1971-05-19

THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received which is as follows:
Ottawa, May 19, 1971
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Gerald Fauteux, F.C., Chief Justice of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 19th of May, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant, Louis-Fremont Trudeau Brigadier General
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, in the two official languages-Mr. Leblanc (Laurier).
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
[Stage Direction]
On the order: Motions.
Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, I thought the Minister of Labour had a statement to make and was going to rise.


Mr. Mackasey:: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for welcoming me back to the House. I was fishing for a few moments.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, last week when we were discussing the unemployment figures for the month of April I promised to make a statement on motions pertaining to the possibility of extending seasonal benefits. First, in discussing this matter, I think I should emphasize that seasonal benefits
are available under the Unemployment Insurance Act for the period between December 1 and May 15 and are payable to those who have a very minimal attachment to the labour force but are unable to qualify for regular benefits. Eligibility is based on much less rigid qualifying conditions but is not limited to those who work in seasonal occupations. In this context it must be emphasized that the basic purpose of unemployment insurance is to provide benefits for relatively short-term periods of unemployment. Under both the present program and the new program, a maximum duration of 51 or 52 weeks is considered the right period of time, with an average duration per claim of about 14 weeks.
The case for extending seasonal benefits could possibly rest on two points: First, the relatively higher unemployment rate for this time of year and hence the relatively greater difficulty of finding work; second, the assumption that people whose benefits terminate at the end of the seasonal benefit period will automatically begin drawing welfare. By this reasoning, the assumption is made that the 200,000 claimants whose benefits terminated on May 15 require a continuation of financial assistance and that the simplest method of assistance would be to extend the benefits for further periods of time.
With regard to the case against extension, while the extension of seasonal benefits appears to be a relatively automatic and simple type of adjustment, I would like to explain the reasons why it did not appear to the government that we should take this measure at this time.
Although the level of unemployment for this time of year is higher than in past years and higher than had been anticipated for the month of April, I would like to emphasize that the number of people drawing seasonal benefits is not correspondingly higher this year than the number who were drawing seasonal benefits in former years at this particular time of the year. I might add that the number of people drawing seasonal benefits on May 15 last year was 180,000 as opposed to 200,000 this year and 160,000 in 1969.
Of these estimated 200,000 claimants who were drawing seasonal benefits at the end of April, there would be approximately 40,000 in the fishing industry and 12,000 in agriculture. These industries can be identified separately because of the distinct contribution system for them, but in addition it is known that there are many tens of thousands of people in forestry, water transportation and other industries whose period of unemployment could reasonably be expected to end at this time.
Studies carried out by the commission of the recipients of seasonal benefits have indicated that more than 60 per cent of such claimants are back at work at or about the

May 19, 1971
Unemployment Insurance
time that seasonal benefits terminate. These studies have also shown that there is another large group of claimants who have, for all intents and purposes, left the labour force voluntarily and in some cases have been on prolonged claims for periods of up to 70 weeks. Included in this group would be those who have left the labour force because of age, retirement or occupations in the home.
It has also been observed in the studies mentioned earlier that seasonal benefits in certain occupations and regions have come to influence the pattern of work where recalls by employers and the return to work by employees are made to coincide with the end of the seasonal benefits period.
There is no evidence that persons exhausting seasonal benefits necessarily go on welfare. We have analysed figures over a number of years of the numbers of unemployed employables on welfare in certain cities and there is no significant indication that welfare rolls increase significantly as a result of the termination of seasonal benefits, or conversely that welfare rolls decline on December 1 with the start of seasonal benefits. Indeed, it is generally accepted that the increase in welfare beneficiaries during the past few years has come mainly from that part of the population not now covered by unemployment insurance or unable to qualify under the present rules.
All these considerations point to the fact that the extension of seasonal benefits would have the tendency of providing an automatic benefit to a substantial number of people who may in fact no longer be members of the labour force. On the other hand, it would not in any way change the situation for those who cannot qualify for unemployment insurance benefits under the present rules.
To conclude, the cost of extending benefits even for a period of let us say six weeks ending June 27 would be between $35 million and $45 million. The government believes that because of the difficulty of clearly determining those among recipients of seasonal benefits who would deserve assistance, this would not be the best way of spending such a large sum of money.
The white paper on unemployment insurance and Bill C-229 both propose that the solution to the problem of people who do not qualify for regular benefits rests primarily on lower eligibility conditions and a method of extension of benefits which reflects the economic conditions at national and regional levels. We feel so strongly about these features that we are proposing to abolish the present method of paying seasonal benefits. This has been endorsed almost unanimously by all those who have expressed views on the white paper and on Bill C-229. Because these will be in effect very soon, I believe that the extension of seasonal benefits at this stage under the circumstances I have just explained would not be desirable at this time.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) quite properly asked for some added information in the form of a breakdown of the characteristics of the 348,000 Canadians reported out of work for more than four months as of mid-April. It is a detailed answer, Mr. Speaker. I have

sent a copy of it on to the hon. gentleman, but based upon the findings that we have been able to come up with it would appear that approximately 300,000 of these
348,000	people who have been unemployed for 14 weeks or more are drawing or were drawing unemployment insurance at the time the latest statistics became available.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, the long awaited no-statement has suddenly been produced by the minister. We on this side sit here in utter disbelief and indignation when we hear the minister say that in his judgment, because of a cost of some $35 million or $40 million, it is not feasible for the government to become involved with the seasonal workers, this at a time when the government judges it satisfactory to spend some $58 million on behalf of students seeking employment. It seems to me that the judgment of the government has to be questioned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I listened to the minister in utter disbelief. It appears to me that his role is to be the nice guy. His role as minister is to palliate, while the role of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is to throw red herrings into important discussions similar to this one. When thousands have been unemployed for so long that they have lost all their benefits, and the cities are being crippled by welfare payments, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) will not bring in any extension of benefits for seasonal workers, which in effect would reduce the tension and lack of confidence that are permeating our entire society.
With six weeks to go to the target date for implementation of the new Unemployment Insurance Act the minister has suddenly been gripped by the urgency of the plight of the unemployed. But apparently his only concern about them is to attempt to mitigate or explain away their situation. He has not given us a statement of purpose, a statement that would indicate to the unemployed that something is going to be done. Rather, he has given a statement indicating that he is going to bring in some relief to alleviate the situation on July 1.
The minister and the government have become so smug and snug that they have lost touch with the frustrations and despair that go along with being out of work for any length of time or with being out of work-period. The Minister of Labour leaves the impression that he is above it all. The minister wants the country to believe that he is the conscience of the Liberal party, of Pearson, King and St. Laurent, and that his job is to be the humane flank for an inhumane government. I suppose that is why he had the audacity to make this statement today, or maybe he would like to leave the impression that he does not know what is going on in the government.
Let me remind the minister and the government that as a result of the government's fiscal and monetary policies it has left the people of the country with a lack of confidence in the economy which has deprived us of $2
May 19, 1971

billion in the last year and 200,000 jobs. That is a shameful record, to say the very least. The deliberate waste of our human resources which stems from archaic and questionable fiscal and monetary policies is just short of criminal. The government's policy in effect is really to remove employables from gainful employment and prevent others from being gainfully employed, directing all of them to the welfare rolls. To me that is a platform for chaos, disunity, misery and despair. Hellyer and Kierans are the only two who are responsible, and I would say-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I should remind the hon. member that when he refers to other hon. members he should as much as possible refer to their constituencies. There is no reason why the two members he has referred to should not be designated by reference to their constituencies.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry for my lack of understanding, but let us say that the two ministers who recently resigned questioned not only the leadership of the government but also the economic policies which have exposed the disastrous course of the government. They have stated, and this is the way I read it: Stop looking at the man and look at his government, his policies and their effect on the nation. It seems to me that this government feels so snug with its majority that it has become smug and has simply lost touch with how desperate and tense a life it is for the thousands of jobless.
As I said before, the ministers' job is to be the humane flank for an inhumane government. I believe his position is an illusory, deceitful and fruitless posture and his own actions and his participation in this cabinet have made this pretence a rather morbid national joke.
Where was the Minister of Labour when the cities pleaded for assistance to help their unemployed? Where was the Minister of Labour when the provinces requested emergency assistance beyond the inflexible and inadequate Canada Assistance Plan? Where was the minister when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) persisted with indifferent, slow growth policies all winter? We on this side of the House know. He has been and remains at the centre of the problem. He is part and parcel of this whole devious scheme.
We have pleaded with the minister month in and month out to take it upon himself to bring in easier access and higher benefits in order that some confidence may be regained and so that there will be a psychological effect on the country. The minister has refused. While talking about universality and standing up proud and strong against the teachers, he has ignored the plight of tens of thousands of long-term unemployed young people who have been without work and unemployment insure ance benefits all winter. Instead of providing an answer for them-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member. I know how important the matter is to which
Unemployment Insurance
the hon. member is referring but he appreciates, I am sure, the limitations placed on comments made by hon. members when speaking on behalf of opposition parties in reference to ministerial statements. The Standing Order states that an hon. member shall comment briefly on the statement made by the minister. I have said often and I repeat that it is very difficult for the Chair to determine what is brief and what is not. Hon. members have to be guided to some extent by their own concept of brevity, but I would invite the hon. member to come to the conclusion of his statement.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When the minister presents a statement such as this, a "know-nothing" statement, it gives the opposition the right to bring home to the government and to the Canadian people just what the circumstances are. However, I shall bow to the wishes of the Chair, and rightly so. In conclusion I should like to say that it is time for the Minister of Labour and the government to come clean.


Some hon. Members:: Resign!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: He should accept our position that the first step toward providing lasting and adequate assistance for the poor, the unemployed and students is to get the economy back to full growth and full employment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Edward Broadbenl (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, we have heard a smug statement from a minister reflecting the thinking of a smug cabinet which has lost completely its touch and its concern for the average person in this country. The average person in this country, whether he happens to be working or not and many are not right now, is concerned about the very high level of unemployment that exists, because all of us are affected directly or indirectly.
Given the pious expressions which have come from this minister in the past one would have hoped that he would find reasons and a method to extend the seasonal benefits. He did not come before us today as he did the other day and suggest that there was no possibility of extending benefits within the present legislation because apparently he found that there is that legal possibility and he could have acted had he so desired. Instead, he presented to us a loosely connected batch of arguments that do not hold water.
First of all, he suggested that the number of people drawing seasonal benefits is no higher than at this time of the year in the past. Second, he said that a number of farmers, fishermen and others who are seasonally unemployed would be going back to work soon. I should like to remind the minister that one of his obligations is to check statistics rather carefully. If he does he will find that, compared with this time last year, there is now an increase of 30 per cent in the numbers of those drawing seasonal benefits. The figure has gone from 172,000 to some 223,000 which is, I repeat, a 30 per cent increase. It is not a constant figure.

May 19, 1971
Unemployment Insurance
Furthermore, when the minister says that a number of those people will soon be going back to work, I suggest that he look at the speeches made recently in this House, one yesterday by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) and one last week by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang). In those speeches those ministers pointed out that because of the exceptional winter we have faced, because of the prolonged cold and so on we are perhaps at least one month behind in catching up with the normal seasonal increase in the numbers of employed. That, it seems to me, provides within the context of government arguments good reason for extending seasonal benefits. Two responsible ministers in the cabinet have said that this country is lagging behind as a result in part of a severe winter. That is what seasonal benefits are all about. If there is a lag, why then does the government not extend seasonal benefits?
The third argument that the minister trotted out for us to consider is that normally those who go off seasonal benefits do not go on the welfare roles. He referred to a study which shows this. I suggest that the government is under the minimum obligation of tabling in the House that study which documents that purported fact. It may be the case that in the past a number of those who went off seasonal benefits did not go on welfare. That may have been true when only 130,000 people were involved. Nevertheless, if 200,000 people are now getting such benefits and are cut off, I suggest to the government that it is an elementary step of logic to expect that a very large percentage of them will find themselves on the welfare rolls across the country. So much for the third argument, Mr. Speaker. I use the word "argument" in a flattering sense, because I do not think what the minister actually presented amounted to arguments.
This government has produced the highest level of unemployment in this country in a decade and is now obligated to do something about it. We heard the Minister of Finance yesterday say effectively that he will not change his course of action. I, for one, had hoped that the Minister of Labour, who of all men ought to be concerned about the average people in this country, would come before the House, acknowledge the facts about the seasonal situation we have gone through in the past winter, a situation that was acknowledged by two other cabinet ministers, and extend seasonal benefits. But no, he has not done that. He has joined the Minister of Finance and his other smug colleagues and is sitting this very serious problem out on the front benches of the government. I suggest that if the minister is concerned about the average person in this country, he ought to follow the two hon. members who were recently cabinet ministers and become a backbencher in the Liberal party.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: 
Bryce Stuart Mackasey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I will gladly apologize to the Social Credit party if I did not send them a copy of my statement in the French language. However, I suggest that the hon. member check with his leader-and who knows who it is in that party- and report back before the question period ends on whether we delivered to him an advance copy of my statement in French. If it was in English, I apologize. If it was in French, I hope the hon. member will do the same.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.
I would suggest to the minister that in the future he should make at least one French copy available to us in this House if he cannot hand it over to us before.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York South.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for York South has the floor.



PRICES AND INCOMES COMMISSION


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I would like to seek unanimous consent of the House to move a motion. My motion arises out of a continuing series of statements by the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission to the effect that inflation remains Canada's number one economic enemy in spite of clear evidence that anti-inflationary policies have contributed to the present unemployment crisis. Because Dr. Young's statements are doing great harm to economic recovery, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the present chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission be dismissed forthwith and that, if the commission is to be retained as a government agency, its functions be redefined to prevent its chairman from being a propagandist and apologist for disastrous policies.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion presented by the hon. member for York South. The motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Questions


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity and the motion cannot be put.


Mr. Woolliams:: Before we deal with questions on the order paper, Mr. Speaker, I would like once again to bring something to Your Honour's attention. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is absent. We know that he is on an official visit. Under the roster system there are seven ministers who are supposed to be here but are not. We do not accept the roster system. There are 15 absent altogether. How can the opposition conduct its business today and ascertain what is going on?
I would like to name these ministers, and I think Your Honour should bear with me. Their names should be on the record. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister is away, and I do not make anything of that, surely the government House leader should get these ministers out of their offices and bring them here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The number is now reduced to six. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) has come into the chamber.


Mr. Benson:: I have been here all the time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand), the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene), the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien), the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford), the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang), who is responsible for the wheat board, are absent.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Maybe at the sound of my voice more will come into the chamber. With the Prime Minister away, maybe the roster system could be set aside and we could get some kind of organization so that the opposition can do its job.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: They are all sick, sick of Benson.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Nowlan: 1.	What was the average cost per word of French-English translation performed by the Translation Bureau, including apportioned overheads?
2.	What was the average cost per word of French-English translation performed by outside contractors?

May 19, 1971
Questions
3.	What was the percentage of French-English translation performed by outside contractors in each of the past five years ending March 31, 1970?
4.	For each of the same years, in the Translation Bureau of the Department of the Secretary of State, what was (a) the total production in hours of service (b) the total production in words (c) the backlog of work in words to be translated at the end of each year?
5.	For each of the same years, what was the number of unfilled authorized positions, in each grade, at the end of each year?
6.	For each of the same years, what was the average number of months all translators and interpreters working in the Translation Bureau had been on the staff?
7.	For each of the same years, what was the number of translators and interpreters who had been on the staff of the Translation Bureau (a) less than twelve months (b) less than twenty-four months?


Hon. Gerard Pelleiier (Secretary of State):: 1. The
average cost per word of French-English translation performed by the Translation Bureau, including apportioned overheads, was the following: 1965-66, 3.5 cents; 1966-67, 3.9 cents; 1967-68, 3.75 cents; 1968-69, 5.45 cents; 1969-70, 6.06 cents.
2.	The average cost per word of French-English translation performed by outside contractors was the following: 1965-66, 2.65 cents; 1966-67, 2.7 cents; 1967-68, 3.1 cents; 1968-69, 5.04 cents; 1969-70, 5.24 cents.
3.	The percentage of French-English translation performed by outside contractors in each of the past five years ending March 31, 1970, was: 1965-66, 8.27% 196667, 11.22%; 1967-68; 11.78% 1968-69, 9.04%; 1969-70, 10.71%.
4.	For each of the same years, in the Translation Bureau of the Department of the Secretary of State, (a) the total production in hours of service was the following: 1965-66, 122,948 hours; 1966-67, 146,106 hours; 1967-68, 171,664 hours; 1968-69, 207,740 hours; 1969-70, 264,584 hours; Service hours cover time spent on revision, research, administration, editing, proof-reading, lectures to trainees, and other duties, but not the time spent on translation proper, (b) the total production in words was the following: 1965-66, 77,005,931 words; 1966-67, 93,272,627 words; 1967-68, 94,918,864 words; 1968-69, 89,405,003 words; 1969-70, 102,511,387 words, (c) the backlog of work in words to be translated at the end of each year was the following: 1965-66, 4,876,826 words; 1966-67, 5,825,453 words; 1967-68, 5,655,284 words; 1968-69, 6,216,250 words; 1969-70, 9,633,128 words.
5.	It has not been possible to establish the number of vacancies in each grade. The number of unfilled authorized positions as at September 30th: 1966, 44; 1967, 54; 1968, 38; 1969, 97; 1970, 87.
6.	An excessive number of man-hours would be required to supply the information requested.
7.	(a) 1965-66, 52; 1966-67, 57; 1967-68, 74; 1968-69, 107; 1969-70, 108.
(b) 1965-66, 88; 1966-67, 109; 1967-68, 131; 1968-69, 181; 1969-70, 215.
[Mr. Nowlan.l


FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO PROVINCES IN DEFRAYING COST OF LANGUAGE TRAINING
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	Are federal funds available to assist the provinces in defraying the costs of (a) teaching new Canadians to speak English (b) teaching Francophone Canadians to speak English (c) teaching second generation Canadians to speak English?
2.	If so, what amount is available for each province?
3.	What steps should a local community (e.g., Ottawa) take to secure its share of such funds?


Gérard Pelletier: 1. (a) Federal funds are available to help provinces defray the cost of English language classes and textbooks for new Canadians, (b) and (c) Under the programme of cooperation and development of bilingualism in education, federal funds are allocated to the provincial governments on the basis of their minority language educational programmes (French outside the province of Quebec and English in Quebec) and of their second language teaching programmes (English in the province of Quebec and French in other provinces). However, ethnic or linguistic origin or length of residence in Canada are not criteria used in the allocation of these funds.
2.	(a) The federal government contributes one-half of whatever the provinces spend or contribute towards the teaching costs of English or French instruction to adult immigrants, plus reimbursement for expenditure on language textbooks for use by adult immigrants up to the amount of the average calculated on the five preceding years.
During the fiscal year 1970-71 the federal government contributed the following amounts to the provinces:
Under the Language Instruction Agreement
British Columbia
Manitoba
Alberta
Ontario
Quebec
New Brunswick Saskatchewan

Total
Under the Language
Alberta
Saskatchewan
Manitoba
Ontario
Quebec

Textbook Agreement 2,051.10 1,150.03 4,328.84 72,397.25
79,927.22 (approx.) 50,000.00
Total	$129,927.22
(b) and (c) Since ethnic or linguistic origin or length of residence in Canada are not criteria used in the programme for the development of bilingualism in education, meaningful figures concerning the teaching of English to
May 19, 1971

francophone or second generation Canadians are not available. However, in addition to grants for administrative costs, grants to the province of Quebec for 1970 will total approximately $17 million for educational programmes conducted in the English language and approximately $4.5 million for teaching English as a second language.
3.	Requests for federal funds for teaching New Canadians to speak English should be directed to the Provincial Department responsible for the integration of New Canadians which administers the federal-provincial Agreements on Language Instruction and Language Textbooks. Arrangements for second language instruction are designed to make federal support possible without infringing on provincial jurisdiction in the field of education. School boards or institutions seeking assistance under this programme should direct their request to the department of education of their province.
Questions
of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Department of National Revenue as follows: 1, 2, 3, and 4. Canada does not grant export permits for the shipment of weapons to Viet Nam, and no weapons are delivered by Canadian suppliers to any destination in Viet Nam. Defence equipment sold by Canada to the United States is absorbed into the general inventory of the military services of that country and its ultimate disposition and destination is a matter for the authorities of the United States to decide. The same principle applies to defence equipment which Canada purchases from the United States.
5. (a) Records maintained by the Excise Tax Branch do not provide for this type of specific information. Moreover, goods manufactured in Canada and exported are exempt from sales tax under the terms of section 44 of the Excise Tax Act. (b) Not applicable.


YOUTH HOSTELS
Mr. Alexander: Has any report or evaluation of the project which provided facilities for youth hostels in various Canadian cities been undertaken and, if not, for what reason?


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: In so far as the Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned: An evaluation and survey of activities in the transient youth field, including a partial assessment of the National Hostel Task Force activities during the summer of 1970-71 was undertaken by the Canadian Council of Social Development. This survey was financed by the Department of National Health and Welfare. The report is available from the Canadian Council on Social Development. In addition, the Department of National Health and Welfare conducted its own survey of the transient youth situation during the summer of 1970. The resulting report is available from the Department.
In so far as the Department of the Secretary of State is concerned: An appraisal of the programme was made but no written report followed.



SUPPLY OF WEAPONS FOR WAR IN VIET NAM


Mr. Mather: 1.	What is the total, in dollars, of delinquent taxes owed to the Department of National Revenue by individuals and corporations?
2.	What was the amount, in dollars, as of this date in 1968, 1969 and 1970?
3.	What is the amount, in dollars, of sales tax outstanding in the same periods?
4.	What was the amount of penalty outstanding in the same periods?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of National Revenue):: Taxation Division: 1, 2 and outstanding:	4. Taxes,	penalties and March 31	interest1970	1969	1968Particulars Income Tax	($000)	($000)	($000)Individuals	171,144	143,499	122,017Corporations	113,771	96,036	116,959Tax Deductions	18,789	13,077	11,286Non-Residents	4,051	3,964	6,329Deferred Tax	4,563	4,757	5,099312,318	261,333	261,690Estate Tax and	Succession Duty	20,992	15,405	15,903Sundry	-	-	5Total	333,310	276,738	277,598
Customs and Excise
3 and 4. Sales tax and penalties outstanding:
March 15, 1971 March 31, 1970 March 31, 1969 March 31, 1968
Sales Tax

11,466,229.06
12,987,924.28
8,329,890.22
10,609,742.04
Penalty

1,756,919.06
1,373,761.31
1,395,963.71
1,862,509.28

May 19, 1971
Questions


CANADA COUNCIL. ASSISTANCE FOR PRODUCTION OF FILM ENTITLED &quot;LES MALES&quot;
Mr. Valade: 1.	Has Canada Council or any other federal agency made grants or any financial assistance for the production of a film entitled Les Mdles and, if so, how much money?
2.	Has this film any artistic value?
3.	What criteria justified such assistance?
4.	What firm benefited from such financial assistance and is it a subsidiary of other cinematographical concerns taking part or having interests in this film?
5 Which firm owns this film and, who are (a) the principal officers (b) the chairman (c) the vice-chairman (d) the secretary-treasurer?
6.	(a) Does the government or governmental agency concerned receive any benefit from the marketing of this film (b) how are the financial risks shared?
7.	In case of financial failure, are any guarantees of reimbursement or payment stipulated by the government or its agency of the beneficiary and, if so, what are they?


Gérard Pelletier: 1. The
Canadian Film Development Corporation has invested in the film entitled Les Males. I am informed by the Canadian Film Development Corporation that in order to protect the producer and other investors in their negotiations with third parties, the Corporation does not divulge the amount of its investments.
2 and 3. The criteria justifying this investment are those stated in section 10 (2) (a) of the Act providing for the establishment of the Corporation: "that the completed film will, in the judgment of the Corporation, have a significant Canadian creative, artistic and technical content..."
4.	The producer of the film is Onyx Films Inc. The Company is not a subsidiary of another film company.
5.	The owner of the film is Onyx Films Inc. whose principal officers are: Michel Plessis-Belair, President, Guy Fournier, and Claude Heroux.
6.	(a) The Corporation has recovered part of its investment. (b) The Corporation, like other investors, is reimbursed in proportion to its investment.
7.	No form of guarantee has been required from the producer.


TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENTS IN GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS
Mr. Nowlan: Do any government departments still have every letter, document and memorandum in French translated into English as a matter of course and, if so, which ones?
Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary io President
of the Privy Council): No.


INVESTIGATION OF FOOD PRICES AT KASABONIKA, ONTARIO
Mr. Yewchuk: Is an investigation being carried out on food prices at Kasa-bonika, Ontario, and, if so, what is the nature of such investigation?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: So far as the Combines Investigation Act is concerned, the general practice is that no information is given out as to whether a particular inquiry is in fact being pursued unless and until a report is published or proceedings taken in the courts.


PIPELINE RESEARCH CONDUCTED BY CANADIAN WILDLIFE SERVICE
Mr. Harding: 1.	What specific aspects of pipeline research are being conducted by the Canadian Wildlife Service?
2.	What are the amounts being spent on such research?
3 On what date can the results of this research be expected?


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: 1. Northern Ecology Studies: Co-operative studies with the State of Alaska on the Porcupine Herd of caribou which cross between Alaska and the Yukon Territory. The studies concern population structure, recruitment, mortality factors in relation to harvest rates and migration routes. To critically evaluate the requirements for food and space of this population. Provide guidelines to development organizations for mitigating damage to wildlife habitat. Waterfowl Population and Habitat Inventories: Nesting and staging grounds in amplification of Arctic ecology map series data. Dali Sheep Population and Habitat: Studies of population structure recruitment, mortality factors in relation to harvest rates, and habitat requirements.
2.	$92,033 by the Canadian Wildlife Service during the fiscal year 1971-1972, has been authorized through normal budgetary procedures.
3.	Preliminary results have already been communicated to resource use agencies and pipeline consortia on request. Final reports will be available in 1973.



BONNE BAY PARK, NFLD.-LOSS OF FISHING PRIVILEGES

Mr. Marshall: 1.	Will Newfoundland fishermen whose inshore fishing areas lie within the limits of the Bonne Bay Park be compensated by the federal government for loss of their traditional fishing privileges and, if so, in what manner?
2.	Has the federal government, in co-operation with the Province of Newfoundland, discussed plans for retraining programs and other aids for the fishermen who might be displaced by the establishment of the Bonne Bay Park?
3.	Will fishermen within the boundaries of the Bonne Bay Park be allowed to retain the use of wharf and other facilities situated within the boundaries of the Park?
4.	Has the Government of the Province of Newfoundland entered into discussions with the federal government as to plans

May 19, 1971

for the resettlement of those communities within the boundaries of the Bonne Bay Park and, if so, what communities are affected?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. When the boundary has been finalized, discussions regarding compensation for fishermen will take place and compensation will be arranged if there is a loss of traditional fishing privileges.
2.	Preliminary discussions have been carried out with the Provincial Government to outline the types of programs which have been carried out in other areas. In establishing a park the province retains jurisdiction for resettlement or retraining programs.
3.	An assessment will be made in conjunction with the fishermen to determine their needs and to explain park requirements.
4.	The boundaries attached to the agreement signed last October 31 indicate which communities will require relocation. Preliminary discussions have been carried out with the Provincial Government to outline the types of programs which have been carried out in other areas. In establishing a park the province retains jurisdiction for resettlement or retraining programs.



COMPULSORY CONTROLS ON PRICES AND WAGES

Mr. Yewchuk: Has the government taken a position with respect to compulsory controls on prices and wages and, if so (a) what is it (b) on what basis was it taken?
Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President
of the Privy Council): Attention is directed to Hansard page 5680, dated May 11, 1971.



REPRESENTATIONS BY NEWFOUNDLAND TO AMEND REGULATIONS GOVERNING SEAL HUNT

Mr. Carter: Have representations been made to the Government of Canada by the Premier of Newfoundland to amend the regulations governing the seal hunt and, if so, what changes in the regulations were recommended?


Eymard G. Corbin: Informal discussions were held between the Government of Canada and the Premier of Newfoundland, primarily related to the continuation of the hunt. No official recommendations for specific amendments to the Seal Protection Regulations have been received by the Government of Canada from the Premier of Newfoundland.



REPRESENTATIONS FROM NEWFOUNDLAND CONCERNING OPERATIONS OF HERRING SEINERS

Mr. Carter: Did the Government of Canada receive representations from the Government of Newfoundland concerning the operations of herring seiners on Newfoundland's inshore fishing grounds during 1970 and, if so, what were the recommendations?
Questions


Eymard G. Corbin: Several discussions were held between officials of the Government of Canada and officials of the Government of Newfoundland on problems which arose between small boat fishermen and large seiner fishermen. The discussions related to means of resolving the concerns of both types of fishing operations.



REQUEST FROM NEWFOUNDLAND FOR ASSISTANCE TO FISHERMEN WHO SUFFERED LOSSES IN THE FERRYLAND AREA

Mr. Carter: Has the Government of Canada received a request from the Government of Newfoundland to assist fishermen and others in the Ferryland (Newfoundland) area who suffered losses of fishing gear and property etc., as a result of a recent severe storm in that area and, if so, was assistance offered and to what extent?


Eymard G. Corbin: No official representations have been received from the Province of Newfoundland for storm damage assistance at Ferryland or any other location in respect of damage sustained this past winter.



MONTMAGNY CONSTITUENCY-PROJECTS IN WHICH FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN FINANCIALLY INVOLVED

Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): For each project in which the government has been financially involved from 1965 to 1968, in Montmagny County (a) what was the nature of the project (b) what amount was allocated by the federal government (c) what amount was allocated by the provincial government (d) have other contributions been made and, if so (i) in what amount (ii) by whom?


James Alexander Jerome: It is not feasible to provide aggregate information on expenditure disbursements or revenue collections for constituencies, counties or other comparable units. Government estimates are not prepared on this basis nor are records of expenditures kept in this way. Information concerning expenditures could be supplied about specific projects or programs which are identified in a question. These, of course, would in some cases relate to a particular constituency or locality.



BELLECHASSE COUNTY-PROJECTS IN WHICH FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN FINANCIALLY INVOLVED

Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): For each project in which the government has been financially involved from 1965 to 1968, in Bellechasse County (a) what was the nature of the project (b) what amount was allocated by the federal government (c) what amount was allocated by the provincial government (d) have other contributions been made and if so (i) in what amount (ii) by whom?


James Alexander Jerome: See answer to Question 1,442 answered this day.

May 19, 1971
Orders for Returns
LEVIS COUNTY____PROJECTS IN WHICH THE GOVERNMENT



HAS BEEN FINANCIALLY INVOLVED

Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): For each project in Levis County, which involved the government financially since 1965 (a) what was the nature of the project (b) what amount was allocated by the federal government (c) what amount was allocated by the provincial government (d) have other contributions been made and, if so (i) in what amount (ii) by whom?


James Alexander Jerome: See answer to Question No. 1,442 answered this day.



DORCHESTER COUNTY-PROJECTS IN WHICH THE GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN FINANCIALLY INVOLVED

Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): For each project in which the government has been financially involved from 1965 to 1968, in Dorchester County (a) what was the nature of the project (b) what amount was allocated by the federal government (c) what amount was allocated by the provincial government (d) have other contributions been made and, if so (i) in what amount (ii) by whom?


James Alexander Jerome: See answer to Question No. 1,442 answered this day.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 706
Mr. Horner:: 1.	How much money has gone to Indian organizations in Canada in the past five years (a) who are they (b) what amount to each?
2.	How much money has gone to other organizations or associations connected with Indian people (a) who are they (b) what amount to each?
3.	How much money has been spent in the office of the Committee on Indian Rights and Treaties?
Return tabled.


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE-ASSISTANCE TO WELFARE ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Rondeau: 1.	How much money was paid by the Department of National Health and Welfare to various welfare organizations during the past year in Canada (a) what were the names of the organizations (b) and, what amount did each receive?
2.	Did the Department finance "The Hamilton Welfare Races"?
Return tabled.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, Notice of Motion No. 198 is acceptable to the government.


CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN MR. F. C. JAMES AND THE CANADIAN TRANSPORT COMMISSION AND GOVERNMENT
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 198-Mr. Rowland:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence between Mr. F. C. James of Winnipeg, Manitoba and the Canadian Transport Commission, the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Supply and Services.
Motion agreed to.
James Alexander Jerome: Notice of Motion No. 232 is acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents and the authorization of the government authorities concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the conditions stated by the parliamentary secretary, is the pleasure of the House that Notice of Motion No. 232 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING PROPOSED NATIONAL PARK AT VAL MARIE-KILLDEER, SASKATCHEWAN
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 232-Mr. Burlon:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the following documents with respect to the proposed second national park in Saskatchewan to be situated in the Val Marie-Killdeer area (a) all correspondence between the Government of Canada and the Government of Saskatchewan on this park since January 1, 1964 (b) all correspondence between the Government of Canada and other interested persons and organizations since January 1, 1964, concerning the proposed park (c) an outline of plans for development of this park.
Motion agreed to.
James Alexander Jerome: Would Your Honour be good enough to call Notices of Motions Nos. 163 and 179?


COPIES OF MINUTES OF MEETINGS OF PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 163-Mr. Alexander:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the Minutes of all meetings of the Public Health Engineering Advisory Committee, responsible to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, up to and including the meeting of November 24, 1970.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, the Committee
May 19, 1971

on Public Health Engineering is an advisory committee to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the minutes of their meetings are regarded as internal documents for use by the minister. For this reason it is regretted that the documents cannot be tabled. The hon. member for Hamilton West may therefore wish to withdraw his motion.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.
REPORTS RELATING TO USAGE OF MARIJUANA Motion No. 179-Mr. McIntosh:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all reports or other documents relating to tests or experiments conducted to date by or on order of the Department of National Health and Welfare on usage of marijuana.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, there is a longstanding tradition in scientific circles that publishing the results of research is the prerogative of the researcher, and not of the sponsoring agency. For this reason, and as a matter of policy, the Department of National Health and Welfare does not make public the findings of research workers.
The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek may wish to withdraw his motion.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: On my hon. friend's behalf, transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: should like to ask the Minister of Labour a question. In view of the very alarming unemployment figures for the month of April and now that he has refused on behalf of the government to extend seasonal unemployment benefits, does he propose to recommend any measures to offer assistance to those who find themselves without unemployment insurance benefits? For example, does he propose to advance the effective date of the proposed changes in his new insurance legislation, some important items of which will not become effective until January 1, next?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The one
feature which does not become effective until January 1 is the provision for universality. The one feature which does become effective as of July 1-and it is a provision
Inquiries of the Ministry
to which the hon. gentleman has often expressed opposition-is easier eligibility. I hope that when the bill comes before the House the opposition will accept readily the proposal that a person should be entitled to unemployment insurance after eight weeks attachment to the labour force, not after 12 weeks or 16 weeks as the hon. gentleman has prescribed publicly on several occasions.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister's answer will not bring much comfort to those who are now waiting for such assistance. I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether, in view of the figures for the month of April and the consequential increase in welfare burdens falling upon the provinces and the municipalities, the government of Canada is now prepared to review the adamant position it has taken in the past with regard to making further assistance available to provinces and municipalities? Is the government prepared to reopen this question with the provinces and municipalities so as to be of assistance to them and also to ensure that people in this country do not go hungry?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: The government is now paying 50 per cent of welfare costs under the Canada Assistance Plan and does not contemplate changing this situation at the present time. I have no doubt representations will be made by the provinces and municipalities which, quite naturally, would like to have the general taxpayer rather than the local taxpayer bear a larger share of the burden.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Will the Acting Prime Minister not agree that when the government accepts the responsibility for slowing down the economy, thereby creating additional unemployment and adding to the welfare burdens of the municipalities and provinces, it is proper that it should follow through by bearing an increased proportion of the heavier burdens imposed upon the other levels of government rather than simply telling the provinces to control their own expenditures?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is obviously not a supplementary question. It is an argument.



UNEMPLOYMENT-NUMBER OF PERSONS RECEIVING INSURANCE BENEFITS

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: May I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. The minister has mentioned the fact that some 200,000 persons are in receipt of seasonal unemployment insurance benefits. Can he tell the House how many persons are in receipt of unemployment insurance benefits on the latest date for which figures are available?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The latest date for which figures are available, according to the Bureau of Statistics, is the end of March. Possibly by the end of the question period I can answer more factually the question which the hon. member has put to me. I will try to do so in the next 15 minutes.

May 19, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry UNEMPLOYMENT-NUMBER OF PERSONS SEEKING WORK


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Can he give us the figures from his department and tell us how many persons are registered as being out of work and seeking employment?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: I do not have the latest figures with me but, as the hon. member knows, I can supply them to him whenever he wishes as I did for a previous month. I will be glad to do so again.



MANPOWER


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that, as I understand the position, those attending retraining courses are not counted in the unemployment figures, would the minister be prepared to make a statement on motions with respect to his intentions in connection with the adult retraining program over the next decade, let us say?


Otto Emil Lang: I will consider an appropriate time for making such a statement on motions, Mr. Speaker. Of course, the number of people taking retraining programs is an important factor in the labour force, but the number under training this year compared with last year is not significantly different.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Does the announced 15 per cent reduction in federal grants for training courses constitute an admission of failure by the government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


John Edward Broadbent: Would the Minister of Labour take the time to clarify or correct his statement that there has been no increase in the number receiving seasonal unemployment insurance benefits this year, because according to the Bureau of Statistics there has been an increase of approximately 30 per cent?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I said in my statement, and it was not necessarily in the prepared text, that the number of people receiving benefits on the latest date for which figures are available, May 15, was 200,000. I also indicated that this compared with 180,000 at the same time last year. When correcting statistics perhaps the hon. member might inform the House that the figures he used were applicable for the month of February, while the figures I used were for the month of May.



MANPOWER


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolielle):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Since the Quebec Labour Minister stated that he would like to have jurisdiction over manpower in Quebec, would the minister be prepared to meet with him as soon as possible to decide on the sharing of responsibilities and would he make a statement in that regard soon?


Otto Emil Lang: There have been conversations between the minister in Quebec and myself and I expect there will be further conversations. I think there is no doubt about our position that the important economic aspects of manpower and the mobility of manpower are of vital concern to the federal government and fall clearly within our jurisdiction.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


David Lewis: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance arising out of a recent statement by the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission to the effect that inflation remains Canada's No. 1 economic enemy. I should like to ask the minister whether this is also his and the government's position at this time and, if so, whether this means that the government intends to continue pursuing gradual measures for economic recovery.


Edgar John Benson: First of all, I have not seen the statement made by the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission. In answer to the second part of the question, the government's policy for over a year has been very expansionary in both the fiscal and monetary fields.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the minister has emphasized on a number of occasions that one has to go somewhat slow in order to avoid inflationary pressures, will he inform the House and the country whether it is the government's policy to hasten measures to attain economic recovery, or does he intend to continue the same gradual policies he has pursued up to now?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the government intends to move as fast as possible toward full employment in Canada with relative price stability.


David Lewis: I have a further supplementary question.
May 19. 1971


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for York South on another supplementary question and then the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings, but I think in fairness the Chair should then recognize the hon. member for Champlain.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question arises out of the answer the minister has just given. As I understood him he said that the government would pursue policies for economic recovery and price stability, or words to that effect. I should like to ask him whether his studies and the studies of his advisers have indicated that in order to attain what he calls price stability, economic recovery must not be permitted to take place quickly so that unemployment in this country might be reduced to a bearable level, say this year?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the studies that we have carried out indicate that the type of stimulus we have been giving to the economy is having an effect on the economy-


An hon. Member:: It sure is.


Edgar John Benson: -and will continue to have an effect on the economy, and that we will move to the full, normal capacity of operation of the economy with, hopefully, reasonable price stability.



PRICES AND INCOMES COMMISSION PROGRAMS TO COMBAT INFLATION

Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Haslings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the statement made by the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission to the effect that inflation is the country's No. 1 economic enemy, will he confer with the chairman of that commission and at the first opportunity report to the House on motions on what programs the commission intends to follow in order to combat what the chairman has described as the No. 1 economic enemy?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say I am surprised that anyone on the other side should be advocating inflationary policies, which seems to be the purpose of all these questions. I can think of nothing more likely to harm employment in this country than inflationary policies, and this government will resist them and will follow sound expansionary policies, which is what the country needs.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Obviously this debate could be pursued for the whole question period. I suggest to hon. members that if we have time to return to this very interesting debate later we might do so. At the moment the Chair recognizes the hon. member for Champlain.
Inquiries of the Ministry



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Rene  Maite@Champlain: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State.
Has he, or does he expect to, intervene concerning the CRTC decision following the request by the government of New Brunswick to extend the French network in this province?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State has not intervened in this connection. However, he is studying the matter because many representations have been made by the people of New Brunswick. At the present time I am having discussions with the CRTC whose decision seems to have been given a wrong interpretation by some people in New Brunswick, unless it is the latter's protests that were interpreted incorrectly.
For the time being, there is some confusion which we are trying to clear up and I will be pleased to inform the House as soon as we have been able to straighten out the situation.


Mr. Matte:: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the minister. Does he feel the extension of the network necessary?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking the minister to express an opinion.

[English\



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Secretary of State. As this whole problem of broadcasting and communications, let alone cable television, has bubbled onto the scene in the last two or three months, has the minister today or yesterday recommended to his colleagues in the cabinet, particularly the Prime Minister who may be in Moscow, that this matter be placed on the agenda of the June conference of the provincial premiers and the Prime Minister in order that some of these problems can be clarified?


Gérard Pelletier: I believe I answered that question last week, Mr. Speaker. I feel that it does not behove the Secretary of State to make a recommendation in that respect. We told the provincial authorities we were willing to discuss the matter with them or their representatives, even before the June conference. As for the agenda of the conference, I under-

May 19, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
stand it has already been drawn up; only at the request of the premiers themselves could the Victoria conference agenda be changed or a new item added to it; the federal government is not the boss.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of his answer yesterday that officials of the federal government were discussing the agenda with provincial officials, can he tell us what these officials are discussing?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, they are discussing reform of the constitution.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, as we do not seem to get any answers from the government regarding domestic problems, may I turn to foreign affairs and ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the Prime Minister while he is in Moscow will suggest to the government of the Kremlin the need for giving a free vote to the people of Esthonia, Latvia, Lithuania, the Ukraine and other captive peoples?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, before I go any further may I refer to one subject that may or not be related to foreign policy. I certainly think I should mention in the House the great victory of the Montreal Canadiens in the Stanley Cup finals.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: That's the only applause you will get.


Mitchell William Sharp: May I say in answer to the specific question that the Prime Minister is taking advantage of his visit to the Soviet Union to discuss all those matters which are of concern to the Canadian people, and the matter referred to by the right hon. member is certainly one of them.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I only hope that the government of Canada in this connection will take some lessons from the Canadiens as to how to act effectively from now on. I might say that the interpolation by the minister on a subject on which he knows nothing impelled me to make that observation.
My further question is this. The CBC in its effulgent description of what is happening in Moscow has not dealt with the matter referred to a moment ago, nor has it referred to another important question. Is the Prime Minister asking the Kremlin to permit an exchange of consul-general representatives between Canada and Kiev
so that Canadians of Ukrainian origin may not be delayed several years, in many cases, in their applications to visit the old land, and in order that Ukrainians desiring to come to Canada will be permitted to do so, which is now virtually impossible?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain that the Prime Minister will be discussing this matter. It has been the subject of some discussion in the past. I do not know whether he will, considering the number of very urgent matters under discussion, raise it at this time, but certainly this matter has been under discussion between our two governments.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether he considers a matter which affects hundreds of thousands of Canadians of Ukrainian descent as being unimportant compared to the generalities that are being discussed by the Prime Minister?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


NATO ACTION ON RUSSIAN INTIMATION CONCERNING BALANCED FORCE REDUCTIONS IN CENTRAL EUROPE
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the importance to the security and peace of the world of balanced force reductions in central Europe, will the Canadian government at the next NATO meeting urge our NATO allies to take up seriously the intimation of Mr. Brezhnev that the USSR is willing to negotiate such reductions?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, may I say in reply that we are very pleased to see that after a long pause the Soviet Union is finally taking up the initiative of the NATO powers.


NATURE OF AGREEMENT SIGNED BY CANADA AND SOVIET UNION
Mr. J. M. Forresiall (Darfmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might pursue the question a little further at the risk of another prideful reply such as the one given me yesterday. I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he can shed some light on the nature of the particular agreement which either has been signed or is about to be signed today?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I was in communication with our mission in Moscow and I understand that today an agreement will be signed between the governments of the Soviet Union and Canada dealing with the subject of consultations.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder whether the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East might allow me to recognize the hon. member for Sainte-Marie. I appreciate that the matter with which he is dealing is important and I will return to him in a moment.

May 19, 1971


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Georges Valade (Sainle-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the minister in charge of housing but in his absence I shall put it to the Acting Prime Minister.
In view of his recent statements concerning possible establishment of a department of urban affairs, can the minister specify what the explicit functions of such a department are to be? Should it be only a service, what limits will be set for it, since this is a field of provincial jurisdiction?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I understand that, during the debate which has been taking place on the government reorganization bill, there has been a lengthy discussion of this subject and I doubt very much whether I should prolong it now. The government of Canada does recognize the limitations in this field and hence the policies it has been following which are having notable success at the moment.


Georges-J. Valade: I wish to ask a supplementary question.
I inquired from the Acting Prime Minister because of the ambiguity of the statement made by the minister responsible for housing. Would the Acting Prime Minister tell us whether he intends to assure this House that the government will not decide on anything in this respect before having obtained the approval of the premiers at the Victoria conference?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, could the hon. gentleman repeat his question? I am not quite sure I caught all the subtleties of it.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might repeat it in English for the Acting Prime Minister. Can the Acting Prime Minister give us the assurance that no decisions will be taken in this regard before the Victoria conference and before the Prime Ministers at the conference have had a chance to discuss and agree to this proposal by the government?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, in its housing policies the government of Canada does act within federal jurisdiction. So far as I know there has been no change to the contrary. If there were, this is a matter which could be settled, so I do not think I should give this undertaking.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East in a moment, but I suggest to hon. members that they might assist the Chair in relation to supplementaries because otherwise we will end up with many members being left with questions unasked, if not unanswered.
Inquiries of the Ministry




J. Michael Forrestall: With all deference, Mr. Speaker, I was attempting to assist the Chair by asking the question I wanted to ask previously by way of a supplementary. In light of the Acting Prime Minister's indication that the protocol or agreement will deal with consultations, can he assure the House that such consultations will not extend into the field of military or strategic matters?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would have hoped the hon. member would agree with me that the subject of disarmament is one that could fruitfully be discussed between our two governments.


AIR TRANSPORT
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. Could he tell the House whether the government is considering setting up a form of special inquiry or royal commission to look into the operating policies of Canada's airlines in so far as their domestic operations are concerned in contrast to their foreign operations, and also the position of the regional air carriers within these policies and the actions of the Department of Transport?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. There is a Canadian Transport Board which can deal with these questions. I do not see any reason for establishing a royal commission.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In light of the particular interest expressed in the statements of the chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission vis-a-vis one of the air carriers, and his position in the past, surely the minister can think of something better than-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. In view of the fact that an industrial incentive offer for a pulp mill in Saskatchewan has been made conditional on the mill meeting all federal requirements in respect of pollution control and environmental protection, could the min-

May 19, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
ister indicate if these regulations or standards have been finalized, whether they have been made public and, if not, when they will be made public?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, the standards have been developed in close consultation both with the provincial pollution boards and the pulp and paper industry across Canada. We hope they will be published in the near future. We have them in what we regard as final form and the Saskatchewan government is fully aware of the standards in their present form.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary arising out of the statement by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion before a committee of the House on Monday that the Department of Fisheries and Forestry had made a proposal to change the specific location of the pulp mill. Could the minister indicate whether his department's proposal has been adopted, and could he inform the House of the specific location of the proposed mill site?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the site of the mill, and particularly the clean-up facilities, are matters which are receiving careful attention by the Department of Fisheries and Forestry here in Ottawa.


FISHERIES
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. In light of the statement made by the minister to the effect that he will be unable to introduce a special unemployment insurance program for fishermen by the time the new Unemployment Insurance Act is approved, can he say what the specific intention of the government is in respect of fishermen?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, our intention is to let a full year run under the new unemployment insurance legislation so that the fishermen are fully aware of the benefits under that scheme, and then we will bring in an even better one.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the minister. In view of the fact that the minister has already said that the fishermen will not be removed from the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act until the seasonal income support program is acceptable to the fishermen, may I ask the minister what means he intends to use to determine that acceptability, what group will be consulted, and whether a plebiscite will be held or what other method he has in mind?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, as a point of clarification may I say I have never said that this scheme must be acceptable to the fishermen. It has, of course, to be acceptable to my colleagues in the government and also to Parliament.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, do I take it from the minister's reply that the government is now asking Parliament to give the government the right to take the fishermen out of the Unemployment Insurance Act without any assurance at all that they will be consulted concerning the kind of program they will come under when they are taken out of the unemployment insurance legislation?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the situation is that the fishermen will continue under the revised unemployment insurance legislation until such time as a better scheme comes along. We will certainly be consulting the fishermen in respect of the development of a better scheme to look after the long-term fluctuations in their income, closures as a result of mercury contamination, and so on.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A few moments ago I invited the co-operation of hon. members in respect of supplementaries. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands has had two supplementaries. I will recognize the hon. member for Lisgar.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to direct my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, but in his absence I shall direct it to the Acting Prime Minister. Now that the Barber Commission report has been tabled and recommends some regulation of the indiscriminate use of interest-free loans by machinery companies, which according to the report eventually raises farm machinery prices to the farmer between 5 per cent and 7 per cent, I should like to ask the minister whether the government plans any legislation to regulate this practice?


Mitchell William Sharp: The
report of the Barber Commission has just been received and is under study. My colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, like others who are absent today, is out of town on government business. I will bring the question to his attention when he returns.


OVERSEAS STUDENT EXCHANGE PROGRAM-APPLICATIONS RECEIVED AND APPROVED
Robert Lorne Stanfield: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration following a question I asked earlier in the week about the overseas exchange program for students. He indicated that the program has been oversubscribed in terms of applications, but he was unable to tell me how many positions have actually been filled. Can the minister now give that information?
May 19, 1971


Otto Emil Lang: I do have with me a fairly lengthy table in reply to the question. I said it had been oversubscribed with regard to most countries. The answer is rather lengthy. I might suggest, if there is general agreement, that it be printed in Hansard as though read.


Mr. Speaker:: This is a rather unusual procedure. Perhaps the answer might be tabled by the minister. The information would then be available to the Leader of the Opposition and to other members in this way.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am quite prepared to go along with the suggestion of the minister, although I asked a perfectly straightforward question which could have been answered in a simple way.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Did the minister table the information or did he not?


Mr. Speaker:: I believe there was agreement that the document referred to by the minister be tabled.


POLLUTION
Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia-Lamblon):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that Lake Huron beaches have once again been polluted by oil dumped with bilge water from ships using the seaway, I should like to ask the minister whether this area is being patrolled or policed in an attempt to detect ships that are guilty of this practice?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minisler of Transport):: Yes, patrols of the type to which the hon. member refers have been carried out and are constantly carried out in that area both by Canadian vessels and also in conjunction with the United States coastguard.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Have any ships been detected yet in the area which is being patrolled by both governments?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Very large numbers over the last couple of years, but I do not know of any in the current season which is only a couple of weeks old.


FINANCE
Mr. R. R. Soulham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the continuing shortfall of agricultural income and its serious effects on our whole economy, can the minister
Inquiries of the Ministry
indicate whether in his June budget he is prepared to declare a one-year moratorium on the repayment of farm improvement loans, Farm Credit Corporation loans and farm syndicate loans?


Edgar John Benson: I think it would be quite improper for me to indicate what will be in the June budget.


OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-PROCESSING OF ALL APPLICATIONS BY DEADLINE
Mr. Lome Nyslrom (Yorklon-Melville):: I have a question for the Secretary of State. Since May 25, which is next Tuesday, is the deadline for the Opportunities for Youth program, can the minister assure the House that all applications will be processed by that time?


Gérard Pelletier: I gave an answer to that question last week, Mr. Speaker, when I said that we were doing everything in our power to observe this deadline but that we might have to ask for two or three days of grace.


OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-RULES FOR OPERATION OF HOSTELS-MEDICAL FACILITIES
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmonl):: I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State. Since there have been reports that the kiosks and hostels established under the transient youth program may become centres for traffic in drugs or, at the very least, centres for their frequent use, can the minister inform the House whether there will be any house rules with regard to the hostels and whether any proper medical facilities will be made available for individuals who may be suffering from infections or other problems related to the use and abuse of drugs?


Gérard Pelletier: Yes, Mr. Speaker, these rules have been established already and were made known to all those who have proposed as a project to set up youth hostels. The requirements that we laid down included those which the hon. member for Egmont has just mentioned.


OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-ISSUING OF RELEASES IN BOTH OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-While Bay-Labrador):: My question is supplementary to the previous question to the Secretary of State. Since the minister is supposed to be one of the more enthusiastic proponents of bilingualism, would he agree to re-issue his four

May 19, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
recent releases regarding approved projects under the Opportunities for Youth program in both languages and would he agree to have future releases of approved projects prepared in at least the two official languages so that unilingual Members of Parliament and unilingual Canadians may be able to read about the many varied and interesting projects under this program in all parts of Canada?


Gérard Pelletier: I do not
know which list exactly the hon. member has in mind, Mr. Speaker, but I shall gladly inquire about this. However, I must warn him that a number of project titles made up by young people are just as untranslatable from French into English as from English to French. For instance, "Fun '71".


IMMIGRATION
Mr. William Skoreyko (Edmonton East):: My question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. It has to do with the press release yesterday which indicated that the Quebec government may place orientation officers in federal immigration offices abroad. I should like to ask the minister whether the same courtesy or opportunity will be afforded the other provinces?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it may be understood that other provinces would be given the same opportunity.


DUTIES OF QUEBEC ORIENTATION OFFICIALS IN FEDERAL OFFICES ABROAD
Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Immigration; I wonder if the minister could tell us whether the Quebec orientation officer will be taken on strength by the federal immigration services abroad and whether he will be permitted to promote immigration to Quebec on cultural and language grounds of francophones seeking immigration in that province or if his responsibilities will merely be those of an office clerk?


Otto Emil Lang: The purpose of placing Quebec orientation officers in immigration offices abroad is to begin the orientation program which is quite customary in many provinces of this country and is ordinarily done after an immigrant comes here. In this it was thought advantageous to begin the program at an earlier stage when the future immigrant is still in the country of his origin.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must bring to the attention of hon. members that exactly two minutes are left before the end of the question period and there are still two or three supplementary questions. If we allow all these supplementary questions to be asked, we will of course have no other questions considered.


Mr. James A. McGrath:: (St. John's East): My question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, and I should like to paraphrase a report of his statement by the press. If counselling service was adequate in the immigration offices and if, as the minister stated, the present immigration service could adequately cope with the situation, why then did he find it necessary to enter into this agreement with the province of Quebec?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is argument.


REASON FOR AGREEMENT WITH QUEBEC ON STATIONING PROVINCIAL OFFICIALS IN FEDERAL OFFICES ABROAD
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Since Ontario has had an immigration office in England and in other parts of the world for some time, why was it necessary to have a formal protocol or treaty between the province of Quebec and the federal government in this case?


Otto Emil Lang: The agreement which was signed was simply that, an agreement, and it was necessary because the particular officers involved in the agreement were going to be housed abroad in the immigration offices of the Department of Manpower and Immigration, whereas in the other cases, so far as I know, the people are housed in separate provincial offices.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: I wish to ask the
Secretary of State a question concerning electronic eavesdropping which was referred to yesterday. Can the Secretary of State say whether or not, in view of his responsibility for communications, any specific frequency bands have been set aside for police or other persons using such listening devices?


Gérard Pelletier: I am unable to answer the hon. member right away, Mr. Speaker, but I will get this information for him.

May 19, 1971


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Rod Thomson (Baiileford-Kindersley):: My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. In view of a statement by Mr. Barnes, head of one of the civil service bargaining units, that acceptance of the recommendations of the Clyne report will set the bargaining process in the civil service back 40 years, will the minister say whether it is the intention of the government to accept and proceed with the recommendations of the Clyne report?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I heard the remarks of Mr. Barnes on television. I must say I was rather surprised to hear that he claimed the government had accepted in principle the recommendations of the Clyne report, which is quite true, that he was apparently unaware the Prime Minister made the following statement in the House:
The advisory group recommends that the managerial group excluded from collective bargaining should be more clearly identified and enlarged, and the government is prepared to have this matter studied further in conjunction with the review of legislation affecting collective bargaining.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
:}:	He *


IMMIGRATION
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Is the minister in a position to state whether the government of Quebec has officially requested the appointment of a recruiting or orientation officer in federal immigration offices abroad?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the selection procedures and so on will still be fully the obligation of the immigration officers of the Department of Immigration, and the role of the immigration personnel from Quebec will begin when selection is completed and when it is known an immigrant is destined for the province of Quebec.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Annapolis Valley on a supplementary.


REASON FOR AGREEMENT WITH QUEBEC ON STATIONING PROVINCIAL OFFICIALS IN FEDERAL OFFICES ABROAD
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that I may be trespassing on the time available to other hon. members for supplementaries, but since one of the independent members was recognized twice I am glad to have been recognized thrice. My question is
Inquiries of the Ministry
directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Since he has had long experience in external affairs, may I ask him if it is customary for the federal government and a province to sign a protocol or treaty, which implies a sovereign status for the province? Is this not a change in the federal attitude toward one Canada and other types of Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps this question might be answered briefly, but the question period expired about a minute ago.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to deny that there was any such purpose in the agreement we signed with the province of Quebec. As the Minister of Manpower and Immigration has said, this is purely for the purpose of facilitating the work of the Quebec immigration department which, under the constitution of Canada, is perfectly proper.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Charlevoix is seeking the floor on a supplementary. I apologize to him, and particularly to the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe, but I hope with the consent of the House that the latter might be allowed to ask a question. I realize that, he being in the last row, it is difficult to reach him. I tried to do so today. The hon. member missed out during the last question period, and with the consent of the House the Chair would now like to recognize the hon. member.


Mr. Marshall:: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your concern but I shall wait until tomorrow. My question was intended for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, but the Acting Prime Minister opened up the subject of the NHL so I will wait until tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Mr. Simpson:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege respecting the rights and privileges of all Canadians living in the smaller communities of Canada. The question of privilege arises as the result of an information bulletin which I understand has been sent to householders across Canada outlining procedures in the 1971 census. The bulletin endeavours to assure Canadians that their answers to all questions will be treated with the strictest secrecy and will only be used by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics for statistical purposes.
However, it indicates an unacceptable degree of discrimination against those living in the smaller communities because it says quite clearly that people living in the major urban areas will be supplied with self-addressed envelopes in which they will deposit their census returns for mailing to DBS, but anyone living in other than a major urban area will be required to return the census form to the local enumerator, and it will then be perused by either the enumerator or the census commissioner. I think the minister should look into this situation, give the House an explanation, and assure the people living in smaller communities that their rights and privileges will be respected.
5962

May 19, 1971
National Security Measures Mr. Speaker: The matter raised by the hon. member may be one of importance, and he has suggested that it might be looked into by the minister, but certainly it is not a question of privilege by any means. Perhaps the people living in smaller communities might have a question of privilege, but not the hon. member. I think he might have had a legitimate question to ask during the question period but as the question period has expired it cannot be pursued at this time.
Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, May 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) (for the President of the Privy Council):
That a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons be appointed to examine, inquire into and report upon the nature and kind of legislation required to deal with emergencies that may arise from time to time in the future by reason of lawlessness or violence in Canadian society and that endanger the existence of government or the maintenance of the peace and public order;
That twelve members of the House of Commons, to be designated by the House at a later date, be members of the joint committee on the part of this House;
That the committee have power to sit during sittings and adjournments of the House;
That the committee have power to report from time to time, to send for persons, papers and records, and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee;
And that a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours thereof.
And on the amendment thereto of Mr. Woolliams (p. 5795)
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, on rising to speak on the motion and the amendment before us this afternoon, I feel that the discussion which might follow this afternoon and on other days might be effectively shortened if the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) would indicate in more clear and precise terms than he did last Thursday what in fact the government is willing to accept by way of terms of reference for this joint parliamentary committee which is to be established. If indeed the Minister of Justice, speaking on behalf of his colleagues, can indicate that the government is prepared to accept the reasonable amendment put forward by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), then I think that we could very effectively and efficiently move on to discuss other business in the House. I would be quite willing to yield the floor at this point to the Minister of Justice if he would indicate an acceptance of the amendment.


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: I will wait until you end your speech.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: The minister says he will wait until the end of my speech. That is very charitable of him. He expects that I have something worthwhile to add to the debate and I appreciate that. Quite frankly, one of the difficulties we are faced with this afternoon, and one of the difficulties that created the amendment proposed last Thursday, is the fact that we are asked to accept a task, to answer certain basic questions, without having clearly defined for us the nature of the problem.
If the events of the October crisis can only be responded to at this distance in time, some half a year later, by the suggestion that we need new kinds of legislation to deal with lawlessness and violence, surely that proposal coming from the government represents a poverty of thought. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, it indicates the degree to which the government has now become very unsure of the wisdom of the position it took last fall, and is unwilling at this point to go any further than to say let us have a parliamentary committee to bring in some kind of law that is not quite as nasty as the War Measures Act.
We were told as recently as last Sunday evening by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that, while the government does not want to suggest to the committee what it would like to see in terms of proposed legislation, the Prime Minister did suggest on this same television program that there were gaps in the law which must be filled. He said, in effect, "We have various alternatives for filling these gaps but we want Members of Parliament and the country at large to discuss this thing very freely." What does the Prime Minister mean by that? Is this to be a parliamentary game of blindman's buff in which the members of the committee try and discern what it is the government really has in mind, or are we invited to participate in some kind of shadow boxing exercise over one of the gravest events that has occurred in this country in recent times? Surely, neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister of Justice can be that childish about an event of such major significance that they would play this kind of game with Members of Parliament and with the public.
Indeed, the position of members of this chamber may be worse than that, Mr. Speaker, because, along with the proposal for establishing this committee, it is suggested by the government that if the committee does not do its job properly or if a crisis occurs such as the one last fall

we have never really been told exactly what that means though we have been given various renditions of what it means-the government will not shrink from responding in a similar fashion. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), on last Sunday's program "Weekend", said:
-if a new crisis like the October one breaks out, then we will introduce special laws very quickly-
We have not told what they might be, whether they will be a return to the public order bill or some other legislation. He continued:
-and if the violence is of such a nature that special laws are bogged down in such a way that we cannot meet the crisis, we will resort again to the War Measures Act. There's

May 19, 1971

no ambiguity on that, and if people don't feel protected, let me just tell them that we will do as well in the future as we did in October-
One can almost imagine some of the Hallelujah choruses coming out of the background at that point. What we have here is some form of parliamentary blackmail. If the members of this chamber do not get on with the job, then the government implies they have the muscle, they have the tools to do the job and are prepared to go to bat again as they did last fall.
For those who are concerned about the present situation, as is the Premier of Quebec, both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) have tried to offer comfort by saying, "Of course, we still have the Criminal Code and we can still act under such sections as seditious conspiracy; we can certainly deal with people who would have the aims and approaches of those active in the FLQ." I really admire the intestinal fortitude of anybody who can make that statement now, in the month of May, when last October they were telling us how important it was to have other repressive laws to do the job. That kind of double thinking, however, does not seem to bother the members of this government to any degree.
In all the discussions that have surrounded the events of last October, both in this chamber and in the country, one of the real problems has been how to get at the basic issues. I suppose it is always the case that when a country's emotions are engaged, when it is faced with an event that its leaders describe as an insurrection and a crisis and when there is talk of revolutionary activity, then the people are inclined to respond to the most emotional aspects of the events. But surely one of the benefits of looking back with sober second thoughts at the events of last fall is that we can go to the heart of the basic issues, that we can ask basic questions, that we do not have to be mislead by requests for laws to cover events that we cannot look at. How can we frame laws in such a way that they will be appropriate for future situations which nobody has described? If the government feels itself caught in that trap, I believe that there are many reasonable and intelligent people in the country and in this Parliament who do not feel caught.
There are three main issues, Mr. Speaker, which I contend must be looked at soberly and rationally. I want to speak about these this afternoon because they should form the background for any committee activity if that committee is going to be responsible in the face of a crisis such as that of last fall and the actions of the government last fall.
The first is the issue of violence. For most people, this is where the discussion usually starts and ends because violence is such an irrational act, because violence is so unpredictable and because it so often dramatic and final. It has a kind of magnetic quality. It is no wonder that the written, visual and oral press give so much attention to violence. We sometimes accuse the press of paying too much attention to it, but I think any thoughtful pressman would reply that they pay attention to violence because people are fascinated by it. I do not know whether it is true to suggest, as many people have, that we live in a
National Security Measures
violent age-maybe it is just reported more extensively and effectively.
There is no doubt that our society, like most, is troubled by violence from time to time. In its preoccupation and concern with the violence of last October, the government has suggested that there are gaps in the law, that we really do not have the proper instruments in law to deal with violence, that when there is lawlessness and a government is endangered through violence we do not seem to have the appropriate means to combat it. Surely, the government has fallen into the classic trap of immediately jumping to consequences before examining the causes, Mr. Speaker. It might be suggested at this point, I suppose, that if someone is running down the street firing a machine gun one does not resort to a study to determine the cause of such irrational behaviour. Of course, this is true but if some violent event has occurred in the past in a variety of ways, and one has tried to deal with it on the short term, surely there then comes a time when it must be dealt with on the long term. Surely, if we now have this moment to reflect without the pressure of immediate events of a violent nature, one of the first questions to ask is what the roots of violence are and what the causes of violence are.
It has often been suggested in this chamber that the causes of violence in our society today are social and economic inequality. Last fall a number of people suggested that the very serious economic situation in the province of Quebec could well have formed the social fabric out of which arose the acts of violence associated with the FLQ. Last Sunday evening the Prime Minister suggested that there are other parts of the country where there has been exceptionally high unemployment. He referred to the Maritimes, the area that I know best, and he said that there has not been the same kind of violence there. There is some measure of truth in this, but only some because often the very fact of high unemployment merely represents a deeper malaise. I do not think it takes a very acute observer to realize that there have been some long term problems and social discontent in the province of Quebec. Those who have read some of the current literature emanating from Quebec realize the depth of agony and alienation that exists for far too many people in that province.
I am frankly shocked and surprised that the Prime Minister of this country, whose home is in that province, should so often give the impression that his first answer for some of these underlying causes of social discontent and violence is to face them only from the standpoint of repressive and restrictive laws. This seems to me to be almost a council of despair in which we are going to settle for a kind of heavy handed response to the most glaring facets of discontent in a part of this country rather than to root out those elements that give rise to alienation, to agony and to violence. If this government is not willing to engage itself in that area then, surely, it does not deserve to govern and to deal responsibly with the situation.

May 19, 1971
National Security Measures
Secondly, in looking at the question of violence we must be prepared to ask this question: how can violence be prevented? It can be prevented, as I suggested, by going to the root of the long term and general ailments afflicting us, because those ailments alienate parts of society from communities in which they exist. The government itself said that shortly after the kidnappings there seemed to be a deterioration in the will of the people. Have we ever tried to ask why there was this deterioration in the will of the people?
First of all, is it true that there was this deterioration; and, if it is true, what caused it? Was their commitment to democratic institutions so slight and fragile as to collapse at the slightest pressure? I will say more later on about the fragility of our democracy. Why was there such a ready loss of will, if there was such a loss? We ought to attempt to deal with that serious question because, although the War Measures Act was proclaimed and although the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act was enacted, we have not solved the problem. I do not think that any member of the House, including the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice will suggest that we have solved it.
Speaking on the specific question of how violence can be prevented, I find it passing strange that a minister of this government such as the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) who has put some of his thoughts on record in his book, should be so little concerned to justify what was done last fall. Although he has been here almost six years, he has had little to say about a problem that has existed in Quebec for the better part of the last decade. Indeed, in his book the Secretary of State suggested that the government had to invoke the War Measures Act at that particular time because it knew that if it did not respond to that threat there would be another, and another after that. Surely, the government was not surprised at events? It had known about the existence of certain organized violence for the last seven or eight years. As we have heard again and again in this House, there was literally no response on the part of the government.
Speaking on the question of the roots of violence, may I say that if the government was concerned because there were basic gaps in the law, it ought to have said specifically what kind of legislation would be enacted to fill those gaps. It was humbug for the Prime Minister to suggest the other night that the government did not want in any way to predetermine what the committee would do. If this is the government's new modus operandi, one can assume that there will be general references to other bodies whenever it is necessary to do something important. The government will not attempt to bring legislation before the House without referring it first to a committee for study and consideration. It will say, "There is a problem in such and such an area." It might say, to be more specific, "There is a problem in foreign affairs on a certain question, or there is a problem regarding regional development in a certain area. Tell us what to do. Recommend some laws that we can enact in future."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: That would be foolish, would it not?


An hon. Member:: It would be.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: The government is being equally foolish now by saying, on the one hand, that it will not predetermine what the committee will do and, on the other hand, by admitting that there are certain gaps in the law which need to be filled. When we want to know what laws will be introduced to fill the gaps, we are told that we must wait to find out.
The second main issue that occurs to me, and that is of basic importance with respect to events of last fall is this: Deliberate confusion was created and there was a blurring of some important aspects of the events that took place. If one thing disturbed me more than anything else last fall, it was the fact the government deliberately confused the distinction between political ideas and criminal activity. That was not done inadvertently by one minister on one occasion, but was done on a number of occasions by various ministers. The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) made the point that the kind of sweeping action taken by the government would certainly deal a death blow to separatism. The implication was that there was strong support for the invoking of the War Measures Act because some people wanted to get rid, by that means, of this difficult question of separatism. It was thought that that kind of strong action on the part of the government would really show the country how serious we were about that situation.
By deliberately blurring the issue and confusing people, by implying that we would give the separatists a rough time through the kind of heavy handed response that was made, the government showed a kind of intolerance that is a long, long way from anything that we have known in this country. Furthermore, that kind of intolerance is not in the traditions of this country. One of the things that makes Canada unique in my estimation is that despite problems we have encountered during the 100 years of our history, we have been able to sit down and discuss these problems fact to face. Sometimes the discussions have been long and difficult and sometimes the results have not been totally satisfactory. Nevertheless, we have always felt a great measure of respect for each other and for our differences.
Last fall the government showed the kind of intolerance that suggested that when people espouse certain political ideas, the government will not hesitate to utilize its own form of reaction and repression. There might, therefore, even be a kind of state induced violence. Through its overwhelming actions last fall, the government told the separatists what it is prepared to do and how it is prepared to respond to one political front.
I wonder if our fellow Canadians have thought about the implications of that for other parts of the country. What if the people of western Canada should espouse some form of western separatism, as has been suggested on more than one occasion?


Mr. Francis:: How? By the use of terror?
May 19, 1971


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Say the three Maritime provinces decide they want to form a union? Would the government, by intimation, suggest that it might use some form of unilateral and repressive action in that situation? Perhaps it would wait until one or two individuals from that area who are not in the mainstream, perhaps, were willing to resort to criminal activity or terror. Would the government then respond and justify its actions on the ground that it is dealing with these specific events while, at the same time, dealing with the over-all problem of political differences? That is not in our tradition, Mr. Speaker. Quite obviously, if that should become part of our tradition, that tradition will be a most dangerous and degrading one. Are we to move away from our traditional posture of public tolerance to one of intolerance? In the field of the espousing of various political ideas, are we to move from tolerance to repression? Will we lose in some measure our right to dissent?
Not too long after the events of last October, the Prime Minister suggested in a television interview that one of the positive things that had happened was that he had polarized the situation. That is polarization all right, but not the kind of polarization one can associate with a democratic country. For all of this, surely there is the question of the government's own perception of social unrest, apprehended insurrections, crises, or call them what you will, and its responsibility to these people. At what point does the government decide it has the right to unilaterally suspend and suppress traditional freedoms, rights and judicial procedures? It has not been clearly defined at what point this must occur. To date, the government has been noticeably reluctant to openly engage in a discussion on that basic question.
There is a third main area that certainly must be examined by any committee that is to do its job responsibly. That is the question of the relationship between civil liberties and public order. Last Thursday, the Minister of Justice referred to this when he was speaking in the debate, because he wanted to point out the problems which seem to exist from time to time in a modern democratic state. When talking about the gaps in the law, he said:
But, in eliminating those gaps, we must do everything that can be done to strike the proper balance between those sometimes conflicting and competing social goals of an orderly society on the one hand and of individual liberty on the other.
That statement has been made by a number of government apologists as a rationale for some time. In a kind of embarrassed way, the Prime Minister and others said "You know, we have a long history as active supporters of civil liberties in this country, but there comes a time when a difficult decision has to be made between maintaining some public order and allowing people to have individual liberties." As the Minister of Justice suggested, there is the tension, or what have you, between an orderly society and individual liberty. I hope people will look at that statement closely because it is a fraud. How can
National Security Measures
anyone think that there can be a genuine conflict between order in society and individual liberty? Surely, you cannot have one without the other. You cannot have any real sense of order in a society unless you have free men. If men are not free, that order rests totally on some kind of dictatorial suppression and enforcement. It is high time we stopped using these kinds of red herrings to distract from the main question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: And with mercury in them, too.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Another oft quoted favourite comment is that democracy is a weak and fragile instrument. If people are not watched very closely and situations arise that are the least bit abnormal, the state must intervene in some massive way or all of the democratic apparatus and procedures will collapse in a moment. Perhaps the members of this government, beginning with the Prime Minister, really do not have very much faith in democracy. I believe at times the Prime Minister has written quite fulsomely on what little faith he really has in the democratic process. Perhaps he does not trust people to exercise their own judgment in a responsible and accountable way, but speaking as one member of this House, I have a good deal of faith in the democratic process of this country even if the government does not.
A government which so willingly acted in the middle of the night to set aside democratic procedures, remove bills of rights, habeas corpus, freedom of association and a whole series of regularly accepted democratic institutions, all because democracy was endangered, has surely endangered democracy itself. If there is anything worse than a danger to democracy, it is that there are those who, through their own abilities, are too weak to defend it. By its actions, the government has indicated that it may not be trusted to protect the regularly accepted procedures and systems of democracy.
If we have learned anything from the events of last fall, even though on many occasions they have been deliberately clouded and obscured, it is that certain basic rights and legal procedures in this country are not negotiable. Any government that wishes to act in the future as this government has acted in the past will have to offer a great deal more in substance and confidence to the people before Parliament allows itself to so willingly accept the actions that were placed before it in the middle of October last.
The committee that is being established could do a very important and useful job. The work of the committee could make a major contribution to many facets of life in this country. Quite frankly, I am amazed and I hope that when I am finished speaking the Minister of Justice will dispel some of my amazement and worry.


John Napier Turner: That would be
impossible.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: When the Minister of Justice spoke last Thursday on setting up this committee, he seemed totally inconsistent when referring to the background of the events of last fall.

May 19, 1971
National Security Measures


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Which is not unusual.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: At that point he seemed unwilling to allow any useful appraisal of the events of last fall. When the Prime Minister spoke over television last Sunday, he indicated that the events of last fall were the framework and basis for the sittings which would take place in this Parliamentary committee. Surely, any reasonable individual who has only thought briefly about the purpose of this Parliamentary committee would realize it would be an absolute necessity for this committee to examine the events of last fall.
It is impossible to proceed to the discussion of any kind of proposed legislation without first examining whether the legislation which was used was used in good faith and was really necessary. Surely, we have to learn that from the people who were chiefly involved in administering and executing this kind of legislation. The people of this country have a right now, at a time of relative peace, to a full statement of the facts in an objective form. The provinces, which may be faced with administering any new form of law in this regard, will wish to present their point of view.
Basically, and most important, the onus is on the government to prove the need for more repressive and more restrictive laws. It is not good enough for the Prime Minister and Minister of Justice to say "No, you cannot look at the events of last fall. We will not tell you what laws we have in mind. If you do not bring in a law and recommendation quickly, we still have the War Measures Act and other legislation at the ready." This is not the kind of atmosphere in which to proceed with the work of this important committee. The committee must get on with the job. The government ought to act responsibly by indicating its willingness to accept the amendment. Perhaps it should redraft the terms of reference in such a way as to enable the committee fully to satisfy the concern which is felt in the country. If this is done it may not be necessary to resort once again to a kind of response in an emergency which I believe in no way enobled Parliament or assisted the country.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege deriving from an incident which took place a few moments ago when our protective staff made the decision to throw a young lady out of the gallery. Apparently, persons visiting this Parliament, particularly students, are prevented from using the galleries if they are wearing shorts.
I have been observing, as I am sure have other hon. members, that there are much more brief costumes than shorts worn these days. Nevertheless, the decision has been made by someone that persons wearing shorts are not admitted into the galleries. I have no reason to discuss women's styles. I understand women can wear whatever they wish to wear. Everything is in order. Nothing is out of place any more. Shorts are permissible for evening wear as are other forms of attire. Last week a constituent from my riding was thrown out of the gallery
with a great deal of publicity and I am sure her family were not in the least pleased about it.
1 suggest that if we are to enforce this regulation concerning dress in the galleries we should at least supply the National Capital Commission and Members of Parliament with copies of these rules in order that visitors may be spared embarrassment. The type of dress objected to is worn on the street. It is perfectly acceptable in the high schools of our nation. Students do not realize that under our rules it is prohibited. I think they are offended by being thrown out, and if that is so, then I am offended on behalf of these constituents. In order to spare visitors this kind of publicity and embarrassment, I suggest the National Capital Commission, which helps Members of Parliament to conduct school tours, be supplied with information which could be passed on to students by the schools before they come here, outlining the regulations as to dress which apply in the galleries, restaurants and cafeteria.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for Timiskam-ing for bringing this matter to the attention of the Chair and of other hon. members. I believe no new rule has been made. It is, rather, the style which has changed. There are new items of ladies' apparel which perhaps I should not refer to at this time. In any event, it appears it is this new style which causes some confusion as far as the application of the rules is concerned. The point is well taken. The Chair will discuss the matter with the Sergeant-at-Arms, who has the responsibility for applying the rules as to the style of dress to be worn in our galleries, and I am sure some kind of compromise can be reached which will prevent a recurrence of the unfortunate incidents to which the hon. member has just alluded.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I do not want to become involved in the question of privilege, but I should like to assure the hon. member for Timiskaming that the young lady he mentioned is a great credit to him and to his constituency.


William Arnold Peters: Perhaps that will help her with her family.


John Napier Turner: Speaking to the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), I regret to say that in our view the amendment is not designed for the purpose of ascertaining what the nation needs by way of additional legislation to deal with emergencies which may arise in the future but, rather, that it has been designed for the purpose of appraising, or adjudicating upon, what was done in the past.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is not correct.


John Napier Turner: I ask the House this question: would it not turn the proceedings of this com-



May 19, 1971

mittee into a partisan, political exercise, possibly acrimonious, more concerned about whether the government was justified in proclaiming the War Measures Act last October than with the vital and potentially crucial question which forms the basis of the government's motion, namely, to examine, inquire into and report upon the kind of legislation required to deal with emergencies which may arise in the future endangering the existence of government or the maintenance of the peace and public order?
As I have already said, the government proclaimed the War Measures Act reluctantly. The government does, and must, accept full responsibility for doing so. When the government determined to invoke the act it was convinced it was a proper, necessary and justifiable course of action. This is still the position of the government as far as the events of October are concerned. In the last analysis, the government will have to answer for the exercise of that judgment to the electorate of Canada. The government recognizes this, and accepts it.
One of the things which has disturbed me, listening to the speeches of hon. members opposite on this motion and on the amendment is this: as I listened, I kept asking myself what they would have done had they borne the responsibility of government last October. The answer which came through was as disturbing as it was clear- they would have been incapable of taking the definite decisions necessary to cope with the challenge of the terrorists.
As far as the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) is concerned it is certain from his own words, as they appear at page 5796 of Hansard that he would have done absolutely nothing. This is what he said in his speech last Wednesday:
I am opposed to any kind of special legislation and I am opposed to this motion because it underlines the need for special legislation, something which I do not accept.
Those were his words in the House. They are an interesting addition to the memorandum which was sent to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on October 22 last year by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) to which the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands referred in the House on November 4 last, as reported at page 892 of Hansard. He wrote then-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a question of privilege. I assume the minister intends to read those words now. This has nothing to do with our party but it affects the principles upon which we work in this House. The memorandum referred to was requested by the Prime Minister. Does the Minister of Justice now say there is no suggestion that whatever was written by the former leader of the New Democratic Party was confidential?


John Napier Turner: I see no objection to that correspondence being read, because it was public. We took the precaution of checking with the leader of the party concerned. Moreover, he himself referred to it in his speech on November 4 last. I believe the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) made his reply public, also.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have forgotten.
National Security Measures


John Napier Turner: In any event, the position set forth in the memorandum was that the hon. gentleman and his friends believed it desirable to pass a special statute providing necessary but limited powers to deal with a national crisis arising out of real or apprehended insurrection in peacetime. Then, a number of suggestions were made with respect to such legislation. The following suggestions are made with regard to such legislation under 11 headings dealing with what the new legislation should contain. I fail to understand why the change of mind and heart about the necessity for additional legislation in peacetime, as expressed by the new leader of the New Democratic Party, from that expressed by his former leader in response to a question posed to him by the Prime Minister of this country.


An hon. Member:: We have learned a good deal.


John Napier Turner: It seems to me there is a bit of an opportunistic change of heart here.
After listening to arguments in the chamber, we find that a type of non sequitur is put forward, and we have heard it again today. The argument is that, since the government made a mistake in invoking the War Measures Act in October of 1970, this demonstrates there is no need for additional legislation to deal with emergencies that may arise from time to time in the future by reason of lawlessness or violence in Canadian society. That is the type of non sequitur that we have heard. This action was not needed in October; it is not needed now; therefore, this exercise is useless. It would be far better, so the argument goes, to accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Calgary North.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. If the Minister of Justice is going to quote or paraphrase me I hope that he will do so properly.


John Napier Turner: I was not quoting you.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You referred to my amendment and what I said. Mr. Speaker, I intend to be brief. If we need any legislation that should be studied by a committee, in light of the words of the Minister of Justice the last time this subject was before the House when we brought in certain legislation to meet a crisis, the committee should be allowed to study it. I suggest that in light of that, the committee should deal with similar crises. It should be allowed to analyse the former crisis and the government's performance in order to decide whether we need new legislation and of what type. Since the minister began in this vein I hope he will paraphrase me properly, accurately and honestly.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will deal with that matter of privilege very quickly. I was neither paraphrasing nor quoting the hon. member. I was summarizing the arguments made in this chamber in respect of the amendment. I hope the hon. member will not be so sensitive as to think that I would direct every remark to a speech he made. I referred only to the

May 19, 1971
National Security Measures
amendment proposed by the hon. member for Calgary North.
Another argument proposed was that there was no need for action in October of 1970 because nothing happened. That is the type of argument which is a subtle attempt to put the government in the position where it would have to prove a negative; that is, nothing happened therefore nothing was necessary. I have said before in this House that nothing happened because the government acted. It will avail hon. members on the other side nothing to attempt to invert the burden of proof by that type of argument.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You come before the committee and give evidence. Then, we can cross-examine you and find out how sincere that argument is.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It would seem to the Chair that the Minister of Justice has the floor. With all respect to other hon. members, I think he should be allowed to complete his remarks. If hon. members have proper points of order or questions of privilege the Chair will hear them.


John Napier Turner: I want to assure the hon. member that I am not trembling in my boots over the possibility of undergoing cross-examination by the hon. member. I enjoy this type of intellectual exercise. He has cross-examined me for the last three years and it has been enjoyable for me. I do not know how profitable it has been for him, but it has been a useful exercise.
One fact that must not be lost sight of in this debate is that as soon as possible after the War Measures Act was proclaimed the government introduced the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act 1970, which reduced the scope of the law in effect under the regulations proclaimed under the War Measures Act. After a full and prolonged debate in this chamber, Parliament passed the public order measure. I submit that in so doing, this Parliament gave its stamp of approval to the invocation of the War Measures Act. I would remind hon. members that section 14 of the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act provides as follows:
On, from and after the day this act is assented to, any offence committed under section 4, 5 or 6 respectively, of the Public Order regulations, 1970 made pursuant to the War Measures Act shall be deemed to be an offence committed under section 4, 5 or 6, as the case may be, of this act, and any investigation proceeding or other act or thing instituted, commenced or done under the authority or purported authority of those regulations shall be deemed to have been instituted, commenced or done under the authority or purported authority of this act and as though this act had come into force on October 16, 1970.
In other words, the operative sections of the regulations proclaimed under the War Measures Act were endorsed, ratified and confirmed by section 14 of the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act which received the approval of this Parliament. I am saying that this was not unilateral government action, but action endorsed by this Parliament and the party to which the hon. member who is interjecting belongs supported that action.
rMr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton).]
Under the circumstances, to ask the Standing Committee to sit in effect in judgment on the decision to proclaim the War Measures Act, would be to ask the committee not only to sit in judgment on what the government did, but also to sit in judgment on the decision of Parliament itself.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What are we going to study?


John Napier Turner: Surely this is manifestly an unacceptable attempt through the committee to review a decision of Parliament.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Even you must choke on those words.


John Napier Turner: I also want to remind hon. members that on October 17 this House approved a resolution seeking the confirmation of this House of the proclamation of the War Measures Act. We asked for an endorsement, and that was not necessary under the legislation, but the government felt it should come before the House to receive the endorsement of Parliament after the act had been proclaimed. After a two-day debate the House approved this resolution which reads:
That the House approves the action of the government in invoking the powers of the War Measures Act to meet the state of apprehended insurrection in the province of Quebec-
That is not the entire resolution but those are the operative words. I am not suggesting for one moment that in order to decide upon the nature and kind of legislation that should be considered by Parliament the committee should not look at the history of terrorism and violent confrontation in this country. That would be as ridiculous as the non sequitur I referred to earlier. That history must be looked at, and it is largely a matter of public knowledge-the bombings, the murders and the riots. This must be brought into focus in order to enable the committee to discharge its responsibilities.
I would ask hon. members to bear in mind that there is a vast difference between looking at past events as an aid to guidance for the future on the one hand, and on the other adjudicating on past decisions taken and acted upon.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Would the minister permit a question?


John Napier Turner: I will be finished in a minute. The government takes the position that the duty of this Parliament, and the function of a committee of the two Houses, should be to evaluate the necessity for and the kind of additional legislation that may be necessary to meet emergencies of this type in the future, that is, when lawlessness or violence threatens government or the peace and public order. In order that this may be done in an impartial and non-partisan way, as calmly as possible, the burden of this committee must be directed toward the future and the situation as it exists in this country. The hearings should not be primarily an attempt to resurrect the past, going beyond decisions already taken by this Parliament. These are decisions for which this Parliament will take responsibility, and the govern-
May 19, 1971

ment will take responsibility for their initiation, before the people of Canada.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question? Since he has indicated that the committee should be able to look at the various kinds of violent activity that occurred, bombings, terrorism and murder, does he also mean that the committee should be able to look at the causes which precipitated this activity, because that may be important in determining proper parliamentary response?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to anticipate the decisions the co-chairmen may have to make in determining what is relevant under the resolution before Parliament if Parliament chooses to pass that resolution. The committee and its chairmen will have discretion under the resolution. I think it would be inappropriate for me to anticipate what the committee or the chairmen should do. They will be charged with the terms of reference and it will be up to them to decide what is relevant and discharge that discretion.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, surely the minister is sort of arguing against himself because a moment ago he did definitely suggest the kind of things they might look at. Since he has made these suggestions, which obviously will be taken into account by the committee, I am asking whether he also means that this removes any discussion of the events which precipitated these acts of violence. I ask this question because I think it has been indicated by the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis) that the invocation of the War Measures Act may have had an effect on and possibly precipitated the tragic death of Mr. Laporte, although I hope that is not the case. Therefore, it might be an important task of the committee to indeed consider the invocation of the War Measures Act.


John Napier Turner: I am reminded quite often by hon. members that what ministers happen to say from time to time in the House of Commons does not bind the interpretation of a statute which may pass through this place. For the same reason the committee chairmen are not necessarily going to be bound by what any minister of the government says in discharging their own responsibility. I am sure the committee chairmen will listen to the hon. member's suggestions as well as mine, because we are talking about a parliamentary resolution and he has as much right to make suggestions as I have.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Justice be prepared to come before the committee and give evidence? When he speaks about the history of the various matters that would be helpful in shaping any future legislation, would he be prepared to answer questions and not hide under the formula that it would be against public policy to disclose anything that did happen in order to assist us in the future.


John Napier Turner: I cannot anticipate what questions the hon. member or members of the com-
National Security Measures
mittee will put to me but I would certainly come before the committee if I am invited.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: You might be silent.


John Napier Turner: I do not think the hon. member would find me silent. I will be bound by the terms of reference of the committee and shall consider any questions which are properly allowed to be put to me. If some of those questions I am unable to answer, the hon. member will know the reason because I will give it to him.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to this amendment and the main motion, until the last series of interjections by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) and other members, my first observation is to the effect that the Minister of Justice was adopting a rather remarkably low profile in this very important debate. His introductory remarks certainly were very short, and I believe rather vague. I was somewhat surprised by that, and I shall deal with some of the things he said as I go through my remarks. I think perhaps the minister's remarks of last Thursday could be summarized in this way. I believe he said in essence, first, that we need some special powers beyond those of the present Criminal Code to deal with the new and growing phenomenon known as the urban guerilla. He insists, secondly, with a bow to civil libertarians, that the government moved reluctantly last October to invoke the massive powers in the War Measures Act to deal with what has been since sardonically described as the most poorly equipped insurrection we have ever apprehended. Finally, in his remarks the minister said that we must do everything in our power to "strike a proper balance between those sometimes competing and conflicting goals of an orderly society on the one hand and of individual liberty on the other".
But in seeking the balance, the Minister of Justice told the House that there are gaps in the criminal laws of the country in respect of facilitating effective law enforcement at times of serious crises. I have said that the minister assumed, up until today, a very low profile. I repeat this because in mentioning these so-called gaps he does not give the country any real idea or examples of what these gaps are. He is singularly reticent on this particular point, except to say that there are gaps. On the basis of these alleged gaps, the government has by resolution proposed the setting up of a committee. I might read the resolution at this point:
That a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons be appointed to examine, inquire into and report upon the nature and kind of legislation required to deal with emergencies that may arise from time to time in the future by reason of lawlessness or violence in Canadian society and that endanger the existence of government or the maintenance of the peace and public order.
If one reads this carefully, it will be seen that there is no mention whatsoever of two very important considerations. The first is that there is nothing in the terms of reference of the committee with regard to recommending to the government, as a result of its deliberations, whether or not special legislation is required to protect society
5970

May 19, 1971
National Security Measures
from lawlessness. Apparently the minister has already decided this. The minister and the government have decided that special legislation is needed or else he is locked into his particular stance because the whole case for the invocation of the War Measures Act last fall rests entirely on the government's allegations that the Criminal Code was inadequate to deal with the alleged crisis at that time.
The second point-and I feel this is a considerable point-is that there is nothing in the resolution to indicate that the committee is to be instructed to take any special cognizance of individual freedom and personal liberty in bringing forward its ultimate recommendations. On the contrary, the whole thing is negative. It is a law and order resolution. I shall read the pertinent portion again:
. .. legislation required to deal with emergencies that may arise from time to time in the future by reason of lawlessness or violence in Canadian society and that endanger the existence of government or the maintenance of the peace and public order.
So, what we have is a resolution anticipating certain recommendations from a committee before it has even been set up. I would have been much more comfortable with this particular resolution if these two items had been included in it. After all, who could be against studying whether or not we need special legislation? The urban guerilla tactics are a relatively new feature and are not confined entirely to Canada and Quebec. Throughout the world people are fearful of this new phenomenon.
In the minister's opening statement, there is a brief and mild reference to individual liberties, but how can anyone support a resolution which makes no specific reference to the importance of individual rights in a free society at a time of crisis, a crisis the very existence and definition of which is decided by the government. According to the resolution, and by referring to gaps in the Criminal Code, the government has decided that special measures are indeed required. The resolution does not use the words, "such means as may be required". It states flatly that they are needed. As I said earlier, the whole case for the invocation of the War Measures Act rests on the particular assumption that the Criminal Code is inadequate. That is why the minister is reluctant to allow in this resolution a phrase concerning individual liberty. I believe then that it follows the minister knows in his own mind exactly where these gaps exist and has a pretty good idea of the kind of thing he wants to plug these gaps, the kind of legislation he needs to overcome these so-called gaps in the Criminal Code.
I do not think there is any doubt about it, but to date he has not told us, he has not given us any inkling at all. He wants to fob off the whole thing in a joint Senate-Commons committee. He wants to spread the guilt for the resulting recommendations and to evade the direct responsibility for the changes which he has decided upon already. I do not know whether he is gun-shy because of the flak he got from the so-called Turner law. I do not
know what his motivation is, and it is not for me to impute motives, but I sincerely believe that he has a pretty good idea of what he wants included in this legislation, and setting up a parliamentary committee to recommend special measures without allowing it to look into the recent past which motivated the need for them is a mild diversion at best. That is what I think.
I assert that it is incumbent upon the minister to stand up and tell us-he has already responded to a number of other questions-what he has in mind to fill in these gaps, because we have been sucked into similar strategies before. The minister made reference to this in his own little intervention here a moment ago. Before tabling the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act, or the so-called Turner law, each caucus was invited to participate in the legislative drafting by sending suggestions to the government. Our caucus felt that it was a serious search for multi-party legislation to deal with what we did or did not know about a crisis that was occurring at the time. Certainly everyone in the House, including the government, was rather anxious to get rid of the War Measures Act. Our caucus responded to the letter of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and spent considerable time drafting certain suggestions. We have been bludgeoned over the head with those suggestions today, but the point is that we saw the resulting legislation and we saw our suggestions ignored.


John Napier Turner: It was not permanent legislation.


Mark Willson Rose: I am speaking about the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act on which we were invited to submit suggestions.


John Napier Turner: May I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The suggestions of the hon. member's party regarded permanent legislation. The Leader of the Opposition took the position at the time that it was not opportune to bring in permanent legislation without further public discussion, and the government agreed with that position. We then brought in the temporary bill which lasted until April 30. We are now dealing with the subject of permanent legislation to which the New Democratic Party addressed itself earlier.


Mark Willson Rose: Regardless of the clarification which the minister has given, our party spent a good deal of time considering the kind of legislation needed to cover a particular problem. But at that time no one really knew anything more about the situation than the information we received from the government or the press. Subsequent events and revelations placed us in an entirely different position on this question. The same thing was true with regard to the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act. We voted in favour of it on second reading because we felt there was a chance that a concerned government would accept certain amendments that we had to offer. It was hoped that, in order to get rid of the War Measures Act, although we did not particularly like the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act, the government would not be impervious to certain amendments

May 19, 1971

May 19, 1971
National Security Measures
Another part of the brief reads:
One way to minimize the use of emergency powers is to force the government that wishes them to sustain the political consequences of invoking the ultimate legal monster, the War Measures Act. For the very reason that it is so politically difficult to invoke it is preferable that a government should have to choose between the enforcement of existing criminal legislation and the invocation of the War Measures Act.
The quotation continues:
Almost nothing in the regular law prevents the police from infiltrating, spying, bribing, and even engaging in electronic eavesdropping. While a valid case might be made that some of these powers could be curtailed, particularly electronic eavesdropping, it is impossible to argue for their expansion. What could be urged-
And I think this is pertinent and appropriate to the city of Montreal
-of course, is the more skillful use of some of these techniques. But improved police techniques don't require additional legislation.
The brief concludes by saying:
In any event, the onus must be on those who seek the enactment of such additional legislation to demonstrate the size of the evil to be purged and the need for the means to be used.
That is what the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) suggests, because you cannot divorce the crisis of last October from this particular committee's concerns or the discussion here today. It is impossible to divorce these two. I believe it is up to the minister to prove to this House that special legislation is needed. So far he has not done that. He has been singularly silent on that. His resolution only implies that it is needed, but he has not proven it is needed.
It is not enough to say that, because most people supported the invocation of the War Measures Act at the height of the crisis its implementation was the right thing to do at the time, any more than it is to say now that if most people are in favour of this sort of half-way legislation, then more is either right or necessary. Isn't that what the committee should be deciding? It certainly appears to me that is what the committee should be deciding.
Sometimes it is very tiresome to listen to lengthy quotations, but I do not wish to be stopped from presenting the thoughts of others just because it might be tiresome. I would like to refer to the writings in the Montreal Star of a gentleman by the name of Dominique Clift, because some of the things that he has had to say about special amendments to the Criminal Code deal with the subject we are discussing.
The implication of course is that urban guerrillas and terrorism are viewed by the government as an almost permanent feature of our society, much like they are in the United States.
Parenthetically, I think that the Americans have never used an instrument as repressive and as massive as the War Measures Act, even though they have dealt with some tragedies, some insurrections of a size certainly magnified by many times the events in Montreal last October.
Mr. Clift continued:
The definition of what constitutes an emergency belongs to the executive and remains a discretionary power of the government. The trouble with this is that information on emergencies is always derived from the police force which is essentially bureaucratic in the sense that its actions, its attitudes and even its methods usually escape public scrutiny . ..
Increasingly, police would be called upon to assess what would be essentially a political situation. The danger is that the cabinet would gradually abdicate its own political authority in favour of the police who already enjoy a monopoly of information on subversive activities. This inevitably leads to increased police activity based on wider surveillance, the accumulation of personal files and the issuing of identity cards.
I am rather fearful of the Solicitor General's (Mr. Goyer) recent suggestion that Members of Parliament should be treated in the same manner as anyone else, when responding to a question on whether or not there was surveillance or a file kept on certain Members of Parliament. Mr. Clift says:
In the realm of law and civil rights the dangers are even greater. The War Measures Act and the Public Order Act have instituted a new type of oifence: the political crime. This is evident by the special provisions which affect the civil rights of persons under suspicion and detention, and which allow for wider and more discretionary use of police powers in times of emergencies. Greater protection should be afforded in such things as access to a lawyer, quick appearance before a judge, preventive detention and compensation when no charges are laid.
He closes by saying:
These are the reasons why the legislation which will succeed the Temporary Public Order Act becomes so important. It may well be necessary to foresee various measures to counter new incidents of terrorism, but as much as possible they should avoid eroding any existing rights. This is all the more important since civil rights are coming under pressure from many other directions, such as credit companies and electronic spying, for instance.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it seems to us the government has not proven its case that the invocation of the War Measures Act was justified in the first place, nor that this proposed resolution adequately protects the rights of the individual because it is biased in favour of law and order. Any special legislation can be used for the purposes for which it is passed, but it also can be used by irresponsible people merely to stamp out dissent, and we are very concerned about that. That is why I will vote in favour of the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Calgary North. There is still far too much mystery surrounding all the events of last October. My attitude is based not merely on a desire to look back and see whether the government was right or wrong. That is history and people have already made their decision about it. I think the crucial point is that if the events of last fall had not taken place, we would not be dealing with any resolution today that interests itself in the urban guerilla problem.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark Willson Rose: It is on that basis that the government must justify whatever legislation may come out of this committee. I repeat, I am not happy with the implication in

May 19, 1971

the resolution that the committee is bound to come up with recommendations on legislation to deal with these problems. It is not allowed the responsibility of deciding whether we need such legislation, but the committee must examine all the facts thoroughly. We have to get at the facts as distinct from government fancy and whitewash before considering amendments to the Criminal Code or special legislation. The Woolliams amendment is worthy of support and I intend to support it.
Our dilemma is that every time we place further power in the hands of the executive we tend to create a potential abuse of such power. Therefore, if we give more power to a particular branch of the executive through special legislation, then reciprocally we may need more safeguards for individual rights and privileges. This protection is not covered in the resolution. In my view the resolution is deficient in two places and in voting for the Woolliams amendment I shall-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. Not much shocks me, but I would ask the hon. member to refer to the amendment of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams).


Mark Willson Rose: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall certainly not call it the Woolliams amendment again. I am relieved to hear that Your Honour does not shock very easily.
The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Calgary North is worthy of support for the reasons I have given and, similarly, a non-amended form of the resolution before us is unacceptable for the reasons I have outlined. I think it is important that we look into the various implications of what we are doing here. A great deal of study has been given to this particular dilemma by Mr. Herbert Marx, in an article which appeared in the McGill Law Review. As far as I know he is no relation of either Harpo or Karl. In this article Professor Marx says:
It is axiomatic that a sovereign state must have effective means at its disposal to deal with emergency situations. Some curtailment of civil liberties is perhaps also inevitable, depending on the gravity of the emergency. However, we must provide checks for unwarranted and excessive government interference with basic liberties. There are at least three such possible checks.
(1)	An entrenched or constitutional Canadian Bill of Rights would offer some guarantees. At least, it would prohibit Parliament or the government from automatically suspending civil liberties during an emergency.
I do not think I need elaborate on that or contrast it with what protection an American citizen has in a similar crisis.
(2)	Parliament can restrict the powers delegated to the government under the War Measures Act or under an analogous law. For example, it should be more clearly delineated under what conditions the government can invoke its emergency powers;-
We have never heard about these conditions, Mr. Speaker, from the government.
-the government should not have the power to deport Canadian citizens; and, it should be specified under what circumstances and with what safeguards the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended.
National Security Measures
(3)	Implementation of one or both of the above suggestions would permit our courts to be more vigorous and imaginative in checking abuses of our civil liberties.
There is, however, no panacea for the maintenance of civil liberties during emergency. In the long run, as Harold Laski wrote in 1942, the crucial factor in the preservation of civil liberties "is the existence of a citizen body which is conscious that civil liberties matter, and is willing, if need be, to fight for them."


Mr.   Paul-M. Gervais@Sherbrooke: Mr. Speaker, in following the debate these last few days on the motion concerning the establishment of a special joint committee to consider legislation required to deal with emergencies arising from disorder and violence, 1 see that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) seems to have been designed to allow that committee or the House to appeal past decisions of the House.
I realize that the amendment seems to be conceived only to permit a revision of the past. And as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) mentioned a moment ago, what we must do now is look at the future. The people have judged the past and I am sure that they are satisfied and interested in the future.
Moreover, those decisions particularly and essentially drawn from that amendment were taken by a large majority vote in the House and were welcomed by the Canadian people and especially by the Quebec citizens, in spite of the statements made by intellectuals and so-called intellectuals.
Allow me to give a personal view and mention that the Quebec citizens are as much if not more competent and qualified, individually or through their elected representatives, to analyse current events while we are living in a quiet period and that the fear of disorder has been averted, at least temporarily. We hope that those conditions will become permanent.
On the other hand, as a result of some speeches delivered in the House, we feel that some members are far from understanding the reactions and thoughts of Quebecers, I do not blame them; I have no right to do so. This ignorance of the Quebec climate can evidently be ascribed to the distance between that province and others and to the misunderstanding and confusion created by various interpretations and slight differences of language for some whose mother tongue is not French.
However, a great many hon. members from other provinces have been trying to get the facts, both by reading objective reports and through discussions with colleagues who have had a very close knowledge of the October crisis. Let no one say that a bill has already been drafted and that this government is merely waiting for the right opportunity to introduce it. It is even suggested that the proposal to create a joint committee is but an indirect way of giving this matter a first-class funeral.
Perhaps these may be the reasons which have incited the hon. member for Calgary-North (Mr. Woolliams) to move his amendment.

May 19, 1971
National Security Measures
If we were to believe certain hon. members who have participated in this debate, we would think, as a commentator put it quite recently, that of his own free will James Cross went into closed retreat for two months and that our good friend the late Pierre Laporte died of a heart attack. Let us be responsible.
The premier of Quebec the hon. Robert Bourassa feels that permanent legislation must be passed. He is supported by his government, his minister of Justice, municipal authorities, the Montreal police, the provincial police force and the majority of Quebecers.
To my mind, it was not necessary to extend the enforcement of the temporary legislation. The inclination of the opposition was obvious and pointed to an endless debate. Moreover it is my humble opinion that the population was then and still is anxious to have a permanent legislation.
It seems that at times members on the other side object to a legislation just because they are opposition members. Some voted for the War Measures Act and even suggested that, as a reprisal, 30 members of the FLQ should be shot for every public figure kidnapped or killed.
Later, their views underwent a change. Other opposition members blamed the government for acting too late and too impulsively or for not having acted quickly enough, since there had been bombints at irregular intervals for over seven years. Does the opposition want to go over the whole thing again? That is what I gather from the hon. member's amendment.
The establishment of this committee will provide hon. members who are concerned with urgent and vitally important problems with an opportunity to hear government representatives, as the Minister of Justice has just said, expressing at the same time his willingness to testify if invited to do so, as well as representatives of police forces and associations created for the protection of civil liberties. And I feel that many of these various associations in Canada will want to appear before this committee.
If we wish to participate objectively in these discussions and to listen to all the views expressed, I am sure that it will be possible to legislate while striking a proper balance between collective security and individual freedom.
I intend however to suggest a formula to the committee to be set up, whether I am a member of it or not. In any event, I want to say that my position is not rigid as I will always be happy to listen to the pros and cons of such a proposal.
Would it not be in order to enact legislation much along the lines of the 1970 act providing temporary emergency powers? However, such legislation enacted by the federal government under its jurisdiction, would be implemented through proclamation by provincial authorities only in exceptionally serious circumstances such as those which led this government to do so last fall.
This law would be recorded in the statutes and could be implemented only under very limited conditions, as I said earlier. In fact, it would be effective only in a passive manner, and it could become operative only in those circumstances I just mentioned.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Who decides?


Mr. Gervais:: The provincial government.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Will there be any resort to the courts?


Paul Mullins Gervais: The provincial government will make its own decison, being close to the situation.

As a matter of fact, this would be a passive law in the statutes only to be enforced by the government, as I said to the hon. Leader of the Opposition, in serious circumstances such as those that occurred last October.
Had this law been in force in Quebec during the October crisis, the Quebec authorities would have been fully justified in enforcing it by proclamation as the federal government did with the War Measures Act, a gesture that the whole Canadian society applauded.
At the present time, we are inclined to consider only the problems that Quebec has to cope with as a result of the unhappy experience that province has had. However we must not deceive ourselves. Unfortunately, I don't believe I am wrong when I say that other provinces may have similar trouble and that they will be visited with the same virus in the face of pernicious doctrines daily infiltrating all our institutions. I hope I am mistaken in saying that, but such is my opinion.
Anarchists are seeking a vehicle for their theories. They found one in Quebec. They could well establish another elsewhere in Canada or adopt one, making subtle and skillful use of it as they did in Quebec, subsequently stirring up a segment of the population, to achieve the purposes that are well known.
It would then be the responsibility of the province involved to look into the facts and take decision. Provinces have the juridiction, the awareness of facts and are perfectly able to assume that responsibility, just as Quebec did and proved a few months ago.

We have had in the past few months glaring examples showing that certain members from one part of the country do not know about the other parts of the country. It is not by spending a few months in St. Jean, Quebec, and studying French or by travelling as a tourist in Quebec for a few weeks, or in any other province for that matter, that we can really learn to feel the pulse and understand the frustration that subversive elements are continually feeding our people by various devices and subtle methods. I have faith and confidence in the competence and knowledge of my provincial government, as I am certain other hon. members of this House have in their own provincial governments. They are elected by the same process as we are in this House. They are elected by the same people. I have faith in the common sense of the electorate, as manifested in municipal, provincial or federal elections.
I do not feel that the constitutionality of such a proposal is in question. This would be federal legislation, be it an amendment to the Criminal Code or an isolated statute which would be applied by the provinces. This

May 19, 1971

appears to me to be intra vires and not a delegation of powers. We have examples of such legislation. A recent amendment to the Criminal Code of Canada legalized lotteries, provided the provincial governments passed the necessary legislation and issued a licence to a body wishing to operate lotteries. The Riot Act can be read by a mayor or his alternate or substitute or someone in authority to declare that an assembly is unlawful. This is federal legislation applied by the provinces in a given set of circumstances.
I would not want hon. members or the population at large to think that such a proposal would exclude the intervention of the Armed Forces of Canada, if so requested by a province. This subject is correlated very intimately with recent events. This matter falls under an entirely different department. This intervention, however, would have to be and should be borne by the national treasury. The Canadian army, of which we are rightly proud, is the army of all Canadians. Its use, when and where required, should be provided by the Department of National Defence without any provisos whatsoever.
Such a suggestion would not exclude the establishment of a compensation board set up by the provinces in the event of unfair or prejudicial acts performed, perhaps, by over-zealous or inexperienced police authorities. Again, this being a matter of civil law, our provincial jurisdictions would apply. I have no doubt that some agreement could be reached. Would we, in this Parliament, not be over-paternalistic if we did not consider these different points "en bloc", as a package deal?
In the name of peace, order and good government I think that we should, regardless of party affiliations, seek a new definition in this new legislation of organizations deliberately planning to overthrow the established authority by force and violence. Whatever an association may be, whatever name it may use, if it is plotting to overthrow the established authority by extraordinary means, meaning by force and violence-it need not be one that forms part of the FLQ family-then I believe, Mr. Speaker, that adequate instruments must be given to the various police forces to enable them to function effectively under extreme circumstances and to protect the civil liberties we all cherish so much. That is the crux of this issue.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member who just took his seat. He is a learned member of the Quebec bar. Naturally, I was most interested in what he, as a member from Quebec, had to say on this subject. Your Honour will forgive me if I suggest to him that I do not believe the matter can be expressed in the simplistic terms he tried to outline to the House. This is a much more complex matter. It is one of vital concern to all Canadians, regardless of where they live in this country. To suggest that those of us who are not from the province of Quebec have no knowledge of the subject questions our right to make any comments or in any way participate in the debate which deals with a matter of concern, especially to the province of Quebec.
National Security Measures
I wish I could also say that I have the same faith in my provincial government that he has. I suspect there are many in this House who could echo this sentiment. In my province of Newfoundland, there have been many occasions in the past few years to look with concern upon the government of our province because in the name of law and order, peace and good government, the civil rights in our province have been lightly tossed aside on more than one occasion. Perhaps the only way we will ever resolve this dilemma, which faces all of Canada, is to have a bill of rights entrenched in our constitution which will give equal rights to all Canadians regardless of where they live in this country.
We have a federal statute, the Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, it does not fully meet the need because it only covers the areas under federal jurisdiction. Under our constitution, property and civil rights come within the jurisdiction of the province. A bill of rights in this country can only be truly effective if it is ratified by all of the provinces and enshrined in our constitution. Then, and only then, will Canadians be assured of their rights, regardless of what province they are in, and where they may go in this country. As things stand at the present time, it is fair to say that there are 10 different standards of civil rights in this country, depending on the province you happen to be in at a given time.
I would like to say a few words in support of the amendment. I believe that the amendment is important and one which should commend itself to the House. In citing the need for a review of the events of last October in the committee, we are merely stressing that in order to establish whether fair and effective legislation is needed and what type of legislation is needed, we must look upon this task in light of the events that occurred in Quebec last October. We must examine the situation as it unfolded then in order to more properly determine the kind of legislation which is needed. That is what this amendment states. Otherwise, there is the danger that the committee will become nothing more than a useless vehicle, albeit one that is convenient to the government. Perhaps it might even get the government off the horns of this terrible dilemma. In my opinion, it would be utterly meaningless in coming to grips with the problems which generated and contributed to the situation last fall which shook the very foundations of this nation.
I supported the invocation of the War Measures Act, believing that my support was conditional on the government at some time in the future, when it felt it would be in the public interest to do so, to reveal to the House and hence to the public the need for invoking the War Measures Act in the first instance. This is another reason why I commend the amendment to the House. If this amendment is accepted by the House, it will enable Parliament to fulfil its obligation to the people, which it has not done to date. The House would then have the reasons why the government felt it had to take the measures it did to meet the situation last October.
I also supported the public order bill because it was the fulfilment of one of the undertakings of the government that it would replace the War Measures Act by such a bill. This party supported that move because, among

May 19, 1971
National Security Measures
other things, it helped to restore some degree of normalcy to the country at a time, and I do not think this is an exaggeration, when civil rights had been suspended across the country as a consequence of the invocation of the War Measures Act. With concern, I watched this legislation die and wither. I saw and heard the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) give his explanations in the House as to why the legislation was allowed to go the way it did. We are left with the feeling that we had a hypothetical crisis. We have not been given one concrete fact to back up the government's use of the most severe and repressive legislation this nation has ever had in peacetime, indeed, legislation which was never meant to be used in peacetime. By its very name, I am sure the legislation was only meant to be used when this nation was at war.
To this end, it would be invaluable to have members of the government, officers of the Crown and the Minister of Justice state to the committee their reasons for the action they took. In so doing, they might be able to convince the committee of the need to come up with new legislation. They could contribute to helping the committee determine the type of legislation that is needed. We can learn much if we are told of the events of last fall. Hopefully, if this kind of evidence is produced before the committee, we can produce legislation that will adequately safeguard civil liberties in this country, the civil liberties of those who are presumed innocent. Only in this way can this committee serve a useful function and adequately meet the responsibility with which this Parliament is about to charge it. I find it very difficult to understand why there would be any basic opposition to the amendment setting up the committee.
My basic belief is that the powers of search and detention employed during the October crisis are of prime importance and central to the whole issue. Important as that may be, we must not forget what I consider to be contributing factors to the events leading up to what took place in Quebec, the social conditions, unemployment and economic disparity. However unpardonable these actions were, there is no way that the government can escape the fact that economic conditions in the province of Quebec and other parts of the country last October and, indeed, now, are such as to be a cause of great concern.
By reviewing the crisis legislation of last October, the committee will be in a better position to evaluate incidents and procedures which resulted in the internment of many citizens whose rights were taken away. Most of them were subsequently released without charges having been preferred. I believe the committee should have the right to learn how the list of persons to be detained was arrived at. Were these arrests the result of arbitrary decisions or did the police follow a general blueprint in arresting people at all hours of the day and night? These are questions which are in the minds of many Canadians and they are questions which will be of concern to the committee as it discharges its responsibility to the House and to the country.
Because of the seemingly arbitrary nature of the police action during the October crisis, we as legislators, and
the public at large, are left in the dark as to the reasons for which these actions were taken. These are questions which must be answered before we can usefully set about determining whether or not legislation is necessary to deal with certain situations in the future, and, if so, what type of legislation is necessary.
The facts as they appear at the present time and, indeed, as they have been admitted in the House, indicate that the events of October did not warrant or justify going beyond the powers contained in the present Criminal Code. It is with trepidation that I, as a layman, refer to the Criminal Code, since I am not versed in the criminal law. However, I have made it my business to learn something about the provisions of the Criminal Code as they affect the situation with which the committee will be dealing. Section 46 deals with treason. It covers the use of force for the purpose of violent overthrow of government. It also deals with conspiracy against the state such as to prejudice the safety or defence of Canada. Section 60 deals with sedition. It covers criminal conspiracy and seditious intention. It is specific in dealing with those who advocate the overthrow by violent means of a democratically elected government. Section 64 has to do with unlawful assembly. It is this section which could have been used in the case of public gatherings or meetings conducted by groups, against which action was considered desirable at that time. Furthermore, the effectiveness of those sections of the Code dealing with kidnapping and murder are obvious to anyone who has studied them.
In October, the government expressed the view that the reason for invoking the War Measures Act was the difficulty of obtaining warrants under which people could be arrested in respect of an apprehended crime in circumstances in which, in the view of the government, insurrection was apprehended. Sections 434-436 inclusive deal with the right of police officers to arrest without warrant, on certain grounds, those who in their opinion have committed or are about to commit an indictable offence. Other sections make reference to parties to an offence, persons counselling an offence, persons accessory after the fact, and persons intimidating Parliament or the legislature. These are sections 21, 22, 23 and 51. I should like the minister to tell us in what way sections 46, 51, 60, 64, 434, 435 and 436, dealing with the murder and kidnapping which unhappily took place in Quebec last fall, are inadequate?
It might also be useful to refer to a Quebec statute which gives wide and sweeping powers to the state, powers which are of great concern to many people. I refer to the Quebec Coroners Act which provides for the arrest and detention of persons whose testimony the coroner deems necessary in certain circumstances. The relevant sections of this act are sections 22 and 23. Obviously, the Quebec government had all the power it needed under the terms of this act. In my view, the federal government and the provincial government concerned had all the powers they needed under the Criminal Code.
It is easy to say that hindsight is infinitely better than foresight, but it appears to me that the use of the War

May 19, 1971

Measures Act last fall in relation to the final outcome of that unhappy crisis was neither profitable nor proper. The application of the War Measures Act is a matter for an executive order, and this being so I should like to see provision made for a judicial review of action taken under the regulations so that those who are detained without a charge being laid would have this recourse open to them.
For these and other reasons, the amendment should commend itself to the House. Perhaps the committee might discuss the whole area of civil rights in this country. In so doing it might assist governments of this country, both provincial and federal, as they pursue their task of trying to write a new constitution. Central to such a constitution would be a bill of rights which would ensure that Canadians shall have certain rights enshrined for all time.


Mr. Robert P. Kaplan (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, as we proceed to the formation of the new committee to consider the threat of violence and terror in society, we have the opportunity to run a circus act which could be the biggest show in town, if that is what we desire. The ingredients are here; intrigue, violence and murder. The full range of human emotions can be tapped; fear, hatred and racism. There are many brands of philosophy that are relevant; tyranny, facism, communism and totalitarianism. There could be opportunities for great partisan political gain. Every political party could play. There could be great gains and risks of great losses to all parties and individuals. All of us are on record. We can, each party at this committee, build an election campaign. The promises, the charges and the counter-charges can all be presented to the committee, but I do not think this is the job we were sent here to do. We were not sent to campaign. We were sent to try to solve Canada's problems, not to exploit them, and particularly not to exploit them for political gain. At another and more dangerous level we could emphasize differences in our work, religious differences, differences in development and in values. In this way, we could help to tear Canada apart. I submit that these are temptations to be resisted.
The government has to assume full responsibility for its role in the events which took place in and around Montreal last October. There should be no question or doubt about that. I was glad to hear the Minister of Justice again emphasize the acceptance by the government of its responsibilities. Likewise, the opposition parties will have to assume the responsibility for their positions. The facts and interpretations of the facts have been presented and will be presented in the next election campaign. It will be up to the voters to judge all of us. Beyond that, the issue will be judged by history; who were the heroes and who were the flim-flam men of the FLQ crisis. As I see it, the proposed committee should not beat these bushes. It has a more practical job and one of greater moment to look into.
I followed with interest the case put forward by the opposition spokesmen on the motion and on the amendment. The theme of their remarks was that the committee should uncover what they call the half-truths and
National Security Measures
distortions which were put forward to try to justify the implementation of crisis legislation and to prove that what the government did last fall was shameful. They hope, and they are quite right, that the amendment proposed would steer the committee to focus on an exercise in politics.
Organized violence and terror was not invented by the FLQ. Regretfully, I do not believe the threat of organized violence and terror will end with the end of the FLQ. I, personally, reject the amendment before us because it implies that the answer to the broad question of coping with violence lies in the events of last October in Montreal. I supported the government last October and voted with it. Obviously I, for one, do not concede that the government over-reacted then or that it was engaged in an adventure. To focus on this issue is to defeat the purpose of the committee.
Even if the allegations of the opposition were conceded, the proposed subject of discussion by this committee would still be justifiable and valid on the basis of developments which are visible elsewhere in the world and elsewhere in this country.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Such as what?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Elsewhere in the world there is this threat of active terrorism and violence.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The hon. member said "elsewhere in this country". I wonder if he would give us some examples?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I can give this example. My wife and I were tear-gassed at a public meeting in Toronto about five weeks ago by people who purported to be members of the Edmund Burke Society. We were tear-gassed in a campaign which the police stated had been carefully organized well in advance.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: So, there should have been an emergency declared.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I am not saying that.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What sue you saying?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I am making a point and I think it is a valid point. I am glad to have had the opportunity to illustrate it. Violence and terror are with us in this world and, whether we like it or not, they are not limited to the events that took place in Montreal.
Violence and terror have an ancient history, but their evolution in modem society involves something new. There are two new things happening on which I should like to focus. Firstly terror is increasingly becoming recognized as a legitimate political tactic. This legitimacy must be under-cut. In spite of the suggestion which the leader of the NDP made during the last day's debate on this motion, I believe we live in a society in Canada in which the will of the people is expressed in the institutions of government. We have not yet a truly just society. None the less, I believe there are no disadvantaged groups, regions or classes in Canada which have any right or reason to give up hope that the democratic process can work to their benefit. More and more these disadvan-

May 19, 1971
National Security Measures
taged interests are learning to use democratic processes to achieve their ends.
But this is not true in every country of the world. In some other countries the just society is remote or nonexistent. Disadvantaged groups and dissident minorities have no reason to believe that in these other countries their lot will improve within the given order. They have good reason to believe, on the contrary, that the social and political order is determined to exclude them and to defeat them. In these societies, revolution and the use of terror are understandable. They have become legitimate. We are political animals in this chamber and my guess is that some of us, if we were transplanted to some other society and felt the call to improve that society, would be terrorists. In other words, in some circumstances and in some societies, terror approaches legitimacy.
As we in Canada watch the evolution of remote societies in places both far away and near, we see terror and violence on television in our living rooms. For a small minority of us the difference in the Canadian setting is lost. In those countries the leaders of terrorists negotiate with heads of state. They settle treaties and their rights are established. The urban guerilla, the terrorist, the pirate and the kidnapper are gaining new international credibility. This is a credibility these people do not deserve in Canada. This is a new feature of terror and violence, and I believe it requires the considered attention of the committee.
A second factor which lends immediacy to our need for this study is the growing destructive capacity of the individual criminal or criminal group. In the state of technology of 200, 100 or even 50 years ago, throughout the period during which our values of civil liberties were defined and have flourished, there were rather narrow physical limits to the amount of damage and destruction that even the most violent and deranged killer or anarchistic group could do in society.
Along with the positive things technology and affluence have brought us, they have brought on the negative side the vastly increased power of destruction. For example, theoretical studies have been conducted by the Hudson Institute of New York of the ways by which a small group could kill most of the eight million inhabitants of New York City. There are evidently many ways in which this can be done in a matter of days. All of them involve a considerable amount of planning but none of them require very much in the way of resources.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that thirty years ago even Hitler, with the power of a state behind him, took a considerable number of years to kill his first eight million victims. In the last 30 years the evolution in this power to wreak damage to society has been tremendous. I suggest that this new potency of terror must be borne in mind by the committee as another reason for giving careful consideration to the problem. The Minister of Justice has often referred to the delicate balance which exists between civil liberties on the one hand and the safety of the state on the other. I suggest that these new threats to the state have emerged which have not existed before in the history of civil liberties. It is valid, and
indeed it is our responsibility to address ourselves to these dangers.
It should also be observed that the evolution of technology has produced a threat to civil liberties in addition to the threat to social order. We may now exercise the power of the state and of private interests in the state to gather information, to experience, to hear and to preserve. This situation and these powers created by technology demand our concern. Again, this is an area in which attention is required and in which the government is working.
The Committee will require the points of view, the attention and the participation of all the members of the House of all political parties. It is for this reason I particularly regret the decision announced, I hope tentatively, by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) that his party does not intend to participate in the work of the committee. He gave as a reason the suggestion that the government had not given his party sufficient time to make recommendations and that the government did not wait for their recommendations before introducing the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act. I have the record here, and I note it was indicated in the House that as of October 19 all parties had been asked to make suggestions concerning the form the legislation might take. It was not until November 2, almost two weeks later, that the public order act was introduced. Two weeks is not a tremendous period of time, but considering the circumstances it is perhaps unreasonable for the Social Credit party to assert that it should have had more time, bearing in mind as well that it was ample time for the Conservative party and the New Democratic Party to put forward their suggestions.
I suggest it is somewhat unfair for the Social Credit party to boycott the committee on the ground that it was not given sufficient time to make constructive suggestions. Aside from that, the members of the Social Credit party have a special interest in this legislation. It is of interest to them and to their supporters. It is true that their party is a minority party, but there are other concerned minority parties in the House. Certainly, the views of this party should be presented and taken into account by the committee in its consideration of the kind of legislation required in order to deal with violence.
I see my time is up, Mr. Speaker.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I propose to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) and also to vote against the original motion. I should like to express briefly my reasons for doing so. It seems to me it is quite impossible for the proposed committee to deal with the question of what legislation, if any, is required in the future to deal with the possibility of lawlessness and violence in the Canadian society endangering public order without the most careful review of the October crisis and the action taken in relation to it. The question inevitably arises concerning whether the War Measures Act was properly or improperly invoked and whether the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act adopted by Parliament was or was not necessary. The real question which will face the committee is whether the situation

May 19, 1971

could not have been dealt with adequately by the firm and vigorous exercise by the police, with the assistance of the army, of the powers already conferred on them by the Criminal Code.
How can the committee advise concerning whether or not the War Measures Act requires amendment or partial replacement without determining whether its invocation in peacetime, at the time of the October crisis, was or was not necessary. It is my own firm conclusion that as a matter of fact there was no insurrection or apprehended insurrection which necessarily justified the invocation of the War Measures Act. This conclusion, if it is right, should be a guide to what is needed in the way of future legislation. My view on this matter may well not be accepted by others and the committee will perform a valuable role, if the resolution is passed, in reviewing the facts concerning the invocation of the War Measures Act. The War Measures Act, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) have acknowledged, confers almost absolute powers, sweeping powers, which were not appropriate to the circumstances of October. However, it was used, but it was inappropriate and I believe the committee should determine why it was considered by the government to be appropriate. I think the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice should be asked to give evidence before the committee to explain why they thought it was necessary then.
The vast powers conferred by the War Measures Act included temporary suspension of the constitution and of the constitutional rights of the provinces and of individuals. It enabled the complete abrogation of basic fundamental rights. It is clearly a measure which should be used only in time of clear imminent danger to the whole community. It is perfectly true, of course, that grave and serious events occurred in Quebec last October which required firm and perhaps drastic action, but they clearly did not amount to any insurrection or war. A handful of people amounting, so far as the information I have is concerned, to two cells of four or five members each were involved. This hardly constitutes an insurrection. I placed a question on the order paper asking what was the result of the searches conducted under the War Measures Act and the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act. The reply was that 33 firearms and 21 offensive weapons were seized as of October 23, 1970 including shotguns, rifles, revolvers, other firearms, four bayonets, four machetes, nine hunting knives, one sabre and three smoke grenades. This is hardly evidence of an insurrection. If an insurrection were planned it was the worst planned insurrection anyone could apprehend. It seems to me it would be ridiculous to discuss legislation needed to deal with breaches of public order without examining in detail the most recent and up-to-date incidents, and the measures required to deal with them, in order to determine whether or not such drastic action was needed and to what extent the present Criminal Code would have been adequate.
I am opposed to the motion for at least two reasons. In asking that the committee report on the nature and kind of legislation required to deal with emergencies which may occur in the future, there is the assumption that
National Security Measures
such legislation is necessary. This begs the question. The question with which the committee should deal is whether the present legislation is adequate and whether further legislation, which will evidently be restrictive in nature, is really needed.
There is a respectable body of legal opinion in Canada which the committee should hear. It asserts that the present Criminal Code, with its provisions as to conspiracy, is quite adequate for the purpose of assuring public order. If this is so, the committee should be free to state that it is so, and the issue should not be prejudged by the terms of reference. Additional legislation cannot help but be used, however good its intentions, as an instrument of repression of fundamental rights.
The other reason that I object to the motion is that its emphasis is on one aspect of the matter, namely, the protection of public order. The committee is not asked to determine what is necessary to protect the rights of individuals. As the minister said in opening the debate, these two things should be balanced one against the other, but the motion is not balanced. It is an inquiry into the steps necessary to preserve public order. It does not include an inquiry, which I think it should include, into how, in times of stress and strain, fundamental rights of individuals can be protected. I think that the committee should have the power to look at the War Measures Act and to determine whether its terms are too broad, whether the powers conferred by it are too sweeping, and whether the circumstances under which it can be invoked are too loosely and broadly stated.
Another related matter which the committee should consider is the relationship between the War Measures Act and the proposed constitutional bill of rights which I hope will, before too long, be entrenched in the fundamental law of Canada, namely, the constitution of Canada. The present Canadian Bill of Rights is, in my opinion, inadequate. It provides that any act done under the War Measures Act shall not be deemed to be an abrogation of the provisions of the Bill of Rights. In other words, when the War Measures Act is invoked, as it easily can be invoked at any time, the Bill of Rights goes out the window and is silenced.
The purpose of the committee should clearly be spelled out, and the committee should be instructed to consider, among other things, how the rights of the individual may be maintained even in time of stress and disorder. The committee should have the authority to recommend legislation and indeed, if need be, a constitutional amendment which emphasizes the rights of the individual as well as the rights of the community. The present motion seems to limit the committee in this regard. It is unbalanced and therefore dangerous to the liberties of Canadians, and we cannot support it.
In my view, the most important task of the committee would be to consider the relationship between the War Measures Act and the Bill of Rights, so that the public safety and individual rights may be reconciled as well as possible.

May 19, 1971
Royal Assent



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major Guay Vandelac, the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this Honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following bills:
An Act to amend the provisions of the Criminal Code relating to the release from custody of accused persons before trial or pending appeal,
An Act to establish the Textile and Clothing Board and to make certain amendments to other Acts in consequence thereof,
An Act to provide for the examination, publication and scrutiny of regulations and other statutory instruments.
* * $

Mr. Crouse:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask what will be the business of the House tomorrow?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I believe this will be communicated by the House leader through discussions. I understand there are some discussions intended.


Mr. Speaker:: It being after six o'clock, I do now leave the Chair. This House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
It being seven minutes after six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, May 20, 1971