec, and those of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited should be congratulated on their recent achievement in Gentilly.
Engineers and workers of Quebec have already demonstrated their skill in a very similar field, the construction of dams and electric plants in Manicouagan. The experience they have acquired in building an atomic plant in Gentilly justifies great expectations for the future of that industry in Quebec.
That is a striking example of cooperation between two levels of government and it is to be hoped that natural uranium will serve more and more for peace-time purposes and less and less for war-time industries.
Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said, this is a new venture with regard to the
generation of electric energy. We have every reason to believe it will be successful and will be repeated more and more often, since it will permit the development of this type of plant at a lower cost.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalt-Saanich) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-189, to amend the Criminal Code (Pollution).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, this proposed amendment to the Criminal Code is very simple. It would make it an offence to pollute an interprovincial or international stream or river and thus make pollution which does not affect fish preventable by the same type of penalties as are found under the Fisheries Act where fish are affected.


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

Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (for the Minister of Finance) moved: the first reading of Bill S-6 (from the Senate), to amend the Anti-dumping Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance who is not present. I can only point out that neither the Prime Minister nor any minister responsible in the areas of principal concern today-the economy, unemployment, the War Measures Act and related questions-is present today. I want to make it very clear that I understand the absence of the Solicitor General, but in his absence perhaps the Minister of Justice might have been present. I assume there is some explanation for the absence of the Prime Minister as well as these other ministers, and I hope it will be given. However, so far as I am concerned I cannot proceed with any questions today.

November 13, 1970


Mr. Gray:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. With respect to the reference by the Leader of the Opposition to the attendance of the Minister of Finance, I should like to say that I am here also in my capacity as Acting Minister of Finance and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance is present as well and we are available to answer questions.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am delighted, Mr. Speaker. Can the Acting Minister of Finance tell the House whether it is proposed immediately or very soon to have a meeting with provincial representatives to consider ways in which the federal government and the provinces can co-operate in stimulating employment this winter?


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, a meeting of finance ministers is scheduled for December 7 and 8 and I would expect that matter might be on the agenda.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Am I to understand there have not been to date and are not now under way any systematic consultations with the provinces to canvass possible methods of stimulating employment this winter? Am I to assume that from what the Parliamentary Secretary said?


Mr. Speaker:: I think that the question as asked is certainly argumentative in form. When the Leader of the Opposition asks whether he can assume a conclusion from the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary, I would think the question is not in order in those terms. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition might rephrase the question.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, are there any systematic consultations under way at present with the provinces to canvass possible methods of stimulating employment this winter through co-operation?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Acting Prime Minister):: I must say I was a little surprised at the prelude to the question asked today by the Leader of the Opposition in the matter of unemployment. I want to assure him that the government is fully conscious of the levels of unemployment and fully aware of the necessity of effecting plans and policies that will encourage employment. These are being studied today and have been studied for weeks. It is anticipated that announcements will be made shortly which will have the effect of stimulating employment-


Mr. Ricard:: We have been told that for years.


An hon. Member:: You don't mean "stimulating", you mean "simulating".


Arthur Laing: -in the field which is the total responsibility of the government and encouraging it in the private sector.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I appreciate the statement by the Minister of Public Works but I wonder if it would be too much for either the Minister of Public Works or the Parliamen-
Inquiries of the Ministry
tary Secretary to answer the question I asked, namely, whether there are under way now any systematic consultations with the provinces with regard to possible methods of stimulating employment?


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: I will take that question as notice.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Woolliams:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There may be a very good reason-I would like to hear it and I think the House would-for the absence of so many ministers and of the Prime Minister today. We do not know who the acting prime minister is and we do not know why these ministers are not here today. Surely we could have that settled. It seems such a waste of time to ask questions in this institution at this time with nobody to answer them. I see Your Honour is getting a little uneasy, but may I point out with the greatest respect that I think it is very important to settle this matter if Parliament is to live at all. There may be a good reason for their absence. If that reason is given to the opposition I am sure we will listen to it and give it the kind of hearing that it deserves, but surely we are entitled to hear it.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Perhaps I could indicate on the point of order that there may well have been a very good reason for the absence for two days this week of the Leader of the Opposition. This is only his second day here this week.


An hon. Member:: He does not have to answer to the House.


An hon. Member:: He is not the Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think there should be a debate on the point. I would think the point of order raised by the hon. member for Calgary North is a valid one-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: -but at the same time I do not think it should give rise to a debate.


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak to the point of order. I do not think that the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Calgary North is an irrelevant one and I think that the kind of answer which the Minister of National Defence gave is irrelevant. I suggest that we should know the reason why the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the President of the Treasury Board, who were due to be here today, are not here. There may well be good reasons for it but we should know them. I had questions for the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance. I do not intend to ask a question just to hear a Parliamentary Secretary tell me he will take notice of it. I certainly would not have an answer to the question. I think we should have an explanation from the Acting Prime Minister, who I imagine is the Minister of Public Works, as to why these leaders of the government are not here today when they are due to be here.

November 13, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the matter raised, I want to assure the House that we will endeavour to conduct the House today just as on any ordinary day.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Orlikow:: That's the trouble.


Arthur Laing: The laughter engendered on the other side is all part of an act that is being put on today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Laing: I want to renew the statement made to the opposite side of the House that today I have the honour of being Acting Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Laing: There are a number of ministers away today, all for very good reasons, and all of them, with the exception of one, on government business. However, there are ministers here in every case acting for them, or their Parliamentary Secretaries, who are prepared to answer any question which the Leader of the Opposition or any other member on the other side of the House is prepared to ask today. We are waiting for questions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Laing: And we are not going to be satisfied by a statement from the other side to the effect that because the people are not here today that they wanted to ask the questions of-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, I take exception to the statement of the Acting Prime Minister that somebody is putting on an act on this side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I think the members of the opposition are quite entitled to express surprise and disappointment, and to seek an explanation when this number of ministers, including the Prime Minister, are not here. While the Acting Prime Minister says they are ready to answer questions, it is very obvious from the two questions I asked that they are not in fact ready or capable of answering questions.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Wellington.


Mr. Hales:: My supplementary is to a minister who is not here so I do not think I will ask it. I will pass.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary to the Acting Prime
Minister in his capacity as Minister of Public Works. What specific plans do the government and his department have to help the 69,000 people who were unemployed last month in his province of British Columbia, an increase of 50 per cent over the same month last year?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows that what he is requesting now is a statement of a general nature. I would not think that the question in those terms is acceptable-


Mr. Korchinski:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member for Mackenzie in a moment since he appears to have a supplementary question, but I would think it would not be in order if members representing different provinces stood in their places, one after another, and asked for a statement on the situations in their respective provinces. I have some doubts whether this would be proper procedure, and so in this light I would think the question as asked is not in order.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre rises on the point of order that has been under discussion. The Chair has returned to the question period, but if the hon. member has another point of order I will recognize him now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Arising out of the discussion and of the whole situation, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, that the House now proceed to orders of the day.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It has been moved by Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) that the House now proceed to orders of the day. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: The House will now revert to the question period.


Mr. Cafik:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I feel an attempt has been made to deny me my rights as a member of the House of Commons by the assumption on the part of the opposition that they alone have the right to ask questions in this chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Bell:: Who is stopping you?


An hon. Member:: Go ahead. Ask one.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have the right to be heard, even though the opposition may not feel the same way. In my opinion the motion we have just defeated is typical of the arrogance which the opposition consistently shows-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member claimed to be rising on a question of privilege. He should state his question of privilege. He has no right to reflect on a vote.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question of privilege is this: I had intended to ask questions in this House, as did many of my hon. friends on this side-


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Norman Augustine Cafik: -and I feel an attempt has been made to deny me my rights as a Member of the House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am not sure that the hon. member's question of privilege requires a ruling. At any rate, he will have heard that we have returned to the question period, and he is free to ask a question now.



TRANSPORT


Norman Augustine Cafik: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. On June 3 I wrote a letter to the minister requesting certain action by the department with respect to commuter transport in metropolitan areas of Canada, particularly in Toronto-


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Norman Augustine Cafik: What action has been taken, or what action does the department intend to take, to make available rail beds for private commuter transport services-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has the floor for the purpose of asking a question. If he were to be denied that right it seems to me he might then have a valid question of privilege. In any event, the question has now been asked, and perhaps the minister wishes to reply.
1140

November 13, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minisier of Transport):: Because of the furor which has been going on I am not sure whether I should answer the hon. member or some of the comments from the other side. They got mixed up and I did not hear the question.


Mr. Speaker:: I would think that if the minister did not hear the question the hon. member should repeat it briefly-or what is left of the question period will be taken up by the hon. member's repeated question.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, my question specifically was: What action has been taken, or is intended to be taken, by the Department of Transport in connection with making available rail beds for commuter transport purposes, either by passing legislation or proposing amending legislation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. My understanding is that the hon. member's question asks whether legislation will be introduced, and in those terms the question is acceptable.


An hon. Member:: A supplementary question-


Donald Campbell Jamieson: May
I answer the first question first. All this discloses is that the suggestion which occasionally comes from the other side that these questions are planted is clearly not true; otherwise, I would have a better answer for the hon. member. I can only say that we have had discussions with both the province of Ontario and Canadian National. The question really revolves around whether or not a private line of the kind to which the hon. member refers can in fact be assigned the running rights of a common carrier. I will try to get a more explicit answer for the hon. member later.



TORONTO METRO TRANSPORTATION CENTRE

Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport whether he can inform the House what is delaying the development of the Toronto metro transportation centre.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, could we go back to the time before the motion when the other side was asking questions!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Obviously, the competence and incisiveness of the members on this side is far superior. The metro centre really involves a great many private enterprise organizations and the government's role in the centre is essentially peripheral, if I understand it correctly. We are now having negotiations with Canadian National and Canadian Pacific. I believe a group from Canadian National is in Toronto this weekend and is carrying on negotiations with various parties.



UNITED NATIONS


Mr. Warren Allmand (Noire-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Secretary of
State for External Affairs or his Parliamentary Secretary. Considering that today the government of Canada was to make a statement at the United Nations with respect to the China question, I wonder whether the Acting Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary can inform the House what position the government will take on the China question?


Mr. Andre Ouellel (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to indicate to the House that Ambassador Beaulne has been speaking in the general debate today, and has expressed the view that Canada will vote in favour of the seating of the representatives of the People's Republic of China in the United Nations. In expressing this view he said it is clear that if, in our judgment, continued support of this important resolution could in the future frustrate the will of the General Assembly, the Canadian government will then change its position on the resolution.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Is the government aware that Philips Electronics Industries Limited have lost a multi-million dollar contract for car radios with the Chrysler Corporation, which could result in the closing of the company's car radio division?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will realize that it is not in order simply to ask whether the minister is aware or is not aware of a particular situation. That, in itself, is not a complete question and it cannot be put in those terms.


Hubert Badanai: Then may I rephrase the question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister any plans to keep this industry going and prevent its closing?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are aware that Chrysler has given this contract to Motorola of the United States. However, my department, in its usual capacity of defender of the common good, has been in touch with the companies involved and Chrysler has agreed to give a part of the contract to Philips in order to help that company adapt to the new situation. My officers also had conversations with Motorola of the United States, and they have assured us they will do all that is possible to place contracts with the Canadian branch of Motorola in Midland, Ontario. It is even possible that some industrial development might be generated from these events.

November 13, 1970



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Could he tell the House if it is true that 6,500 employees of Northern Electric in Montreal will be losing their jobs?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, there was, in fact, an article-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows that he cannot ask a question in that form. He is asking the minister to deny or to confirm a report, and, in that form, the question is not in order.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
First of all, I would like to express the joy felt by the government members upon realizing that the opposition has decided to boycott the question period, as this gives us-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member does not have the floor to express his joy, but to ask a question.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Could he tell the House if the government intends to take measures concerning the announcement that 6,500 employees of Northern Electric will be out of work by Christmas?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I read this report in The Gazette this morning and, as usual, I immediately looked into the matter. This is the situation at the present time: The Northern Electric Company and its employees signed a contract whereby the company must, in the case of a temporary work stoppage, give its employees a 30-day notice, and this is what happened yesterday. The reason for this is the fact that a strike is in progress in one of the company's plant at Bramalea, Ontario. This strike has been going on for some time now. It may be that on account of that, some spare parts may not be available at the Montreal plant, thus bringing about temporary layoffs. Everyone hopes for an early settlement of the strike at Bramalea which would prevent the layoffs.



TRANSPORT


Mr.   Georges-C. Lachance@Lafontaine: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I want to direct to the Minister of Transport.
23568-2 i
Inquiries of the Ministry
Would he tell this House whether it would be possible to operate a bus service between downtown Ottawa and the railway station? In my opinion, this is a serious matter-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is not allowed to deliver a speech at this point but he may ask a question.


Mr. Lachance:: This is my question, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to know whether the Minister of Transport is planning to take the necessary action towards the operation of a bus service between downtown Ottawa and Ottawa Union Station?


Mr. Speaker:: This question ought to be placed on the order paper.
# * *



NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Oftawa West):: I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for housing. When the chairman of the National Capital Commission states publicly that, in his opinion, a federal district is inevitable, is he speaking for the government and expressing government policy?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows very well that a question cannot be asked in those terms. A question can be asked about statements made outside the House by cabinet ministers, but not by public servants.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Then, may I ask the minister whether it is the policy of the government to establish a federal district in the national capital region.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, it is not government policy to establish a federal district in the national capital region, and the chairman was expressing his own opinion.



NATURAL RESOURCES


Mr. Robert P. Kaplan (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has the government reconsidered its recent decision to refuse to contribute to the cost of recreation land acquired under a shared cost program by the Metro Toronto and region conservation authority?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

November 13, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I share with the Minister of Transport the thought that it will be a very happy day for the frontbenchers on this side when we revert to the normal procedure.
This is a matter that is under advisement. Of course, we are bound by the legislation and cannot specifically share in the cost of recreation land, but we are studying methods of assuring that no recreation land has to be disposed of by the Metropolitan Toronto conservation authority, so that the attractiveness of the entire scheme may be maintained.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Will the minister advise the House when the government may be in a position to make an announcement on this subject?


Some hon. Members:: Soon, soon.


John James Greene: In the near future.



AIRPORTS


Mr.   Gaeian-J. Serre@Nickel Belt: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Is it the policy of the Department of Transport to take over management of city operated airports where the city does not have the proper resources to provide adequate facilities for the travelling public?


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I thank hon. members for their assistance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I, too, will say "order". I suggest to the hon. member he is inviting a statement of policy and in those terms his question is not in order.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Has he received any indication from the new Atlantic provinces' governments that they intend to follow in the steps of the previous governments by maintaining the Atlantic provinces cabinet committee on transportation for continued co-operation with the federal government-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Eymard G. Corbin: -in an honest and serious effort to solve that regions perennial transportation problems?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, before answering the question may I welcome hon. members of the opposition to the Liberal caucus.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The answer is that I have already had communications with the new premier of the province of Nova Scotia. Of course, the new premier of New Brunswick was sworn in only yesterday and there have not been opportunities for that kind of consultation. I have every reason to believe that both governments will agree to maintaining the committee to which the hon. member refers.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Len Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Len Marchand: It is an easy one to answer. Can the minister advise the House when construction will begin on the new bridge to the Vancouver International airport?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some doubts, even if the question is easy, whether the minister should be allowed to reply, as I am really not aware of the urgency of the matter. If there is urgency, I should think the question might be considered at the time of adjournment.


An hon. Member:: At ten o'clock.



FINANCE


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Finance. Can he indicate to the House whether new policies will shortly be announced designed to assist the pulp and paper industry to compete more effectively in the international market, while at the same time helping it to abate its pollution problem here in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is acceptable only to the extent that the hon. member is inviting the minister to indicate whether a statement will be made.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I am not
in a position to give such an indication at the present time, Mr. Speaker.

November 13, 1970



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. Rud L. Whiting (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether he can give the House up to date figures on those people arrested and charged under the War Measures Act, as well as those released, in the province of Quebec?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we had better move the hon. member back to the right side of the House.


An hon. Member:: You are not supposed to be here today.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You haven't read the roster.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am neither here nor not here. I am waiting for the debate to begin on a very important bill and I am looking forward to that.
As of 8:30 this morning the figures were: Arrested, 447; released, 383; detained, 64, and rearrested, 1. Of the 64 detained, 41 were previously charged with 63 offences, 19 under the Criminal Code and 14 under the War Measures Act regulations. Of the 23 remaining, six are under coroner's warrant, three are charged under Section 62 of the Criminal Code and Section 4(a) of the War Measures Act regulations, one charged under Section 4(d) of the War Measures Act regulations and one under Section 4(a) and 4(d) of the War Measures Act regulations. There are 12 cases under study.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


William Warren Allmand: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that this week the government tabled a bill dealing with CNR financing, I should like to ask the government whether it has approached the Canadian National Railways regarding the report of the transport committee on CNR pensions, and whether the CNR will take any steps to revise its pension program before we discuss the bill that was tabled this week?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: have answered this question on previous occasions, Mr. Speaker. The decision of the transport committee, and the concurrence in that decision by the House were conveyed formally to the officials of the CNR. Of course, the matter is now being considered by them.
Inquiries of the Ministry HOUSING



INVESTMENT OF PENSION FUNDS IN RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGES

Mr. Keith Kymmen (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for housing. Can he advise the House whether meetings have been held or will be arranged with investment people and pension fund administrations with regard to the financing of housing programs?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, in my remarks during the throne speech debate I indicated that such a meeting was being planned. I can indicate to the House now that the date has been set for December 8. We have issued invitations to those charged with administering investment portfolios of major pension funds from across the country to meet with me and some of my colleagues in Ottawa on that date for the purpose of enticing them into further investment of their funds in residential mortgages.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Kieth Reinhardt Hymmen: I have a supplementary question. I should like to ask the minister whether further meetings are being planned with the approved lenders, the banks and trust companies, to stimulate the flow of mortgage money.


Robert Knight Andras: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did meet with financial institutions, the banks, trust and insurance companies, a month or so ago, and we have scheduled another meeting which will probably take place early in January.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. R. J. Orange (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Can the minister say whether he has any information in respect of the situation surrounding the gas well blowout on King Christian Island? Has the blowout been capped and, if not, what steps are being taken to cap it?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the blowout on King Christian Island should not have any harmful effect on future drilling by Panarctic Oil. We have some consultants in the field now trying to find ways and means of stopping the blowout. I must advise that we are very happy because this is a very large discovery of gas. This is further proof that the policy of the government in the north is a good one.


David Anderson: Mr. Speaker I wonder whether the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development or the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has any information that Panarctic Oils

November 13, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
Limited, in which this government has a substantial share, did not follow the prescribed drilling practices in its activities on King Christian Island where this gas fire is now taking place?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I can only say to the House that the drilling program was a good one, but there was an error made by the drilling crew on the spot. They had been instructed to stop drilling at 1,800 feet. They did not stop and that is why we had this blowout. The two people who made that error and did not follow the instructions have been fired.


David Anderson: I have a supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must bring to the attention of hon. members the fact that there are only a few minutes left before the end of the question period. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister for Indian Affairs and Northern Development answered the last question so well I wish to put another question to him. Would the minister be prepared to enter into negotiations with the province of Ontario with a view to taking over Quetico Provincial Park for the purpose of making it a wilderness national park?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy, if we can come to terms with the Ontario government, to establish more national parks in Ontario. I think the suggestion of the hon. member is a very good one.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a very important question to the Minister of Transport.
Could he tell the House what progress is being made in the negotiations between the department and the Quebec government concerning the possibility of making available to the Canadian Transport Commission the M.V. Manic in order to update and improve the ferry service between the Magdalen Islands, in my constituency, and Souris, on Prince Edward Island?
May I add, Mr. Speaker, that we, people of the Magdal-ens, have long been anxiously expecting some improvement in that field.


Mr. Speaker:: I have the impression that the hon. member was trying to make representations instead of putting a question and he must take it for granted that
[Mr. Anderson.l
his representations have been noted by the responsible
minister.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY PUBLICATION OF CARR REPORT

Mr. Jim McNulty (Si. Caiharines):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport whether the Carr report concerning St. Lawrence Seaway operations has been received by the government and, if so, will it be tabled in the House?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the Carr report refers to the St. Lawrence Seaway which has its origin close to Iles-de-Madeleine, where we are looking into the problem referred to by the last hon. gentleman. I am expecting that the study of the Carr report will be complete within a very short time and, at that time, we will make a decision concerning what portions of it and in what form it should be brought forward for public consultation and discussion.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Since the premier of Quebec is due to announce, next week, new programs aimed at alleviating unemployment in his province, I should like to know if the Department of Regional Economic Expansion has been consulted concerning its participation to such programs?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, we have not yet been advised regarding the projects of the Quebec government, but should the latter ask for our co-operation, it will be granted with pleasure.



SAINT-JEAN-DESIGNATION AS SPECIAL AREA

Mr. Walter Smith (Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Can the minister advise the House if plans are being made to include the county of Saint-Jean as a designated area-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will recall I suggested yesterday that a question of this nature was not in order at this time.
November 13, 1970



AIRPORTS


Mr. Ian Wahn (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Transport. Could he tell the House when we may expect an announcement on action in respect of the new Toronto airport?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: meeting is scheduled with the premier of Ontario for either Thursday or Friday of next week.


An hon. Member:: Before or after he resigns?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: A meeting is scheduled for a week from now with whoever is premier of Ontario. The meeting will be held on Thursday or Friday. At that time it is hoped we can agree on an approach to the whole question and soon thereafter, or soon after the necessary studies are completed, it is our intention to make the studies known to the public and have a full discussion at the regional and municipal level before the decision is made.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The time allotted for the question period has now expired. I apologize to the many hon. members who have not had an opportunity to ask questions today. I will look in their direction next Monday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could announce a change in the government business for today. After discussion, it has been decided not to commence with Government Order No. 36 but instead Government Order No. 24, the committee stage of the Temporary Emergency Powers bill.


Mr. McGrath:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Government House Leader this question which is prompted by a genuine concern for my colleague the Minister of Transport. Will today's question period pre-empt the Liberal caucus on Wednesday?


John Mercer Reid: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in view of the question period today, which has been far better than it has been in the last three months, would the Speaker consider providing the members on the other side with-


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



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, November 10, consideration in committee of Bill C-181, to provide temporary emergency powers for the preservation of public
Public Order Act, 1970
order in Canada-Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)-Mr. Laniel in the chair.
The Deputy Chairman:: Order. The House is again in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-181, to provide temporary emergency powers for the preservation of public order in Canada. When the committee rose on Tuesday, November 10, 1970, clause 4 of the bill was under consideration.
Shall clause 4 carry?
On Clause 4-Offence and Punishment.


Mr.   De Bane@: I only wish to make a comment, Mr. Chairman.
According to yesterday's reports, representatives of various Montreal newspapers apparently met to discuss how the regulations, and particularly clause 4, should be interpreted. According to the review published in the papers and particularly in La Presse, it seems that all the information media give a different interpretation to clause 4, and particularly to subclause (c).
We know that under clause 14 of the bill under study, section 4 of the regulations is supposed to be incorporated in Bill C-181. I am glad on the one hand, but on the other hand, I am sorry to find that what I said about the vagueness and the many possible interpretations of clause 4 (c) actually turned out to be true, so much so that on the front page of yesterday's issue of La Presse, the news editor announced that he would have to reverse his opinion and interpret the act differently, since every news editor, following a general meeting, did not agree on the interpretation. Let me remind you that in the regulations, under 4 (c), you find the words "pour le compte de" while in the press release, the words are "en faveur", and finally in the act, the word is "pour".
I would now like to quote a recent judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada on the importance of the agreement between the two wordings. It is the case of Tupper vs The Queen, and in his judgment of June 26, 1967, reported in Vol. II of C.R.N.S. on page 35, Judge Hall stated:
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)

It can be argued and readily accepted that this may not happen frequently, but it can and may happen if Parliament readily intended what the section says when, without any qualification as to time or circumstance, it put the burden of proof on the person in whose possession any such item may be found.
The interpretation which the wording of the section compels should, I think, be drawn to Parliament's attention.

As for the judge who preceded him-Judge Judson, I believe-he said, and I quote:

The English version reads: "any instrument for house-breaking": the French version reads

November 13, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970

*-any instrument for house-breaking-

The French version makes the meaning clear. Both versions mean the same thing.

__it is therefore to be regretted that we were not more
specific in that clause.
Clause 4 agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 4 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 5-Idem
David Lewis: May I ask the minister a question?


Gérald Laniel: I regret, but the Chair has recognized the hon. member for Abitibi.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, I wish to move an amendment to clause 5 because, in my opinion, it is not stringent enough to cope with the present situation.
Clause 5 reads as follows:
__is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment
for a term not exceeding five years.
I move that clause 5 become clause 5 (a) and that it be followed by clause 5(b) which would read thus:
A person who, knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that another or other persons are guilty of an offence under clause 4(a), gives that other person any assistance with intent thereby to prevent, hinder or interfere with the apprehension, trial or punishment of that person for that offence is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.


Gérald Laniel: The hon. member for Abitibi moved that clause 5 should become clause 5A with the addition of clause 5B reading as follows:
5B. A person who, knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that another person or other persons are guilty of an offence under section 4A of this Act, gives that other person any assistance with intent thereby to prevent, hinder or interfere with the apprehension, trial or punishment of that person for that offence is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, the purpose of the amendment is to make it an offence for a person who knowingly gives another person-I hope I am translating the amendment correctly-any assistance with intent thereby to prevent, hinder or interfere with the apprehension, trial or punishment of that person for an offence under what is now clause 5 but which would have become clause 4(b) under the amendment earlier proposed by the hon. member and which was defeated in committee.

I want to submit to the hon. member and to the committee that there is no need for this amendment because a person described in the amendment would be an accessory after the fact, pursuant to the provisions of section 23 of the Criminal Code. I want to read that section.


Gerald William Baldwin: You are on clause 5?


John Napier Turner: Yes, the amendment to clause 5 proposed by the hon. member for Abitibi.


Gerald William Baldwin: I thought you said clause 4.


John Napier Turner: The earlier amendment, had it been passed, would have been clause 4(b), and this one is related to it.
What the hon. member is trying to do is to provide, in effect, an accessory after the fact provision which, I submit, is covered by section 23 of the Criminal Code which reads as follows:
23(1) An accessory after the fact to an offence is one who, knowing that a person has been a party to the offence, receives, comforts or assists him for the purpose of enabling him to escape.
Take that in conjunction with section 406(b) of the Criminal Code which provides that:
everyone who attempts to commit or is an accessory after the fact to the commission of an Indictable offence for which, upon conviction, an accused is liable to imprisonment for fourteen years or less, is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term that is one-half of the longest term to which a person who is guilty of that offence is liable;
Hon. members should take into consideration as well section 119 of the Code which provides that:
Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for two years.
Taking these provisions together, I submit that the bill is not improved by the amendment proposed by the hon. member, and for that reason I submit to the committee the amendment should be rejected.


Gerald William Baldwin: I would like to make a couple of comments and ask the minister a question to which he might like to reply. He raised a point which has been in my mind since I read clause 5, and that is whether or not section 119 of the Code which he quoted regarding obstruction of justice does not, in the light of the jurisprudence, cover all of the things at which clause 5 is directed. The only change is in the penalty which would be fixed at imprisonment to a term not exceeding five years, rather than to a term not exceeding two years which I think is the penalty under the Criminal Code. Looking at the wording under clause 5 quite carefully it would seem to me, from my experience and my recollection of some of the cases which have gone to the courts of appeal, that practically everything that is prohibited under clause 5 would in fact constitute the basis for a charge being laid and ultimately a conviction being secured if the evidence so provided for obstructing justice. That is the question I wanted to ask the minister.
November 13, 1970

The other question relates also to the amendment and concerns the word "assistance". The wording reads:
-gives that other person any assistance with intent thereby to prevent, hinder or interfere with the apprehension, trial or punishment-
Has the minister contemplated the extent to which this goes? I suppose it would not cover a witness who is appearing for the accused, nor, hopefully, would it cover his counsel, although one never knows. But what about somebody who provided funds to permit an accused person to sustain a defence? Such a person would, in fact, come squarely within the description of a person who gave to another person charged with an offence assistance to prevent, hinder or interfere with the punishment of that person, but not with his apprehension. I am not trying to be picayune about it, but obviously there is an attempt in this clause to refine and particularize things which in the past have been considered as offences against the obstruction clause. These are two points which have been running through my mind, and I hope that the minister, either at this time or before we have completed our discussion on clause 5, might like to answer them.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)


Gérald Laniel: Is the committee ready for the question?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I think the words in the bill are fairly clear. The gravamen of the offence is that any assistance that is given, in order to fall within the particular clause, must be given:
-with intent... to prevent, hinder or interfere with the apprehension, trial or punishment of that person-
That in no way would cover any assistance given by way of counsel at the trial. It is put in these precise terms in order that it be made part of the main body of the bill and stand with the bill.


Gerald William Baldwin: Wouldn't it cover the prevention of the punishment? I suppose it would be wide enough to cover that.


John Napier Turner: Well, yes, but prevention of the punishment would, I assume, be an attempt to liberate the accused from whatever custody he was under, and not an attempt to aid the accused in a legitimate defence to the charge.


Gerald William Baldwin: Would the minister answer the other question about whether or not these offences established by clause 5 would in fact, under other circumstances, be offences which could be punishable as infractions under section 119 of the Criminal Code because anything which is contemplated here would, under the decided cases, constitute an obstruction of justice? Isn't this provision in the bill only because the government feels there should be an increase in the penalty from two years to five years?


John Napier Turner: That is one of the principal reasons.
Public Order Act, 1970


Gérald Laniel: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Gérald Laniel: The question is on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Abitibi. All those in favour of the adoption of the amendment will please rise.
All those opposed to the amendment will please rise.
And the Second Clerk Assistant having announced the result of the vote as: Yeas, 1; nays, 53:


Gérald Laniel: I declare the amendment lost.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.


Gérald Laniel: The hon. member for Abitibi
on a point of order.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, you said, it seems to me, that the amendment did not receive one yea, but two members have risen. I do not know whether the Clerk has counted them.


Gérald Laniel: I guess this must have been a slip of the tongue on the part of the Clerk. I saw two members who voted for the amendment, and so we will change the record if it is not in order.
Amendment (Mr. Laprise) negatived: Yeas, 2; nays, 53.


Mr.   De Bane@: Mr. Chairman, I should like first to mention an error in translation. The word "trial" has been translated by "jugement" whereas in clause 7 this word has been translated by "proces". Therefore I believe that here too we should translate "trial" by "proces".
In addition, I should like to read the version which I should have suggested:
Est coupable d'un acte criminel et passible d'un emprisonne-ment de cinq ans au plus, quinconque, sachant ou ayant des motifs raisonnables de croire qu'une autre personne est coupable d'une infraction prevue par la presente loi, lui foumit une aide quelconque dans l'intention d'en empgcher, entraver ou gener ainsi l'arrestation, le proces ou le chatiment pour cette infraction.
As to the form, Mr. Chairman, I see two differences between this clause and section 23 of the Criminal Code. The first is that section 23 of the Criminal Code says "knowing" while here we have "knowing or having reasonable cause to believe".
The severity which is added to clause 5 does not seem necessary to me while the other difference seems to me essential. I think that with this clause 5 we take away both privileges provided in section 23 of the Criminal Code on behalf of the married spouses and I shall read in English both of these exceptions mentioned in the Criminal Code.

An accessory after the fact to an offence is one who, knowing that a person has been a party to the offence, receives comforts or assists him for the purpose of enabling him to escape.

November 13, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
There are two exceptions in the Criminal Code, and these are outlined in section 23(2) and (3) as follows:
No married person whose spouse has been a party to an offence is an accessory after the fact to that offence by receiving, comforting or assisting the spouse for the purpose of enabling the spouse to escape.
And:
No married woman whose husband has been a party to an offence is an accessory after the fact to that offence by receiving, comforting or assisting in his presence and by his authority any other person who has been a party to that offence for the purpose of enabling her husband or that other person to escape.

I consider inadmissible the rejection of those two exceptions, since they are based, I should say almost in their proper sense-on natural law. This amounts clearly to setting aside principles issuing from the British law. We no longer even make the distinction established by the Criminal Code in cases of murder or rape allowing the wife to receive her husband because he is part of her own flesh.
Then, the wife who will receive her husband at her home, help him escape and hide him shall be guilty. This is absolutely contrary to the basis of our criminal law according to which a wife is not obliged to give evidence against her husband. A wife is one with her husband as a husband is one with his wife.
Against our own will, with legislations of this kind designed to rid us of terrorist people attempting to destroy freedom in our country, we might ruin our society. Let us try at least not to break our families, for it is painful to think that we are reaching such a notion.
I wish also to point out-and I think I have already proved it-that this law interferes with the principle of strict responsibility, or that at least it is possible that it be interpreted in that sense.
This clause in its wording, particularly in French, could prohibit preventing a lawyer from defending his client or, for example, from taking exceptional procedures like a brief of prohibition to prevent the sentence to be passed.
But in any event, Mr. Chairman, I move one amendment only, which reads as follows: That the following words be added at the beginning of clause 5 on line 1 before the words "A person who,":
"Subject to subsections (2) and (3) of section 23 of the Criminal Code,".


Gérald Laniel: Order please. It is proposed by the hon. member for Matane to add the following words to clause 5:
"Subject to subsections (2) and (3) of section 23 of the Criminal Code,"-
-and to insert them at the beginning of the clause, on line 1, before the words:
"A person who,"-


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I rose earlier, but you recognized the hon. member for Abitibi, to ask the minister a

question precisely on the point which is dealt with by the amendment which is now before the committee. I have had a number of letters and phone calls drawing attention to the fact that clause 5 does not have the exceptions which section 23 of the Criminal Code has, so that the wife of an arrested man would be unable to feed her husband or to stay with him in her house, nor would the husband of a woman be able to do so.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
Before moving an amendment, I should like to ask the minister why this exception was left out of clause 5. Does he have any objection to the hon. member's amendment? It sounds an almost obviously sensible one in the circumstances. There is no reason why criminals in this situation or their wives should be treated differently from criminals covered by the Code generally.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, the clause certainly does not mean that the wife of an unapprehended person otherwise caught within the provisions of the bill and who continues to live with her husband, is guilty of any offence. As I said, the gravamen of the offence is that any assistance must be given "with intent thereby to prevent, hinder or interfere with the apprehension, trial or punishment..."
With regard to the point raised in section 23(2) of the Criminal Code, perhaps we can stand that over the lunch period and I will think about it.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the minister
misunderstood-


John Napier Turner: The difficulty is that the hon. member for Matane gave us no notice of the amendments he intends to bring forward.


Mr.   De Bane@: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege.
Last week, a private talk was to be arranged for me with the minister but, because of his duties in the House, the minister was not able to meet me. He was represented by high-ranking officials who have taken note of everything I said. I cannot admit what has just been said, Mr. Chairman, anymore than the accusation directed at me a few days ago for having submitted three different versions of the expression "unlawful association". I was glad to see that Hansard was in complete contradiction with the accusation made by the minister.


John Napier Turner: On the point raised by the hon. member for York South, Mr. Chairman, the intention was quite deliberately to exclude section 23(2) of the Criminal Code, because of the nature of the conspiracy we are dealing with and in order to disuade anyone from assisting in the escape of persons in this particular conspiracy of the FLQ. The clause is put in the terms that any person who gives any assistance with intent thereby to prevent, hinder or interfere with the apprehension, trial or punishment, is guilty. There is
November 13, 1970

nothing within that clause which covers the case of an accused who continues to live with his wife or the wife who continues to live with the accused. The words are quite clear, "to prevent, hinder or interfere with the apprehension, trial or punishment..."
It is because of the serious nature of this particular conspiracy that we excluded the remainder of section 23(1) and 23(2) of the Criminal Code from the bill.


David Lewis: Of course, I agree that this is a particular situation and obviously the law underlines the fact that it is a particularly evil kind of conspiracy. But, Mr. Chairman, the acts performed by the conspirators are acts which are covered in the Criminal Code.
I hope I am not misunderstood when I say this, but any kidnapping is a kidnapping no matter who the person involved may be. I am sure the minister agrees with that. Whether it is a minister of labour, a Member of Parliament, a foreign officer from another country, a man, woman or child, kidnapping is a heinous crime.
I appreciate that conspiracy is a different sort of thing. Clause 4 does not deal with the worst of the crimes such as kidnapping or murder, but deals only with such things as being a member of the organization and being a member of the conspiracy, crimes which are covered by the Criminal Code, but a person who kidnaps or murders somebody in any context is a murderer and a kidnapper.
I do not want to make a federal case out of this, but I am concerned that the wife of a person who falls under this law could be put in the almost inhuman position of being forced to hand her husband over to the police or to refuse to take him into the house. Of course, if he is trying to escape arrest, I understand that. That is the way I read the clause unless I am mistaken.


John Napier Turner: Clause 5 of the bill reads:
A person who, knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that another person is guilty of an offence under this act, gives that other person any assistance with intent thereby to prevent, hinder or interfere with the apprehension, trial or punishment of that person for that offence...
So it is only an offence under clause 4 of this bill that is covered, not an offence that may be charged under the Criminal Code. Offences such as kidnapping, murder, sedition, carrying an unlawful weapon, are offences which would be covered by section 23(2) of the Criminal Code.


David Lewis: This is precisely the point I was making, Mr. Chairman, but I must have failed to make myself clear.
What the minister is saying is that the wife of the man who kidnapped Mr. Laporte, and the man who murdered Mr. Laporte, would be able to escape the provisions of section 23(1) of the Criminal Code and give him whatever succor a wife gives in that situation. But the man who did not kidnap Mr. Laporte, did not murder him, but who is charged with an offence of being a member of an organization without being charged with any of the really criminal and evil acts, cannot be given such succor by his wife.
Public Order Act, 1970
I suggest to the minister that this is not consistent and that he and others should take a careful look at this kind of provision.


John Napier Turner: The purpose of this bill is to render inefficient and to immobilize the FLQ, and clause 4 relates to that. It is because of this exceptional problem that this exceptional measure, and the bill itself, are needed. It is for the same reason that the exclusion of section 23(2) of the Criminal Code is needed.


An hon. Member:: One o'clock.


Gérald Laniel: Is the committee ready for the
question?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Gérald Laniel: It being one o'clock, the committee will rise until two o'clock this afternoon.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2 p.m.
Gérald Laniel: Order, please. When the committee rose at one o'clock an amendment to clause 5 of Bill C-181, moved by the hon. member for Matane, was under consideration.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Gérald Laniel: Is the committee ready for the question?


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the Minister of Justice might indicate what consideration has been given to this amendment.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I have considered the matter over the lunch hour. I am just looking for my copy of the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister can have mine.


John Napier Turner: The hon. member may need his copy. Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre makes very useful contributions on legal points when his legal colleagues, the hon. members for York South and for Greenwood, are not here. At times the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has participated in legal debates with great skill


David Lewis: He is a better lawyer than those of us who are lawyers.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, as I said prior to luncheon, the purpose of the exclusion, or of the implied exclusion with respect to section 23(2) of the Criminal Code, is quite specific. The exclusion applies

November 13, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
only to offences under the bill, and primarily to offences under clause 4 of the bill. Because of the nature of the FLQ, the nature of the association and the nature of the conspiracy, because this is an exceptional bill for a limited period of time and because the purpose of the bill is to root out the FLQ, it is the considered judgment of those whose advice I have sought, and it is advice which I support, that the exclusion ought to be maintained here.
I want to make it clear that the provision does not go to the mere fact of a husband and wife living together. That is not involved at all. It must be an act to prevent or inhibit the apprehension or trial or punishment of someone accused under this bill. That would mean that it would have to be something more than mere living together as husband and wife. That situation is not caught or involved unless there is an active participation in preventing the apprehension. I have considered the point raised by the hon. member for Matane and the hon. member for York South, and in ordinary times my instincts would run the same way. However, I am now suggesting to the committee that it should turn down the amendment.

While I have the floor, Mr. Chairman, as I stated previously, I had the French text of the bill revised and confirmed on several occasions.
The hon. member for Matane stated once again that in his opinion the translation was not accurate adding that he had compared the meaning of the word "trial" with that of the word "jugement". I have inquired of the chief translator and of two other lawyers of the Quebec Bar, both French-speaking and civilists. They stated that the word "jugement" is not taken here in the restricted sense of "decision judiciaire", but rather in the general sense of the action of judging, which is moreover the first meaning of "jugement" appearing in dictionaries.
The legal dictionary of Jeraute gives to the word "jugement" the same meaning as that of the English word "trial".
The hon. member for Matane certainly knows of several usual French expressions where the word "jugement" has the same meaning as the English word "trial". One may say, for instance, "passer en jugement", "le jugement d'un accuse", "poursuivre quelqu'un en jugement".
I have at hand the two versions given in the dictionary. The French-speaking legal advisers of our department are not only members of the Quebec Bar, but also specialists of the French language.


Mr.   De Bane@: May I ask a question of the Minister of Justice? Does he not consider it desirable that, in a same act, the same word not be translated in different ways? For example, in clause 5-


Gérald Laniel: Order. I must tell the hon. member that, even if the Chair allowed the minister to clarify the word "jugement", it might be better, at this point, to make a decision with regard to the first amendment of the hon. member for Matane, this would then enable the House to vote on the second amendment of the hon. member, asking that the word "jugement" be

replaced by the word "proces". At that time, the debate could perhaps be more detailed.
So, if the hon. member for Matane wants to make a few comments, I would ask him to refer as little as possible to an amendment which will be dealt with later.


Mr.   De Bane@: Mr. Chairman, according to the hon. minister's reply I might be prepared to withdraw my amendment on the word "jugement". I wanted to ask him a question in order to expedite our proceedings and, according to his reply, I might withdraw the amendment and save the House's time.


Gérald Laniel: I will point out to the hon.
member that his amendment is not now before the House. I feel we should deal with the amendment on section 23 of the Criminal Code, after which the hon. member will be quite free to put his question to the hon. minister.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)


David Lewis: I want to say a word in reply to what the minister has said. I am fully aware that we are dealing with an unusual situation. I know the minister, and I appreciate his sincerity when he says that normally his instincts would go in the same direction as ours. What concerns us here is the morality involved in making a wife turn her husband over to the police, which is, in effect, what this means. The exception to section 23 is based upon simple human morality, simple human relationships. It is nothing extraordinary. I cannot accept the minister's explanation.
I do not see that the purpose which this bill sets out to achieve would be harmed to such an extent as to justify excluding the exceptions which are in the Criminal Code in favour of a spouse. I do not see how the purposes of the bill would be so badly hurt that we should pass an act which says, in effect, to a wife or a husband: If your spouse is being chased by the police and comes into the home you are to forget your relationship as spouse and hand him over to the police, or lock the door in his face, or refuse to give him food. This is the kind of everyday thing which is involved in what we are now discussing. If the minister could persuade me that to omit this provision embodying the humane attitude of section 23 of the Criminal Code was absolutely essential in order to achieve the purposes of the bill it would be a different story, but I cannot for the life of me see how this is the case, and so I have to support the amendment of the hon. member for Matane.


Mr. McCleave:: Like other hon. members, I have given anxious consideration to the amendment before us. There are really two considerations which have to be balanced in the scale. First, every means must be available of tracking down those involved in the FLQ conspiracy. Then, there arises an extremely valid social consideration with respect to husband and wife. Marriage is perhaps the strongest single element which contributes to society; great as the needs of the state may be, we should none the less have due regard for marriage. It is a balance of interests which is involved here, but in this instance I
November 13, 1970

vote lor marriage as opposed to the requirements of the state. I must, accordingly, support the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Matane.


Norman Augustine Cafik: I should like to ask the minister to clarify one or two points following the comments which have been made on clause 5 and the amendment. As I read the clause, I can find no obligation whatsoever upon a husband or a wife to take any direct action to turn a suspected partner over to the police. All I see in the clause is that a person can do nothing to directly help somebody evade the law, who is suspected of being guilty of an offence. If a wife who suspected her husband was a member of the FLQ continued to live with him, and to provide him with food and so on in the course of normal marital relations, I cannot see that she would be guilty of any offence under the clause. If I am wrong, I may have to reconsider my decision. I should like to hear the minister clarify this point before I make up my mind.


David Lewis: Suppose she knows the police are looking for him?


Norman Augustine Cafik: I see no obligation imposed on her by this clause to turn her husband over to the police.


David Lewis: She has to kick him out of the house.


Norman Augustine Cafik: The hon. member for York South says she has to kick her husband out of the house. That, in my personal opinion, is not the case.


Mr. Gibson:: It is a misleading statement.


Norman Augustine Cafik: I do not see why we should pursue an argument of that kind. There can be legitimate criticism of th.s clause without creating hypothetical situations which, in my view, do not apply. The Minister of Justice is surely in a position to express a better and more intelligent opinion, and I should like to know exactly what his views are in this respect so that I may be able to make an intelligent decision as a responsible Member of Parliament.


John Napier Turner: The interpretation
placed upon the clause by my hon. friend from Ontario is the interpretation which I have been given, and I think he is perfectly correct. There is nothing here which means that a wife of an unapprehended member of the FLQ who goes on living with her husband is guilty of an offence. The gravamen of the provision is that any assistance which is given must be with intent to prevent, hinder or interfere with his apprehension.


David Lewis: I do not want to go around in circles-


Norman Augustine Cafik: Then, don't.


David Lewis: If the closed minds across the way would open a little, it might do some good.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Look who's talking!


David Lewis: I do not disagree with the emphasis placed on the clause by the minister, but if a wife, for example,
Public Order Act, 1970
knows that her husband is being sought by the police yet continues to have him in the house and, maybe, lock the door at night or even during the day, with intent, if you like-I do not know just how you get into the wife's mind-to protect her husband, if she does these things knowing the police are looking for him, and the police finally get into the house and take the man prisoner, then in my submission she is subject to a charge under clause five.


Colin David Gibson: Wrong.


David Lewis: I knew the father of the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth.


Colin David Gibson: The son is a politician. He has nothing to do with it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gérald Laniel: The Chair would appreciate it if the hon. member for York South could continue his remarks.


David Lewis: Perhaps one of his hon. friends could take the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth outside and pat him on the head. I was going to say something stronger, but I decided not to, so don't pull my tongue. It is obvious to me that the meaning of the clause is the one I have attributed to it. What it also means in terms of human relationships is that the wife in such a case would certainly believe that she was guilty of an infraction of this law if she let her husband into the house, and allowed him to stay in the house instead of locking him out where the police could get him. I appreciate that we cannot give a definite interpretation of a statute here in this chamber, particularly when it has to do with criminal offences. The final interpretation will be given by the courts. We may argue back and forth, but we can never be sure of the conclusion the court will reach. One knows of judgments that have gone in the direction opposite to the interpretation put on sections by lawyers or laymen.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
The fact is that the presence of this section in the law, particularly when section 23 of the Criminal Code specifically excepts the spouse and no such exception is made here, obviously means that the spouse will be in a tough, an inhuman spot, in relation to his or her partner. It would be inhuman to do this unless one can be persuaded beyond any doubt that without such provision the law cannot do its job, and there is no evidence of that.
There are other relationships in a family. I am not suggesting that sons or daughters be excepted when the criminal law does not except them, even though they too would be in a tough spot. However, the relationship of man and wife has been recognized in the laws of every civilized nation for ages, as well as in the criminal law, and in my submission failure to recognize it in this clause has not been supported by argument.

November 13, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, I wonder why the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) does not approve straight off the amendment moved by the member for Matane (Mr. De Bane), because, according to my interpretation-and I think that many will be of my opinion-the penalty is much stiffer for the spouse of a FLQ member than for the one who did a kidnapping, or a murder after a kidnapping. In the latter case, the Minister told us, if I am not mistaken, that section 23 of the Criminal Code could intervene in favour of the spouse, while the spouse who only belongs to the FLQ, for example, could be prosecuted.
If this is not the case, Mr. Chairman, I wonder why this provision should not be included in clause 5 in order to clarify the act.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with interest to the comments made by the hon. member for York South, and I feel obligated to make known to the House that I believe what he calls questions of fact are not fact, at least in my view. I do not think clause 5 in any way requires a wife to refuse to give food, lodging and shelter or the other things I referred to earlier, to her husband. For that reason, I cannot support this amendment.
I think it is insulting to many of us to suggest that those who would vote otherwise do not recognize the intimate, close and important association between a husband and wife. Certainly, I recognize it and I am sure all hon. members do. It is a matter of judgment as to how we feel this provision applies to that relationship. There is nothing in the bill to obligate her to do any specific act that would in any way interfere with her marital responsibilities. Therefore, I oppose the amendment.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the Minister of Justice reiterate two or three times his view that this clause does not mean that the simple act of a husband or wife allowing his or her spouse to remain in the same dwelling will constitute an offence under this provision. A similar view was expressed by the hon. member for Ontario.
I should like to ask the minister what he considers the clause to mean in a situation where, for example, the husband, who may have been a member of the FLQ, has been informed that the police are carrying out a search and can be expected to arrive at his dwelling; the husband decides to leave and informs his wife where he intends to go. The authorities then arrive and she neglects or refuses to inform them of his whereabouts. Would that create an offence under clause 5, according to the minister's understanding of it?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, the operative words are "prevent, hinder or interfere".


Thomas Speakman Barnett: It is precisely because those are the words that I put that question to the minister. Would she not be preventing, hindering or interfering with the apprehension of her husband if she neglected or refused to tell the police where he had gone after leaving the house? Do not those words mean exactly that?


John Napier Turner: I do not think so, Mr. Chairman, though, as the hon. member for York South said, the courts would have to decide that. However, I do not think so and that is the advice that I have been given.


Mr.   De Bane@: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) is right when he states that this section allows a woman to allow her husband in her home. However it must be kept in mind that the privileges granted under paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 23...

These privileges are not granted in the case of crime, whether it be murder, treason or rape. They are concentrated, I would say, in the natural law. Suppose a woman helps prevent the apprehension of her husband, for example, by lending him her wig or driving him away from the house while concealed under the back seat of the family car. Under the Criminal Code married people are given certain privileges, and in this case it would be difficult to imagine how she could resist pressure brought on her for reasons other than love or pity. I suggest such a privilege would extend to all married people who helped each other, even though he or she is acting wrongly. It is a privilege based on human nature and dates back centuries.
While the minister may be right when he says that mere cohabitation of both married people in the same house does not mean the wife is trying to prevent the husband's apprehension, nevertheless if she does prevent his apprehension then, according to the Criminal Code, she is innocent, whatever the crime be. Love or pity of one spouse for another should not be tantamount to being an accomplice after the fact.
This is what I wanted to say to my friend from Ontario. Although he may be correct in his interpretation, I am really talking about preventing apprehension by a wife lending her husband her wig or driving him away in the trunk of the car. The Criminal Code grants a privilege to either husband or wife in such matters, whatever the crime, a privilege that dates back centuries. I do not think this is the time, when we are making good law to deal with the FLQ, to enact such a provision as this.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)


Norman Augustine Cafik: Let me point out to the hon. member for Matane that I sympathize with his views. I understand why he feels that in respect of this temporary public order bill, he should concern himself with those protections normally applied to a husband and wife under the Criminal Code. I feel that this particular provision we are looking at in Bill C-181 is of a temporary nature to protect the public against crimes of subversion and violence, and this affects the common good of all people. I believe the common interest of all Canadians supersedes a particular interest such as the hon. member for Matane has in mind. If this were a permanent piece of legislation,

November 13, 1970

designed in the same way as the Criminal Code, I would be inclined to support his position. In view of the temporary nature and the importance of the problem the bill is designed to resolve, I feel it is imperative that anyone aiding and abetting someone who is guilty of these criminal actions should be subject to these regulations. After all, they are designed to protect the interest and security of everyone in the nation.
For this reason, and despite my good feelings for the hon. member for Matane who I hope will respect my judgment, I find it impossible to support this amendment.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Let's vote and cut out the guff.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Gleave:: Mr. Speaker, are the members of the FLQ supermen, so that we must set aside all the ordinary considerations for human beings which the hon. member for Matane mentioned we had held for centuries? Can they do things that no ordinary criminals have ever been able to do over the years?


An hon. Member:: They did.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: They did? They did kidnap people, but this has been done before. They have murdered people, and this has been done before. Are they supermen who can make themselves invisible or do something that makes it necessary for us to set aside all human considerations? It is suggested that the measure is temporary, but if you abridge a law is it important whether you do so for six months or six years? The ordinary human considerations will be abridged for the same length of time. I think the hon. member for Matane has a point.


Mr. Peters:: I should like to ask the minister a question. An argument has been made by the hon. member for Matane and answered by the hon. member for Ontario. The Criminal Code affords this protection to a spouse, but the bill we have before us does not afford the same protection. Both hon. members feel there is some justification for this situation. Why is it not possible for the minister to move an amendment which would adopt this protection directly from the Criminal Code rather than having this exception?


Robert Jardine McCleave: He doesn't want to do it, that's why.


John Napier Turner: This bill, having the specific purpose of immobilizing the FLQ, grants certain departures from the regular provisions of the Criminal Code for a limited period of time. Among those are extended powers of arrest without warrant, detention before a charge, suspension of bail except at the instance of the attorney general of the province, search without warrant and other powers allied to this apprehending and investigatory process. These powers are unusual and extraordinary, and they are so because we are dealing with what we believe to be an extraordinary situation. I do not want to go over the debate on second reading again, but that is the reason the particular exclusion referred to in the amendment of the hon. member for Matane is made.
Public Order Act, 1970


William Arnold Peters: Am I wrong in assuming that a person who is charged under the Criminal Code for a serious offence will still have this protection, and that the protection will not apply to those charged under this act with things which are really of a relatively simple nature? Serious crimes, such as murder and kidnapping, will still come under the Criminal Code so the people charged with those offences will still have the protection but the protection will not be provided for people who are guilty of simple things, such as membership in an organization. I do not see how affording this protection to a married person would interfere at all with the purpose of the bill.


Gérald Laniel: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Gérald Laniel: All those in favour of the amendment will please rise. All those opposed will please rise.
Amendment (Mr. De Bane) negatived: Yeas, 17: nays, 39.


Gérald Laniel: I declare the amendment lost.
The Chair has a second amendment by the hon. member for Matane.


Mr.   De Bane@: Mr. Chairman, I would be ready to withdraw my amendment after asking a question of the hon. minister. Is it proper to suggest that in a bill it would be advisable to use the same words in both languages, or that the words should be translated in identical terms? For instance, the minister has given us a very good explanation which indicates that "trial" in English might mean "jugement" in French. In clause 7 we see the word "trial" used five times, whereas in the French version we see the word "proces" used five times. Is it not advisable that in the same bill the same word should be translated exactly the same, from a technical drafting point of view?


John Napier Turner: Not necessarily, Mr. Chairman. The same word in English may be used in different ways and in each way it would be translated by a different French word. Reciprocally, there are words in French which may be used in different ways and each way would require a different English word to meet that use. So, in clause 5 it may be that the word "trial" has a more substantive and global meaning than it does in clause 7 which deals with the procedure of a trial during the course of that trial. The procedure of a trial during the course of a trial is perhaps more accurately translated by the word "proces" but a reference to the trial from beginning to end is probably better translated by the word "jugement".
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


Mr.   De Bane@: I withdraw my amendment.

November 13, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970


Gérald Laniel: There is no need to withdraw the amendment because it has not been put.
Shall clause 5 carry?
Clause 5 agreed to.
On clause 6-Idem.


Mr. Broadbenl:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to move an amendment to clause 6. The amendment would strike out all the words in clause 6 beginning at the word "or" in line 16 on page 4 down to and including the word "policies" in line 20. The new wording, therefore, would read:
6. An owner, lessee, agent or superintendent of any building, room, premises or other place who knowingly permits therein any meeting of the unlawful association or of any branch, committee or members thereof, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a fine of not more than five thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to both.
If we look at the unamended wording, the argument might be the following: The first part of the clause provides that anyone who knowingly permits any meeting of the unlawful association or of any branch and so on, in the given premises will be subject to the punishment outlined at the end of the clause. This is fine because there is already established legal precedent on this matter in the Criminal Code. Anyone who knowingly permits a group of bank robbers to assemble on his premises before they set out to rob a bank is appropriately chargeable under the Criminal Code. In this amendment, I would strike out the following words:
-or any assemblage of persons who advocate or promote the unlawful acts of, or the use of the unlawful means advocated by, the unlawful association for accomplishing its aims, principles or policies


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member were right, then his amendment should be to strike out the first part of the paragraph as well. What he suggests is that an owner, lessee, agent or superintendent should not be found guilty merely for knowingly permitting a meeting. What he is saying is that the owner or lessee might not know it was an assemblage of persons who advocate or promote the unlawful acts of, or the use of the unlawful means advocated by the unlawful association. He is suggesting that the word "knowingly" does not apply to the words "to advocate or promote the unlawful acts", etc.
If that were so, the word "knowingly" in the first part would apply to "meeting" and would not apply to "unlawful association". The view has been given that the words "knowingly permit" in the first part of the clause as it now reads apply to any meeting of the unlawful association. There would have to be knowledge of the

November 13, 1970

meeting and knowledge that it was a meeting of the unlawful association.
In the same way, in the second part which the hon. member seeks to strike out the knowledge would have to apply not only to the existence of the assemblage of persons but to the fact that they advocated or promoted the unlawful acts of, or the use of the unlawful means advocated by the unlawful association.
I am suggesting that both those sections in the clause are necessary for the same reason, namely that there is an offence specifically in clause 4(d) to cover those who advocate or promote the unlawful acts of, or the use of the unlawful means advocated by the unlawful association for accomplishing its aims, principles or policies, and for the reason that the definition in clause 3 not only includes Le Front de Liberation du Quebec but also any group of persons or associations that advocate the use of force or the commission of crime as a means of or as an aid in accomplishing the same purpose. The reason is that the bill has as its purpose not only the apprehension of the membership of the FLQ but any successor organization or any organization advocating the same purposes and means, because it is obvious that the FLQ might not have a membership list or a corporate charter with objects and purposes.
If the hon. member's amendment were to succeed and it became impossible for the prosecution to prove that there was membership of the FLQ on the premises occupied or rented by the owner or lessee, then of course the purpose of the bill could be bypassed. So it is not only a meeting of the members of the FLQ but an assemblage of any number of people having the same purpose and advocating the same means as the FLQ that is unlawful under this bill. The word "means" is important. It is found in clauses 3 and 4(d) and throughout the bill because it is clear that the purpose of the bill is not to apprehend those who do not advocate the use of force or crime as a means of effecting governmental change. The words "for accomplishing its aims or principles and policies", and "the unlawful acts and unlawful means" have to be referred again to clause 3 which reads "or any group of persons or association that advocates the use of force or the commission of crime as a means of or as an aid in accomplishing the same or substantially the same governmental change within Canada as that advocated by the said Le Front de Liberation du Quebec".
The purposes and aims are quite clearly recited again in the preamble in the words "who advocate the use of force or the commission of crime as a means of or as an aid in accomplishing governmental change". Attempting to accomplish governmental change by peaceful methods or by the ballot box is not covered by the bill. So the concern that the hon. member has about free discussion is shared by me, but we are not trying to prohibit free discussion that seeks peaceful governmental change, if that is the purpose. We are trying to cover discussion which prompts seditious governmental change, that is, by use of crime, violence or force. I think that is clear throughout the bill. So the purpose of the words that the hon. member seeks to strike out is to complement the definition in clause 3 and the specific offence in clause
Public Order Act, 1970
4(d). If one were to leave out those words, the bill would be weaker as a result.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, apart from anything else, if one were to accept the argument of the Minister of Justice at its face value, the words which my colleague has proposed to delete from clause 6 are redundant. If one looks at the interpretation clause 2(d) one sees that it reads:
(d) "the unlawful association" means the group of persons or association declared by this Act to be an unlawful association.
Clause 3 is the clause that declares what is an unlawful association and, as the minister quite properly indicated, it includes other than the particular group or organization currently known as the FLQ.
The clause, as amended, clearly retains within it the use of the phrase "any meeting of the unlawful association or any branch, committee or members thereof". In my submission, because of the prior definition in the bill of what the unlawful association is, all of the circumstances which the minister is arguing should be covered by the bill are clearly covered in the clause as amended by my colleague.
However, what some of us are concerned about is that when you add this redundancy to this clause and you start talking about "any assemblage of persons who advocate or promote" etc., you are moving beyond the definition in the bill of what is an unlawful association which, in my view, is certainly broad enough now for the minister's purposes. You are laying open to an offence any person who permits an assemblage of persons who may meet for discussion purposes, who may be roused by some individuals in that group who are in effect advocating certain actions, and who may decide to take a vote on whether or not certain means of effecting change in our society are or are not necessary. If that happens, presuming it is established that the agent or owner was present at that meeting and did not immediately call the police to eject that assembly of persons from his presence, you are laying open that person to a charge of an offence under the act.
These are the things we are concerned about, that this Provision not extend into what I would describe as the grey areas where people exercise the kind of freedom of speech to which we have been accustomed in this country. I can remember some very eloquent speeches made at meetings back in the 1930's under the auspices of the Communist party. It is true that the Communist party at that time had not been declared to be an unlawful association, but certainly some of the speeches that were made moved the audience in a direction that went beyond what the minister calls "the use of the ballot box". Those things happen.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
We suggest that this clause as drafted is unnecessarily broad and that the question of what constitutes an unlawful association is quite clearly laid down in the bill from the point of view that the minister has outlined. The clause is open to an interpretation whereby anyone

November 13, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
who happened to own premises or a hall and rented them could be charged. It is conceivable that university authorities could be charged because a meeting took place in a classroom where a group of young people were discussing the whole gamut of how to bring about social change. This may seem far-fetched, but sometimes things get out of hand. I am sure that if the minister considers the matter carefully he will realize that without this phrase the clause is broad enough to cover the circumstances he wants to deal with through the bill.


Mr.   De Bane@: Mr. Chairman, I do not agree with the hon. member's amendment. The first part of clause 6 prohibits meetings of the FLQ, and the second part prohibits meetings of people guilty of the offence described in clause 4(d). The first part of clause 6 refers in fact to clause 4(a), and the second part to clause 4(d). Therefore, the rationale of the amendment is not good. No illegal association has ever published a restricted list of its illegal acts. Clause 2(d) defines "unlawful association" as an association declared by the act to be unlawful, and clause 4(d) refers to "unlawful acts".


John Edward Broadbent: If I may reply to the last speaker first, I point out that clause 4(d) talks about the person who commits the act. It reads:
A person who advocates or promotes the unlawful acts of, or the use of the unlawful means...is guilty of an indictable offence-
If you look at clause 6, what we have in it, as I tried to suggest in the first part of my argument, is the very real possibility of charging a man who knowingly not only leases premises to an organization that he is aware is illegal-I am in agreement with that-but who also knowingly leases his premises to an assemblage of people who, in turn, in the course of their meeting may do something that contravenes the law. The man has no control over that. A comparison with clause 4(d) breaks down on that ground. The Minister of Justice referred to the first part of the clause which reads:
-who knowingly permits therein any meeting of the unlawful association or of any branch, committee or members thereof-
That same "knowingly" carries down to the part of the clause that I want to exclude so that he would only be punished if he knew the assemblage was going to advocate criminal activity. At present the clause does not say that. The unamended clause might be used for harassment of people who may be discussing ideas, whether of the FLQ or some other separatist variety. With the portion deleted which is mentioned in the amendment, the police could still deal very effectively with known branches of the FLQ. We should avoid anything in the law that might lead to harassment of free discussion. If the clause is not amended, that is exactly what we will be doing-providing potential for harassment of free discussion.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the Minister of Justice is not likely to accept any changes in the bill except those that he himself may propose. However, we intend to try to persuade him and the committee to make the changes we think are important. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby and the hon. member for Comox-Alberni said many things that I would have said, so I will not repeat them. I can probably agree with the minister, also being a lawyer of some sort, that the word "knowingly"-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Which one is
the "lawyer of some sort"?


David Lewis: to the American constitution have drawn a very important distinction between advocating the use of force in the abstract, as a theory, and inciting the use of force, that is, getting people to go out and use force.


John Napier Turner: Except that to advocate can amount to inciting.


David Lewis: I will admit that, Mr. Chairman, obviously, but then it may not amount to incitement. What it means is to prohibit an assembly of persons discussing theories about the use of force. In this case it may be discussing theories about the use of force in connection with certain governmental change. I happen to disagree with governmental change; I oppose separatism; I believe that the means used by the FLQ are inhuman, criminal means for which they ought to be apprehended and broken up as an organization. All that is true. But I have been present at university groups and groups composed of organizations of poor people and have heard them discuss their frustrations at the prospect of getting anything done through normal channels. As a citizen believing in peaceful methods, it is my duty to attempt to persuade them that any other method can only lead to trouble. To prohibit discussion, though, is a different thing.
I have here a report from the Montreal bureau of the Globe and Mail of October 30, 1970, which states:
Quebec's university rectors complained yesterday that "the vague and ambiguous nature of the wartime emergency regulations have stifled academic freedom.
If my memory is correct, clause 6 of this bill is almost word for word the same as section 6 of the regulations; the only difference is that the regulation under the War Measures Act talked about "promoting," etc. The effect of the wording is exactly the same. The War Measures Act talked about "promoting" and this bill talks about "ad-vocatmg or promoting", which is worse. The rectors of the university are also reported as follows:
The conference said section 6 of the regulations passed by the federal cabinet on October 9-
I suppose that should be October 16.
-places all universities in a very difficult position.
Under this section, a principal could be liable to five years imprisonment or a $5,000 fine for having knowingly allowed the use of a university hall for "any group of people who supported-
In this case it would be for any assembly of persons who advocate or promote, etc. It is the same thing but a little broader than the regulations under the War Measures Act. The report goes on:
*-this regulation opens the way for "guilt by association" and interferes with academic freedom. In a letter to Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and Premier Robert Bourassa, the conference stated:
"You will recognize that, in the normal course of university life, groups of students or professors may endorse social, economic or political positions which by coincidence may resemble certain ideological views of the FLQ.
We do not believe that it is in the public interest to expose these citizens, or the universities where they meet, to legal sanctions."
Public Order Act, 1970
The university heads said section 6 is so ambiguous that it forced the University of Quebec to close its Montreal campus to 7,000 students for a week because Rector Leo Dorais feared he would be prosecuted in the wake of a sit-in at his office by a handful of radical students supporting the FLQ. (The sit-in collapsed after the murder of Pierre Laporte on October 17.)
The university rectors are already aware of and disturbed by this provision. They are fearful of interference with our academic freedoms, and this fear is justified. I repeat, Mr. Chairman, it is difficult for legislators to interpret the precise wording of a section. The interpretation will eventually be made by the courts in relation to a certain set of facts. We have no precise facts and therefore cannot interpret this law. It seems to me, therefore, that we have a duty to avoid going beyond those means which are necessary and essential to achieve the purpose of breaking up the FLQ. There is no reason under the sun why this bill should abridge freedom of discussion and expression of views.
I had hoped that the minister would see this point. If he does not like the particular amendment that has been moved, perhaps he could come forward with a better one to remove the fears ind'cated by the rectors of universities in Quebec. We would have been quite happy for him to introduce another amendment, but he seems determined to keep the language exactly as it is. Perhaps he will show the same determination on every amendment proposed by members of the House on either side.
We shall continue to move them in order to show what the law should be if it were properly organized for the purposes it is intended to serve. We shall see whether the minister can be moved to accept some of them. I hope the minister will change his mind and be prepared to accept at least the ideas which we have presented and will come forward with amendments of his own. Of course, if he does not, there is nothing we can do about it.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Minister of Justice a question as a result of the remarks of the hon. member for York South. He indicated that clause 6 would prohibit academic discussion as to whether force could at any time be legitimately used or any type of similar objective. I am of the opinion, having read clause 6, that there is no such prohibition. According to my interpretation, the only prohibition is the advocacy or promotion of force for the achievement of political objectives. Certainly, this does not prohibit academic discussion with respect to the use of force. I cannot see anything in the clause that would constitute such a prohibition. I ask the minister if he would in a moment comment on that matter.
The second point is this. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby seemed to feel that this clause might be dangerous to members of the Parti Quebecois in the sense that any meeting might well become involved in discussing the use of force or advocating it. I do not think there is very much in common between the purposes of the Parti Quebecois and the means and purposes advocated by the FLQ. Frankly, I think it is an insult to the democratic organization of the Parti Quebecois to suggest that they

November 13, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
would be holding meetings along lines that are prohibited by clause 6.
I cannot see why we should be fearful of this clause. I do not think it constitutes an abrogation of academic freedom in any way. I cannot agree with anyone in this chamber who wants to protect those who knowingly permit an assemblage of persons to advocate or promote unlawful acts against the state. I feel that when society is endangered, as at present, we must take adequate steps to protect it. I believe that clause 6 is one of those necessary steps. Before I sit down I would ask the minister to answer the question I asked as to whether there is a loss of academic freedom involved in this clause.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Chairman, I will not go over all those arguments that have been raised, arguments with which I do not think the hon. member for Ontario dealt. I wish to make an important correction. I do not wish to imply in any way that the actions of the Parti Quebecois have anything to do with the FLQ. Their only aim in common seems to be their commitment to an independent Quebec. My point was that precisely because of this common ground there may be real danger of the democratic Parti Quebecois being harassed as a result of this clause, simply because some of its ideas in certain respects correspond with some of those of the FLQ. Their ideas correspond in certain respects, just as the ideas of all parties in this House correspond in certain respects.
A discussion of the question of separatism might be just enough to bring about abuses by the wrong kind of policemen. That, really, is what we must be concerned about. The law, when it is framed, must take cognizance of the fact that the wrong kind of policemen may act. I am not suggesting that all policemen are bad policemen, but we must consider what would happen if they were overzealous. For instance, they might apply the same arresting powers, initially, to an assemblage of the Parti Quebecois as they could legitimately apply to the FLQ or an association of the FLQ. That, precisely, is the major point of the amendment.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I should like to add a word or two to what has been said by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. The point that may be of concern to us, since the question of the FLQ and the Parti Quebecois has arisen, is that clause 6 deals with the question of owner, lessee, agent or superintendent of premises. Some of us have very vivid recollections of situations in which we tried to rent the only hall in a community. In that situation, because owners of certain premises at one period in the history of this country equated the CCF with the Communist Party, it became impossible for some of us to rent premises in communities for the purpose of holding public meetings to discuss public issues.
This is the kind of unnecessary restriction upon the freedom of democratic discussion in this country that some of us are concerned about, partly because we have had personal experience of how this can happen. We do not want to see this bill become a vehicle whereby freedom of discussion of the kind in which the Parti
Quebecois is engaged in the province of Quebec is restricted and suppressed. This is the very practical concern of some of us, especially because of the manner in which this clause is worded. It has to do with those people who have in their hands the right to rent or refuse to rent premises for public assemblies.


Mr. Gilbert:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. He is going to answer the hon. member for Ontario and I have a question on this clause. I think we all agree that any owner, lessee, agent or superintendent who would rent to an illegal association knowingly would be guilty of an offence. Also, any owner, etc., who would rent to an assemblage of persons some of whom wish to advocate the violent overthrow of the government or who have similar ideals, would be guilty of an offence.
However, the question that arises in my mind and to which I ask the minister to direct his mind is this. Let us suppose an owner or lessee does not know that the assemblage of persons to whom he is renting is going to advocate force, and so on. Does that impose upon him the duty to attend and supervise these meetings and, if he finds out subsequently, as opposed to prior knowledge, that some of the members advocated the overthrow of the government by force, of telling them to get out? Does he have to stop the meeting and call the police?
If that is to be the effect of the clause, it certainly imposes a tremendous restriction upon people renting premises. And not only that. It would mean they would have to supervise every meeting in order to see that none of these things happened. It would certainly, as the hon. member for York South said, impose tremendous restrictions upon universities and all political parties, most of which advocate the democratic process in order to bring about change. I have directed my question to the minister and I should like him to consider it.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I am supported in my view that the word "knowingly" applies not only to the word "premises" but also to "unlawful association" in the first part of the clause, and to the words "assemblage" and "promote the unlawful acts of", etc., in the second part. I am supported by the hon. member for York South in that view.


John Gilbert: That is prior knowledge, then?


John Napier Turner: That is my answer to the question.


John Gilbert: Mr. Chairman, with respect, the Minister of Justice answered the first part of my question about prior knowledge but he has not answered the second part about subsequent knowledge. Once a man has rented premises, does the clause put upon him the duty of supervising the meeting to determine whether certain members of the assemblage are going to advocate the overthrow of the government by violence? If he happens to overhear such conversation, must he inform the police,

November 13, 1970

or must he tell these people to get out? Otherwise he is liable to be charged under this clause.


David Lewis: That is a good point.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I cannot be placed in the position of trying to give a legal opinion on a whole range of facts. I think these will be for the courts to determine. I think it is clear from the way the words are written that "intentionally" means at the time permission was given.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


John Edward Broadbent: The minister suggested the hon.
member for York South agreed with him that "knowingly" applied to the second part of the clause. I mention this because my hon. friend was not listening at the time. As I recall it, he said that in his legal view the minister's interpretation might be the correct one. This is an important point. If the minister is not clear about it, it should be clarified.


Gerald William Baldwin: I was interested in the minister's reply to the hon. member for Broadview. Is it the hon. gentleman's view, as presented by his legal advisers, that the word "knowingly" must add to the usual importance of the principle of mens rea, proving beyond reasonable doubt, and does it apply to every ingredient of the offence? In other words, is it to be construed not only in conjunction with permitting but with the knowledge of a person charged as to the nature and character of the assembly and what the motives and intentions of the assembly were?


John Napier Turner: That is the advice I am given, Mr. Chairman, and that is my view.
Amendment (Mr. Broadbent) negatived: Yeas, 9; nays, 47.


The Chairman:: I declare the amendment lost. Shall clause 6 carry?


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, I should like to move an amendment to clause 6, because in my opinion it is not stringent enough towards criminals.
Those who engage in terrorist activities, whether they be members of the FLQ or other criminals, should be liable to more severe penalties. If the government managed to fight inflation with as much success as it manages to be soft with criminals, the people would have cause for satisfaction.
But as regards clause 6, Mr. Chairman, I think that the act is not stringent enough in the cases we are concerned about. Therefore, I move:
That clause 6 be amended by replacing, in line 22, the words "five thousand dollars" by "twenty-five thousand dollars" and in line 24 the word "five" by the word "fourteen".


Russell Clayton Honey: I will ask the Clerk Assistant to read the amendment.
Public Order Act, 1970

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


Gérard Laprise: that clause 6 be amended by replacing in line 22, the words "five thousand dollars" by "twenty-five thousand dollars" and in line 24, the word "five" by the word "fourteen".


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, a few days ago, when the hon. member moved various amendments in order to change the amount of the fines and the terms of imprisonment, I pointed out to him that fines and terms of imprisonment in this bill must agree with those provided in the Criminal Code in respect of kidnapping, murder or mutilation. That is why I suggested to the committee to reject the other amendment of the hon. member. Once again I must urge the committee to reject the principle of this amendment.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Laprise) negatived: Yeas, 2; nays, 58.


Russell Clayton Honey: I declare the amendment lost. Shall clause 6 carry?


Robert Jardine McCleave: I simply want to draw the attention of the committee and, through Hansard, the attention of the country to the fact that we have spent approximately 40 minutes on this one clause, and yet the only useful exchange, the one which dealt with the essence of the whole matter, was the one between the Minister of Justice and my hon. friend from Peace River.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Russell Clayton Honey: Order. The hon. member should not reflect upon the time taken in debate or upon the vote of the committee.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I shall not reflect upon the time taken up by debate, but upon the type of arguments which have been used, arguments which have been advanced over and over again-


Russell Clayton Honey: Order. Clause 6 is still before the committee. If the hon. member wishes to relate his remarks to the clause, he may do so; otherwise he is not in order.


Mr.   De Bane@: I hope, Mr. Chairman, that my comments have some bearing on clause 6. There are three things I want to discuss in connection with this clause.
In the first instance, there are translation errors-secondly, there is a possibility of ambiguity, and, thirdly' the matter of strict or objective responsibility.

November 13, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
With respect to the translation errors, I do not know whether the phrase "agent of any room" means anything in English, but I know perfectly well that in French the Phrase "Regisseur d'une piece" has none, or at the least, is a very unusual expression. Also, the words "building superintendent" in North American translate into "concierge" and not into "surintendant". Webster's Third International Dictionary gives this definition of a "superintendent": the person who "is responsible for the cleaning and maintenance of a building".
About the possibility of ambiguity, the wording of this clause is bad, because while allowing a meeting of members of the unlawful association", this includes necessarily a meeting of the association', of a branch or a committee of said association, while, in my opinion, the wording should be "meeting of members", without adding the words "of the association or any branch, committee".
Then, the second group of persons covered by clause 6 is described from line 24 to line 30 inclusively. I wanted, without proposing an amendment, to suggest a version which seems to me simpler and especially, much more efficient. I must also say that it is much harsher, but this is justified by the temporary character of this act.
Furthermore, the clause, as written, seems to forbid two different things.
First of all, the first part of the clause forbids, without taking into consideration its objectives, any meeting of the members of the unlawful association, while the second part forbids any meeting of any group of persons who advocate or promote the unlawful acts of an unlawful association for accomplishing its aims, principles or policies.
The clause would have been acceptable had the expression "unlawful acts" been used. But by using "the unlawful acts" we see how impossible it is to prove that they are unlawful. Finally, I quote the Kipling case, of the Ontario court of appeal, in connection with Section 221 (2) which deals with leaving the site of an accident, in which the following terms were to be interpreted:
Every one who, having the control of a vehicle that is involved in an accident with a person, vehicle or cattle in charge of a person, with intent to escape-
The court reached the conclusion that the expression "in charge of a person" applied not to the vehicle but to the cattle.
I think the version I suggest, without moving it as a formal amendment, is clearer and solves a lot of problems.
Finally, considering the concept of strict, absolute or objective responsibility, the following words should be added after "knowingly permits": "without lawful justification or excuse the onus of which lies upon him".
I shall give the example of the owner of premises who would knowingly allow a physician or a political scientist to gather members of an unlawful association for an interview for scientific purposes.
We must finally realize that the clause stands out mostly because it provides for a maximum sentence that,

off-hand at least, is greater than the one prescribed under clause 4(g) for someone who really makes use of violence.
Finally, let us note that, by the combined effect of clause 4 of this bill and section 21 and following of the Criminal Code, this clause seems unnecessary.
I should like just to suggest, without moving it formally, the following version of clause 6:
Is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a fine of not more than $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to both, any person who is the owner or the lessee of any building, room, premises or other place, or who acts in a responsible or supervisory capacity with regard to them, and who knowingly permits without lawful justification or excuse, the onus of which lies upon him, any meeting of the persons who have violated or who violate the provisions of subclauses (a) to (g) in clause 4 of this act.
I hope that when the promised legislation is drafted in a few months' time these suggestions will be taken into consideration.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Russell Clayton Honey: Shall clause 6 carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Clause 6 agreed to.
On clause 7-Detention.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Chairman, prominent law officers from the department and outside have called the attention of the minister upon certain anomalies contained in the French version of clause 7 which would make it a little difficult to understand this clause in view of the double negative. Furthermore, with regard to the English version, mention has been made of some difficulty, for instance, in understanding the meaning of the first paragraph which reads as follows:

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-

On account of those two negatives, the minister is prepared to move an amendment, if the House agrees. I have here both the French and English versions of the amendment. Copies of the amendment have already been distributed in the House so that hon. members can get acquainted with it.
With the agreement of the committee, I am ready to move this amendment concerning Bill C-181.
I move that lines 25 to 37 on page 4 and lines 1 to 6 on page 5 be deleted and replaced by the following:
7. (1) Without prejudice to subsection (2), a person charged with an offence under section 4 shall be detained in custody without bail pending his trial.
November 13, 1970

(2)	A person shall not be detained in custody under subsection (1)
(a)	after the seventh day following his arrest or, if he was arrested before the coming into force of this act, after the seventh day following that date, unless, before expiry of the seven days, the Attorney General of the province in which the person is in custody has filed with the clerk of the superior court of criminal jurisdiction in the province a certificate under this section stating that just cause exists for the detention of that person pending his trial, or
(b)	after a certificate issued under this section in respect of that person has been revoked, or the Attorney General of the province in which that person is in custody has otherwise consented to the release of that person on bail.
(3)	Where a person who has been charged with an-
Public Order Act, 1970
exclusion from the Canadian Bill of Rights, leaving the suspension of bail in the hands of the Attorney General. In other words, since bail must be granted under the Canadian Bill of Rights when just cause is apparent, the words "just cause" are repeated here to illustrate that the Attorney General has to say there is just cause for refusal.
The specific answer, then, to the hon. member's question is that the Attorney General will not have to state what the cause is; he will just state that in his opinion just cause exists. The words are inserted to make it clear that this is one of the exceptions to the application of the Bill of Rights.
tEnglish]


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the minister to clarify one aspect not only of this amendment but of the original clause. I should like to ask a question with respect to the certificate that is to be given by the Attorney General. The certificate would state that just cause existed for the detention of a person, and this would be the reason for detaining that person for up to seven days.
Can the minister indicate whether it is intended that the certificate will state what is the just cause, or will it simply state, "In the opinion of I, Jerome Choquette"-or whoever it may be-"there is just cause for the continued detention of," so-and-so? If this is the case, I would be rather apprehensive about it because I must say, with all due respect, that some of the statements attributed to the Attorney General of Quebec indicate it would be dangerous to leave in the hands of an attorney general, particularly the one I have instanced, the right simply to sign a certificate stating there is just cause.
Is it intended that more than this bald statement would be included in the certificate? Is there to be any reason given beyond the Attorney General saying there is just cause? If there is-and what we say here is not binding upon any court-I assume it is the view of the government and the view, I hope, of hon. members of the committee that the Attorneys General be so advised.


Gerald William Baldwin: Does the minister feel there should be a reason stated as to just cause? I understand the point the minister has made in respect of bringing in this provision as it affects the Bill of Rights, but is it the view of the minister that the "just cause" should be particularized? I am not suggesting it be given in great detail but perhaps some indication should be given. That is the point the minister might consider.


John Napier Turner: Here again, the Attorney General of the province is the chief law enforcement officer and his responsibility in the exercise of his discretion is to the legislature and the people. He will have to substantiate this, but I would prefer to leave it in his discretion.


Gerald William Baldwin: His "just cause" and yours might be different.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You could say that about anything.


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


David Lewis: I just want to understand that we are merely voting on the alternative wording which the Parliamentary Secretary has moved and that this does not settle the discussion on clause 7.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for Peace River compares clause 7(2) with the regulations under the War Measures Act, he will see why the words "just cause" have been inserted. The regulation provides:
A person arrested for an offence under section 4 shall be detained in custody without bail pending trial unless the Attorney General of the province in which the person is being detained consents to the release of that person on bail.
In other words, it was at the discretion of the Attorney General to withhold or to grant bail. It was taken away from the court. The same thing obtains here. The discretion is left in the hands of the Attorney General. The reason the words "just cause" were added is to make clear that since we have the Bill of Rights, and since the words "bail shall be granted on just cause" appear, we have to use the same words to make that particular


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on the amendment now before the committee. Shall the amendment carry?
Amendment (Mr. Bechard) agreed to.


John Gilbert: November 13, 1970
Public Order Act, 1970
In reconsidering my amendment, Mr. Chairman, I realize we would also have to strike out all the words in subclause 2. So that the Minister of Justice and his Parliamentary Secretary, as well as hon. members, are clear, we are striking out the words in subclause 1 after the words "pending his trial" and also all the words in subclause 2. I think that gives the meaning of the amendment.


Russell Clayton Honey: Just so the Chair is clear, is the hon. member for Broadview amending the amendment that is now before the House by striking out all the words in subclause 2 of clause 7?


John Gilbert: Yes, Mr. Chairman, together with the words I have mentioned in subclause 1.


Russell Clayton Honey: I wonder if the hon. member would send his amendment to the Chair in writing. The Chair has an amendment in writing to subclause 1 and I understand that the hon. member also seeks to amend clause 7 by striking out subclause 2.


John Gilbert: You are right, Mr. Chairman.


Russell Clayton Honey: Perhaps the hon. member would give the Chair a note to the effect that subclause 2 is to be deleted. We would then be complying with the rules.


John Gilbert: I will send it to the Chair in a moment. Prior to the passing of the regulations under the War Measures Act and the introduction of Bill C-181 it could be said without hesitation that the Minister of Justice was one of the most progressive reformers we have had in the House of Commons. When I think of the great work he did in respect of the official languages bill and the omnibus bill amending the Criminal Code, I realize he demonstrated an attitude of conciliation and flexibility.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. Before the committee rises, perhaps the Chair should put the amendment moved by the hon. member for Broadview. Does the committee agree that the amendment that has been placed before the committee be further amended by adding that subclause 2 of clause 7 of Bill C-181 be deleted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Russell Clayton Honey: The amendment now before the committee is in the following form:
That clause 7(1) be amended by striking out all the words in the said clause after the words "pending his trial" in the third line thereof so that the subclause will read:
"a person charged with an offence under section 4 shall be detained in custody without bail pending his trial unless an order for his release on bail is made by a court having jurisdiction under the Criminal Code"; and
That subclause 2 be deleted.
It being four 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.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, might I be allowed to ask at this time what the business of the House will be on Monday? Having in mind that we have made rapid progress and appear to have dealt with one clause of this bill, I should like to know whether the government can give any indication of its intentions in regard to the business for Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday of next week.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Monday of which week, Mr. Speaker? The intention is that on Monday and Tuesday of next week, if necessary, we will continue with this particular bill. It would also be the intention, subject to discussion, to have the shirt surtax motion considered at an appropriate time and, as the next item following that, the bill in respect of statutory instruments.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question of the acting House leader arising out of his reference to the statutory instruments bill? This motion in part provides that there be a committee of the House to deal with the matter. Is it the intention of the government to bring in at the same time a motion in respect of the establishing of that committee, since obviously it would save time if we debated the two matters together rather than separately.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have not been in touch with that question during the last several weeks. I would have to inquire of my colleague, the President of the Privy Council, in this regard. I would hope to be able to make that matter clear before we proceed with the bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, public bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On Friday, October 30, 1970, when the order for the consideration of Bill C-7, to amend the Canadian Commercial Corporation Act, was called, a point of order was raised by the Chair to the effect that the bill contained a money provision. Following consultation with the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) and other hon. members, it was thought desirable that some consideration might be given by a Standing Committee to the principle set forth in Bill C-7 and 37 other bills standing in the hon. member's name.
In order to meet that request it has been suggested that by unanimous consent of the House the financial provisions be struck from the several bills and that their
November 13, 1970

subject matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. If the House is willing to accept that proposal, I shall put the question. Is it agreed that I put the question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is agreed that the hon. member for Cochrane shall have leave of the House to delete the financial provisions from the 38 bills standing on the Order Paper in his name and, by consent, to propose that the subject matter of those bills as amended stands referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections?


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there will be unanimous agreement. However, I must say that while I appreciate the value of sending these particular bills to a committee, just as many excellent bills and motions have been introduced by hon. members on this side of the House. There must be an understanding that the full potential of the talent and knowledge which lies on this side of the House must be utilized, and that bills prepared by this party and by my friends to the left will also be considered. I hope in this regard there will be that degree of consultation which, when it takes place, makes this House move so smoothly and efficiently.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to agree to the suggestion made from the Chair, namely, that these 38 bills have the necessary correction made to them and that the subject matter thereof be referred to the Standing Committee that has been indicated. I join the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) in the sentiments he has expressed. It seems to me that if we are prepared to send 38 bills which are improperly drawn to a committee, we ought to be prepared to send to a committee some of our bills which have been properly drawn.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to the proposal which the Chair has put?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In fulfilment of that order of the House, the bills affected will be removed from the Order Paper. The bills to be amended and the subject matter thereof to be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections are as follows: C-7, C-10, C-ll C-17, C-18, C-29, C-31, C-35, C-37, C-43, C-48, C-57, C-58! C-60, C-74, C-78, C-79, C-80, C-81, C-84, C-89, C-91, C-92, C-98, C-114, C-116, C-119, C-122, C-123, C-126, C-142, C-145, C-147, C-152, C-153, C-154, C-160 and C-164.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections of Bill C-12, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (qualifications of electors and candidates) -Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Disclosure of Government Information
Mr. Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like to suggest that this bill be removed from the Order Paper. It was placed there in error, having been debated during the last session and the Canada Elections Act having been changed accordingly. Therefore, the motion no longer has any meaning.
I should like to express my appreciation to the Chair for arriving at a solution regarding the bills standing in my name. I also express my appreciation to the House for agreeing to send them to the committee.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Cochrane has requested that the bill referred to be dropped from the Order Paper. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and bill withdrawn.



GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey) moved: that Bill C-15, to better assure the public's rights to freedom of access to public documents and information about government administration (administrative disclosure), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is the third time this bill has come up during recent years. I am hopeful that the third time will be lucky not only so far as the bill is concerned but also so far as the public is concerned. In brief, as outlined in the explanatory note, this bill is in aid of the public's right to know in what manner a government is administering the public duties entrusted and delegated to it by the people: save for exceptions that are in the public interest, the bill enacts Bentham's basic parliamentary rule that public affairs must be conducted publicly. The bill would seek to do that-I quote from clause 1-by requiring the following:
Every administrative or ministerial commission, power and authority shall make its records and information concerning its doings available to any person at his request in reasonable manner and time.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
There would be certain exceptions to that principle: those records affecting national security, those affecting or concerning matters that are exempted from disclosure by statute, those concerning trade secrets, commercial and financial matters of a privileged or confidential nature obtained from private persons and, finally, those that concern any private matter of private interest to the degree that the right to personal privacy excludes the public interest.
The measure puts into words, which I hope will some day become law, the basic parliamentary democratic principle that public affairs must be conducted publicly. It seems to me rather incongruous that according to
1164

November 13, 1970
Disclosure of Government Information recent public information figures, close to $150 million a year is being expended on circulating the type of information which the government wants placed in the hands of the public.
Many motions are put on the Order Paper of the House by private members representing many thousands of Canadians, calling in vain for the production of the type of information which the government from time to time denies and which the public wants. I would point out in passing that we have established a new agency called Information Canada, and in my opinion this new agency is about to add to the cost or circulating what is basically pro-federal government information by setting up a considerable number of information centres across Canada.
I wonder if instead of placing this additional cost on the taxpayers of establishing new information centres for the public, thought should not be given to integrating Information Canada centres with those already long established, that is, the public libraries in Canada. Considerable expenditure could be reduced, and efficiency improved, by adding a desk or two and a telephone to existing public libraries in order to meet additional services provided to the public by Information Canada.
A great deal has been published over recent years on the general subject of the public right to know and to obtain information in the possession of the government and its agencies. I would quote one article on that subject from the Toronto Globe and Mail. It is an editorial written in support of the bill that I am putting forward. I think it was written about two years ago when the bill was up for discussion the second time. I think the situation has not changed since the editorial was written. It reads in part as follows:
One bad side effect of the prodigious growth of government in this century is that it has become exceedingly difficult to keep track of. Not only are governments themselves much more deeply and widely involved in the life of the people, but their tasks have become so numerous that they have had to delegate much of their authority to boards and commissions. Accompanying this governmental growth has been a disinclination on the part of governments and their creatures to keep the public informed about what they are doing.
A private bill-
That is the bill we are now going to discuss
-has been presented to the House of Commons which could do much to open these many closed doors and keep the public informed about what is, after all, its own business.
The editorial goes on to quote what I have already read from the bill in regard to its aims and restrictions. I have no wish to take up the time of the House unnecessarily by further speaking on this measure. I believe that the general principle of the bill, which is simply that the public should have better and quicker access to public information at the federal level, has a considerable measure of support among all parties in the House. I hope that as we earlier agreed to send other bills to a committee, we will consider sending the subject matter of this proposal to an appropriate committee for detailed consideration. If so, I think the most appropriate would be the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
If the subject matter of the bill becomes law, the enforcing agency should be the Exchequer Court, which is now the new Federal Court of Canada. I think that urging that action be taken on this proposal is pretty well in line with the sentiments expressed by government leaders, by opposition members and by the press in different sections of the community.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I will say just a few words in support of the motion to send this bill to a committee. I hope that before five o'clock has arrived the leaders of the government side, having in mind the very generous disposition we have already made of the bills of the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart), will think of this as being the first opportunity-I think I can say this, not being a member of the party of the hon. member for Surrey (Mr. Mather)-and an excellent example with which to start that form of reciprocity which we need here.
First I want to comment on what the hon. member for Surrey said about Information Canada, because it seems to me that if we are to get this form of freedom to information, the right of the public to know, we have to establish it firmly and decisively before Information Canada reaches its full growth. It is now pretty young in terms of years but it is assuming rather gargantuan and very alarming proportions.
I was told during the course of a discussion within the last two days that all the problems which Members of Parliament are having in securing replies to written questions on the Order Paper will soon pass because it will be possible to secure within 24 hours answers from Information Canada to any questions. I was told that this information came from a very reliable authority, directly from Information Canada. This is the kind of Frankenstein which we may well be building here.
This means that if the kind of freedom that we need for the public of Canada, in respect of information which the government has, is not secured in the form of this bill or other proposals before Information Canada reaches its full growth, it will be too late because we will be in a situation where there will be an orchestration of information, and ministerial and departmental discretion as to what information is made availabe. We will then be in a lot of trouble. There will then be a form of despotism which now exists with regard to other matters of information. The right to know is the basis of any democratic process. Without that knowledge being available to the public and the members of this House, where are we?
I have some very strong authorities for my view. I am very sorry to see the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) has left. However, his Parliamentary Secretary is here. I quote the words of the Minister of Justice, which I do not often do. The Parliamentary Secretary may pass this information on to the minister. On September 2, 1969, the Minister of Justice made a speech on twin freedoms-the right to privacy and the right to know, both of which

November 13, 1970

freedoms are getting quite a battering in the discussion of Bill C-181. Here is what the minister said in part:
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Government secrecy.. .may well be a denial of the public right to know. If individual privacy is a foundation of democracy, the citizen's right to know is fundamental to any participatory democracy. The public cannot be expected to dialogue meaningfully-still less decide-if it is refused the very information which would make such a dialogue and decisionmaking possible.
I have a feeling that the Minister of Justice might find it a little more difficult to go out and make that sort of speech today and be believed. We had another eminent authority, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) before he succumbed to public life and when he was still all for participatory democracy, freedom of information, fieedom of gatherings, and held strong views about civil liberties which he cherished so much. He made a statement on this subject a number of years ago. I do not know the exact number of years, but it appeared in that famous Montreal periodical Cite Libre. He took a very strong stand on the need for true and complete information. At that time he was dealing only with Quebec politics. He had not been saturated with Canadian national politics. He had not made that mental adjustment which he seems to have made so forcefully, that 180 degrees about-face in his thinking.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: I suggest to hon. members that it is much better to approach a subject of this kind with an open mind rather than an open mouth. I ask hon. members on the other side to fall silent and listen with open worship and admiration to these comments of their great leader. This is what he said:
Democratic progress requires the ready availability of true and complete information.


Mr. McBride:: That is why we set up Information Canada.


Gerald William Baldwin: I hate to interrupt the right hon. Prime Minister when he is speaking in this House, and I even hate to interrupt his thoughts when reading them on paper. But if the right hon. gentleman's idea of freedom of information is envisaged as Information Canada, he has a long way to travel.


Colin David Gibson: Would the hon. member permit a
question?


Gerald William Baldwin: May I please finish what your great and noble leader said? Perhaps when I have quoted him the hon. member may have lost the need to ask his question. Again I quote:
Democratic progress requires the ready availability of true and complete information. In this way, the people can objectively evaluate their government's policies.
23568-3i
Disclosure of Government Information
I am sorry I have to laugh, Mr. Speaker. Here is the final paragraph in that quotation:
To act otherwise is to give way to despotic secrecy.
Now, if the hon. gentleman has a question I am quite prepared to listen to it.


Colin David Gibson: Do you not think that setting up Information Canada and going slowly with it-not rushing in with a great big, fast, hastily organized pattern-so that all departments can integrate into the plan is a better way of doing it, rather than rushing into a hastily ill-conceived plan?


Gerald William Baldwin: I would agree. I would never want to accuse the government of rushing into anything.


Colin David Gibson: What about the War Measures Act?


Gerald William Baldwin: The approach of the Prime Minister and of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) does not indicate that they are rushing with any degree of dispatch to deal with problems of unemployment. I suppose that is an assumption, but I say to the hon. member who asked me the question that certainly it is susceptible to that interpretation. But knowing the government, how it operates, its disposition to autocracy and secrecy, its refusal to give this House and the people of Canada the facts to which they are entitled, does not lead me to have confidence that its intentions with regard to Information Canada are strictly honourable. I have this feeling about it and I hope I am wrong. I would love to be able to stand up here a year from now and say how wrong I was, but that is one thing I know I will not have to say.


Colin David Gibson: Open your mind.


Gerald William Baldwin: We have enjoyed these interruptions Mr Speaker. I have enjoyed them, but they were not 'very knowledgeable. The best alternative to knowledge is to keep quiet, listen and learn. The problem is present. To a great many people in Canada, Parliament and the processes of democracy are becoming increasingly irrevelant. The movement to violence is really the ultimate in that particular aspect of human relationship.
Iam very serious when I say that the people of Canada and those of many other democratic countries are beginning to despair that they will ever secure from a combination of the democratic process and their system of government the type of needful reforms which are essential so they can say that progress is being made, that it may not be coming as fast as they would like but they are prepared to do their thing within the four corners of the democratic process. However, Mr. Speaker, that is not happening. I do not accept the view that progress is not being made with these things democratically However, there is great justification for the feeling of many people in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom that we are not doing the things we should do and that people are not being told the facts they should
November 13, 1970

Disclosure of Government Information be told. They have a desperate urge to find out what the facts are and then to see what might be done about them. In that sense the views expressed by the hon. member for Surrey have my complete support.
I am not going to take much more time, Mr. Speaker. This is a large subject: I would like at some time to introduce a bill or private member's notice of motion dealing with it. Looking at hon. members opposite, I am sure they agree that there is a need to explore this subject. I am sure they would not disagree with me if I said to them that surely there must be many occasions when in their view the type of information, the extent of the information and the manner in which it has been made available has been unsatisfactory. Surely they have talked about this to members of the press whose duty it is to find out what the facts are and to report them efficiently and effectively.
I would say that in private conversation with hon. members opposite none of them would disagree with my assessment of the situation with respect to trying to secure information from the government and government departments. It is part of the process that government departments become large monoliths. Administrators are not evil or corrupt men, but there is a tendency to hide mistakes, to cover up errors that are made. There is a tendency to try to put the best face forward in any matter which has been the subject of government intervention. They are simply being human beings when they act in that way. But it is our job, on behalf of the people of Canada, to press the government for more information.
We are not getting all the information we require. I think there should be such a declaration by the House in the form of acceptance of this bill. The subject matter of the bill should be sent to a committee. Surely hon members opposite agree that it would be a very useful exercise to have a committee formed to study this whole aspect of public information. Some years ago the United States passed what was called the freedom of information bill. That bill has had some effect, but I have talked to friends of mine in the United States Senate and Congress and they say substantial changes will have to be made to it. I have talked to members of the press over there who agree with this. There is some movement in the United Kingdom to improve matters in this respect. They have made slight progress there. But this country, this government has done nothing.
that pressure is put upon the government to make it available. Their comments would seem to indicate that they are quite happy with the present situation. If that is their view, we can expect that the government is not inclined to go along with the changes we want.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I would therefore suggest, Mr. Speaker, that hon. members ponder, reflect and review their thinking. Failure to take action at this time to compel the government to make available facts and information which are required, within reasonable limits, will bring about a further deterioration of the limited democracy we now enjoy.


Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia-Lambion):: Mr. Speaker, there is not much time left so I shall not spend too long on this bill. I was somewhat surprised at the comments of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) about backbenchers failing to get information. When Liberal backbenchers want information they go to the source. Sometimes it can be secured merely by picking up the telephone. The information can then be passed back to the constituent in the riding. This method does not get much publicity but it does not cost as much to get it that way as it does by putting it on the Order Paper.
It was demonstrated in the question period today that Liberal backbenchers take second place to no one-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: -in the calibre and quality of questions asked to get the kind of information that people in Canada want.


Gerald William Baldwin: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I would prefer the hon. member to listen. I had expected to be speaking today on the Sir John A. Macdonald Day bill.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in no way had I intended to challenge the calibre and nature of the questioning. It is the calibre and nature of the answers that has always worried me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Colin David Gibson: What about Information Canada?


Gerald William Baldwin: Nonsense. There is one other aspect about the matter, Mr. Speaker, and that is that if we decide to send the hon. member's bill to committee, we ought to have a bill with teeth in it. In the United States there is a provision that anyone who seeks information and is not granted it has the right of access to a court. However, I am told this is highly unsatisfactory and it is something that we would have to look into here.
After listening to the comments of backbenchers on the other side, I am not too hopeful, but surely they have a vested interest in acquiring this information and seeing


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I do not think that Liberal backbenchers can be blamed for that. Back in the lobby after the question period I did not hear any complaints from them about the quality of the answers they received. I am afraid the fact is that opposition members do not listen to the answers. The hon. member who introduced Bill C-15 stated that this is the third time he has brought it forward. It seems to me that having lost out on two former occasions he should not quit, although he seems to follow eighteenth or nineteenth century motto, "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again." I would suggest, instead, that if at first you don't succeed, try another method.
November 13, 1970

I suspect that the two bills already rejected by this House contained the same wording as the bill before us today. I read the bill from a somewhat jaundiced point of view. I wish the hon. member had consulted an attorney about the manner in which it should be drawn. If he had done this it would probably have been suggested that he scrap the bill and incorporate the explanatory note which makes more sense and, I think, says what the hon. member wished to say. This being a bilingual country, I would say:

This bill is in aid of the public's right to know in what manner a government is administering the public duties entrusted and delegated to it by the people: save for exceptions that are in the public interest, the bill enacts Bentham's basic parliamentary Rule that public affairs must be conducted publicly.

I think that clearly says what the hon. member intended. As I read the bill, it seems to say that this is an act to better assure the public's right to freedom of access to public documents and information about government administration. If I may paraphrase, clause 1 of the bill says that the government shall make its records and information concerning its doings available to any person, at his request, in a reasonable manner and time. If the hon. member had stopped there, the bill might have been all right. As one who practised criminal law, I know that when we look at the Criminal Code we always try to find defences in the section itself before we get to the facts: we always go to the legislation first. So when I look at clause 2, the exceptions mentioned by the hon. member take away any teeth in clause 1. Not only do we have one exception, but he has in effect four exceptions to that which he is suggesting in clause 1. One could almost take judicial notice of the first exception:
(a) affecting national security;
The second exception is:
(b)	concerning matters that are exempted by statute from disclosure;
This could surely be achieved by statutory legislation. The next exception is:
(c)	concerning trade secrets, and commercial or financial matters of a privileged or confidential nature, obtained from private persons;
Clause 2 (d) is even more all-powerful in defeating clause 1, because it says:
(d)	concerning any matter of private interest to the degree that the right to personal privacy excludes the public interest.
Mr. Speaker, armed with that piece of legislation, if an officer of the Crown could not bring himself within clause 2(a) (b) or (c) in response to a request for information, he could surely argue that under clause 2 (d) he has hardly to reveal any information to an individual.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I hope it is a question about the Sir John A. Macdonald bill. I am better prepared for that.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, has the hon. member noted that the bill under discussion in regard to which he has enumerated these four exceptions, makes no reference to
Disclosure of Government Information any exception in the area sometimes referred to in this House as the prerogative of the Crown to withhold information at their discretion? It seems to me that the hon. member is losing sight of the distinction between private persons and the public person represented by the Crown.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I had almost eight years of training at university and law school and 12 years of practice in the law, and I think I recognize the distinction. The hon. member has pointed out the weakness that occurs in clause 2(d). Ministers of the Crown have the intelligence to decide what is and what is not in the public interest. The hon. member has a point, but I think clause 2(d) defeats the purpose of the bill. Without it the bill might have been a better piece of legislation. It might have been able to bring forth from the cabinet the kind of information that the hon. member is seeking to have disclosed.
For that reason I would have to vote against the bill, Mr. Speaker, primarily because it is not consistent. I do not think it is particularly well drawn and, as I said, the explanatory note covers the ground much better. Certainly clause 1 covers the ground much better, without the addition of clause 2. This one is typical of some of the bills that are presented by the opposition. It seems to be saying that we ought to be doing something which in fact is being done. The information that members want is available. It is available through the oral question period, through written questions on the Order Paper and through notices of motions for the production of papers. I think I am right in saying that there are at least 154 requests for information on the Order Paper.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Members have access to ministers. These men are not hidden in ivory towers. Ministers are accessible and I have never found it difficult to obtain answers. Sometimes hon. members are confused because the answer is no and does not agree with their point of view. Perhaps that is why this legislation has been brought forward, because it tends to indicate to the public that something suspicious is taking place, which of course is not the case. The explanatory note and clause 1 have merit. However, I shall be forced to vote against the measure, primarily because clause 2 takes away from the bill whatever merit it may have contained.


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member resumes his seat, may I ask him a question? I believe I am right in thinking that he favours the principle of the bill but he has difficulty with its details. If that is the case, does he not favour sending the subject matter of the bill to a committee, say the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, where he and others could improve it?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the principle of the bill, but I do not think the bill is even necessary. It seems to me that we have access to information now. Surely clause 2 (a), (b), (c) and (d) add nothing to the circumstances that now exist. If you want information, it is available, with the exception of the matters set out by the hon. member in clause 2 of the bill.

November 13, 1970
Disclosure of Government Information


Mr. James Hugh Faulkner (Parliamentary Secrelary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member lor Sarnia (Mr. Cullen), I came here primarily prepared to discuss the merits or demerits of Sir John A. Macdonald Day. I think it demonstrates the tremendous flexibility hon. members on this side of the House possess, that changes in the matters to be discussed as listed on the Order Paper do not interfere with the speeches we make.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Hugh Faulkner: Our interest in Sir John A. Macdonald demonstrates the rather non-partisan approach that we have taken to politics on this side of the House.
I was interested in the comments of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and the hon. member for Surrey (Mr. Mather). It seems to me that where I would essentially disagree with the hon. member for Peace River is that his concern is almost exclusively a concern for more information or greater access to information for Members of Parliament. It seems to me that we are a very small group, and that if there is a problem in this area, and I think there is, it is not a problem of any magnitude or seriousness. The problem really is a matter of access to information at the general public's level. In so far as I can understand the purport of this bill-I share the view of the hon. member for Sarnia-I think the explanatory note is probably the clearest part because it seems to attempt to deal with this particular problem.
Even if we accept this as being something that we can usefully do in this House, that is, make information more generally available to the public, it does not go far enough. The greatest improvement regarding the general problem of public participation in public affairs can best be brought about by providing enough information to enable intelligent participation on the part of the public. If that is to take place, far more radical changes than this bill offers will have to take place, and far more radical developments will have to be undertaken involving public financing of experimental organizations for citizen groups. When that happens and we get the response, when there are citizens groups so formed, with the federal government involved in financing some of these projects, we shall see the true measure of concern shared by this House with regard to meaningful participation by citizens of our country in the political process.


John Mercer Reid: Pure hogwash.


James Hugh Faulkner: The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) says it is hogwash.


Gerald William Baldwin: He took the words out of my mouth.


James Hugh Faulkner: Probably that is the finest contribution the hon. member has made for a long time in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Hugh Faulkner: I contend that if before now citizens groups have not developed in Kenora-Rainy River, after hearing the hon. member's remark they will.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Mercer Reid: More hogwash.


James Hugh Faulkner: At least the hon. member is consistent. The traditional pattern in this country and in almost all other countries has been that the electoral system has sort of thrown up a group of individuals through the electoral process who, somehow, feel themselves charged with governing this country but really, without reference except in a most cursory and superficial way, to the public at large. These individuals operate with the technocrats who have made their way through the public service through the various examination processes and, together, as a sort of elite operation things are run. That is going to change.


John Mercer Reid: We do not do it very well.


James Hugh Faulkner: The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River who is making a speech by way of asides now has added that we do not do it very well. I disagree. In terms of making this concept operate, we have been successful. The problem with the system is that it does not involve the public in a meaningful way in the decision-making process. I will deal with that matter. This bill is inadequate in that way as well as being inadequate in ways in which hon. members have discussed. Its inadequacies lie in the fact that it does not deal with this fundamental problem. It does not go far enough.
There is, first of all, the right to know. I think Information Canada, despite the rather cynical reception it has been given by the opposition, is an important step in the right direction and no doubt will make a contribution and constitute an improvement.


Gerald William Baldwin: It is not a step in the right direction; it is a plunge.


James Hugh Faulkner: I submit it is an important step in the right direction. I am prepared to watch it carefully, because I think everyone on this side of the House will agree that it is the type of operation which can be open to abuse.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Hugh Faulkner: Yet I think the concept is right. I do not know how many hon. members have been to see the new offices on Slater Street. Information facilities are available there, and what is being attempted is a constructive and positive step in providing the public with information so that the public can intelligently respond to the political problems confronting it. A characteristic of
November 13, 1970

politics in this country in the past has been the reluctance to involve the public in an open, frank and full way in the problems and with the information which we have.


Gerald William Baldwin: The hon. member must not forget to use the word "fruitful".


James Hugh Faulkner: It has been suggested to me that governments in the past-I am not being critical of this government because it, as well as the government headed by former Prime Minister Pearson, have gone a long way toward improving this situation-have not gone far enough in this area. Certainly, we have brought about improvements to involve the public and I think this is an important development in the democratic process. Yet in some ways the democratic process, which we have been talking about and which we have extolled in our schools and universities has been somewhat fraudulent. It has been a representative system which has had certain democratic features to it. But, really, fundamental democratic features have not been present- democratic features which involve the public at large.
I am talking of the public working in a meaningful way to supplement the activities of Members of Parliament. Therefore, I say that the right to know is basic, but the bill does not go far enough. Whether we like it or not
and I like it-we are moving into a situation wherein the right of access to decision-making is a right which the public at large will expect to have. We want to develop the machinery, if you like, to accomplish this end.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
To its credit, this government through a variety of programs administered by the Department of National Health and Welfare, the Secretary of State and the Department of Manpower and Immigration, has been involved in this field by helping to finance the formation of citizens groups. These groups have challenged the representatives of the people at provincial, municipal and federal levels. These confrontations have at times been tough; they have called into question the priorities, the competence and the sincerity of those who were publicly elected. Nevertheless, this protest is a form of therapy which in my view is tremendously healthy for our country.
As I see it, the government will become increasingly involved in financing citizens groups of this type-whether tenants groups, or welfare groups does not matter; I have in mind groups of citizens formed to advance their particular interests. The institutions we presently have are totally inadequate to accommodate this kind of movement. Senator Croll has called attention to these developments in the course of recent comments and we now have to address ourselves to the question; What should be the relationship between the representative system to which we are accustomed and these extraparliamentary groups? If we stand always as protagonists, as those to whom these people must constantly address themselves
Disclosure of Government Information as adversaries, the representative system will suffer. But if we can find a way of accommodating citizens groups-I do not mean "conning" them, but accommodating them- certain benefits are bound to follow.
The right of participation is a right in itself in a true democracy, but beyond this citizen participation has its own merits; it provides a check against technocratic decisions arrived at by elected representatives in conjunction with civil servants of university backgrounds who can in no way deeply understand or respond to the problems the citizens of this country generally face. In addition, the whole process of participation does in itself provide a sense of worth which citizens otherwise would not feel because they sense themselves to be alienated from the democratic process; only on rare occasions do they put anything into it at all. We should project the principle of involvement to a point at which all citizens, however humble, have a real involvement in decision-making, this would make the system more truly democratic than it is at present and help develop a sense of community in the country as a whole, which at present is lacking.


Thomas Miller Bell: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question, as one who is interested in this subject and who has just come from a luncheon in which one speaker representing the department tried to explain Information Canada? Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us whether he honestly believes that in this new type of response to government publications, for example, by newspapers across Canada, the government will give the same publicity to views which are unfavourable as it will to views which are favourable?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am surprised the hon. member should have any doubts on that score at all.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: He has not.


James Hugh Faulkner: I personally have none whatever.


Thomas Miller Bell: I will check a year from now.


Murray Arndell McBride: Mr. Speaker, since we have only a minute or two left I shall quickly put one or two thoughts on record and then defer in case hon. members wish to bring this bill to a vote. The hon. member for Surrey (Mr. Mather) is a consistent gentleman; he keeps coming back with the same bill. I had intended to comment on the first part of the measure, but my hon. friend from Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) has already covered that ground so well that I will now refrain from doing so.
The hon. member for Surrey told us he had been singularly unsuccessful on the two previous occasions on which he had presented this legislation. He has now brought it back on Friday the 13th, an inauspicious date which cannot be a particularly favourable omen. He is a

November 13, 1970
Disclosure of Government Information
brave man and should be congratulated tor fearlessly tempting fate in this way. I think I must put on record one quotation by a famous Canadian who is now a professor at Harvard. He is a graduate from the same institution as that from which I hold a degree. Even the hon. member sitting across the way has one.


An hon. Member:: Well, who is he?


Murray Arndell McBride: The man is Mr. Galbraith. He said: "Consistency is what freezes us to our error." Perhaps
this could be interpreted in such a way as to apply to the hon. member for Surrey, and perhaps he ought to try another move as recommended to him by my hon. friend from Sarnia-Lambton.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hour provided for Private Members' business has now expired. It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday afternoon at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, November 16, 1970