October Crisis

Introduction

The October Crisis is significant in Canadian history because it was the first and only time the War Measures Act was invoked by a Prime Minister during peace time. Not everyone agreed with the measure. Some conservative critics viewed the step as an abuse of authority, particularly considering that too little was known of the forces of the Front de liberation du Quebec (FLQ) responsible for the kidnapping of the Deputy Premier and a British diplomat (Bouthillier & Cloutier, 2010). The controversial step by the Prime Minister did indeed alter the way Canada monitors and polices terrorist threats. This paper will examine how the October Crisis led to a more significant and longer-lasting impact on Canadian policy with respect to monitoring and responding to threats of terrorism.

The October Crisis

The FLQ was a group of separatists in Quebec. Members of the group kidnapped and killed Quebec lawmaker Pierre Laporte and kidnapped British Trade Commissioner James Cross in October of 1970. The FLQ had been bombing sites for half a dozen years prior to the brazen kidnapping plot (Ha, 2016). Like the IRA in Ireland, the FLQ was not formally structured; it consisted instead of cells and individuals who shared the same ideals as those promoted by the organization. Because it was not a formally structured terror organization, it was difficult for authorities to monitor and police the entity. No one really knew who its members were or where they were. Symbols of federal power were often targeted in bombing attacks but prior the Canadian government had little to go on in terms of eradicating the organization, particularly because the scale and scope of anti-terror powers was limited.

Some members, such as Pierre-Paul Geoffroy, were known to police. Geoffroy had been vocal about his distrust in the electoral process. After one bombing in 1968 he was arrested and pled guilty to more than 30 bombings. He was convicted and given 124 back-to-back life sentences; it seemed justice had been served, but in reality by focusing on Geoffroy and serving him up to the public as a scapegoat the Canadian government had allowed the rest of the FLQ accomplices to get away (Ha, 2016). That only paved the way for the more brazen attack of October 1970.

Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau refused to hem and haw; he promptly called the FLQs bluff and initiated the War Measures Act, giving his government sweeping powers reserved for war-timesuch as the power to arrest without bail. With habeas corpus effectively suspended, more than 400 individuals were quickly detained. Fewer than 100 of them would be charged with a crime when all was said and done; and only 18 of them would be convicted (Ha, 2016)....

But the sweeping nature of the response and the push for reforms that followed were sufficient to show the populace that terror threats in the future would be met with a much more totalitarian response.

The Need for Reform

Before the October Crisis, but during the bombing campaign of the FLQ, lawmakers routinely called for hard-line amendments (Hewitt, 1994). However, the bombings themselveseven of the Montreal Stock Exchange in 1969lacked the moral force and public indignation to bring about real or lasting changes in the way the government monitored and policed terrorism. The ongoing hostage situation and negotiation allowed for the dramatic crisis to play out over a number of weeks, which added to the seriousness of the event and allowed for numerous lawmakers to justify hard-line rhetoric that prior bombings had been unable to bring about.

Yet even as the situation played out into November, other politicians saw the seriousness of the affair as...

…by providing each of its principal pieces of legislation with exceptional or extraordinary powers according to the Human Rights League of Quebec (Burke, 2012, p. 105). It no longer was necessary after that for the PM to use the War Measures Actthe Act was essentially written into every aspect of the governments legislation: the inclusion of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms into the Constitution in 1982 was accompanied by a notwithstanding clause allowing Parliament or any provincial legislature to suspend certain provisions of the Charter for a maximum of five years if deemed necessary (Burke, 2012, p. 105). The Canadian government would monitor and police terrorism in the same way it did in response to the October Crisisbut now it would do so with less publicity, less fanfare, more covertly, and with much greater emphasis on centralization of powers, resources, and utility.

Conclusion

The October Crisis was a shocking and brazen act by FLQ terrorists used to intimidate the government; the federal government, however, turned around and implemented the War Measures Act in an effort to intimidate the underground terror cells of the FLQ. More than 400 people were rounded up and arrested in an effort to send a message; fewer than two dozen of them were convicted of any crimes. The implementation of the War Measures Act under PM Trudeau changed the way the government would respond to terrorism in the future. Prior to the October Crisis, there was no centralized form, apparatus or structure tasked with addressing terror activities. That is why PM Trudeau implemented the War Measures Act; there was no apparatus in place with sufficient orce for rounding up suspects. The security state would take time to develop, but over the course of the rest of the century, it would come into place, with the CSIS leading the…