Mr. Speaker, it has been suggested that the House of Commons make an official apology to those who were incarcerated during the enforcement of the War Measures Act in the early seventies and that these people receive financial compensation. According to section 2 of the War Measures Act, the governor in council may issue a proclamation that real or apprehended insurrection exists, and this proclamation shall be conclusive evidence that apprehended insurrection has existed.
Once the proclamation was issued, the governor in council had the power to make orders and regulations to deal with the situation. As a number of members will recall, the provisions of the War Measures Act were invoked in October 1970, with the announcement that a state of apprehended insurrection existed in the Province of Quebec, in response to serious concerns expressed at the time by the Quebec Premier, Robert Bourassa, and the authorities of the city of Montreal.
In a letter to the Prime Minister of Canada, the Premier of Quebec used clear and direct language to describe the dangerous situation facing the provincial government. As he said: "The Quebec Government is convinced that such powers are necessary to meet the present emergency. Not only are two completely innocent men threatened with death, but we are also faced with an attempt by a minority to destroy social order through criminal action".
According to commentator Denis Smith, in referring to the events of the fall of 1970: "During an interview televised on the CBC network, Robert Bourassa mentioned a five-step revolutionary program: demonstrations, explosions, kidnappings, selective assassinations and urban guerilla warfare. The first three having apparently been carried out, Mr. Bourassa was sufficiently convinced, on October 16, that the "program" was being systematically implemented to believe that exceptional measures was necessary. We may question the nature and the reliability of the evidence available to Mr. Bourassa, but there is no doubt that at the time, Mr. Bourassa felt it was conclusive".
Mr. Bourassa and the Montreal authorities felt the evidence was conclusive and, on that basis, the federal government proclaimed the existence of a state of apprehended insurrection, pursuant to section 2 of the War Measures Act. On the basis of that proclamation, the government passed the Public Order Regulations, 1970.
On October 16, 1970, during the debate following the tabling of the regulations in the House, the then Minister of Justice, the Right Hon. John Turner, gave his colleagues the following assurances: "The procedure by way of proclamation is found within the War Measures Act. This is a completely constitutional technique. Let me point out more particularly that the regulations were issued under powers granted to the Governor in Council by Parliament; so that the constitutional source of this enactment was, and is, Parliament itself".
The constitutionality of the procedure and of the War Measures Act was subsequently also recognized by the courts. In Gagnon and Vallières vs. Regina , the Quebec Court of Appeal found, as had all court decisions up to then, that, under the War Measures Act and the constitution as it existed at the time, no judicial control could be exercised over the evidence in support of the decision by the governor in council to declare that a state of insurrection was feared. This decision was the exclusive jurisdiction of the governor in council.
The Quebec Court of Appeal also implicitly recognized the considerable precedents confirming the constitutionality of the War Measures Act. The courts have always held that the law is a valid exercice of Parliament's authority to adopt legislation for peace, order and good government in Canada.
The government of the time made a value judgment, which it was legally and constitutionally entitled to make on the basis of information available at the time.
It must also be pointed out that the federal government got involved in the Quebec crisis at the express request of the Government of Quebec. Following the crisis, the Quebec ombudsman investigated complaints of unfair treatment made by a number of people involved in the matter. Some of the complainants were compensated. Others had their claims dismissed. In
his annual report for 1971, the ombudsman noted that he felt obliged to investigate each complaint submitted to him. He said that he investigated the facts and reconstructed them insofar as possible. He tried to understand each person's situation and was able to consult files that seemed relevant.
The matter was settled provincially, and it is not up to this government or to Parliament to re-examine it.
Almost 25 years have passed since the events of October 1970. In this period, the legislative and political climate in Canada has changed considerably. We have witnessed the emergence of a strong tendency to protect individual rights, expressed more specifically in the enshrinement of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the constitution. Canadians' changing attitude is also reflected in the broad interpretation the courts have given to the charter.
Not only has the constitutional landscape of Canadian society changed since 1970, but also the legislation itself. The Government and Parliament of Canada have replaced the War Measures Act with the Emergencies Act, which limits the amount of force which can be used to deal with an emergency. The government would not be able to tap the wide-ranging powers it did in 1970 as easily today. This is also a reflection of how societal attitudes have evolved.
Judged within today's legislative, judicial and philosophical framework, some people would question the government's response to the events of 1970. Nevertheless, the fact remains that, at the time, the government did what it judged was necessary and what the constitutional and legislative framework in place then legally entitled it to do.
During the November 4, 1970 debate in the House on the legislation introduced to replace the regulations, Mr. Turner said the following: "And to suggest, as some members of the opposition have, that because an insurrection did not occur, therefore it could not have been apprehended, is an exercice in false logic".
This statement is more revealing 25 years after the fact than it was immediately following it. In 1970, the Government of Quebec apprehended an insurrection. The federal government acted, and its actions were driven by that apprehension. The measures it took were approved by tribunals and deemed to be in step with the powers which the law conferred to the government at that time.
We can and must learn from the past. The question begging an answer is whether we should review the past or invest in the future. We believe that the best choice is to use the government's limited resources to secure a brighter future for generations to come.
Any residents of Quebec who had been unjustly or arbitrarily targeted by the measures have been compensated by the Province of Quebec. In my opinion, it would be futile to rehash yet again this rocky period in Canada's history.
