LAW OFFICES OF

BENSON, 1'1C~lURTRY, PERCIVAL & BR.0"V'lN

2310 RICHMOND'ADELAIDE CENTRE

PHILIP W. BI':NSON, o .c . R. ROY McMuRTRY BARRY A. PERCIVAL BARRY D. BROWN

CARL A. E, THULI':AN JAMES J. WALSH

101 RICHMOND STREET WEST

TORONTO lJO, ONTARIO

TELE:PHONE 363 -148 I

(A~EA CODE NO.416)

November 2, 1970

The Hon. Robert L. Stanfield Leader of the Opposition House of Commons

Ot t awa , Ontario

Dear Mr. Stanfield:

I believe very stron~ly that the current debate regarding what extraordinary Dowers, if any, are to be given to the federal ~overnment in the wake of the imposition of the ~~r Measure's Act, to be a very crucial one for the Pro~ressive Conservative party a~ the issue/of course. affects the most basic ri~hts of an individual in a free society.

I have always felt that the essence of our Party was a concern that the rights of the individual be protected fro~ the unnecessary encroachments of any gQvernment bureaucracy.

The events of the nast three weeks have demonstrated how QuicklV a nation can for~et the imnortance of its basic freedoms when it is confronted with a crisiS and the 0 ten irrational emotions that result therefro~.

My own thoughts ~ere orieflv summarjzed in a letter to the Globe and ~ail. a p} otostat of which is enclosed. I am also takin~ the liberty of enclOSing a recent colu~n of Ron Haggarts, which you may not hnve seen.

I a opr-e c ta t e that you are probably committed to the n:<nci.ple of sunnortinr~ some form of emer~encv le7islation and Dav'~ Lewis su~~ested on C.B.C. Radio last ni~~t that the NDP we~~ similarily disDose6. Nevertheless; I would haDe that there is still a broad area in ~hich the ~overnment would be castigated fo~ its handlin~ of t~e crisis up until the present moment, quite apart from any criticism Khich may be warranted of the legislation which is to he introd~ced today.

! I

I

,

I

I I

I

"I,

Oui t e f'r-ank Lv , I am of t be opinion t na t the d anrce r-s nr e s errt ed b v the F_L.Q. or any other terrorist r:roun wou Ld be more e r'f'e c t Lve Lv Det by increasin~ the stren~th of 6ur police force3 (perhaps even estublishjn~ a soecj.al force) rather t~an dele~atin~ to:the individual police officer a sreater power of arrest.

In the pr-e s e n t crisis .I am fj.:rmly convinced that the number of indiscriminate arrests that have already occurred will produce a le~acv of bitterness that can only serve to enhance the cause of the Separatists in Quehec and further alienate many young neople.

I understand that Arthur Maloney has been in contact 111tn you ocith re~ard to the form of the lesislation before the House today and we will be discussing possible alternatives as soon as the details of the Bill are known.

In the meantime, .I wish you every success in the rlavs ahead.

BY SPECIAL DELIVERY

.~-- ----_-~-.----~-----

rAW OFFICES OF

BENSON, ~1CM15RTRY, PERCIVAL & BRO'VN

PHILIP W. BENSON, O.C. R. ROY MCMuRTRY BARRY A. PERCIVAL BARRY D, BROWN

CARL A, e:, TH ULEAN .JAM ES .J. WALSH

2310 RICHMOND·ADELAIDE CENTRE 101 RICHMOND STREET WEST

TORONTO 110, ONTARIO

TELEPHONE 363 ·1481 IAREA Co,,~ NO.416!

October 28, 1970

The Editor

The Globe and Mail 140 King Street West Toronto

Dear Sir:

Together with the'shock, horror and revulsion that I experienced with the news of the brutal murder of Pierre Laporte I must also confess to a deep concern about the extent to which the majority of Canadians have either dociley accepted or welcoced the War Measures Act and the suspension of liberties resulting therefrom.

In such a time of national tragedy, iv is undoub~e~~y very unpopular for anyone to raise the banner of civil lioerties for fear of being branded as one sympathetic to the perpetrators of the tragedy. For this reason I have no doubt but ~hat many responsible voices have remained silent in the present crisis despite deep misgivings as to the conduct of our ~ational Government. In particular as a lawyer, I am somewhat disturbe{ by the general reluctance of my legal colleagues to express publicly

the apprehension that is felt by reason of the imposition of martial law and the known injustices that have already occurred.

By this, I do not mean that I have any quarrel with the decision (unrelated to The War Measures Act) to employ the use of our armed forces. I would concede that the morale of a public deeply shocked by the events of the last three weeks probably benefited by the presence of federal troops, quite apart from the unlikely possibility of any wide-spread civil disorder.

However, I do believe that our Federal Government should be severely censured for its almost hysterical reaction to the challenge of the F.L.Q., a reaction which may very well have triggered the death of Mr. Laporte and which has now led to the indiscriminate arrest of a large number of persons, including women and children. At the same time the government at Ottawa

,./

/.('SSO~' ~Ic}IIJRTUY. Pl'.RCIVAL & Breowx

/. 'I'h e Editor

The Globe and Mail

- 2 -

October 28, 1970

has failed to reveal what, if any, beneficial effect has been accomplished by the imposition of the War Measures Regulations.

The federal Cabinet would appear to have been more influenced by its desire to discredit the Separatists generally rather than

the meeting of the immediate threat of a relatively few terrorists dan~erous though they may he. While the majority of Canadians outside of Quebec may have been sufficiently confused by our federal leaders so as to identify the F.L.Q. murderers with the moderates in the Parti Quebecois, most Quebecers are aware of the real differences between the two groups. As a result it is most probable that the cause of separatism will be enhanced by the police state activity that has resulted in the suspension of the rights~f many people who until now have been prepared to plead their cause within the democratic framework of our society.

The writer has never been prepared to accept the Machiavellian principle that the end, i.e. the destruction of the F.L.Q., always justifies the means. In this instance the· Federal authorities have stated that the crisis required the impOSition of drastic measures,. quite forei~n to the rule of law that is so basic to the foundation of a free society.

We are told that our Criminal Code was inadequate to cope with the emergency and yet a plain reading of the sections dealing with 'sedition' in the Code would indicate otherwise.

Section 60. Seditious words

11 (1) Seditious wor-d s are words that express a seditious intention;

(2) A seditious libel is a libel that expresses a seditious intention;

(3) A seditious conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to carry out a seditious intention;

(a) teaches or advocates or

(4) Without limiting the generality of the meaning of the expression 'seditious intention' every one shall be presumed to have a seditious intention who

.,..sox, }Ic'HL:HTHY, P~HCTVAL & BROWN

The Editor

The Globe and Mail

- 3 -

October 28~ 1970

(b) publishes or circulates any writing that advocates the use, without the authority

of law, of force as a means of accomplishing a governmental change wi thin Canada. 11

Section 62.

Punishment of Seditious offences

"Everyone who

Ca) speaks seditious words

(b) publishes a seditious libel, or

(c) is a party to a seditious conspiracy

is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for fourteen years.1I

Further, Section 21 of The Criminal Code provides our law enforcement agencies with very broad powers in laying criminal charges against anyone who is associated with the commission of

a crime, be it sedition, murder, kidnapping or any other criminal offence.

Section 21. Parties to Offence

"(1) Everyone is a party to an offence who

Ca) actually commits it,

(b) does or omits to do anything for the purpose of aiding any person to commit it, or

(c) abets any person in committing it.

(2) Where two or more persons form an intention

in common to carry out an unlawful purpose and

to assist each other therein and anyone of them, in carrying out the common purpose, commits an offence, each of them who knew or ought to have known that the commission of the offence would be a probable consequence of carrying out the common purpose is a party to that offence. l'

/LC"URTRY, PERCIVAL & DROWN The Editor

The Globe and Mail

- ~ -

October 28, 1970

The police are entitled by law to arrest anyone whom they believe on reasonable and probable grounds to have committed a criminal offence and this general power together with the sections already referred to surely would provide our government with the right to cause the arrest of anyone where there was any reasonable evidence to suggest that they were part of a criminal conspiracy.

Nevertheless, our Prime Minister insists that our existing law was not sufficient and he has apparently been able to persuade the majority of his countrymen that it is necessary to be able to arrest anyone on the flimsiest of suspicion, to hold them without a formal charge, to deny them bail and the access to a Court of Law for a prolonged period of time, all in the name of protecting the people of Canada.

It is often forgotten that the hard won civil liberties of a free SOCiety are not maintained only for those that are arrested but for everyon~ and when we deprive one person of this basic right then all are threatened.

If our government continues to insist on main~aining a right to determine with an unfettered discretion when and where it may suspend the civil liberties of any of its citizens then I suggest that the F'.L.Q. terrorists will have succeeded in dist~rbing

the essential fabric of our SOCiety ~o a far greater extent than what they could accomplish by any nu~ber of criminal acts.

Invoking

Letters to the editor oj The Globe and Mail comment on the events leading up to the declaration oi the War Measures Act.

Together ,with the shock, horror 'and revulsion that I experienced with the news of the brutal murder of Pierre Laporte I must also confess to a deep concern about the extent to which the majority of Canadians have either docilely accepted or welcomed the War Measures Act and the suspension of liberties resulting therefrom.

In such a time of national tragedy, it is undoubtedly very unpopular for anyone to raise the banner of civil liberties for fear of being branded as one sympathetic to the perpetrators of the tragedy. For this reason I have no doubt but that many responsible voices have remained silent in the present crisis despite deep misgivings as to the CORduct of our national Government. In particular as a lawyer, Lam somewhat disturbed by the general reluctance of my legal colleagues to express publicly the apprehension that is felt by reason of the imposition of martial law and the known injustices that have already occurred.

By this, I do not mean that I have any quarrel with the decision (unrelated to the War Measures Act) to employ the use of our Armed Forces. J would concede that the morale of a public deeply shocked by

War

Measures·

Ac1

gether with the -sections of the Criminal Code dealing with sedition surely would provide our Government with the right to cause the arrest of anyone where there was any reasonable evidence to suggest that they were part of a criminal conspiracy.

Nevertheless, Our Prime Minister insists that our existing law was not sufficient and he has apparently been able to persuade the majority of his countrymen that it is necessary to be able to arrest anyone on the flimsiest of suspicion, to hold them without a formal charge, to deny them bail and the access to a court of law for a prolonged period of time, all in the name of protecting the people of Canada.

It is often forgotten that the hard-won ci vii liberties of a free society are not maintained only for those Who are arrested but for everyone and when we deprive one person of this basic right then all are threatened.

If our Government continues to insist on maintaining a right to determine with an unfettered discretion when and where it may suspend the civil liberties of any of its citizens then I suggest that the FLQ. terrorists will have succeeded in disturbing the essential fabric of our society to a far greater extent than what they could accomplish by any number of criminal acts.

R Roy McMurtry

Toronto

the events of the past three weeks probably benefitted by the presence of federal troops, quite apart from the unlikely possibility of any widespread civil disorder.

However, I do believe that our federal Government should be severely censured [or its almost hysterica I reaction to the challenge of the FLQ, a reaction which may very well have triggered the death of Mr. Laporte and which has now led to the indiscriminate arrest of a large number of persons, including women and children. At the same time the Government at Oltawa has failed to reveal what, if any, beneficial effect has been accomplished by the imposition of the War Measures Regulations.

I have never been prepared to accept the Machiavellian principle that the end, Le, the destruction of the FLQ, always justifies the means. In this instance the federal authorities have stated that the crisis required the imposition of drastic measures, quite foreign to the rule of l-aw that is so basic to the foundation of a free society.

We are told that our Criminal Code was inadequate to cope with the emergency and yet a plain reading of the sections dealing with "sedition" in the Code would indicate otherwise.

The police are entitled by law to arrest anyone whom they believe on reasonable and probable grounds to have committed a criminal offense and this general power to-