1972-05-02

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege.
Yesterday, during the question period, the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) put a question of truly national interest to stress facetiously the absence of Social Credit members who, generally, are present in this House in a proportion which can be advantageously compared with that of a certain number of Liberal members.
I realize that when you are used to seeing someone in his seat and then one day he is absent, you may wonder why. But to ask whether the RCMP should be advised, I think that is going too far. It might also be slightly malicious, which is not in keeping with the dignity of our parliamentary system.
As far as I am concerned, I think that I can state, Mr. Speaker, that in the course of the present parliament, I have always made it a point to participate in the proceedings of the House, and, on several occasions, I could have asked for the adjournment of the House for lack of a quorum, which was not due to members of my party.
In conclusion, I should like to say that we understand the nature of our role in this House and that we fulfil it normally. Moreover, I believe that questions such as were asked by the hon. member for Papineau tend to reflect on a member's privilege and are contrary to the tradition of this House.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Bellechasse gave notice to the Chair of his question of privilege. I agree that perhaps it is not always cricket to mention the absence of fellow members of parliament. The hon. member may have a grievance on that basis but I do not think that this grievance can be brought to the attention of the House as a question of privilege.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. ]ohn L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-199, to amend the Railway Act (deviations, changes and removal).
Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Mr. Skoberg:: Mr. Speaker, at the present time section 120 of the Railway Act does not provide for a mandatory public hearing to be held when railway companies make application to remove any regular station agent, caretaker-agent or caretaker. This amendment would provide for the requirement of a public hearing. At the same time there is no requirement for the type of service that must be provided by the railway's personal contact. This amendment would spell out the services to be included by such company representative if permission has been granted for the removal of a regular station agent, caretaker-agent or caretaker. All that this proposed bill would do-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Standing Order 68(2) permits a very brief explanation. I believe this is what the hon. member has now done. Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member shall have leave to introduce the said bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
On the order: Government Notices of Motions.
Mr. Broadbent:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My colleague, the hon. member for Moose Jaw, wished to raise a motion under Standing Order 43 but he missed the opportunity. I wonder whether we could have the unanimous consent of the House to revert to motions?


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member would not mind having the matter stand until tomorrow, and I will look in

May 2, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
his direction when we reach the item "'motions" in our proceedings.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
UNITED STATES DISC	PROGRAM-INFORMATION

Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Can the minister tell the House whether he has met with the heads of the United States owned automobile or other plants in Canada, and would he now give the House what facts or assurances-not impressions-he has received from any of these gentlemen with regard to the effect of DISC upon the Canadian economy, on the operation of Canadian plants and on Canadian jobs?


Hon. lean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I do not see why this question should be asked every day. I was very clear the other day on that subject. I said that I would take part in the budget debate and that I would meet the Canadian presidents of automobile plants before and would report on that subject.


Mr. Hees:: That won't do.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have no alternative but to accept that, Mr. Speaker, but perhaps I could obtain some help from the Prime Minister who is frequently helpful. Does he accept the view of the Secretary of State for External Affairs expressed in the House yesterday that it is very much in the interests of the United States government to inform the government of Canada of the extent to which United States corporations are making use of the DISC legislation so that the Canadian government can assess its effects on the Canadian economy? Is this the Prime Minister's view and, if so, has the government of Canada already made or does it intend immediately to make a formal request to the United States government for this information?


Jean-Luc Pepin: There seems to have been reluctance on the part of the United States Treasury and possibly on the part of U.S. companies to provide this information. We are looking at ways and means by which we can identify exporters to Canada who are using the DISC program.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I appreciate the co-operation of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce but he did not answer the question that I directed to the Prime Minister. My question was whether the view expressed yesterday by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his capacity as Acting Prime Minister is the view of the government, namely that it is in the interests of the United States government-I am not talking about United States companies but about the United States government-to

provide this information to the government of Canada. If this is the view of the Prime Minister, as it was the view expressed yesterday by the Acting Prime Minister, does the government of Canada intend formally to request this information, not from the heads of firms-that is a different proposition-but from the United States administration itself?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the government stands by what was said in the House on this matter by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Prime Minister intend to act upon this view expressed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and does the government of Canada intend formally to request that the United States government supply the government of Canada with this information? Or is it just all talk?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs will be pleased to continue the talk tomorrow when he is in the House.



UNITED STATES DISC PROGRAM-BASIS FOR STATEMENT BY MINISTER THAT ONLY MINOR DISEQUILIBRIUM IN CANADIAN AUTO EXPORTS WILL RESULT

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce arising out of the statement he made outside the House on Friday to the effect that the use of DISC would cause only a minor disequilibrium in our trade in autos with the United States to the extent of one-half of one per cent. What was this estimate based on? Did he get this information from the automobile companies, and would he give us the source of his information?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I said at that time outside the House that it was difficult to assess at this moment what the effects of the use of DISC on exports to Canada by the automobile makers would be. That, I said, would be one of the questions I would raise. When I talked about one-half of one per cent advantage on sales, this was an opinion given me by a distinguished member of that industry, a figure which was meant to demonstrate that the effect would not be as colossal as was implied here by the opposition on Friday.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Since the impression that the minister got on a previous occasion about the use of DISC proved to be erroneous, will the minister now give the House the results of a definite study with reference to what the effects of DISC will be? Has the minister had any conversations with the automobile company representatives to ascertain what will be the true state of affairs with reference to the effect on the Canadian economy of the setting up of DISC corporations?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I just said a few seconds ago that this was one of the questions I would raise with them and on which I would be reporting to the House when I make the said speech.
May 2, 1972



UNITED STATES DISC PROGRAM-INFORMATION ON USE

Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Has the government asked all United States based firms that export goods into Canada or are parent companies of subsidiaries in Canada to disclose their policies toward DISC and, if so, is the government now gathering such information required to prepare a Canadian response?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, this is the information that we are assembling at this time. Some companies, subsidiaries of U.S. firms in Canada, are themselves volunteering this information. Some of them are rather precise. Others do not know exactly how the United States parent company is going to use the DISC program, the DISC advantages. Some of them presumably will use it elsewhere than in Canada presumably, while some might use it in Canada. This is the kind of information we are tying to get now.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Is the government preparing disclosure legislation to require all importers of American goods to reveal their position with regard to DISC?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I said just a few seconds ago that we are looking at ways to identify exporters who use DISC.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: I am talking about importers.



UNITED STATES DISC PROGRAM-SUGGESTED CUSTOMS REGULATION TO COMPEL AMERICAN EXPORTERS TO DISCLOSE USE

John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, as it is not just American firms with subsidiaries in Canada that are a threat to the Canadian economy but also American firms in competition with Canadian-owned firms, would the minister commit himself to the House now to state in his participation in the budget debate whether the government of Canada will introduce a customs regulation making it mandatory that all firms exporting into Canada from the United States state whether they are doing so under the auspices of DISC?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I said a few seconds ago that we are looking into that.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The trouble is you have been looking at it for six months.



TRANSPORT


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport arising out of a
Inquiries of the Ministry
judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada reversing a decision of the Canadian Transport Commission which dismissed an application to connect a British Columbia private railway with an American railway for the purpose of transporting coal and presumably other products to the west coast for export to Japan. Has the minister had a chance to consider this judgment and is he contemplating amendments to the Railway Act which would clearly give the Canadian Transport Commission authority to take Canada's public interest into account on such applications?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet had an opportunity to read the judgment and I understand it is quite a complex document. In fact, I have had two conflicting assessments of what it means. I would ask the hon. member for a little time in order to get advice and to study it. Of course, until that is done the second part of his question is in a sense hypothetical.


David Lewis: Perhaps the minister ought to get non-lawyers to read it; then he might get one instead of two opinions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: I say that as a lawyer. I might lose my union card but I will take a chance. If I understand the report correctly, the Supreme Court of Canada has ordered the CTC to reconsider its decision. In view of the fact that the CTC might feel impelled to do so without delay and in view of the fact that what is at stake is that jobs of Canadian railway men will be transferred to an American railway across the line, would the minister undertake to prepare and introduce amendments to the act without delay in order to take care of this situation before it is too late?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I hope that my answer will not be regarded as irrelevant or off the point. At the moment, in view of the legal nature of this matter and the responsibilities of the CTC under the law, I would prefer to let that take its course in the sense that it is required to do by law. I might say as a general principle, however, and one that is removed from the case, that I want to see the maximum amount of Canadian products moved over Canadian rails. In that context I would be glad to consider any legislative or other changes that might achieve this objective.


David Lewis: I have a further short supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister, if he feels he is in a position to do so, undertake to make a statement to the House on this matter within the next few days?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I will take the hon. member's suggestion and get a layman's view as well, but just as soon as this complex judgment has been distilled to the point that I think I understand it thoroughly I will be glad to try to convey that understanding to hon. members.
1808

May 2, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry



AGRICULTURE


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
Would he tell the House if there were discussions between Ottawa and Quebec with regard to the establishment of a program to encourage dairy producers to transform part of their operations and to raise cattle for beef.


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: No, Mr. Speaker. I do not think there have been any discussions between the province and officials of my department.



FISHERIES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of press reports that the Danish government will refuse to agree to Canada's proposal at the meeting of the International Commission for the North Atlantic Fisheries, of ICNAF, in Washington later this month, which calls for an immediate halt to high seas salmon fishing, does this mean that the Danes are no longer subscribing to the international rules of ICNAF concerning declining species? Also, what further steps is the minister contemplating to secure international agreement on salmon conservation?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: I think, Mr. Speaker, that the Danish representatives will be speaking for that country at the forthcoming meeting in Washington later this month. I do not think they will necessarily be taking the same rigid position as the hon. member was indicating.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Since, according to figures from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce that have been tabled, in 1971 we imported $34.7 million worth of cheese, hams, bacon, fresh and frozen fish and canned, smoked salmon from Denmark-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has the floor for the purpose of asking a question, not for the purpose of conveying information.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I must lay the basis for my question-and since we exported to that country only $22 million worth of goods, has the minister given any thought to using financial persuasion in seeking agreement to a ban on salmon fishing in international waters when our government officials meet with the Danish officials in Washington?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, this approach naturally appeals to many people. However, it is not one on which I have made a recommendation.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware that some New Brunswick fishermen affected by the salmon ban have applied for a local initiatives grant so they can import Atlantic salmon from Greenland in order not to go out of business?



ATLANTIC SALMON-REASSESSMENT OF CANADIAN STAND IN LIGHT OF DANISH POSITION

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the hard line taken by the Danish government on the upcoming ICNAF meeting in Washington, I ask the minister specifically whether Canada is now reassessing its position in light of the hard line taken by the Danish authorities?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, we assessed our position very carefully last year and the year before. We are taking the same position again this year, as the hon. member knows, and that is that there should be no fishing for salmon on the high seas whatsoever.


James Aloysius McGrath: Is Canada prepared to lay its membership in ICNAF on the line if the Danes refuse to change their hard line? In other words, are we prepared to withdraw from ICNAF if we fail to get agreement on a ban on salmon fishing on the high seas?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will no doubt recognize that the question is hypothetical.



ATLANTIC SALMON-SUGGESTED BOYCOTT OF DANISH PRODUCTS BY CANADIAN CONSUMERS

Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since all of the $30 million worth of produce imported from Denmark can be produced in Canada, is the minister prepared to recommend to Canadian consumers that they boycott all Danish produce?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think Canadian consumers are capable of making this decision for themselves.


James Aloysius McGrath: Come off it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We must move on. I will recognize the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings for the moment for a last supplementary on this subject.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the minister. Would the minister consider going to Washington and learning from Secretary of the Treasury Connally
May 2, 1972

just how to put effective pressure on a smaller country when he wants to get something done?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport-


George Harris Hees: Look at the way Connally works. There is Connally, and here is our government, and our government is scared.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: The government members have tears in their eyes. They are scared to death. Connally is not scared.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North has the floor.



AIRPORTS


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Has he inquired into the charge made by a member of the National Assembly of Quebec that half of the federal grants for Ste. Scholastique airport are being diverted by the provincial government of Quebec for highway construction in Montreal?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have taken notice of the comment. I only read about it in the papers, as I assume the hon. member did. I have asked my officials to give me a full report.


David Orlikow: Will the minister have inquiries made to see whether some of that money is being diverted into projects more associated with the Olympics than with the airport?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



POSSIBLE DECLARATION OF ARMLEY-RIDGEDALE REGION, SASKATCHEWAN, AS DISASTER AREA-INVESTIGATION OF AND COMPENSATION FOR LOSSES

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. It has to do with the situation that prevails in the Armley-Ridgedale area in northwestern Saskatchewan where 50,000 acres of farmland are virtually under water. The emergency organization at Tisdale has asked for a
Inquiries of the Ministry
declaration that the area be declared a disaster area. I ask the minister whether his department has made any investigation yet into the losses, which apparently will be very large, of the farmers who occupy that very productive area?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, we have made some inquiries respecting that part of the loss that is related to crop losses because in quite a large part of that area harvesting last fall was impossible. As far as we can ascertain, that crop has been destroyed. However, we have been advised that the Saskatchewan crop insurance administration has not paid these claims to date. I am not sure of the reason why they have not paid them. As far as we are concerned, we will continue our participation. With regard to the other part of the question, that is, damage other than crop losses, that will come through channels other than the Department of Agriculture to the Canadian government. I have not received that either.


John George Diefenbaker: In addition to the losses mentioned by the minister, of course there are other tremendous losses which resulted from the disaster. Has the government of the province of Saskatchewan been in touch with the government of Canada with a view to having this area declared a disaster area to the end that the government of Canada, in addition to compensation for the losses resulting from damage to crops that were not harvested last fall, will make available payments to those in that area who have suffered very large losses?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, as I tried to make clear, and obviously I did not, losses other than crop losses would, I suspect, be dealt with by the government of Saskatchewan. There are some precedents for the federal government participating in compensation for flood damage, whether it is to farmland or other damage. However, I will have to make some inquiries to see whether that has come forward to other departments of the government.


John George Diefenbaker: Thank you.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. In light of the alarming 22 per cent drop in Canada's armed forces reserves, has the minister taken steps to identify the cause of this decrease as well as steps to reverse the trend? Perhaps he might indicate if he has been able to identify the reason.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Normally this kind of very general information ought to be given by the minister to the House by way of a statement on motions. If the minister can reply briefly to the hon. member's question, he will be recognized for that purpose.
25104-55!

May 2, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. E. I. Benson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question when I appeared before the defence committee last week. My hon. friend was not there.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Guy Crossman (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether negotiations have been going on between himself and the government of the province of New Brunswick concerning the small farms development program. What progress, if any, has been made to date, or is there the customary dragging of feet on the part of the government of New Brunswick?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether it is a customary dragging of feet. There has been an unacceptably long time lag in these negotiations. I can report on the positive side, however, that further discussions did in fact take place last week, and we hope we have moved much closer to a division of administrative responsibilities that will be acceptable to New Brunswick and Canada.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. May I ask the minister whether his answer regarding discussions applies to all the other provinces?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but to a greater or lesser degree for other provinces. I say that because some provinces are now almost on the verge of signing an agreement and others are a long way from it.



DECREASE IN NUMBER OF FARMS BETWEEN 1966 AND 1971-PROGRAMS TO STOP OR REVERSE TREND

Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the startling revelation in the census that the number of farms in Canada dropped by 15 per cent between 1966 and 1971-a very serious situation-can the minister say whether he is now contemplating any new programs that will stop that trend or hopefully reverse it in certain areas?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the very significant upturn in incomes of farmers between 1970 and 1971 will, I think, have a profound effect on this.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport.
Following the answer given yesterday by the Secretary of State for External Affairs with regard to the agreement between Italy and Canada concerning flights between Milan, Montreal and Toronto, would the minister tell the House if the government intends to sign similar agreements with other airlines and thus deprive Montreal of its monopoly over transatlantic flights?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, in the first instance, it is not chartered overseas flights that are involved. Charter flights are outside of bilaterals. On the question of negotiating bilaterals with other countries I can say that a number of other countries have made overtures to us and vice versa. These talks will be continuing over a period of weeks and months. We usually deal with one country at a time and the Italian negotiations were the most recent.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary.
Could the minister tell me if the government has given consideration to the economic effects of such an agreement on the metropolitan region should the companies now involved move their headquarters from Montreal to Toronto?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, in a sense this is hypothetical in terms of future bilaterals. I can only point out that the negotiations were designed to add extra points for these airlines rather than to switch from existing locations to another location. In other words, so far as I am aware the Alitalia airline would probably use both Montreal and Toronto. That was the whole name of the exercise.



PRICES AND INCOMES COMMISSION


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the Prime Minister's statement late last week to the effect that a small contingency group will be staying on to wind up the work of the Prices and Incomes Commission and undertake contingency planning, can the Prime Minister inform the House when the editing and translating of the series of reports and the final report of the PIC will be completed and, in particular, whether a contingency plan is being prepared for the implementation of price and wage controls in view of a possible increase in inflation?
May 2, 1972


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the first part of the question, I believe I had occasion to tell the House that the report was expected toward the end of June. Of course it is impossible to say exactly when; it might be a bit before or a bit beyond. This is one of the reasons why a small group is being kept on to continue the editing. With regard to the second part of the question, the answer is the same as has been given on previous occasions. The government has all kinds of contingency plans in the eventuality of a sudden upsurge of inflation, and if any announcement has to be made it will be made.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: In view of recent predictions by the chairman of the commission that we are or shortly will be facing a new burst of inflation, can the Prime Minister inform the House whether plans are now being developed for a new initiative to involve both labour and industry in a joint program to hold the line on prices and wages and therefore on consumer costs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the opinion of the chairman of the commission is one, of course, which we consider with great attention. As to the plans themselves I repeat, if there are any to be made known they will be made known.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. Having regard to the depth of mountain snow in the area and the potential heavy run-off in the Fraser River Valley, can the minister indicate whether the steps so far taken by the various authorities concerned, federal, provincial and local, are sufficient in his opinion to protect the valley from this flood threat?


John (Jack) Davis: The
flood threat at this stage is not exceptional. While there is a heavy snowpack, the run-off depends very much on the conditions of temperature, wind and so on over the next six weeks to two months. The situation is being carefully watched and, of course, the diking program in the lower Fraser Valley is proceeding on schedule.
 * *



POST OFFICE


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct this question to the Postmaster General. In light of the admission last week by the President of the Treasury Board that the government has not yet made a formal offer in the present contract talks and the growing unrest in the unions, as indicated by the demonstration on Parliament Hill, can the Postmaster General inform the
Inquiries of the Ministry
House when an offer will be made to ease the growing tension?


Hon. lean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: Soon, Mr. Speaker.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Have the negotiations which were broken off last week been resumed, or does the Postmaster General intend to wait until there is a repetition of the 1970 rotating strikes?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: They resumed yesterday, Mr. Speaker.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT


Mr. Colin D. Gibson (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Will the minister consider bringing down an amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act to ensure that entitlement to vacation pay will no longer be a ground for refusal to pay unemployment insurance benefits?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour is not on the roster for duty here today. As for the basic question the hon. member has asked, the matter has been under consideration for some time. If and when the regulations are to be amended, an announcement will be made in the usual manner.



IMMIGRATION


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Can he advise the House whether he has been able to make more progress than his predecessor in retrieving and publishing the long-promised white paper on immigration? Can he also say whether we can expect to see before long the necessary changes to the Immigration Appeal Board Act brought down to relieve the intolerable situation now facing immigrants who have appeals in process?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I do not anticipate any early introduction of legislation in this area. However, we have been reviewing the administrative practices and the regulations to determine whether in some way we may be able, by these means, to facilitate or speed up the appeal procedure and thus remove some of the hardship unintentionally caused to many people who would make very wonderful Canadians.

May 2, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry IMPLEMENTATION OF SEDGWICK REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING APPEALS


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: In light of the fact that the government retained the services of Mr. Joseph Sedgwick, Q.C., who submitted a significant report with respect to the problems surrounding immigration appeals, and in light of the fact that there are countless thousands of appeals pending, can the minister advise the House what has become of this report and whether the government has moved to accept any of its recommendations? Has there been a move on the part of the government to accept any of the recommendations submitted by Mr. Sedgwick and, if so, which ones?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I could hardly be expected to announce which ones have been accepted. Let me say that Mr. Sedgwick is a highly respected Canadian and I have read his report with a great deal of interest. I am sure the whole House shares my opinion that the country should never stray from a small "1" liberal policy in the area of immigration. If so, some of us would not be here.



PROVISION OF CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP TO CHILDREN BORN OF CANADIAN WOMEN OUTSIDE COUNTRY

John Edward Broadbent: In view of the fact there is not to be a white paper issued in connection with changes in immigration regulations and, consequently, no new legislation in the near future, would the minister assure the House that he will take steps to have the law as it now stands changed immediately to provide that a child born to a Canadian woman outside this country would have the same automatic right to Canadian citizenship as a child fathered by a Canadian male has now?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I heartily endorse the concept. I think this is an unintentional form of discrimination of which nobody in this House is proud, and when the act regarding citizenship is brought forward for amendment at the appropriate time by the appropriate minister I am sure it will reflect a more enlightened approach.



RESEARCH


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. On October 29, 1970, on November 17, 1970 and again on October 18, 1971, I questioned the minister on what progress was being made in the establishment of a fur farm research unit as a component of the national research centre. Can the minister now give the House the information made available to him as a result of his inquiries?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The answer is about the same as I gave earlier to the hon. member. Establishment of a fur farm research unit within the green belt farm has been under planning for a long time and is still being planned, but I cannot give the hon.

member a specific date by which all of it will be built and operational.



PENSIONS


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, but in his absence I should like to direct it to his very capable parliamentary secretary. It is my understanding that a number of old age security cheques have been lost in the Toronto region recently. I wonder whether an investigation has been conducted and what steps will be taken to correct this situation?


Mr. Andre Ouellet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, an investigation is under way in this connection. Like in the case of the Creditistes, we did manage to find some.
Moreover, I want to assure the House that new cheques will be issued and sent to all those who have not received the first one.
As for the other investigation, it is a lost cause. It seems to us that Social Credit is going-


Norman Augustine Cafik: Can the parliamentary secretary tell us the date by which it is expected these cheques will be received?


André Ouellet: Within the next few days, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. With reference to the NABET strike and the disruption it is causing to CBC television programs and with particular reference to the fact that people in isolated areas who only have the one service are the only ones being deprived of the opportunity of viewing the National Hockey League final series, can the Prime Minister tell us whether any consultations have taken place between the government and the CBC in an effort to have the CBC pick up these games from the United States network and televise them in Canada as was done during the final stages of the regular season? If not, will the Prime Minister look into that possibility?
May 2, 1972


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will be pleased to transmit the hon. member's representation to the minister concerned.



RAPESEED-SUGGESTED LEGISLATION TO CORRECT INEQUITIES IN PRICING SYSTEM AND OFFSET ACREAGE DECLINE

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the very serious decline in rapeseed acreage this year as indicated by growers' intentions respecting planting at this point, amounting to a reduction of some 25 per cent, will the minister give consideration to bringing down legislation to correct the inequities that now exist in the pricing system on the part of the grain exchange and the grain companies so that this product will be more attractive and acreage under rapeseed will not further decline?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister oi Justice):: I should think the hon. member would know that the present position and price levels for rapeseed have indeed made it attractive compared with other grains, and that considerations on the part of farmers are likely in other directions, including cultivation practices and so on. Certainly the question of the best kind of market is still important and is continuing to receive the consideration it deserves.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I concede that there may be a difference of opinion as to causes, but will the minister hold some meetings and have certain organizations appear before the Standing Committee on Agriculture in order that a proper assessment of the situation can be made and we can get the sort of relationship in planting which should exist in respect of various crops?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, this question was fairly thoroughly canvassed last year. I may have some further comment on it when an expected bill is before the House. It has been my fairly clear position that at some point when the producers have had a long enough time to study the report on the rapeseed market there should be a plebiscite on the question of their choice regarding marketing systems. I still think that is the way we should proceed.



REQUEST THAT WHEAT BOARD OFFICIALS APPEAR BEFORE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE FOR CONSIDERATION OF ANNUAL REPORT

Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question along the same line to the minister. Now that the annual report of the Canadian Wheat Board has been tabled, will he assist the committee on agriculture by having the Canadian Wheat Board officials appear before it to go over their annual report?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Otto Emil Lang: I think that may be a worth-while suggestion, Mr. Speaker.



BARLEY-SUGGESTED INCREASE IN INITIAL PRICE TO PROVIDE GREATER INCENTIVE TO PLANT

Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that barley is at present under the Wheat Board and that farmers have indicated through surveys a drop of something like 17 per cent in seeding intentions, does the minister intend to increase the ante, so to speak, or the initial price for barley in order to provide a greater incentive?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the government indicated in the March 1 announcement that the initial price for barley will go up by 5 cents on August 1. This was specifically designed to encourage additional barley plantings.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to bring to the attention of hon. members that the question period ends in two minutes. Perhaps we should try to limit supplementary questions before the end of the question period. The hon. member for Mackenzie on a supplementary question.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that the minister perhaps did not understand my question, I should like to make it clear. I wanted to know whether the minister will further increase the ante over and above the 5 cent increase.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, very serious consideration was given to the appropriate levels of initial prices for wheat and for barley both during discussions with the Canadian Wheat Board and with representatives of producers' organizations before the decision was taken on March 1. I see no reason to change it at this point.



ACTION ON COMPLAINTS RESPECTING GRAIN DOORS AT WESTERN DELIVERY POINTS

Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of numerous complaints concerning grain doors at western delivery points, is the minister prepared to state what action has been taken or is going to be taken in this matter?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, after meeting with elevator agents in northern Saskatchewan some time ago and having this matter brought to my attention, I in turn brought it to the attention of the appropriate authorities, the railway companies and the Wheat Board. They are giving consideration to the problem and methods of trying to improve the situation for elevator agents.


William George Knight: In view of the meetings concerning northern Saskatchewan delivery points and the number of complaints that have come from southern Saskatchewan delivery points, can the minister state whether the railway companies have indicated what kind of changes there may be?

May 2, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Otto Emil Lang: Not yet, Mr. Speaker, but I believe the problem in connection with grain doors in northern Saskatchewan is the same as the one in southern Saskatchewan.



FISHERIES


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment and Fisheries. L the matter of re-entry of swordfish in the United States market still being pursued and, if so, when can we expect the mercury count and common sense to attain more satisfactory levels in Washington?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, this decision rests with the United States Food and Drug Administration. As far as I know that authority has not changed its mind and is still insisting that all fish, including swordfish, which enter the United States have less than one-half of one part per million of mercury in them.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I should like to know whether the minister can assure us that attempts are being made to persuade this august body to change its mind?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, attempts are being made. In addition, we are endeavouring to convince the health authorities in a number of countries that mercury levels should be set more realistically.



POLLUTION


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. In view of the increasing danger of pollution of our Arctic waters by reason of the recent further discoveries of gas and oil in the area, why is it that the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, passed in June, 1970, has not yet been proclaimed, and is it the intention of the government to bring that legislation passed by parliament almost two years ago into force?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, that question was asked the other day of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and he promised to give an answer to the House shortly.



DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL REPORT OF LE DAIN COMMISSION

Mr. Roch La Salle (loliette):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare but, in his absence, I shall direct it to the Prime Minister.
Is he in a position to tell us when the final report of the Le Dain Commission will be made public?


André Ouellet: Soon, Mr. Speaker.



FINANCE


Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question. Has he made any study to determine whether the United States DISC program will contribute to a reduction in United States investment in Canada?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am studying this matter in co-operation with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, May 1, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lang that Bill C-2, to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to the Criminal Code 1971 Amendment Act, the Criminal Records Act, the National Defence Act, the Parole Act and the Visiting Forces Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: At the conclusion of the debate last night, I was making a few general remarks in respect of one specific aspect of this bill having to do with the abolition of corporal punishment. I want to refer to that again in a few minutes.
At the outset this afternoon I should like to respond in a general way to the bill we have before us and the developing trend in terms of the Criminal Code which I observe as a layman. I suppose for many people the mysteries of the Criminal Code are such that those not directly
May 2, 1972

involved with peacekeeping and police protection, or judicial and legal affairs, are not considered to be sufficiently informed to grapple with the intricacies of the law as spelled out in the Criminal Code.
Quite frankly, I think that attitude in the past has greatly hampered the understanding, the effective use and the drafting of Criminal law. It is very significant that in recent years more and more people who are not professionally trained in the law, but who are concerned with the functioning of society, generally feel committed to examining the issues as they are put before us and passing judgment on them.
The minister, in his opening remarks last Thursday, referred to the increasing acceptance of the distinction between morality and the law. I think this will be a very important factor in changes which are made in the law in years to come. After all, and I think more people agree with this in a pluralistic society, it is not possible to impose one uniform moral code on a country any more than it would be possible to require all members of a country to adhere to a certain religious group. We believe that in a free society there must be a certain freedom of choice, as well as some responsibility, in relation to the moral framework within which society operates. What is being increasingly attempted by law, particularly in respect of the Criminal Code, is to lay down minimal standards of behaviour, if you like, beyond which we definitely infringe upon the rights and freedoms of our fellow members in society.
Having said that, I realize this will create increasing difficulties for lawmakers and create increasing difficulties in terms of law enforcement. I think we have seen some of these difficulties, because it is one thing to conceptualize an approach to the law in legislative chambers such as this and quite another thing to implement it, particularly during times of very rapid social change. One has to look only very cursorily at the provisions in this bill to realize some attempt is being made at accommodation of the rapid technological changes. There is no question about the fact that the improper handling of such things as skidoos and water skis is dangerous.
Quite frankly, if we are to become involved in the regulation or control of modern means of transportation in our society and create criminal offences in relation thereto, we are creating for ourselves much difficulty in terms of the implementation of such a law. But perhaps to be more specific, we can direct our attention to that part of this responsibility which has to do with increasing jurisdictional discretion, particularly in respect of sentencing. I think we can see only too clearly how many men have become the victims of the judicial system which has been established, simply because it was not sufficiently flexible to accommodate the individual human situation. At present there are many people in our jails and penitentiaries, not necessarily totally because of their deliberate antisocial or criminal behaviour but because at some stage they came up against an inflexible law which did not permit taking into account the particular dilemma in which they found themselves.
We are now saying that those who deal with these problems in the courtroom should, in fact, be able to examine more directly and more fairly the merits of a particular
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1972 case, and how a particular person should be dealt with. Having said that, and quite frankly congratulating the minister and his officials for introducing these changes in the law, I think we must be prepared to follow through with the next step. I believe we increasingly realize that it is not enough just to establish a better framework in which sentencing procedures can take place, we must be sure that the individuals who administer this system fully understand the implications of these changes.
I think that here the minister will have a substantial job to do, either himself or through his officials, in terms of a program of education. We know that across the country today there is a very great disparity in terms of judicial competence between those who are prepared to listen, one might say with the inner ear, to the specific case being tried at any particular moment and those who seek only to follow an anachronistic system of hard and fast rules in respect of a whole category of misdemeanours. That surely is not a system which can rehabilitate broken and difficult human beings. Further, it is not a system which will offer any eventual protection to society in respect of future similar behaviour. This whole procedure will have to extend right from the time of the police detection or surveillance through to the time of arrest, sentence and imprisonment itself.
I think the Solicitor General (Mr. Goyer) could indicate the difficulties he has encountered in trying to provide a more humane framework in our penitentiary system. I believe he has found, in a number of instances, that the policies and reforms put forward somehow become dissipated when they reach the point of being brought into effect. I believe we should look very carefully at the whole integration of the judicial activity as it extends from the police stage through to the courts and penitentiaries. While we may have the best intentions in the world in respect of improving vastly the procedures laid down within the law, unless the men and women who administer it at the local level understand these changes and can implement them effectively, we will really not correct the situation but will create fear and uncertainty in the minds of those presently administering the law. I would argue that in a situation of uncertainty and fear we may achieve the very opposite to what is intended. I think we have seen some evidence of this in this country in the form of a real reactionary backlash.
From speaking to individuals involved at the institutional level in these reforms or changes which are being made, I have found there seemed to be a good deal of fear and uncertainty, as well as very great misunderstanding, concerning what we are about. I would argue very strongly that having put the foundation in place, as the minister is attempting to do with this legislation, he should regard this as but the beginning of the process. I think some of my colleagues mentioned the need for training programs in human relations, and in respect of the whole complex way in which our society operates, because the whole nature of criminal actions themselves has to a degree changed. I think that to the degree we have changed our attitude concerning what our places of incarceration should be, we must be very careful about how we are to get the greatest return from these institutions.
1816

May 2, 1972
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1972
Quite frankly, I believe one of the greatest wastes of federal expenditure which occurs year after year is the amount of money we spend to maintain men in federal penitentiaries. Now, it can be argued that this money is spent to protect society. In what way does it protect society when we know that almost three-quarters of the individuals presently behind bars upon release will commit further crimes? Does that mean we are dealing with thousands of incorrigibles who in no way can be rehabilitated? I do not think any student of penology today can for a moment accept that as a realistic answer, because we know there have been experiments in other countries and to a small degree in this country, which have indicated that the rate of recidivism can be effectively altered if the whole approach to incarceration is drastically changed. What are we getting for the thousands and millions of dollars spent to maintain men in institutions? We are getting individuals who are being more effectively schooled in anti-social and criminal behaviour. If one wanted to point to the big waste in government expenditure, one could point to the ongoing activity of maintaining the status quo or, indeed, if you like increasing the number of people who will again enter our society and victimize innocent citizens. It is not necessary and it does not have to be that way, but we must begin to take action on this problem. I think the place to start is in the kind of legislation that the minister has placed before us at present.
It is perhaps not often that one can congratulate this government, particularly from this side of the House, and indeed one must do it in a cautious manner, but I think that what we have here are excellent steps in the right direction. Inasmuch as the legislation removes certain anachronisms from the law and replaces them with specific descriptions of some new and more relevant laws, it is worthy of praise from both sides of the House. As I said last night, reform of the law, particularly with respect to the removal of corporal punishment, is significant in that it finally affirms our society's distaste for the use of brutal methods in areas where psychology and rehabilitative treatment could be and should be the order of the day.
It might be of note to point out in passing that the United Kingdom abandoned the crudities of corporal punishment as far back as 1948. It is interesting, and perhaps just a little sad, that it has taken this country almost a quarter of a century to accept and implement a reform so obviously necessary and so clearly needed. To those who argue that there is still some validity in retaining corporal punishment, I would cite, a study that was done twelve years after the implementation of legislation abolishing corporal punishment in Great Britain as a result of which the Home Secretary in the British parliament in 1960 concluded that corporal punishment was not an essentially effective deterrent. The statistics revealed that the abolition of corporal punishment did not result in any increase in the crime rate for those offences for which it was previously imposed. There are many other statements to which I could refer but I will not take the time of the House now on that matter.
However, I should like to point out that this matter has occupied my attention in a formal way for the past four

years. On march 18, 1968, I introduced for the first time- and Your Honour will recall it because you were in the Chair on that occasion-a bill for the abolition of corporal punishment, in which I pointed out that it was obviously a relic of the dark ages and yet in some cases still used. It is interesting to note that later that same day I asked the then minister of justice, now the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), whether or not he would move to include such a provision in the amendments to the Criminal Code which were at that time before the House. He indicated that he was interested in the substance of the bill but doubted whether it could be accepted at that time. Three justice ministers later we have finally included this provision in the Criminal Code, and for this I think all hon. members should be grateful.
Let me turn now to another matter of importance in this legislation, namely the matter of airline hijacking. Discussions with the Canadian Airline Pilots Association indicate that they share with all parties in the House a very real desire for the orderly and rapid passage of this bill. The elements of this bill having to do with hijacking have been called for by all parties for some time now. I think it is perhaps an unfortunate example of the cumbersome bureaucracy of the government, particularly of this government, that it has taken so long for real action to be forthcoming. Unfortunately, we did not have action on this at the time when we could have, because a meeting was held in this country almost a year ago at which agreement was reached on the substance of this issue.
Unfortunately, we have lumped this important issue of skyjacking together with other reforms which perhaps will be controversial and over which there may be much discussion in committee. I am not sure why the government in this instance, realizing the contemporary necessity of getting on with the business of having effective legislation with regard to hijacking, should use the ploy of lumping legislation on this matter over which there is little dispute in the House with other issues on which there could be quite a long discussion. There are clauses of this bill, specifically clauses 25, 26, 27 and 32, which seem to me, as a layman at least, to shift the burden of proof to the suspect in such a way that I wonder whether or not they will really be acceptable either as a precedent or an exception to the rule of British justice. Nevertheless, the much needed tightening of the law with respect to hijacking will be held up until agreement can be reached on all other clauses of the bill.
I want to refer again for a few moments to the matter of corporal punishment, and I referred to this last night, because it would seem there are some who still believe that there is some efficacy and usefulness in retaining this vestige of the past. Particularly today, when there is a certain reactionary mood in the country, nothing, I think, is more symbolic of the early punitive aim of the law than detention and the lash. Those who still advocate their continued use obviously believe that the role of a prison is primarily to punish. It is precisely that view of a prison that is responsible for the alarming rate of recidivism that we have in this country today. Yet, while this principle of reform is excellent and very important, it is important to note that the principle should not stop here.
May 2, 1972

We are saying, and the minister is saying, that if symbolic punishment exemplified by the means of the whip is no longer acceptable in our federal institutions or as a sentence from the courts, then surely we must say that punishment as a criterion and goal for our federal institutions is as well no longer acceptable. What we have to say is that any institution that oppresses, dehumanizes, brutalizes and torments the inmate is in itself a form of corporal punishment perhaps far more hideous than a whack with a cat-o-nine-tails. What we have to establish is that as long as prison exists to confine as opposed to broaden, to punish rather than to reform and to torment rather than educate, we are administering corporal punishment of the worst variety to almost every single inmate. I think that the government has opened the door, through abolition of corporal punishment, to the recognition of the need to reform our entire penal system.
Of course, I realize that there are never many votes to be gained on the issue of penal reform. It touches far too few of our citizens; it is not a major issue, and so it is probable that this government, like so many in the past, will do little. Nevertheless, the task remains undone and barely begun unless we are prepared to go further along the road of major penal reform. I happen to believe that the deterrent for those who would perform criminal and violent acts, inasmuch as a deterrent exists at all, is the assumption that a person will be detected. I think that any degree of investigation into this area will bring us to the same conclusion. But I think also that there is something totally misplaced in the minds of those who try to judge this in a rational way when they assume that people who commit these criminal acts are acting rationally in the first place. In most cases, if the act is one of a particularly repugnant nature, we are obviously dealing with an irrational act and with a person who, to some degree or other, is acting in a way which we would certainly not describe as normal.
We are concerned, then, about two things. We are concerned that this person should be prevented from performing this act again, and therefore we remove him from society for a time. But tied to that psychology has been the concept of punishment. Now, we are saying that the time has come to regard the recognition of a second, and perhaps even more important priority, and that is the long term interest of society and the individual. We must ensure by all possible means that when an individual comes back into society, he comes back as a different individual. This makes obvious sense, both for his own welfare and for the rehabilitation of his own dignity. Also, it makes sense in terms of society as a whole, because if we release on a daily or weekly basis people into our society who are still sick, who are still on the verge of some kind of violent or criminal act, in what way have we provided protection for the innocent in our society? We have not, and therefore we must admit that to that extent we have failed. I think we must realize that in the change that is being made with respect to corporal punishment we are making a fundamental change with respect to the whole concept of punishment, rehabilitation and protection of society. I hope that many will consider this bill in terms of the improvements that we will be making to society in general.
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1972
Before I take my seat, I should like to refer to one final matter dealt with in the legislation which I think is quite important, both in itself and by implication. It has to do with the recognition of the right of men and women to participate in jury duty in this country. I think it has been one of the continuing sex anomalies that, at least until this bill was presented, it has not been possible in all cases for women to participate in jury duty. We have continued to embrace, through that anachronism, a kind of second class citizenship for the feminine members of society. I think that the minister and his officials should be congratulated for taking the step they have. Also included in the bill is the change regarding soliciting, which recognizes that the converse of women soliciting for men can be equally true.
I mention these two changes simply to point out that this is but the tip of an iceberg. Increasingly, reports are being placed before us which indicate that in our society there has been a definite, perhaps altogether too subtle at times, discrimination against women. I think that we should treat each and every piece of legislation that is brought before this House with great care so as to make sure that we recognize each individual in his own right and do not discriminate, be it on the basis of race, class, religion or sex.
I trust that we shall have many further opportunities to discuss this legislation, and in particular the provisions I mentioned having to do with some presumption of guilt which I hope will be elaborated upon by the minister when he appears before the committee.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on the bill as a layman, not a person with legal talent but rather as one who becomes concerned with the type of treatment many people in our society are receiving today. All too often we in this House and those in the courts of the land pass and deal with legislation when all we are doing is using our direct judgment of the moment. Unless some realistic and humane consideration is given the legislation that we pass, then nothing is going to be resolved so far as the amendments before us are concerned. If we are to be consistent in this House of Commons we should give consideration to those people who, in the last resort, will make the final judgment on those who are covered by the legislation.
It appears to me that all too often those who have to make that final decision let their bigotry get the best of them. All of us remember what happened in Toronto not long ago when a justice of the peace deliberately let his bigotry get the better of him and some people suffered in the process. No doubt the minister will look at this situation and will carefully scrutinize those who in future are appointed to a position where they make a final judgment on others, to ensure that they are themselves able and capable of appreciating the social consequences of any sentence they may impose.
My colleague, the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), dealt at length with the various sections of the bill and I have no intention of recovering that ground at this time as a layman. Let me deal, as did the speaker before me, with some of the provisions in the hijacking section. I
25104-56 (

May 2, 1972
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1972 believe the time has long passed when these provisions should have been brought in, even if it were necessary to bring them in as separate amendments a year or two ago. Even if some amendments are made to the present provisions in the bill dealing with hijacking, we still have to ratify both the Hague and the Montreal conventions following approval of the Criminal Code amendments. It seems to me we spend a lot of time in this House spinning our wheels, so to say, not getting very far with the very specific legislation required to deal with a situation that has come upon us within a very short space of time. I have listened to the observations of those who are in the position of making this kind of decision and who suggest that in the very immediate future they will be taking some action concerning the situation confronting us. I am wondering whether the "very immediate future" means in one month, two months, one year or two years.
We all realize the serious situation regarding the kind of hijacking that has been going on during the last while, and if the minister is really concerned about this, surely some immediate action could be taken to alleviate the problem confronting the Canadian Air Line Pilots Association, the travelling public, and others who face the dilemma of whether to travel by air in view of the frightening situation that exists. As I have said, even with the passage of the bill we still have to iatif T The Hague and the Montreal conventions. I hope tht. minister will keep in constant touch with his colleague, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson), so that this matter can be taken care of as soon as this bill gets through the committee and comes back to the House, with whatever amendment may be made to it.
The hon. member who preceded me spoke of some prison situations, and in the short time that I have been a member of parliament I have had the opportunity, along with some of my colleagues, to visit both the Prince Albert penitentiary and the new Millhaven penitentiary. The latter visit did not turn out too well, since the minister decided that as members of parliament we should not perhaps go there to see what is going on behind the scenes and we were asked to leave the premises.
However, at the Prince Albert penitentiary we talked to the inmates and found all too often that the only concern of the people running the institution was to make sure the inmates were subjected to the utmost confinement. They were positive that that was the way to bring rehabilitation to the inmates. They were not concerned about rehabilitative measures that embraced technical schools and the technical courses which are available in some penitentiaries. Instead of that, they tried to ensure that the prisoners were confined to their cells for the majority of their time. Not surprisingly this only makes the prisoners bitter, and when they are released at the end of their term they vent their bitterness on society for dealing with them in this unjust way.
Even though the Millhaven penitentiary is nice and shiny, with all modern conveniences, if no real consideration is given to how prisoners in penitentiaries are treated, then what can we expect as far as law enforcement is concerned? I am sure we all recognize that our police forces try to do a good job, but when they are confronted with people who have become better as a result of serving

a term in a penitentiary how can they cope with them? With my limited knowledge, I am still of the opinion that those people involved with welfare committees, those who do not have anything, believe that the law of this land deals with them unjustly and that we in this House of Commons must become concerned if we want people to respect the law.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the people who say that the law is applied in two ways have a case. I am sure the minister has run into the situation, as we all have, where people with money and position seem to be able to get away with murder, while all too often people on welfare receive the full effect of the laws passed in this House. It would appear that if you have money you can hire someone to get you off the hook. I hope that the minister realizes it is not good enough to have the best legislation in the world; we still need the realistic and human touch of those who mete out the sentences under the legislation.
I would like to suggest to the Minister that, in addition to the submissions made by the Canadian Airline Pilots Association, in addition to the submissions made by the poor people's associations and the welfare groups and others who feel they are being dealt with unjustly, when appointments are made to the various positions he give consideration to the social sciences involved in those positions, which many people now consider to be most important.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the minister speaks now, that will close debate. The hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang).


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the debate in this House on Bill C-2 would lead one to believe that we should have a fruitful discussion in committee as we move toward the passage of these new measures into law. The committee will be a more appropriate place for me to deal in detail with some of the comments of individual members on particular clauses or aspects of the bill, including such matters as the present status of the breathalyzer.
I should like to join with the hon. member for Vancouv-er-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) in her remarks of appreciation to Senator Fergusson for the lead she took in the other place in connection with the provision of clauses which would put women in the same position as men for jury duty. It was an oversight on my part not to give credit to Senator Fergusson in this regard, and I appreciate the reminder.
Members on both sides have generally spoken in favour of the changes in regard to corporal punishment. I was somewhat astonished, not by the opposite point of view being taken by a member but by the tone taken by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). As I say, I can understand an attempt to make an analytical argument in favour of the deterrent effect of corporal punishment, but I was slightly astonished at his tone which seemed to suggest that by wanting corporal punishment removed the rest of us were on the side of crime. This, I think, is an unnecessary and inflammatory position to take.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: It is even more unusual when taken with the fact that almost all members who spoke on both sides of the House have made clear their support for finally moving into a position of removing corporal punishment.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Especially his own colleagues.


Otto Emil Lang: I should make one further clarification, Mr. Speaker. There was a reference made to some slightly ambiguous words which I used in connection with there perhaps being a case for corporal punishment. I did make it clear in my words, as did the Solicitor General (Mr. Goyer), that this does not apply in the penal system in general. I was simply reserving the position for the head of a family and his role in this regard where the atmosphere is rather different from that in a penal institution. That is precisely the contrast I would draw-if corporal punishment may be imposed in the atmosphere of the family, presumably with love, I might take a different view of it in other settings.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is no right of appeal there!


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I could not end the debate without commenting on the many things said by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), who spoke against both corporal punishment and capital punishment and surveyed the general need in our law to impose order through effective enforcement and also the need for general flexibility and the movement of the law toward a reasonable stance. I think these remarks completely fit in with the distinguished legal career of the right hon. gentleman, and I should like to applaud them at this time.
In the course of subsequent remarks there was some confusion concerning the clause dealing with common assault. To some extent the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General (Mr. Hogarth) has corrected one impression in this regard, namely that we are now indeed increasing the penalty in regard to common assault and turning it into a summary conviction offence. There is a further point which should be clarified in regard to increasing penalties. For assault causing bodily harm, the option is given to the accused to choose the method of trial rather than being forced to go before a magistrate.
I should say one further thing when dealing with specific sections in relation to what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General said. By previous amendments to section 589 of the Criminal Code, it is open to a court to sentence an accused to a lesser offence, even if that be a summary conviction offence and even when the accused is before the court on an indictable offence. I think I should say that simply to set the record straight.
Many of the other subjects to which hon. members referred are under serious study both by the Law Reform Commission and by the department as we seek the material for the next omnibus Criminal Code amendments. As I have said, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for us to continue to proceed quickly in response to clearly forming opinion about the changes needed in our crimi-
Protection of Privacy Bill
nal law to make it ever more responsive to generally understood and reasonable approaches to the law. We must always seek additional ways to ensure that the law treats all persons as fairly as possible, rich and poor alike. That means removal of discrimination whether it be in the letter of the law itself or in the attitude of judges and others who operate within the legal system.
These are the objectives we must pursue. We must not assume that they are easy to attain, but by keeping them in sight we might hope to make progress toward them.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
* # *


Otto Emil Lang: that Bill C-6, to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability Act and the Official Secrets Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the legislation before the House proposes the addition of a new part to the Criminal Code, specifically, Part IV.l "Invasion of Privacy". The form of the legislative is prohibitory; that is, certain conduct is prohibited and described as criminal, its purpose being to protect rights of privacy against invasion.
The particular right of privacy which is recognized and protected is the right of individuals to communicate with each other where the circumstances are such that it is reasonable for them to expect that the communication will not be intercepted by others. The only kind of interception which is prohibited is that done wilfully by means of an electromagnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device.
Over the last few years there has been an increasing body of evidence of the technological advances made in surveillance techniques. It has become possible for almost anyone to penetrate the privacy of offices and homes, to watch and listen to people in public places and to listen in on their communications by telephone, telegraph and radio. All of these things can be done without detection, without evidence that the invasion has taken place; and it can be accomplished through the use of electronic gadge-try which is not too expensive and which is becoming increasingly available.
Privacy must mean the right to be let alone, to live one's own life with a minimum degree of interference. The extent to which an individual gives up that privacy by communicating with others or associating with others in society must remain a matter in respect of which he has freedom of choice. Of course, it is not an absolute right,

May 2, 1972
Protection of Privacy Bill
because being in society requires acceptance of some responsibilities by him and intercourse with his fellow citizens. Each individual requires individual privacy to nourish his individual creativity, to preserve his personality balance and develop his individuality. There are parallel needs in group activity and in the growth and development of each individual and group in society. There is a constant search for the proper balance between the needs for privacy and for disclosure.
In order to achieve the greatest freedom for an individual in society, there must be a proper balance with respect to the gathering and disclosure of information by government. A small area of secrecy for government is necessary to preserve the integrity of secret information and the privacy of internal policy-making processes, but those processes must be made public when the need for secrecy has gone. In any event, there must be sufficient publicity of government matters so that the people will be able to form proper judgments in political matters based on the facts. It is in this context that I propose this legislation which recognizes in individuals the right of privacy and which will protect an invasion of those rights.
A study of electronic surveillance and invasion of privacy was commenced in the Department of Justice some years ago to further work which had been done by committees of the Canadian Bar Association. This subject was debated at the 1968 Annual Convention of the Canadian Bar Association, at the conclusion of which the resolution adopted was presented to the then minister of justice.
There have been a number of private members' bills going back for seven or eight years which proposed legislation dealing with this subject matter. Some of those private members' bills were referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, together with a general direction that the committee consider and report on the subject matter of electronic eavesdropping on November 25, 1968. That same order of reference directed the committee to recommend legislative action. The order of reference was continued by further order on November 21, 1969. The committee reported to the House on March 11, 1970. During the course of its deliberation it heard evidence from a number of witnesses and considered a number of submissions made in writing.
I think it would not be inappropriate for me to say that the committee deserves commendation for the work which it did and I should like, too, to say that the many people who made submissions to the committee and subsequently to my department or those who appeared for the purpose of giving evidence should be recognized as having made responsible contributions to the democratic process.
The legislation which is now proposed is almost identical to the bill which was introduced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), my predecessor as minister of justice, on June 28, 1971. An opportunity has been granted to the hon. members of this House and to all citizens of our country to consider the proposals and to make known their views with respect to these proposals. A good number of them have been considered in the Department of Justice, and I imagine that all of the members here have had full opportunity to consult with their constituents about these proposals.

The bill before the House would make it an offence, for the first time, wilfully to intercept a private communication by means of electromagnetic, acoustic, mechanical, or other devices. A private communication is any oral communication, or telecommunication, made under circumstances in which it is reasonable for the originator thereof to expect that it will not be intercepted by any person other than the person intended by the originator to receive it. Intercept means to listen to, record, or acquire a communication, or acquire its substance, meaning or purport. An offender would be liable to imprisonment for five years.
It would also be an offence to possess, sell, or purchase any electromagnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device, or any component thereof, knowing that the design thereof renders it primarily useful for surreptitious interception of private communications. Conviction for this offence could bring imprisonment of up to two years.
A third new offence would be with respect to the disclosure of any information obtained by a person by means of an unlawful interception; or by disclosure, without proper authority, of information obtained lawfully. A sentence of up to two years imprisonment is provided for this offence.
The two basic exceptions to the general prohibition against interception of private communications would be in cases, first, where the interception or seizure is directed towards prevention or detection of espionage, sabotage, or any other subversive activity directed against Canada, or detrimental to the security of Canada, and where such interception or seizure is necessary in the public interest; or second, where an authorization has been obtained from a judge of a superior court of criminal jurisdiction in aid of a criminal investigation.
Provision is also made in the bill for certain other exceptions. Interceptions would be excused where a person intercepts with the consent of only one of the parties to a communication, or where the interception is necessarily incidental to the ordinary duties of a person engaged in providing a telephone, telegraph or other communication service to the public.
Before a judge grants an authorization to intercept a private communication, he must be satisfied that (a) other investigative procedures have been tried and have failed; (b) other investigative procedures are unlikely to succeed; or (c) the urgency of the matter is such that it would be impractical to carry out the investigation of the offence using only other investigative procedures.
Any application for an authorization must be in writing and signed by a peace officer or public officer specially designated for that purpose by the Solicitor General of Canada or an attorney general of a province. Authorization can only be granted in respect of indictable offences, and the interception so authorized will not be valid for more than 30 days. There is, however, provision for renewal if the judge is satisfied by further evidence that it is necessary.
Provision is made for an emergency permit to intercept for a period not in excess of 36 hours if an attorney general or the Solicitor General of Canada or a peace officer or public officer designated in writing by him is satisfied that circumstances exist that would justify the

giving of an authorization for the interception of a private communication and that the situation requires that the interception commence before an authorization could, with reasonable diligence, be obtained. However, under such emergency procedure, an application for an authorization or approval would have to be made as quickly as possible.
Consideration was given by the Standing Committee to whether the authorization to intercept communications should be granted by a judge, a responsible minister, or by some combination of the two. Testimony before the committee was divided on this issue. As I have noted, the proposed legislation is that an application would have to be made to a judge of a superior court for an authorization. It is suggested that a judge is able to consider the application from a position of impartiality and thus bring to these procedures an assurance that they are not used freely and without control by law enforcement officers.
On the other hand, it is said that this is not the proper role for a judicial officer, because the application is ex parte, and he is not in a position to judge in the usual sense; that an attorney general is politically responsible for his conduct and can be subject to questioning should any controversy arise about the manner in which he has discharged his responsibility. The proponents of this view point out this is not so in the case of a judge who cannot be questioned and is obliged to remain silent in the event some criticism is levelled; he must remain as a judicial person, impartial and unable to engage in controversy or explanations.
The bill proposes a new approach to the law relating to admissibility of evidence which has been illegally obtained. At the present time, the test of admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings is whether the evidence is relevant to the issue before the court and no regard is had for the question of how the evidence was obtained. The Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs recommended a change in the existing law in so far as it related to the unauthorized interception of private communications. However, the committee went on to recommend that any evidence discovered or derived from an inadmissible statement could be received in evidence.
This is the approach which has been taken in the proposed legislation. There are competing points of view and on each side of this question there are arguments, many of which have been forcefully presented both to the standing committee during its deliberations and afterwards to the Minister of Justice when this legislation was first proposed to the last session of this House. I feel sure that both sides of the question will be examined again by the Standing Committee, but in the meantime I believe I should set out here some of the salient points on the two sides.
The provisions of section 178.16(1) amount to a rule of evidence applicable to all criminal proceedings and to all civil proceedings and other matters whatsoever respecting which the Parliament of Canada has jurisdiction. Arguments which have been advanced by those people who favour the introduction of this rule are of two types. The first relates to participation by the government and
Protection of Privacy Bill
the courts in illegal conduct. It is said that by acquiring and using evidence illegally obtained, the whole law enforcement and judicial process becomes tarnished and that respect for it diminishes. On the other hand, it is argued that a law which permits a preliminary finding of illegality in the manner of obtaining evidence to stop consideration of facts otherwise admissible and germane to the issue of truth likewise brings disrespect for the administration of justice.
But the principal argument advanced in the United States in favour of the exclusionary rule, where it has been in effect for more than 50 years, is that it will deter law enforcement officials from illegal behaviour and will have the long-term effect of encouraging greater conformity by invoking the moral and educational force of the law.
The arguments advanced against the adoption of the exclusionary rule appear to be based on the premise that the true function of the administration of justice is to establish truth in matters coming before the courts and that a court should not be refused access to facts relevant to the search for truth. This is not to be confused with the confession rule because there evidence is refused on the theory it might not be true. The civilized conduct of criminal trials must not be confined by mechanical or artificial rules. The inquiry which must be made here is whether the exclusionary rule is merely apparent rejection of approval of illegal conduct without effect or whether it is necessary control. A detailed examination of this question can be made before the standing committee, but I would like to note that until just recently there was no provision in the United States that the federal government is liable for damages for illegal interception by its employees. When the exclusionary rule was invoked there and implemented, the deterrent effect of tortious liability was not available. The legislation I propose does contain amendments by which the federal government would be vicariously liable. The opponents of the rule argue that the United States experience is clear evidence that the rule is not effective as a deterrent force.
In the legislation I propose, there are three ways by which unlawful or unauthorized interception should be deterred. In the first instance, the conduct is criminal bringing with it the sanctions I have mentioned. Second, the individual wrongdoer is liable in damages, both actual and punitive. This liability extends to the federal government for damages flowing from the illegal acts of its employees. The third deterrent force proposed is the exclusionary rule, but its opponents argue that the other two sanctions are sufficient. It is on that question we no doubt will have further comment. Before an intercepted private communication could be used in a trial, notice of the intention to use it, together with a transcript of the contents, would have to be given to the accused person.
A disclosure of the existence of a private communication or the contents thereof would be prohibited except where the disclosure is made in the course of giving evidence under oath, in connection with duties related to a criminal investigation, in the course of normal operation of a telecommunication system, or where a disclosure to a peace officer is intended to be in the interest of the administration of justice.

May 2, 1972
Protection of Privacy Bill
The bill would also amend the Crown Liability Act to provide that where a servant of the federal Crown commits an offence under the provisions of the act, the federal government would be liable for all loss or damage caused by his actions. Provision is also made for the recovery of punitive damages in an amount not exceeding $5,000.
Another safeguard proposed is that there be a full reporting system. The Solicitor General of Canada would be required to prepare and lay before parliament each year a detailed report relating to applications made, authorizations granted and refused and interceptions carried out. Details would also be required on emergency permits. The attorney general of each province would be required to prepare and publish a similar report. The purpose of these provisions is to bring to the public notice of what activities have taken place in the past year.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to ask the minister a question. With reference to the temporary permits granted by an attorney general of a province and the other authorizations in the province which are instigated by him, to whom is his report made? Is it made to the legislature or to the Solicitor General of Canada and tabled in the House of Commons at the same time the Solicitor General makes his own report?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the bill in its present form is silent as to how the report should be made public. It simply requires it. In that sense, it leaves it up to the individual attorney general to satisfy the requirement. I think it could be satisfied in any of these ways, including tabling in the legislature by the attorney general, making it public without tabling or by returning it to the solicitor general for tabling here. We think any of those ways would be satisfactory. It is a political accountability in action, and the furtherance of a discharge of responsibility which I mentioned earlier that the government should inform the people of the manner in which their business is being conducted.
The proposed legislation recognizes a right of privacy. Its purpose is to protect that right from invasion involving modern technological surveillance techniques. I believe it does accomplish this purpose, while maintaining the balance between the rights of an individual and the rights of all individuals as protected by the state.
Again, as with the legislation amending the Criminal Code with which we have just dealt, I anticipate useful comments by members opposite in the House and in committee. I look forward to the adoption of this legislation. We have long recognized the need for a move in the field of protection of privacy. Most of us also recognize the need to balance this with adequate power for enforcement officers to perform enforcement functions for the protection of us all. This legislation, which seeks to find that balance, is important. I think it will make a useful contribution to the law and I commend it to hon. members.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the members of the House, I want to thank the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) for the full statement he has made on the purposes of Bill C-6. The subject matter

of this bill has percolated through the parliamentary process over several years. I think mention should be made of a measure introduced at one time by the hon. Mr. Justice Larry Pennell of the Supreme Court of Ontario. If one examines the report embodied in Votes and Proceedings of Wednesday, March 11, 1970 one will find there were measures presented by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Mather), the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), the present Minister of Communications (Mr. Stanbury)-I hope I have identified Mr. Stanbury correctly-and the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orli-kow). Thus, because it has received good support, I believe the passage of the bill before us will be easier than had the subject been freshly introduced.
One of the provisions in this bill represents a signal victory for the parliamentary committee system over the government. Another provision leaves much to be desired-I shall draw attention to both these aspects as my short speech progresses.
First, as to the purposes of Bill C-6. As I say, there are really three main provisions. Wire tapping becomes illegal, though it can still be done under certain circumstances under an element of judicial control. There is provision, in the second place, for civil liability to be accepted by the Crown. This is interesting, because when the question of wire tapping as a James Bond tactic is raised, the Crown looks innocent and says such things do not happen. Now, it says: they do not go on, but we shall assume liability and responsibility should they go on and should damages be awarded. This is in harmony with some of the Alice in Wonderland aspects of modern society. The third point is that wire tapping becomes legal if it relates to the security of the country. It is the provision of the law in the absence of adequate safeguards that I shall be challenging later in my speech, and also when the measure goes into committee. I shall try to make at least a suggestion which might be considered by other hon. members, by ministers and by the government, and if this formula for safeguards is not sufficient, I hope someone will come up with an acceptable formula for safeguards with respect to the third element.
It might be noticed that though the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) is piloting this measure through the House and presumably before the committee, it will be his colleague on the legal side of government, the Solicitor General (Mr. Goyer), who will be receiving reports. I mentioned earlier that there was a victory for the parliamentary committee system implied in one provision which is contained in Bill C-6. This was the element of judicial control. The predecessor of the present Minister of Justice had made a case for control by the Minister of Justice himself. To do the minister justice, and he always does himself justice when he makes his arguments, he was making a case on the grounds that, while the Minister of Justice is a political animal he is also an accountable animal, whereas a judge of the Supreme Court is not. In short, that if abuses spring up with regard to permission to operate wire taps, the Minister of Justice would be embarrassed if these abuses were sufficient to cause a public outcry, and this in itself would be a deterrent to abuses of the system. However, the committee felt, on reflection and on balance of

opinion that it would be better to make these wire taps subject to judicial control.
This particular point is made at page 563 of the same issue of Votes and Proceedings as I alluded to earlier, under the heading "The Choice between a Responsible Minister and a Court".
Testimony before the Committee has been divided on the issue of whether the authorization to intercept communications should be granted by a judge, by a Minister, or by some combination of the two. In the United Kingdom, authorization is granted by a Minister, without, however, any political or public visibility. In the United States, authorization is granted by a judge upon application by a prosecuting attorney, with political and public visibility. Having considered the alternatives, a majority of the Committee has decided to recommend that the decision to apply for authority to intercept communications should be made by a responsible Minister of the Crown, based upon a request to the Minister by law enforcement agencies. The responsibility for the decision as to whether or not the request for authorization to intercept communications should be granted should be vested in a judge of a superior court of criminal jurisdiction.
This is the decision the government has taken, and I think it is a wise one. It will undoubtedly save a lot of flak when this measure is considered in committee. If the bill has any defects, they are as follows: it does not deal with the vast amount of technological data which has been assembled, or is being assembled on most of us in Canada, and it does not deal with the question of governmental surveillance. These details have been noted by others, so I do not press them particularly, though I would note a speech made by one of the leading bureaucrats, a former member of the Parliamentary Press Gallery, Mr. Richard Gwyn, delivered to the 47th Annual Couchiching Conference at Geneva Park in August, 1971. Mr. Gwyn, who is a director of the Communications Department's socio-economic planning branch, stated that the government collects far more date than it needs on individuals and that the handling of this data was often sloppy. There was, he said, "a vast wash of information about individuals floating about Ottawa". Later he stated, according to the report which appeared in the Globe and Mail on August 7, 1971:
It cannot be safely said that computers are only tools in the hands of human beings who make the decisions. I am more convinced of the possibility that machines do change our environment and do change the nature of decisions, limit the nature of the changes, emphasize some and deemphasize others that we are able to make.
Computers, he went on to say, would demolish the usual safeguard of inefficiency in the manual handling of files. He added:
Government inefficiency has always been one of the great protectors of civil liberties. Civil servants will not give up their data banks to each other.
So, with the advent of increased efficiency we lose some of the protection we enjoy against governments. This illustrates the point I am making that we are still not dealing with the subject from the point of view of the vast amount of technology which directly affects citizens and what can be done to protect the right of individual privacy from wrongful use of such data. This point has been pursued vigorously, so far without success, by the civil liberties section of the Canadian Bar Association. For example, in September, 1970, in Halifax, it adopted section 1, on the right of a citizen to privacy, which provided
Protection of Privacy Bill
that the individual should, by law, have some control over information passed on about him by credit agents and other bodies. That group also sought regulation of private detective agencies, credit bodies and other groups which keep files on individuals.
One of the strong points made by the civil liberties section was the right of a citizen to inspect any file compiled on him, to challenge incorrect information and require that it be corrected, and to sue any person who supplied false information. In that respect, our law is still deficient and we are still, each and every last one of us, at the mercy of sleuths who may not do an efficient job and may incorrectly report some circumstance about us, which is compiled somewhere and which may be to our detriment at some future date.
There is considerable sophistication in the communications world today. I was intrigued by seven or eight recent developments in this field. They were considered at a meeting organized by the Council of Europe in Brussels, Belgium, about a year or so ago. Some eight of them appealed to me as examples of the sophisticated devices that can and perhaps do operate in Canada and elsewhere. One of these was the harmonica bug which can be placed in your telephone and relay conversations over thousands of miles. The bug is activated by the simple process of the eavesdropper dialing the victim's phone number and blowing a predetermined note on the harmonica. This prevents the phone from ringing and enables that bug in that phone to pick up and transmit any conversations in the room. This is fascinating.
Then, there is the bumper beeper. We have all seen these used in the chases that take place in the plethora of detective programs on television, so I will not bother going into that. There is a third one, however, a development for tracking individuals by radar. It is said, however, that this may have some entertainment value but not likely to have much detecting value, since the doppler system, as it is called, can distinguish women from men by the swing of their buttocks. I simply mention this as a bit of a novelty, and I would not want to give away any of the secrets of the attractiveness of the female sex, as obviously the doppler system has a great deal to do with it. I invite members interested in that point to pursue it further in textbooks on physics.
There is another device which can turn ordinary win-dowpanes into snooping devices by using a laser beam to monitor vibrations on the glass from sound waves inside the room. There is another device so intricate that even in very large buildings such as this, it can determine, on which side of the building an individual is walking by the tilt of the building. You do not have to be in the leaning tower of Pisa to know the tilt of a building. There is another highly sensitive thermal detector which can discover where a person has been sitting in a room simply by measuring the infinitesimal degree of difference in heat. One could pursue this subject much further, but I have only two more points to make in this regard.
There is a machine now being tested on animals which sends signals to electrodes implanted in the brain which can have an effect on the animal's behaviour. This can

May 2, 1972
Protection of Privacy Bill
also be done to human beings. Finally, as we find out in this wonderland of electronic marvels and abilities to snoop and pry from one end of the universe to the other, there is a complete catalogue in which it is recorded that 10 reels containing 1,500 yards of tape punched by microscopic laser beam can store information on every man, woman and child, some two billion of them in the world. This is the world in which we live. Most of us are not aware of these ramifications, yet some people use these devices. In winding up on this point, I should simply refer hon. members to some of the evidence given to the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs when it studied the subject-matter of this bill.
There is one aspect of Bill C-6 with which I disagree very strongly. It is to be found in the changes to the Official Secrets Act brought about by Bill C-6. One of the provisions permits the Solicitor General of Canada to issue a warrant authorizing the interception or seizure of any communication if he is satisfied by evidence on oath that the purpose of such interception or seizure is related to the prevention or detection of espionage, sabotage or any other subversive activity directed against Canada or detrimental to the security of Canada, and that such interception or seizure is necessary in the public interest. There is a further procedure outlined in respect of the use of the warrant which requires a report by the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to the Solicitor General, but that is all the safeguard there is.
We are left with the rather tremendous and delicate problem of deciding what is in the national interest of Canada, and how far people dealing with the security of the state should be required to go to account for their actions. I suggest the section goes too far, and that it should be possible to include some safeguards. Perhaps I could buttress my case for saying that the section goes too far by quoting the Solicitor General (Mr. Goyer) when he spoke to the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police on September 2,1971, in Calgary, Alberta. He stated:
The next point I want to make concerns the need for a much greater degree of open public discussion about police policy. Not only must you explain your role to the public, but the public must also let you know what it thinks the role of the police should be. I am not advocating that police operational activities be discussed in a public forum but, what I do believe where matters of policy are concerned, is that we must take a much more careful look at the expression: "It is not in the public interest to disclose this information", before we make use of it.
That philosophy is really opposed to the philosophy in the bill as it relates to the Official Secrets Act. We need much more than a simple report by the Commissioner of the RCMP to the Solicitor General regarding the responsibility for using communications interceptors, that is wiretaps, bugs and the like, to deal with possible injury to the state. I believe justification of the use of these electronic devices should not be left to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Solicitor General's office. I believe there should be at least some responsible members of the public engaged in deciding if there has been any abuse of this method. The suggestion I make-and I am not firmly wedded to it but believe it is at least a point for discussion-is that the report of these activities should be made to a group of senior and responsible statesmen of this country who would be nominated by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the leaders of the other

political parties. I think of persons say of the calibre of M. J. Coldwell or Mr. St. Laurent, although perhaps his age would prohibit him taking part in this exercise. I have in mind people of that calibre, who are trusted and who are great Canadians, who would examine how the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Solicitor General have used the methods of bugging and wiretaps in connection with the defence of the realm and the protection of the public security.
Such a group could make its report on whether or not it is considered proper use has been made of these devices. I do not think it is sufficient to have files compiled in some room to which only a few people have access or have reports made in places where only a few people may ever have the courage to stand up and say to the police that these powers should not be used. I think that if powers are given and not checked, the likely result is that there will be a greater use of these powers rather than a limited or judicious use of these powers. That is why I suggest the Minister of Justice, when this bill reaches the committee, make some provision for safeguards along the lines I have suggested. If that were done, I believe I could very cheerfully welcome the utmost despatch in dealing with this measure, most of which is good. Most of it reflects the hard work of parliamentary committees and individual members of parliament who have been interested in this topic over the years. Now, we need the finishing touch so that we are not giving carte blanche in respect of the official secrets portion of the bill. If we do this, we will have come up with a pretty good measure in this age of communications.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, the problems of wiretapping and electronic surveillance have been surfacing in Canada for the past 15 years, but more especially in the last five years when we have seen a variety of sophisticated instruments and methods used to invade the privacy of individuals. The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) indicated some of the most sophisticated methods which are being used. I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, of three simple illustrations which bring home the importance of this matter. When you learn that car dealers are bugging conversations between a customer and a salesman you have an indication of how important this matter has become. When you learn that the bugging of the conversations of an individual with a criminal record in Toronto lead to an inquiry against two Toronto magistrates, this again stresses the importance. When you learn that the Redpath Sugar Company of Toronto employed a firm which is noted for its union busting and that a member of the Toronto police force aided and abetted that firm in respect of bugging, this indicates we have reached a serious state.
In view of the fact there is now virtually no legislation limiting electronic surveillance, this legislation is an improvement over the present situation. Some legislation is better than none. Yet the bill presents serious problems which worry Canadians who believe in a free and open society based on democratic institutions and the rule of law. The law as it stood was totally inadequate. The federal act incorporating the Bell Telephone Company makes
May 2, 1972

it an offence for anyone to interfere with any of the company's property or the working of its lines or to intercept any message transmitted thereon. The Ontario Telephone Act makes it an offence to divulge the contents of a conversation heard by means of wiretapping, except when lawfully authorized or directed. We have had similar complaints concerning wiretapping in British Columbia and Saskatchewan. All these incidents have proven that the present provisions of the law are inadequate, that the enforcement is sporadic and half-hearted and that the penalties are insufficient. In fact, the police have been breaking the law which they were bound to uphold and enforce.
One wonders whether this legislation would make actions by the police which were de facto in the past de jure now. The new law is at least clear in three aspects. First, all electronic surveillance in the private sector will be completely illegal. Second, the possession, sale and purchase of electronic equipment by unauthorized persons which render it primarily useful for surreptitious interception of private communication is illegal. The third aspect concerns the liability of the Crown with regard to the legal interception by servants of the Crown. These are welcome features of the legislation. The enhancement of private profit cannot justify such intrusions on the personal privacy of individuals. The concerns about the bill are found in the areas of the authorization to the police to wiretap, the issuing of the authorization by judges, the question of the admissibility of the evidence obtained, the amendments to the Crown Liability Act for compensation regarding unlawful wiretaps, the amendments to the Official Secrets Act concerning alleged espionage, sabotage and subversive activities. These areas give me and many others in Canada serious concern.
The authorization to the police to wiretap, provided certain criteria have been satisfied for the judge issuing the permit, brings the entire problem of the personal privacy in a democratic country into sharp focus. This underlines the problems arising from the tyranny of technology. Personal privacy is central to man's dignity and liberty. To deny him this may be to undermine his very humanity and to erode his belief in democratic institutions and the judicial process. In the words of Mr. Justice Field of the United States:
-Of all the rights of the citizen, few are of greater importance or more essential to his peace and happiness than the right of personal security and that involves, not merely protection of his person from assault but exemption of his private affairs-from the inspection and scrutiny of others. Without the enjoyment of this fight, all others would lose their value.
That idea was repeated in a speech by Professor Edward Ryan at the Couchiching Conference of August 5, 1971. He set forth the view of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs concerning this important problem. He said it was stated in the Justice Committee that:
The right to privacy, far from being a mere individual claim, is itself a public interest of the highest order, in which may be found the wellsprings of individual creativity and group expression which are at the heart of popular government. They cannot be allowed to be imperilled. No more fundamental laws to our ideals is possible than that posed by the possession and potential abuse of overly wide governmental powers in this area.
Protection of Privacy Bill
From those statements arise such questions as: should the police be reduced to snooping on the members of our society, and have the police made out a case that police snooping is necessary and effective to combat crime? It has been said, first, that the police should be as well equipped as the criminals, and secondly, that crime is on the increase. The new bill deals with the problem of whether the police should be as well equipped as the criminal. Private surveillance is illegal, as is the possession, sale and purchase of unauthorized electronic equipment.
The second assertion that crime is on the increase does not necessarily jibe with the facts. The fact is that more crime is reported today than in the past, and therefore it does not follow that more crime is being committed. The assertion that police wiretapping and electronic surveillance is necessary to combat crime should be reviewed on the basis of facts. The self-conferred right to wiretap by the police has had no appreciable effect on crime detection. The evidence discloses that wiretapping is used by the police for the purpose of aiding in investigating and seldom if ever for the purpose of collecting evidence. The following was stated in the brief of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association which was presented to the standing committee:
In a learned law review article, Brown and Peer made the following observation, generally supported by experts in the field:
"Wiretapping is of very little use in connection with ordinary felonies and crimes of violence. There is lacking in this sporadic sort of crime the pattern of continuity necessary for effective wiretap operation by the police officers."
No less an authority than Ramsay Clark, U.S. president Johnson's last attorney, has voiced his misgivings as follows:
In several cities where organized crime is most severe, police and prosecution have in the past used wiretap without inhibition. It has not been effective. Organized crime still flourishes in these communities. In other cities where there has never been organized crime, police have never used wiretap. The massive programs required to end organized crime have no place for wiretap. It is too slow, too costly, too ineffective . .. Organized crime cannot exist where criminal justice agencies are not at least neutralized and probably corrupted to some degree . .. The F.B.I. used electronic surveillance in the organized crime area from at least the late 1950's until July 1965 ... So far as is known not one conviction resulted from any of these bugs ... In 1967 and 1968, without the use of any electronic surveillance, F.B.I. convictions of organized crime and racketeering figures were several times higher than during any year before 1965. The bugs weren't necessary.
With regard to organized crime in Canada, we had a Royal Commission studying crime in Ontario in 1961. In their report they stated that organized crime was virtually non-existent. In 1969, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police stated that organized crime was in its infancy. Is it necessary to give these wide powers with regard to wiretapping and electronic surveillance? The bill provides that the permit shall be granted by a judge. The problem arises as to whether the authorization should be given by a judge or by the responsible minister; in other words, should it be granted by a judicial authority or a political authority. The problems with which we have been confronted in having the judicial authority grant the permits are that the application for the permit must be made ex parte, in other words by one person. The application is

May 2, 1972
Protection of Privacy Bill
heard in camera by the judge, and it is determined by a statutory declaration made by a police officer or by the officer designated to be in charge of these applications. The application will relate to indictable offences, which indicates the seriousness of the offence. The report will be confidential. In other words, any of the determinations made by the judge will not result in any reported cases.
Experience in the United States, and more especially in the state of New York, has indicated that many of the applicants for wiretapping permits have gone judge shopping; in other words, they have gone to judges who are easy to satisfy with regard to material that is presented to them. We find that these criteria are not in keeping with the concepts of Canadian justice. When we think of Canadian justice, we think of all parties being represented in court; we think of the adversary system; we think of examination and cross-examination, and we think of legal argument and judgment. All these factors are missing when a police officer makes an application to a judge on an ex parte basis. It may be that the permits that will be issued will become pro forma in the same way as the writs of assistance and warrants which have now become pro forma in their exercise. It has been pointed out that even injunctions, and more especially those relating to union matters, are obtained by way of an ex parte application. I would think that even the experience concerning injunctions would make us acutely aware of the dangers that may be present.
It has been said by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) that there is some protection in the annual report which would be required to be furnished and tabled by the Solicitor General (Mr. Goyer) setting forth the number of applications and the types of offences as well as the permits that have been issued. But I think that we should keep in mind that we will have a problem not only with the requirement that the Solicitor General issue a report but also with regard to the attorneys general of the different provinces. My colleague, the hon. member for Nanai-mo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), asked the minister whether it was the duty of an attorney general to table such a report in the provincial legislature, or to make it available to the Solicitor General so that it may be tabled here in the House of Commons. The Minister of Justice said quite rightly that the provisions with regard to this matter were silent. It seems to me that we will have difficulties in assembling the evidence concerning the issuance of permits and in analysing and determining whether these permits should have been issued in the first place, how many were issued for particular offences, and so forth. I think it is right that we should have a political accounting by the Solicitor General, but I think it should be a political accounting on a better basis than the one required in the act. The authorization issued by the judge must be for an indictable offence. This is contrary to the recommendation which was made by the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs which indicated that only extremely serious crimes should be covered by this act. The Committee set forth 18 to 19 serious crimes, most of which carried penalties of over ten years. The question then arises: Why has the Minister of Justice overridden the recommendation of the Justice Committee? It seems to me that we will have a wide, permissive system which may well be Orwellian in nature and concept.

The bill also provides for a private communication, intercepted without authorization, to be not admissible as evidence but that information or things disclosed as a result of unauthorized interception may be admitted as evidence. In other words, the direct evidence is inadmissible, but the derived evidence may be admissible. We are departing from the usual rule, which states that all relevant evidence is admissible, regardless how it is obtained. It has been suggested that the rule should be that the evidence should be admitted only if it does not offend the fundamental concepts inherent in our ideas of ordered liberty under the law. We should consider whether it is reasonable evidence, whether it is just evidence and whether it is in accordance with the Bill of Rights before it is admitted as evidence in court. Surely, there could be a voir dire to determine this issue.
The most frightening parts of the bill deal with the amendments to the Official Secrets Act. All of the safeguards relating to police wiretapping disappear. The amendments set forth in the bill give the Solicitor General of Canada the right to issue a warrant authorizing interception of seizure of any communication if he is satisfied by evidence on oath that the purpose of such interception or seizure is related to the prevention or detection of espionage, sabotage or any other subversive activity directed against Canada or detrimental to the security of Canada, and that such interception or seizure is necessary in the public interest. It will be seen from this provision that all that is to happen is that the Solicitor General may issue a warrant to the police. There is no authorization required or safeguard, as there is concerning wiretapping and electronic surveillance by the police.
One of the other features is that the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police shall, from time to time, make a report to the Solicitor General of Canada with respect to each warrant issued pursuant to subsection (2) of the section setting forth particulars of the manner in which the warrant is used and the results, if any, obtained from such use. In other words, there are none of the safeguards regarding authorization, and the report is made only to the Solicitor General.
From this we can only draw the conclusion that the RCMP have the right to do anything that we cannot prevent them from doing. There has been lumped together home grown political radicalism with espionage, with no political visibility or public accounting. Is it any wonder that many of us have well-grounded fears with regard to the provisions amending the Official Secrets Act? When we think of the activities of the RCMP on university campuses when investigating young students who may have radical ideas, when we think of the actions of some of the members of the police in the FLQ crisis in Quebec, we wonder what is going to happen and how these provisions will be used or abused when the police deal with political suspects or any applicant who may apply for Canadian citizenship.
We find these amendments to the Official Secrets Act reprehensible, repugnant and almost worthy of a police state. Surely, questions of espionage and sabotage can be kept distinct from home grown political radicalism instead of being lumped together. Surely, the police
May 2, 1972

should not be given the right to use wiretapping methods and electronic surveillance of people whose only activity may be that of political radicalism.
For these reasons, having read clause 1 of the bill which declares that the bill is to be named the Protection of Privacy Act, it can only be described as a euphemism rather than a bill, one that tends to meet some of the problems we have been facing in this age of technological advance. This makes one realize how necessary it is to study the bill in depth and to bring to the attention of the Minister of Justice and the members of the Justice Committee the necessity for legislation that protects the rights and privacy of the individual, but does not permit the erosion of these rights by the intrusion of the state. I hope that when the bill gets to committee we will study these matters in depth and produce a bill that is worthy of acceptance and enforcement.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the fact that we have before us today a bill moved by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) is proof that the system of parliamentary government that we have works and that the backbench member of parliament, both on the government and on the opposition side, can play an extremely useful role. When I came to the House ten years ago and joined with members of other parties in asking questions about wiretapping, my questions were met with indifference, or silence, disbelief, indeed with denials that such a form of surveillance in fact existed.
I am not going to take the time today to put on the record the questions that I have asked almost each year since I came here about the activities, particularly of the RCMP, in this field. However, I am sure that in years to come students of the question will do so; they will look through Hansard at the questions asked and statements made on wiretapping over the course of many years. They will discover that until very recently ministers of justice and solicitors general have either denied that such activities took place or replied to questions posed about specific cases, in connection with which there was a good deal of evidence, with the stock answer that one often gets from the government, namely that it is not in the public interest to reveal the information requested.
Since that time ten years ago, and particularly in the last five or six years, there have been repeated documented cases of wiretapping. I am not now talking about wiretapping by private individuals or by private investigators, about which the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) has spoken and which under the provisions of this act will be made an offence. The fact is that if wiretapping is carried on by the police, as has been done on an extensive scale and if there are no new laws prohibiting it, no regulations stating under what conditions it may be used if required and no penalties for misuse, then obviously, Mr. Speaker, not just the police will be involved in wiretapping but private individuals will be involved.
There is no doubt that we have a good deal of industrial espionage in Canada, though possibly on a smaller scale than it is known in the United States. This is carried on by companies which want to know what their competitors are doing, companies which want to get the jump on their
Protection of Privacy Bill
competitors. Wiretapping is one of the most efficient methods of industrial espionage. There is ample evidence that private investigators, many of whom have police experience, have been involved in wiretapping but there are no laws prohibiting it. My colleague, the hon. member for Broadview spoke of an incident in Toronto several years ago when two magistrates got into very serious trouble and, if my memory serves me correctly, were removed from office. I make no comment on whether they were involved in activities which could have led to their removal from office, but the fact is that there was a hearing as a result of evidence obtained through wiretapping. That wiretapping was initiated, not because of any question about the magistrates involved but as a result of police action, if I remember correctly, against people involved in an illegal betting operation. In the process, two magistrates who should have been above suspicion were dragged into the case.
Some years ago in British Columbia there was a case where the evidence led to the establishment of a Royal Commission. A room occupied by some union representatives had been rigged so that their conversations could be recorded by people interested in what they were discussing. Recently in Toronto a police officer was dismissed because he was found to have been co-operating with a company which specializes in union busting, by rigging the offices of the oil workers union and of a steel union. These are the kind of activities that take place.
Some years ago in the city of Saskatoon an alderman charged that the only telephone available to people held in the city jail had been so worked upon by the police that they could listen to any conversation. I am not a lawyer, Mr. Speaker, but just imagine the position in which those people found themselves. As I understand it, under our law a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Surely, Mr. Speaker, if there is one type of conversation that ought to be completely private it is conversation between a person accused of a crime, not yet convicted, not yet tried, and his lawyer. Yet the Saskatoon police had so arranged matters that they could listen to the telephone conversations of anybody in the jail.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that wiretapping is a very common occurrence in this country. I cannot vouch from personal knowledge, but I have been told by someone very close to the investigations carried on by various government agencies, including the RCMP, into the Seafarers' International Union and Hal Banks that everybody involved or everybody who worked in any position of responsibility in that union had his telephone conversations monitored by the RCMP through wiretapping. In these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, with the former lack of knowledge, the former insistence on the part of ministers of justice, solicitors general and provincial attorneys general that wiretapping was not a common occurrence in Canada, if it occurred at all, it is not surprising that it became apparent to the people of Canada that regulations and legislation were necessary. I welcome the agreement of this government to bring forward legislation which, if it will not prohibit wiretapping, will at least regulate it.
The question which I intend to pursue later this evening is whether, in fact, this law meets the requirements of the problem.

May 2, 1972
The Canadian Economy



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Peddle)-External Affairs-Intention of United States respecting renewal of lease of air force base, Goose Bay; the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard)- Health-Request for statement on proposals to combat escalating care costs; the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight)-Grain-Action on complaint about grain doors at western delivery points.
In accordance with the special order made on May 1, the House will now revert to motions.

The House will now revert to motions. The hon. Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray).



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like at this time to announce to the House the government's decision to review foreign takeovers of Canadian business. I wish also to table a background document on the general subject of foreign investment. In order to make it immediately clear as to the legislative steps the government wishes to take, I shall also be tabling a draft bill which will read exactly the same as the legislation to be introduced formally later this week.
While Canada has generally welcomed foreign investment over the years, we have adopted a number of measures to foster and protect the national interest. Foreign investment in banks and other key financial institutions has been limited by law. Our broadcasting facilities, newspapers and magazines are subject to specific laws which effectively keep them under Canadian control. During the past decade we established voluntary guidelines for good corporate behaviour by foreign businesses operating in this country. This government has also set up the Canada Development Corporation to help develop and maintain strong Canadian controlled businesses. The tax reform of last year contained several measures deliberately designed to encourage Canadians to invest in their own country rather than abroad, and to encourage the growth of Canadian controlled business. And the government has announced its intentions concerning the production and trade of uranium.

Parliament will now be asked to add an important new measure to these policies. Foreign companies seeking to buy out or take over an existing Canadian business above a certain size will be required to demonstrate that the purchase will result in significant benefit to Canada. The government is introducing legislation to establish a review process under the authority of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin). In general terms the purpose will be to examine proposals for takeovers of Canadian businesses, to approve those that, on balance, will be of significant benefit to Canada, to negotiate with the proposed acquirer in those cases where he can reasonably be expected to make a greater contribution to Canadian development, and to refuse to allow those takeovers that would not bring significant benefit to Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, foreign investment plays an important role in Canadian development, but it brings with it costs as well as benefits. While there are a variety of opinions among Canadians about the balance of benefits and costs of foreign direct investment, there is certainly no disagreement that foreign investment should work in the interests of this country.

Takeovers are the form of foreign investment least likely to add significant benefits to the Canadian economy. The extent of foreign control of a number of industries in Canada is large enough to make the acquisition of more Canadian businesses a matter of concern to the government and to Canadians generally. If takeovers created only problems it would be a simple matter to deal with them-they could all be blocked. But takeovers can be of benefit to Canada, and it was this fact that persuaded the government that as a general policy a review process is preferable to other approaches such as the designation of additional key sectors or mandatory Canadian shareholdings. This decision, of course, does not rule out entirely the possibility that other approaches might be required at some time in the future.

A takeover review process is more flexible in its ability to take into account both the benefits and costs of a foreign acquisition. Through its operation, it would permit the negotiating of greater benefits for Canada and increase the level of economic activity in Canada. Most other industrialized countries, even with lower levels of foreign ownership and control, have some kind of mechanism to ensure that foreign takeovers are in their national interest. Our review process will be familiar to the international business and investing community.

In order to clarify the government's intentions, Mr. Speaker, I shall now briefly describe the review process and how it will be administered. A foreign investor-and that includes any enterprise which is foreign controlled- will be required to file notice of any proposed takeover of a businesss with assets valued at more than $250,000 or with gross revenues exceeding $3 million. Investors will be required to provide relevant information with the
May 2, 1972

notice. The investor may also take the initiative to make specific commitments to the government concerning undertakings which would bring benefits to Canada.
The government will then consider the proposed acquisition, taking into consideration these five factors: the effect of the acquisition on the level and nature of economic activity and employment in Canada; the degree and significance of participation by Canadians; the effect of the acquisition on productivity, industrial efficiency, technological development, product innovation and product variety in Canada; the effect of the acquisition on competition within any industry or industries in Canada; and the compatibility of the acquisition with Canadian industrial and economic policies.
The assessment of the proposed transaction will be made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who will make the appropriate recommendation to the Cabinet.
If the takeover is clearly of benefit to Canada, the government could then formally allow the acquisition. If, on the other hand, the minister is unable to recommend this course, he would take steps to negotiate with the investor with a view to increasing the benefits to Canada. This negotiation might then result in additional undertakings which would permit the government to allow the acquisition. But if the government still considered that the takeover would bring no significant benefit to Canada, it would not be allowed. This decision would be taken only after a thorough examination, including the opportunity to make full representations. The process is designed to ensure that the government will make its decisions with a minimum of delay.
Written undertakings by the purchaser will be binding and the government will be authorized to take action in the courts to ensure that they are observed. There will be appropriate penalties for failing to file notice of a proposed transaction.
The legislation will not, of course, apply to takeovers by Canadians-that is, acquisition of control of firms in Canada by Canadian citizens ordinarily resident in Canada, by landed immigrants who have lived here for six years or less, or by firms which they control. Some companies have a very large number of shareholders, some Canadian, some foreign. Such companies would be able to apply for an advance ruling in order to determine their status as a Canadian-controlled company or otherwise.
With regard to control, it is proposed that the acquisition of less than 5 per cent of the voting shares of a corporation whose shares are publicly traded will not by itself be considered to constitute control, nor will the acquisition of less than 20 per cent of the voting shares of a corporation whose shares are not traded publicly. There will be a presumption that ownership of voting shares above those levels will constitute control, but this presumption can be rebutted. Acquisition of more than 50 per cent of voting shares will automatically be considered acquisition of control, as will a takeover through the purchase of substantially all the property used in carrying on a business.
The Canadian Economy
[DOT]	(1710)

Mr. Speaker, we shall encourage international organizations to pursue the study of the multinational enterprise and foreign direct investment with a view to cooperative international action. To this end we shall be examining whether specific Canadian initiatives might be appropriate.

Our objective as Canadians-which is to exercise greater control over our domestic environment-cannot be achieved by exclusive reliance on a takeover review process. As part of its response to this issue, the government will continue to develop positive policies to encourage Canadians to participate more fully in the development of their country, and to encourage the growth of Canadian sources of capital, technology and management. Our policy is designed to ensure that this country continues to develop as rapidly as possible in a way which is consistent with Canadian needs and aspirations and which safeguards our vital interest.
[DOT]	(1710)
In accordance with Standing Order 41(2), I should like to table the document and the draft bill to which I referred in my statement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, this is not a fantastic breakthrough.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is this what the government took so many months to produce? Is this what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said the cabinet spent days and days considering? Is this the reason the government has kept the whole country in a state of confusion for three years?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my friends opposite should not get too worked up yet. Is this the reason the government kept everyone in a state of confusion, to produce this? This persuades me to paraphrase the Prime Minister and say with friends like this government, who has time to worry about Mr. Connally?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Now for the alternative.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: There is no question about the importance of increasing Canadian participation in the Canadian economy. I do not reject, in principle, the idea of monitoring the takeovers of Canadian firms. I will make it very clear that my main concern about this proposal is that it does not do anything to increase Canadian participation or Canadian ownership.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not object to a monitoring process, provided it is guided by clear and satisfactory guidelines.

The Canadian Economy
Despite all the time that has been taken by this government to produce this document, there is no provision for provincial consultation, either in connection with decisions or in connection with guidelines.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Surely, we all realize that if there is going to be any effective approach in this country toward increasing Canadian participation and toward Canadian ownership, it has to be a joint federal-provincial effort.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: This policy ignores any provincial
involvement. Therefore, it is not only a slow start, but it is a bad start. It is going to lead to bad feeling.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I notice a lot of smirks from members opposite. I say again that a policy designed to monitor or regulate investment in this country must, at the very minimum, increase the sense of national unity rather than divide or weaken it. Surely, that is the basic consideration.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is surely clear that the restriction of foreign takeovers in itself in no way ensures even the survival, let alone the expansion, of Canadian companies faced with sharp competition from industries in other countries, as well as from subsidiaries of foreign corporations here at home. It cannot be emphasized too much that this policy does not ensure the continuation, let alone the expansion, of Canadian companies in the teeth of competition that they face. Furthermore, no effort has been made to increase the Canadian presence in existing subsidiaries in Canada. For example, there is no suggestion that a certain proportion of the directors of all companies in Canada ought to be Canadian citizens.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: There is no provision for full disclosure by subsidiaries of foreign corporations. There is no suggestion that there may be certain key sectors of the economy, even with the entry of new capital into areas of the economy, where regulation should be considered. Above all, if we are going to increase Canadian participation in the Canadian economy, we need positive measures, measures designed to enable Canadians to participate in the development of Canadian industry and measures to enable Canadian industries to thrive. After all, that is the only effective method of making sure that we control our own economy to meet our own aspirations and create the jobs that we need in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We must have policies aimed at ensuring that Canadian industries, big and small, have access to capital for expansion and markets for the sale of their products and their services.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: When the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) is asked what we are going to do about this, he says we are going to institutionalize our arrangements with the common market. When he is asked what that means, he says he will do the same as we do in our relations with the United States. All the problems of Canadian industries operating in the climate that exists in the world were dealt with by the minister today in one paragraph of his statement.
In terms of the real needs of Canada, this is a weak document. We need policies that will encourage Canadians to invest in their own country. We need policies that will encourage the kind of capital growth in Canada that will, in turn, ensure jobs for Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I cannot overemphasize that the kind of policy the minister presented today does not in any way promote increased participation by Canadians in the Canadian economy. It does not promote this in any way. I look forward to the budget. I hope it is a more meaningful document than this.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In a country with a massively growing labour force and intolerably high unemployment, the minister's statement is not enough. In a country where domestic projections are running far behind what is required to eat into unemployment, this is not enough. In a country with so much of its entrepreneurial talent left to linger in frustration because it cannot be connected with a pool of domestic venture capital, this kind of statement is not enough. We want more Canadian participation in, and ownership of, the Canadian economy. Today's statement is tragically short of what is required. The minister's statement would not even make a good leak.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: All the government has done has been to institutionalize what it has already been doing Where is the spirit of imagination and initiative in what the government has presented? Where is the sense of orientation to the need for jobs and careers? Where do we see the government spelling out a means of developing investment in our own economy by Canadians? Have we become so stale, stultified and safety conscious in the circles of tenuously held power as to be virtually impotent to do something ourselves about our own destiny? Surely, there is a positive side to the investment and ownership picture. Surely, there are principles which must guide our approach in regulating foreign investment-there are practices which must be explored, and the best of them pursued to promote domestic investment and ownership.


An hon. Member:: We are waiting.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The hon. member says he is waiting. Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people have been waiting for months and years to get this document, and look what it is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Surely, there are many moves which could be made. In concert with the provinces, the federal government could assist schools of business and business organizations to develop and maintain a resource of entre-preneural and management talent. Financial assistance could be offered to new firms in key sectors of the economy to help them import technology and management contracts. Revisions in the Bank Act could be considered in order to encourage the development of a merchant banking system which could provide venture capital.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Incentives could be offered to encourage greater employee participation in the ownership of companies.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: There is a whole range of ideas waiting to be tested. But, first of all, we must be in the right frame of mind to think about them. And we must get ourselves into the right frame of reference in order to do something about them. I believe the right frame of mind is not the kind of introspective philosophizing which has characterized the mood of the present government. The right frame of reference is not the kind of ad hoc experimentation and harrassment in which this government has indulged. I do believe there is in this country a real hunger for planned action. I believe Canadians wish to compete and participate more than they want to restrict. This government is not giving them the opportunity. It is not giving them the opportunity today. Fortunately, there is a real prospect of Canadians having, in the not very distant future, a government which will give them that opportunity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, no wonder the government was reluctant to present this policy. It knew that its policy added up to one big zero as far as control of the Canadian economy is concerned. We have been told by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and we were told by the minister who spoke this afternoon, that what the government intended to present was a policy on foreign investment. This is nothing of the sort. It is a hoax. It is a tragedy for Canada. It does not deal with foreign investment. It does not deal with foreign control. It deals with nothing which is of consequence in relation to regaining control over Canada's economy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Right across this country there are thousands of Canadians growing increasingly concerned about the domination of our economy from abroad, particularly from the United States, and thousands of Canadians across this country have been awaiting a statement from the government which would hold out some hope that we might regain control over our economy and bring it back into the hands of Canada and Canadians. What has been presented today ought to make even this government ashamed of its lack of imagination and its lack of courage. I cannot but conclude that members of the government were not ready to do anything decisive
The Canadian Economy
about the 95 corporations which provide them with the financing so necessary to them at election time.
Some hon Members: Shame!


David Lewis: The fact is that the document which has been tabled by the minister and which is a carefully edited version of the one published in the Canadian Forum, as far as I have been able to ascertain in the brief time available to me, points out that the areas to be covered, if anything effective is to be done, must not only include surveillance of takeovers of Canadian firms. It must also include what is called in the report-and I do not know why plain English could not have been used-"new enterprises established from an external base". As to the definition, I suspect it means what is stated in the brackets- foreign companies making direct investment in Canada for the first time. Or, I would add, foreign companies making direct investment in Canada for the second, the third, or the fourth or the fifth time. Or new licencing and franchising arrangements, or major new investments by existing foreign controlled companies. Or existing foreign controlled companies, even if they are not planning major new investments.
All these areas must at least be touched on in any policy to deal with foreign investment. To deal only with foreign take-overs is a betrayal of what we had all waited for and expected. In the Canadian Forum edition of the Gray report I have not been able to find this passage in the report tabled during the brief examination I have had time to make. What the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray) is reported to have said in the original edition I have not found. I hope it is here, but I have not found it.
There are at least three reasons for screening the expansion of existing foreign controlled firms. First, they constitute a large and growing segment of the Canadian manufacturing and resource industries. A foreign ownership policy which ignores this fact could be ineffective as a means of increasing domestic control of the national economic environment. Second, existing foreign controlled corporations could be used to circumvent the screening agency. If a would-be foreign entrant wants to avoid screening he might be able to make an arrangement with a foreign firm presently in Canada, either one that it owns or one belonging to another foreigner, to undertake the new project, perhaps in an entirely unrelated industry.
Lastly, the bargaining strength of the agency might be reduced if applicants can point to existing competitors who are not subject to the various constraints on behaviour by virtue of having entered prior to the policy coming into force.
On another page that report said in a single sentence what I have been trying to emphasize, that the failure to screen expansion into new industries could lead to easy circumvention of the screening process. The fact is that the policy announced by the minister has nothing to do with the expansion of existing firms into new areas and new industries. It has nothing to do with direct foreign investment coming into Canada and it does nothing to increase Canadian ownership in any of the areas with which we are concerned.
Furthermore, it is not a screening agency such as was suggested in the task force report of 1968 which proposed a monitoring or screening agency that would be responsible to a new ministry. We do not have that. The Minister

May 2, 1972
The Canadian Economy
of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) is going to be in charge of the screening agency. Just how reliable is his relationship with corporations in this country, and just how reliable he is in respect of screening them, we have been given evidence of in the last few days. For months he told us that United States-owned corporations in the automobile and automotive parts industry in this country had given him the impression that they did not intend to use DISC; then he suddenly found that in fact they had been using it all the time they had been talking to him.
I am not talking about the minister himself, but I have a suspicion that his department has always been in league with big business corporations in this country and is the last department in the world that can be trusted to deal with the kind of issue with which we are confronted in this policy. The proposal was for a separate screening agency. The minister grins at me. Let me remind this man who is now to be the great defender of Canada's economic independence-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Bang your desks as you usually do when there is no reason for it. Let me read a short extract from a speech this minister made in Houston, Texas, on September 29, 1971. He said that our economy is capital-intensive and our economic needs of the 1970s suggest there will be heavy demand for investment funds. He said they would be considering this situation in their session that afternoon and then mentioned a few reasons why they should look very carefully to Canada as a country for investment. He then set out the fact that our tax system is not as bad as in other places, that we have a suitable economic and political climate, and so on. I cannot take the time to read it all, but this is perhaps the reason there is nothing in this policy to control or limit direct foreign investment.
The Liberal party remains the continentalist party it has always been, and will continue in the future to sell-out Canada economically to United States corporations as it has in the past. The kind of charade that is being played this afternoon is not going to fool any Canadian who is concerned about the future independence not only economically but politically of this country.
This government has assisted foreign-controlled firms to expand their operations in Canada. Most of the incentive grants given by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion have gone to foreign-controlled corporations. In the minister's carefully edited report I find the statement that this policy is to continue and foreign-controlled corporations are to continue to receive grants. So on the one hand we are going to limit foreign takeovers, and on the other hand we are going to hand out hundreds of millions of dollars to existing subsidiaries of United States corporations in order that they can expand their operations in Canada and their control over the Canadian economy with the taxpayers' money.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


David Lewis: If this does not expose the absolutely unending hypocrisy of this government, I do not know what does. One could take much longer on this subject than you will permit me, Mr. Speaker, but I merely want to say that

as one Canadian I am disappointed in this policy. I think it is a tragic "no policy" in an area which needs treatment seriously. There is in Canada a great deal of available capital for investment by Canadians. This policy ought to have dealt with all the areas I have indicated and the report ought to have indicated positive proposals for increasing control of the Canadian economy by Canadians. That cannot be done unless we have the imagination and the courage to take over a large part of the economy which is now owned by foreign corporations and make sure, especially in the resource industries, that we are not, down the line, handed over further to United States corporations so that neither economic nor political independence will be possible for future generations of Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the minister for sending me a copy of his statement a few hours ago in order that we might have a good opportunity to study it.

Mr. Speaker, following publication of the report which was tabled in the House today, I can make at least one assertion-that the federal Liberal party fund is in a much better position than it was this morning. In fact, this statement is intended to pacify foreign investors who had been a bit touchy and nervous ever since the appearance of the smoke screen which the government has been raising in Canada for the past few years concerning foreign control of our investment. Today, following this statement, those gentlemen will certainly be able to sleep peacefully without being disturbed, for the government has just reassured them by publishing a meaningless report designed only to serve electoral purposes.
It is designed, first, to fill the election fund, and secondly, to raise a smoke screen in order to make the Canadian voters believe that foreign control is going to be checked, that it is going to be investigated and subjugated forever.
Mr. Speaker, the election fund is filling up and propaganda is going full blast for the next election, as the government has succeeded in raising a smoke screen around the so-called foreign investment control policy.
But the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) has lately agreed once again to grant $750,000 to a Swedish firm in New Brunswick to compete with a Canadian furniture manufacturing company.
Mr. Speaker, we have nothing against foreign investors. We should not blame those people whose arm we have twisted and whom we have asked to come and invest in our country. We are blaming, however, our past and present governments which have made of Canada an economic colony.
As regards the study which the government has tabled today, we have been expecting it for a long time. It was shrouded in mystery; we were led to believe that the government was going to produce a mighty eagle which would keep in check foreign control of our economy, but

it has been established today in the House that the government's labours have only produced a still-born sparrow.
As stated by the previous speakers, the minister's statement demonstrates that the government is afraid of tackling the problem of foreign financial control, that it has no solution to put forward or that it is afraid of doing so because that solution is quite disappointing.
Before today, the government was satisfied to study in cabinet the problem of foreign control. Accordingly to this statement, we will be able to discuss foreign control in this House, because we are only allowed to study the problem. The statement was divided into four parts.
The objective is to set up a takeover review process and also to establish an agency within which a secretary appointed by the governor in council will play a major role. We are not even told whether this secretary, who will be appointed and whose role will be most important, will be a Canadian.
The statement also provides so called guarantees to those who buy Canadian companies or to investors, who will be heard. Indeed, it provides guarantees to investors and to those who will be planning to buy Canadian companies in so far as they will have the opportunity of being heard by the minister or by the secretary.
Investors will also be compelled to keep the minister informed of their transaction projects. That is all we shall be able to do; this will be another kind of board without any power, another bill without any teeth in it, another legislation which will not mean anything but which will enable liberal candidates to indulge in another snare and delusion, to make a lot of fuss about it and which will also give the liberal party the funds it could not get before because today a foreign investor can sleep like a log.
Mr. Speaker, no solution has been presented that could put Canadians in a position to regain control over the economy. Foreigners have taken over our economy as a result of credits that were granted to Canada by foreign banks.
Nowhere in the proposed bill is there a reference to the part that the Bank of Canada could play to enable the Canadian economy to develop on its own, thanks to Canadian instead of foreign credits.
Mr. Speaker, I do not blame foreign investors but only our governments of the past which had no financial policy and which would beg foreign and international bankers on their knees for money to invest in our country for the purpose of developing Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the members of the Social Credit Party will certainly have the opportunity of examining this matter again in the House, and their policy respecting control over foreign ownership is very well known both by the government and the people of Canada.
There is wealth in Canada, there is a potential, there are engineers and technicians; but there are also the Bank of Canada and the federal government which will not allow the Canadian credit to serve the Canadian economy.


Mr. Speaker:: It being after five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business-
Protection of Privacy Bill


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that we dispense with private members' business and call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is agreed.
At 5.50 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lang that Bill C-6, to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability Act and the Official Secrets Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes available to me before five o'clock when we debated this bill I tried to make several points. First of all, I said that in recent years there has been a good deal more wiretapping and electronic surveillance by the police than previously, and second, that until very recently government spokesmen were, to say the least, loth to admit that such activities took place. I suppose they and the police thought that if they did not admit that such activities took place, the public would not know they were taking place.
I said just before five o'clock that I would not put on the record proof of what I had been saying. However, let me put on the record of Hansard the reply to a question which I put to the government in 1963. Hon. members can find the question and the answer on page 3903 of Hansard for October 23, 1963. The question was as follows:
Has any department of the government (including the RCMP) equipment which is used for the tapping of telephone wires and, if so (a) what departments (b) for what purpose, and under what authority is this equipment used?
The answer given by the then secretary of state, Hon. J. W. Pickersgill, was as follows:
The policy of this government, and of previous governments, has been to decline to answer questions of this order as being contrary to the public interest, and there is no intention of changing this policy.
This policy is illustrated by the answer made to a similar question on February 26, 1962. See debates of the House of Commons, 1962 session, volume II at page 1245.

Protection of Privacy Bill
I suppose the point of that last paragraph is that the then secretary of state wanted to prove, as he could quite well do, that his view was precisely the same as that held by the former Conservative government as illustrated by the answer given in February, 1962, when a Conservative government was in office.
The principles in this bill, as well as the bill itself, have been given a good deal of study by some very knowledgeable people who by no stretch of the imagination could be classified as politically partisan. Professor Edward Ryan of the University of Western Ontario delivered a speech, in which he analysed the basic principles of this bill, at the Couchiching conference on August 5, 1971. He commended the principles of the bill and pointed out that for the first time we would be passing legislation that would make wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping a criminal offence.
Professor Ryan went on to analyse the provisions of the bill. Having read his analysis, I who am partisan can only say that like so much of the legislation that has been brought forward by this Liberal government the bill purports to prohibit the use of electronic eavesdropping and wiretapping devices, while at the same time giving permission to the police to continue to do precisely what they have been able to do in the absence of legislation.
I should like to summarize what Professor Ryan said, to illustrate what I mean. Professor Ryan pointed out that the justice committee of this House, which discussed the question and heard evidence over a considerable period of time, recommended in its report that police interception of communications be authorized only for extremely serious crimes which were to be individually named in the legislation. Eighteen of the 19 crimes suggested by the committee carried penalties in excess of ten years. The general rule was that these methods of electronic surveillance should be capable of employment for the investigation, prevention and detection of criminal acts that threaten serious bodily harm or death to the individual, or serious loss or damage to property, involve the corruption of public officials, narcotics trafficking, espionage or sabotage on behalf of a foreign power, or acts which create grave threats to the national security arising from sources within Canada. Control of syndicated crime was also seen as a legitimate ground for authorized interception of communications.
What is provided in this bill? The government proposes to permit the police to intercept communications electronically in cases where they have reasonable grounds to believe an indictable offence has been committed or any such offence is alleged or suspected. No objective grounds are set out. All that the police have to do is to say; "We think an offence will be committed". The Canadian Civil Liberties Association, in a letter which was sent to the former minister of justice, pointed out as follows:
But indictable offences include a very wide range of illegal acts-from serious violence to petty theft. The offences which can be prosecuted by indictment include such diverse matters as income tax evasion, possession of marijuana, theft over or under $50, impaired driving, etc.
From those few illustrations members of the House are able to see that the police can, if they so desire, get permission to eavesdrop electronically on virtually anyone since the offences referred to can be of a relative-

ly trivial nature. I submit that the right of privacy is an inherent right or every citizen of Canada and that the reasons for interference by the police with that right, if we are serious in our statements that people do have the right of privacy, must be serious. Yet in this bill the government is proposing that for any indictable offence the police shall be given the right to ask for permission to carry on wiretapping. Professor Ryan takes the view that the government is asking for overly wide powers in regard to interception of communications. As I have pointed out, a criminal offence can be relatively minor in character; it can be theft of less than $50. I suggest that this bill should return to the principles enunciated, after very careful consideration, by the justice committee.
There is a second matter that I think is very serious. The bill will permit the police to obtain permission to carry on wiretapping activities on making application to a judge. The justice committee when it dealt with this question spent a good deal of time discussing whether the authority to be given to the police to conduct this sort of activity should be given by a judge, by the Minister of Justice or by provincial attorneys general. The committee, by a narrow majority, I understand, chose to recommend that the person giving this kind of authority to the police should be a judge.
Professor Ryan takes the view, with which I completely agree, that this is a mistake. It is said by those who favour giving judges the authority-and the minister has enshrined this argument within the bill-that a judge is impartial, that a judge is not subject to pressure. I might add, neither is a judge accountable to the public. I think that when we are drafting legislation that legalizes a serious invasion of the privacy of ordinary citizens we ought to demand accountability.
Mr. Speaker, a minister of justice or a provincial attorney general can make a mistake, but they can be called to public account by the provincial legislature, by parliament or even by the media. But who will call a judge to account? When we think of judges, courts and trials we usually think of an open hearing where all the evidence is presented by the prosecutor, the accused has the opportunity of being there to hear the evidence and the opportunity to cross-examine and to present a defence to the accusation. Something else altogether is proposed here. This proposal is akin to an ex parte injunction which is held in great contempt by trade unions and working people.
In a labour dispute someone representing a company appears before a judge and maintains that the company is being harmed by the union or its members through picketing. Usually the workers are not even there. The judge, without hearing the other side of the argument grants an ex parte injunction prohibiting the use of pickets. The same situation could arise here. Someone representing the police could appear before a judge and apply for permission to conduct electronic surveillance. The hearing would probably be held in camera with no one there to assess the importance or truth of the allegation and whether the request was valid or not, and the judge could issue the injunction. Surely that is completely contrary to the con-
May 2, 1972

cept of open hearings with the right of the defence to present a case. Surely we ought not to approve it.
There is another matter that Professor Ryan dealt with in some detail, Mr. Speaker. In New York state there has been experience which shows what happens when this kind of system is followed. The police very quickly learn that some judges are more sympathetic to their cause, and give them permission, than others; so they do what Professor Ryan calls "judge shopping": they look for the judge who is likely to give them permission to do the things they want to do. Who will question the decision once a judge has given permission to carry on this very questionable, although sometimes necessary action?
I say very seriously, Mr. Speaker, that the right to give the police permission to conduct wiretapping should be vested in the Minister of Justice federally, and with the attorneys general provincially. They should be required by law to make regular reports on the number of applications for wiretapping and the number they have approved, without, possibly, giving the names of the people involved and the reason permission was given. Without such a safeguard, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that to a large extent this bill will be completely ineffective because its loopholes are so wide that a truck could be driven through them.
As I said earlier, under this law the police will be permitted to do as much wiretapping as they have up to now without any legislation. That being the case, I think this provision in the bill ought to be amended. When the committee meets, I hope it will permit representations to be made by interested and knowledgeable associations and individuals. I hope, too, that the committee will see its way clear to amend this provision in the legislation to provide that the agency responsible shall not be a judge but, rather, the appropriate minister of the federal and provincial governments.
There are clauses in this bill which deal with the right of the police to conduct electronic surveillance where it is believed that espionage or insurrection is planned. No one would question the very serious effects that such plans might have on this country and on our democratic rights. On the other hand, we must be extremely careful that such powers are not misused and abused. Need I remind members of the House of the events of October, 1970-of the more than 400 people who were apprehended in Quebec under the provisions of the War Measures Act? Need I remind members of the House that a very small number, a handful, were actually charged and even fewer were convicted?
Obviously, a large number of people were apprehended and held for a time when they were either not guilty or the government did not believe it had enough evidence to make a charge stick in court. Without again debating the events of October, 1970, I think we should learn a lesson from them and be careful that the powers given to the police and the government under the clauses of this bill which deal with the Official Secrets Act, and so on, are not abused.
Mr. Speaker, I have no concrete suggestions to make at this time. However, I hope the committee will deal with this matter extremely carefully in light of experience gained over the years as a result of actions of not just this
Protection of Privacy Bill
government but earlier governments-experience which goes back, in my city, as far as 1919. At that time the father of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) was charged for printing in a newspaper two verses from Isaiah. I think we ought to be extremely careful and take whatever steps we can to guarantee that this kind of excess will not recur.
I do not want to prolong this debate unnecessarily, Mr. Speaker. We shall not oppose the bill at this stage. However, I say to the minister that I for one am gravely apprehensive about what the bill will do. I think my colleagues share my apprehension. We are afraid the bill will do exactly what the government says it will do. It will restrict and curtail the rights of people in this country. It will affect private citizens and the police. It will give the authorities the right to interfere with, to intercept and to listen to private conversations between ordinary citizens in this country.
I wish, Mr. Speaker, I could support this bill wholeheartedly. I wish I thought this bill will do those things which the minister talked about. I think the illustrations given by Professor Ryan and the letter written by the Civil Liberties Association to the former minister of justice show that citizens of this country more experienced and knowledgeable about this matter than I am gravely doubt the wisdom of the approach the government is taking in the bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. Is the house ready for the question?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended participating in this debate. I thought I would wait until the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs had had an opportunity to examine the bill and recommend changes to it and express my views at the report stage. The more I read this bill, the more I am profoundly disturbed about some of its provisions. I was particularly disturbed after listening to the speech of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) this afternoon. Therefore, I crave the indulgence of the House for a few minutes so that I may make some preliminary remarks about the legislation in the hope that the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, made up of some of the best legal brains in the House-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -will carefully examine the bill and reconsider some of the provisions which give me and my colleagues cause for deep concern. I am sure every hon. member of the House endorses the principle of the bill. Its purpose is to guarantee to every Canadian citizen privacy and protection against wiretapping and eavesdropping through the use of electronic devices.
In a complex, congested society such as ours we all feel the need to preserve our privacy. Men and women have the right to privacy in their own homes; they have the right not to allow interlopers to invade their homes. We have the right to receive our mail freely and not have it intercepted and perused by unauthorized persons. In the same way, surely we have the right to carry on conversa-

May 2, 1972
Protection of Privacy Bill
tions with our friends, loved ones or business associates over the telephone without the conversations being intercepted and perhaps recorded for an ulterior purpose. Therefore, I am sure that all members of the House and most people of this country agree that legislation making wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping illegal and making the selling, possession or use of these devices a criminal offence ought to be wholeheartedly supported by every right thinking Canadian.
What causes us concern is the definite exceptions to the prohibition against wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping. Let me enumerate a few exceptions. First, the Solicitor General, on his own behalf, through a peace officer or a person designated by him, may go to a judge of the superior court and ask for authorization to bug somebody's telephone, to eavesdrop in a person's home or in any other place where the person may be carrying on a private conversation.
The Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs will need to ascertain the criteria which the judge must use in deciding whether he will approve or deny such authorization. In some circumstances that will not be difficult. If the person whose conversations are to be intercepted has a criminal record or is known to be associated with a gang of narcotics smugglers, say, it will not be difficult for the judge to approve the application. But there will be border line cases. The evidence placed before the judge will be only the evidence presented by the peace officer or person designated by the Solicitor General. He will hear only such information as those who want to apprehend the person, charge him and see him convicted, want to place before him. This means that the privacy of many innocent persons could be invaded.
Even worse, the Solicitor General may, without the judge's authorization, issue a temporary permit for 36 hours for the interception of conversations of persons on whom he wants his officers to spy. In that case there will be no judicial scrutiny of any application for interception, because the judge, jury and executioner will be the Solicitor General and he alone will decide whether for 36 hours your telephone, Mr. Speaker, mine or somebody else's is to be tapped. He alone will decide whether a bugging device is to be attached to a person's car, home or conference room. This is a tremendous responsibility for parliament to give to any man, even though he be Solicitor General of this country.
The attorneys general of the provinces also are exempt from the prohibitions against wiretapping and eavesdropping. They are to be given the same powers as the Solicitor General. They, too, through a peace officer designated by them can apply to a judge for authorization to eavesdrop. They, too, may grant temporary permits without first going to a judge. They may do this entirely at their own discretion and on their own initiative. The attorney general of a province may have the home of any citizen bugged and any business premise wiretapped. He and he alone has the right to decide whether electronic eavesdropping will be carried out.
One of the problems parliament has always had with the Criminal Code is that while parliament passed the

Criminal Code and amends it from time to time, except for those matters which are solely under federal jurisdiction, the administration of the Criminal Code lies within the jurisdiction of the attorneys general of the provinces. While Parliament can pass legislation dealing with the criminal law of Canada, it has no power to call to account those who administer that law except in respect of items which come solely within federal jurisdiction. Therefore, Parliament has to be very careful about the kind of power it gives to attorneys general.
When we give power to a minister of the Crown who is a member of this parliament, we can call him to account. When we give power to the Solicitor General or the Minister of Justice, we have at least the right to question them, bring them before a committee of the House and make them give an accounting of the manner in which they have exercised that power. However, when we give power to an attorney general we have no such authority.
If anyone wants an example of this type of power can do, he has only to go back to October, November and December of 1970. This parliament passed the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act. It not only gave sweeping powers to the solicitor general and minister of justice but it gave those powers to the attorneys general of the provinces. That legislation permitted arrest without charge and detainment without trial. It made no provision for guaranteeing that persons arrested would be allowed to communicate with legal counsel or with their families.
The then minister of justice, I think quite conscientiously, said that these basic liberties would be observed. But, Mr. Speaker, they were not observed. Nearly 500 persons were arrested without charge and detained without trial. There were proven cases of police brutality. These were fully investigated by the Civil Liberties Association. When day after day we asked the minister of justice about it, like Pilate he washed his hands and said, "Direct your questions to the minister of justice of the province of Quebec. Parliament gave him this power." The Minister of Justice said the Quebec minister of justice was not accountable to him and that that minister was exercising the powers which Parliament had given to him. Parliament had no control over what he did with those powers, even if he abused them. That experience ought to make every member of this House very hesitant about the kind of power we give to ministers over whom we have no control and whom we cannot call to account.
What we are doing here is saying that an attorney general of a province has the same power as the Solicitor General. He has the authority himself, through one of his intermediaries, to go to a judge and ask for authorization to tap a telephone or bug a home, office or conference room. Even more serious, he has the authority to do this on his own, without authorization from the court, for a period of 36 hours. No one should tell me the attorney general has to issue a report at the end of the year. How are you to going to force him to report?
When I asked the Minister of Justice this afternoon how he is going to guarantee a report, the minister said the legislation is silent on that point. I suspect the government will also be silent on it. There is no way you can make a provincial attorney general issue a report or bring him to account. All he has to do at the end of the year is say there
May 2, 1972

were "X" number of temporary permits issued in his province for the purpose of bugging telephones or eaves dropping in places where persons were gathered to carry on private conversations.
I am not prepared to give these kinds of powers to a minister in this House; therefore I am much less prepared to give such powers to a minister outside this House over whom the House has no control and no authority whatsoever. If I am here in years to come and ask the Solicitor General a question such as I have referred to, I do not propose to have him answer that the matter is under the jurisdiction of the minister of such and such a province and I will have to ask him, because the Solicitor General has no authority over what the provincial minister does under the legislation.
I think the most serious exception to this prohibition against wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping is contained in clause 5 of the bill, amending the Official Secrets Act which, without the authorization of a court and for no limited period of time, allows the solicitor General at his discretion to order invasion of the privacy of any citizen of Canada where he is satisfied that such action is necessary for, and I quote, the-
-detection of espionage, sabotage or any other subversive activity directed against Canada or detrimental to the security of Canada-
I recognize that very rigorous powers are necessary when we are dealing with espionage and sabotage, but we have had enought experience in this country to know what strange interpretations can be put on the words "subversive activity" and even more on the vague and nebulous phrase "detrimental to the security of Canada". Under these phrases we have seen university student groups and trade union groups investigated. Under this kind of phrase, candidates for FRAP in the Montreal civic elections in the fall of 1970 were thrown into jail. It depends entirely on the point of view as to what constitutes subversive activity and what is detrimental to the security of Canada. There have been attorneys general, solicitors general and ministers of justice who looked upon any group which was seeking, even by democratic means, to bring about fundamental changes in our society as carrying on subversive activities and being detrimental to the security of Canada.
This bill gives sweeping power to a minister who entirely on his own initiative and entirely at his own discretion can bug your telephone, Mr. Speaker, mine or that of any other person whom he thinks is likely to be guilty of subversive activity or doing or saying something which is detrimental to the security of Canada.
Our experience of the way in which governments interpret the security of Canada does not give me ground for much confidence in this legislation. I think of civil servants who have been dismissed, and the only ground given for their dismissal was that they were security risks- nothing more. No evidence was forthcoming; they were not allowed to face their accusers or hear the accusations made against them; they were not allowed legal counsel; they were not permitted to examine the evidence upon which they had been condemned.
Protection of Privacy Bill
This makes me apprehensive when I read clauses like five and six in this part of the bill. I think of what some agencies of government have done, of individuals who have been denied entry into Canada or who have been deported from Canada for security reasons. No evidence was forthcoming. There was no way of finding out whether it was hearsay evidence, whether it was gossip, whether some malicious neighbour had reported on them adversely. I believe a recent edition of Macleans told the story of a Canadian who had served in the last war, lived here for many years but had been unable to obtain Canadian citizenship.
I recall the case of a British couple living in Burnaby who came here in 1948. Both the husband and the wife had served in the British army. To the best of my knowledge they are good citizens, active in civic affairs, but they were denied Canadian citizenship and they cannot find out why. I could not find out why. No one would even say that they were security risks. They were simply told it was not in the public interest that their application be approved. When governments can hide behind excuses of this kind, merely saying that someone is a security risk or has been carrying on subversive activities, which sometimes means he has joined an association of unemployed, I read these provisions with apprehension and trepidation.
All of us in this House support the principle of the bill before us. We approve the idea of preventing any invasion of the privacy of Canadian citizens by means of electronic devices of one kind or another. What disturbs me is that the exceptions are so sweeping that they are open to abuse. The bill contains nothing like the safeguards it ought to contain if we are to have confidence that these sweeping powers, which are being given not only to a minister of this government but to the attorneys general of all the provinces, will not be abused.
I realize, of course, that the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General (Mr. Goyer) will argue that it is necessary for us to accept these sweeping powers and these possible invasions of our privacy in order to safeguard the country against criminal elements. But I remember the words of Edmund Burke, who said: "Necessity has been the excuse for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." Let no one for one moment think I am suggesting the Minister of Justice is a tyrant. I both know him and like him too well for that. What I am saying is that tyranny always begins by persuading us to surrender some of our civil liberties in order to protect our larger freedoms. But after this process has continued long enough we find we have lost those larger freedoms.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We cannot protect freedom by undermining freedom. It is an old saying, but it is still true, that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Unless we question these small and insidious encroachments upon our civil liberties, we shall find that the very basis of freedom and democracy upon which this country is built has been destroyed. I once heard an old friend of mine, Aneurin Bevan, making a speech in which he said: "In Germany, democracy died by the headsman's axe; in Great Britain it

May 2, 1972
Protection of Privacy Bill
could die of pernicious anaemia." That is true. When a country becomes complacent and indifferent to the liberties it enjoys, it is only a matter of time before it loses them.
Like many other members of this House, I have been in countries where hotel rooms were bugged and conference rooms were fitted with electronic devices enabling others to listen to our conversations. I know, as do other hon. members, how in such surroundings fear corrodes human relationships so that men no longer possess the vitality and the outgoing spirit which characterizes a free people. It is because I fear we may take a step in this direction that I intervene in the debate tonight.
I express the hope that the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs will examine this legislation very carefully. They will have the support of all members of the House in every party, I am sure, in promoting the principle of protecting the Canadian people against all invasions of their privacy by electronic means. But I plead with members of that committee to look very carefully at the sweeping powers which the government proposes to give to certain ministers, with a view to determining how those powers can be restrained and the freedom of Canadians safeguarded. If the committee members do this, they will earn our gratitude. If they fail to do so, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-6 will encounter a stormy passage when it returns to the House of Commons.


Mr. Douglas A. Hogarth (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) I did not originally intend to speak in the debate tonight. May I say, though, with the greatest respect, that I believe he has, in a way, distorted what the bill before us is seeking to accomplish.
As I understand the present law, the fact is that anybody at any time may use an electronic eavesdropping device for the purpose of interfering with the very private and proper communications of other people. In the vein of the hon. member's speech, he suggests that this bill restricts our civil liberties. With the greatest respect, with some of the reservations used this bill does more to entrench them and to make sure that privacy of communication, to the extent allowed by the bill, is permitted to exist. I thing it ill behooves the hon. member to suggest that this is an infringement of liberties. It is an entrenchment of liberties, not an encroachment upon them. In short, we are determining that the unlawful interception of private communications shall no longer be tolerated except as permitted by this measure.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is the
exceptions to which I object.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: The hon. member has said that he is concerned about the exceptions, and I agree. I will deal with that matter right now. This question came before the justice committee some two years ago. I do not think I disclose any private conversations or communications which have been intercepted by electronic devices when I say that we have discussed this matter extensively. Many of us on this side of the House are deeply concerned about

the reservations given in this bill to the solicitor general and the attorneys general of the province in matters of national security and emergencies.
I wish to assure the hon. member of my certainty that the justice committee, which has always acted in very much a non-partisan manner, would be most open to any suggestion he might put forward to correct the provisions of this bill and, hopefully, appreciate all the problems involved-and believe me , they do not all appear quite as superficially or as black and white civil liberties or tyranny as the hon. member has put it.
We are in a sense faced with this problem. We have in this nation and in every nation in the world advanced means of communication. We have laser beams, satellites and telephone systems that can get us instantly in touch with any part of the nation. As much as these have been used and are being used for the great benefit of mankind in 99.9 per cent of the cases, they are also being used to the detriment of mankind. For instance, they are being used by the purveyors of narcotic drugs. The hon. member should have been before the justice committee this afternoon and heard the appalling evidence of the commissioner of the RCMP who advised us of the increase in the number of heroin addicts in Canada. We know that purveyors of heroin are involved in a syndicated process of selling the drug, unfortunately mostly to our youth, and they use the telephone more than any other means of communication.
In the interests of the enforcement of law and the destruction of this nefarious activity, we must be allowed to use all modern scientific techniques to intercept these communications and use them in courts of law. With great respect, I think that the provisions for applying to a judge in the instances provided, where there is a long-term investigation, just as one applies for a search warrant today and has for centuries, are perfectly reasonable. These principles will apply for the purpose of using these modern techniques in the interests of enforcing the law.
There is always an eternal balance between what society requires for law enforcement and what should be the rights of the individual to preserve his privacy. The answer to that problem depends upon the times in which we live and the activities taking place in our society. I do not believe that this bill, in so far as the normal police application to a judge for a warrant to proceed to intercept communications is concerned, goes beyond that which is necessary in our society today.
Having regard to emergency provisions-it is in this respect that the hon. member was so concerned-there is a reservation in this bill, in section 171.15. If the hon. member really thinks this matter through, I am sure he will recognize that there are circumstances in which you cannot make an application to a judge because there is not time. The evidence is coming immediately; the knowledge of the officers is such that they must move immediately. I would ask the hon. member to come before the justice committee and give us solutions to that problem .
I think this provision in the main will be used more by the attorneys general of the provinces than by the Solicitor General. I would ask the hon. member to give the justice committee the solution to an emergency situation where there is not time to prepare the affidavit which is
May 2, 1972

required under this bill and where there is not time to confer on whether an application should be made on a Tuesday morning or a Wednesday morning, the police knowing that they must move immediately and that the evidence is extremely important. Perhaps the investigation has to do with the importation of 50 or 60 pounds of heroin through the port of Nanaimo. The local police know it is coming in at two o'clock in the morning and the details will be telephoned at eleven o'clock that night. Where do the police go? They cannot go to a Supreme Court judge in British Columbia, because there is not one in Nanaimo. But they can get the attorney general on the phone and he can give the emergency order that is contemplated by this bill. I ask the hon. member, inasmuch as I appreciate the counter point of view-I really do because I am not sure I am happy about the whole concept of "emergency" as it appears in this bill-to come before the justice committee and give us a solution to these emergency problems. I know the committee will listen to him.
Those of us who have participated in cases in criminal courts which have involved the admissibility of taped evidence, evidence obtained by electronic devices, have been impressed with something this bill has omitted, that is, the fantastic impact that taped evidence has on a jury during the course of the case. It is one thing to hear a witness describe what the accused said to Mr. Jones or what he overheard the accused say on the telephone but it is another to hear in the courtroom his actual voice on the tape. It has tremendous weight with any jury. I suggest that all hon. members when considering this bill bear in mind that this type of evidence is much stronger than the usual viva voce evidence you get in a courtroom.
As I understand the law as it is now, a transcript of what is said on the tape can be prepared and given to the jury so there can be no doubt about what was on the tape when it was played back in the courtroom. This is extremely powerful evidence and is another matter we must consider in committee when we are going through the details of this bill.
In short, it is extremely difficult for an accused person who has made a statement of confession, so to speak, on the telephone, which has been taped and the tape introduced in evidence, to in any way deny that he said it or that it was taken out of context, as opposed to a witness who said he overheard him say it in a beer parlour or something like this. The witness can be cross-examined by experienced counsel and his evidence weakened, perhaps, and the tapes cannot. We should not forget this point when we consider this bill, because this practice strengthens the law and I do not minimize the extent to which it does strengthen it.
Another very interesting aspect of this bill is that it is introducing the United States evidentiary concept. It is almost exclusively a United States concept that evidence illegally obtained cannot be admitted in a courtroom. Under the British concept, evidence that is illegally obtained-that is, if stolen goods are found without a search warrant or in certain instances the evidence has been obtained by trespass or something of that nature- the evidence none the less is admissible. Certainly in the United States rule, for instance in the Miranda and
Protection of Privacy Bill
Escobedo case, where evidence is illegally obtained it is ruled that it cannot be introduced in court.
One of the criticisms which might be directed against this bill, although I am inclined to favour the government's decision to include it, is that the slightest technicality in the application to the judge, such as the time expiring at twelve o'clock and the tape was made at 12.05, means the evidence is inadmissible. Everybody knows what was said on the telephone or on the tape and everybody knows that the accused is guilty, but technically it cannot be proven.
If I have the opportunity to sit on the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs I will suggest there be flexibility in that provision so that the judge has the right to say that it was merely a technical deviation from the authorization allowed in the application made before him. I think this is a matter to which the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs might give its attention.
I would not want to think that the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) was left with the impression that we on this side of the House are oblivious to the special powers that have been reserved here for the Solicitor General, particularly in respect of the Official Secrets Act. But in this country we are faced with the very fundamental fact that there are forces which would like to be at work to destroy this institution and even prevent the hon. member and myself speaking here tonight. They would prevent my telling the hon. minister from so-and-so exactly what I feel.
Because I speak in this manner I do not wish to leave the impression that I am paranoid about this. I do not think everyone behind the bush who expresses a violent contrary opinion against the government would overthrow the government. However, the fact is that I honestly believe it is the duty of the government not to prosecute such people but to constantly keep watch on what is happening and be able to constantly inform and take action if necessary when such activities reach the level where social order is to be disturbed by violence. I do not mean by hotheaded youngsters talking about what they would do to the government but a concerted effort to destroy and undermine what we respect as our social order.
Many of those who are violently opposed to some aspect of our society do not use violent means to express their opposition. I think there are many people in this country who appear to be violent but are not. But there are those who very carefully use many institutions in our country for the purpose of expressing some rather nefarious things, and I think the government must keep track of what is going on. This cannot be done through the normal channel of an application made to a judge, because no crime is being committed. It can only be done in the interest of national security. I think the time comes when we must show confidence in the people who are endowed with the responsibility of carrying out this function.


William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate basically to express the view of a layman on this issue. I have listened to the opinions expressed by those with legal minds who have spoken in the debate. I was particularly interested in the remarks of
1840

May 2, 1972
Protection of Privacy Bill
the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) and the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas). However, I wish to express the few concerns I have regarding this legislation.
Those of us who are from the country have had for a long time our own system of wiretapping, although it is not as serious as that being discussed this evening. This is called the party line. What we are discussing tonight reaches the fundamental freedoms and fundamental liberties of this nation. In this country, as in other countries, there has been a long history of trying to reach a balance, as the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hogarth) mentioned, in terms of civil liberties of the individual as against any kind of subversive activity.
The hon. member for New Westminster pointed out a number of matters. He said that under the present law anyone can wiretap. May I point out to him that if this is so, surely in changing the law as we are now by amendment we should ensure that the actions of the government involving a kind of wiretapping do not infringe on the civil liberties of citizens. We should be extremely careful of the manner in which-this is the opinion I wish to express to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs-we word any kind of legislation pertaining to such devices as wiretapping.
The hon. member said that as society moves along there must be some kind of eternal balance in terms of questions concerning civil liberties. I might point out that all societies have changed. Can one say, for example, that there was a balance in terms of the actions of men such as Robespierre? I feel that there should be serious consideration given by the hon. member to the part of the legislation which deals with the Official Secrets Act. This provision appears in clause 16(2):
The Solicitor General of Canada may issue a warrant authorizing the interception or seizure of any communication if he is satisfied by evidence on oath that
(a)	the purpose of such interception or seizure is related to the prevention or detection of espionage, sabotage or any other subversive activity directed against Canada or detrimental to the security of Canada; and
(b)	such interception or seizure is necessary in the public interest.
The concept of public interest has been considered throughout the century regardless of the type of government and who sits in power. The judgment of what is in the public interest is very important in terms of what is suggested here. I would hope that the members of the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs will seriously examine this part of the legislation. The bill goes on to provide:
A warrant issued pursuant to subsection (2) shall specify
(a)	the type of communication to be intercepted or seized;
(b)	the person or persons who may make the interception or seizure; and
(c)	the length of time for which the warrant is in force.
The Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police shall from time to time make a report to the Solicitor General of Canada with respect to each warrant issued pursuant to subsection (2) setting forth particulars of the manner in which the warrant was used and the results, if any, obtained from such use.
There are some real questions as to what is a subversive activity directed against Canada or detrimental to the security of Canada. I assume that members across the way believe as we do in the protection of civil liberties, but who defines that grey area of subversiveness? Who defines the activities of people who discuss politics or form political groups? Who defines what is a subversive activity and what is against the public interest? Can we interpret as subversive certain comments or actions of such groups as Action Canada? I suggest that this government would undoubtedly not allow itself to use such powers-at least I hope not-but this kind of legislation lays itself open to the interpretation of others who may sit on the government benches.
I recall, when I was a university student, the actions and the writings in student newspapers concerning the role of the RCMP in terms of investigation. Just who did they investigate? Did they investigate anyone who they felt had radical ideas? To that age group', sometimes what are considered radical ideas are really conservative ideas. The hon. member for New Westminster spoke about keeping the right balance. One wonders whether, under this legislation, what is out of balance with the thoughts of our society is subversive. That is the key. This might apply not only to people on the left but to those on the right in the interpretation of governments. So we must be careful in our interpretation.
I remember the time when a young mountie taking a training course in Regina showed me a history book which they used to teach new recruits the history of the development of the RCMP. He referred to the comments in the history book regarding the Regina riot in the 1930s during the great depression, and the riot in Estevan during the 1930s when three coal miners were shot and killed. The history book gave a simplistic judgment of the causes and effects of those riots and stated that they were the result of communist activity. It was a complete whitewash.
I submit that this is the kind of attitude in our society that can lead to the misue of power under this kind of legislation. I call on the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, and on my good friend the hon. member for Hamilton West, to examine this legislation carefully.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Why are you friendly to me tonight?


William George Knight: Other aspects of the legislation are good, but this particular aspect calls for serious examination of its implications, especially with regard to how political radicalism is defined. I remember that when I was younger I used to listen to the debates in the House of Commons.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: How old are you now, sir?


William George Knight: I remember, also, reading the statements of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) when he was expounding the theories of the Social Credit party. At that time this was the kind of radicalism that developed in Alberta. Thank goodness it did not spread further. That is the kind of thing we have to watch and be aware of in the

May 2, 1972

future. I hope the committee will examine this legislation very seriously.
I have been somewhat surprised and confused by the lack of statements from representatives of the Social Credit party. Today we have heard from them a speech concerning the Gray report and we have heard from them much talk about subversiveness. I wonder whether they feel that this legislation is either too weak or too strong. I think they should express their point of view on it.
Essentially we get back to a very simple issue. The purpose of the interpretation of seizure is related to the detection of espionage, sabotage or any other subversive activity directed against Canada or detrimental to the security of Canada. We must ask ourselves whether seizure is necessary in the public interest. I hope the committee will seriously re-examine that aspect of the legislation.


Mr. Yves Forest (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to participate briefly in this debate to indicate my support of Bill C-6 entitled "An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability Act and the Official Secrets Act" which is intended to respect and protect the privacy of individuals.
Even though this subject has been discussed on several occasions in recent years, through notices of motions or private bills, this is the first time that parliament is called upon to examine a bill concerning intrusion upon privacy with, the help of electromagnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other devices. I think the government and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) are to be congratulated for introducing a practical, concrete and realistic legislation which might remedy this situation in today's world.
Unfortunately Mr. Speaker, I was no longer a member, in 1968-69, of the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs as private bills were then examined and experts were called upon on this subject. I had then other duties but I had been a member of this committee until 1968, to my deep satisfaction. I think the bill before us is taking into account most of the recommendations which had been made by the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs in its report which was tabled in the House.
Nowadays, the right to privacy is a strict matter as we are living in an era of advanced electronics and technology and wiretapping has reached an unheard-of degree of sophistication about which we do not yet know every aspect.
The right to privacy had not yet been firmly entrenched as it is a new legal concept now being introduced as against those traditional rights of freedom of speech, religion, press, association and meeting. However, I still think it is a privilege which is closely related to fundamental rights and which must fulfil an increasing role in our society.
It runs contrary to our concept of justice and democracy that an individual should be spied upon by the state or by anybody without there being well-defined and controlled restrictions. And yet, such is the present situation where no legislation specifies under which circumstances and conditions wire-tapping can be used.
Protection, of Privacy Bill
In order to protect individual freedom, this bill provides for three new criminal offences: first, the interception of private communications with a device or piece of equipment defined as an electromagnetic device, or others; second, the fact of disclosing private communications intercepted with a device as described in the bill; and third, the fact of possessing, selling or buying such devices. I think this list of offences covers just about any situation which can occur in the area of wire-tapping.
However, if the right of the individual to privacy is to be protected, society must also protect itself, for there is no doubt that those who want to attack this country, to endanger national security, or to sabotage our democratic institutions-i.e., criminals, gangsters, anarchists, and other people of that type-also have those devices available to them and do not hesitate to use them for illegal purposes in order to fulfill their ambitions or to work out their resentment.
It was also necessary, therefore, to allow police forces and police authorities to use modern refined electronic techniques in order to preserve national security, fight criminals and check the activities of subversive organizations.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that this bill as presented reconciles the right to privacy, which cannot be absolute, with the need for society to ensure its own security.
In order that the police forces may not misuse the privilege they have to infringe upon the basic right of privacy, an application must be made to a judge of a superior court of criminal jurisdiction who, following the representations made to him by the officers designated by an authorized person, will be responsible to determining the conditions and the period of time, which may not exceed 30 days, under which the interception might be carried out. Such authorization could be renewed, but only for major reasons that must be again specified.
In urgent cases, an officer could use the same means, but he should subsequently obtain the authorization from a judge of a superior court.
I submit that it was right to defer to a superior court judge the decision to authorize or not the interceptions by means of wiretapping and not to rely, for instance, solely on the minister to take such a decision, without any control of a political or a judicial character, as customary elsewhere in certain countries including, I think, the United Kingdom.
The Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs has drawn a list of various major crimes and has suggested that this method could be authorized. But the bill does not reflect this suggestion and interception will be allowed in the case of an offence as defined in the act and I quote:
178.1 -"offence" means an offence created by an Act of the Parliament of Canada for which an offender may be prosecuted by indictment-
Finally, everything will at the judge's discretion.
But the act does not mention this control only. By amending the Crown Liability Act, a further control is established: the setting up of a compensation system for unlawful invasion of privacy by a Crown official. The damages, which may be compensated to a maximum of
1842

May 2, 1972
Protection of Privacy Bill
$5,000, may be paid by the Crown; they might even be paid by the officer at fault.
Mr. Speaker, no doubt that as a result of the introduction of this bill, the provinces will follow suit either by modifying it or proposing another piece of legislation also aimed at protecting those who fall victims to illegal acts carried out by provincial officials in right of the Crown and providing legal means for victims to seek damages or some other kind of compensation.
Mr. Speaker, considering the provisions of the bill such as the notice of intention given to the party concerned to the effect that an intercepted private communication will be adduced in evidence and taking into account other restrictions provided in the legislation, I think that the guarantees are sufficient for the protection of individual rights.
As regards the public, it will be necessary, in view of the reports which the solicitor general and the provincial attorneys general will have to prepare, to determine to what extent these methods are used for the detection of criminals and other such aims.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the bill provides for the establishment of a mechanism capable of protecting the average citizen who really has nothing to fear from such a bill, as well as society which needs to be protected now more than ever before.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding my remarks, I am pleased to support the bill and I hope that it will be passed by the House.


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the remarks of previous speakers and I want to thank them for their constructive suggestions.
We have gone through this stage of the procedure with a speed which clearly shows, Mr. Speaker, that all members are anxious to see this bill go through the next stage, and then become part of our statutes.
This measure is part of the long series of reforms undertaken by the present government in order to ensure a greater respect of individual freedom and privacy.
One can easily understand the concerns voiced by the four members of the New Democratic Party, and I am sure that their distinguished representative on the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs will be able to obtain from the minister the answers to their objections, with a view to clarifying the situation for the benefit of his colleagues, of all the other members of this House, and the general public, in order to give them a better understanding of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, that is what I wanted to say to close this debate. I want to thank once more the House for its co-operation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: that Bill C-5, to amend the Farm Credit Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-5 contains many important amendments to the Farm Credit Act. The general objective of the amendments is to enhance the ability of the Farm Credit Corporation to meet what I think are demonstrated, long-term credit needs for the development of viable farm businesses, and to provide the corporation with the powers necessary to carry out such other duties or functions as may be assigned to it in relation to the administration of those programs.
One of the most important to us now is, of course, the small farms development program. This program has been authorized by the House under the vote that has been presented to hon. members and passed. It seems to us, however, that it would be useful to have a provision in the statutory authority whereby the Farm Credit Corporation, because of the number of offices and the experienced field personnel, has authority to perform these functions.
Mr. Speaker, there are two main areas of these amendments. The first is the updating, bringing into 1972 and the years ahead, of the requirements of certain limitations that were put in, quite appropriately, at the time. I refer to such things as the maximum amount of loans which has not been changed since 1964, I believe, and certainly since then there has been an increase in land value and the size of farm units. We intend to change that provision.
There are other factors within the bill about which I wish to speak in some detail. One is the restrictions that were placed on farmers with respect to the amounts or the method and procedures they were required to use in relation to a loan taken under the FCC and one taken under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. Hon. members will know that experience has shown that even in certain areas where this seemed to be necessary, it is not required; so that restriction or limitation is being repealed. The other main area of these amendments is to provide for new concepts and functions that the FCC will be administering in the agricultural sector of Canada.
With those few introductory remarks I should like to get down-


An hon. Member:: Explain!


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I intend to explain some of these in detail and even to explain what I have said in more detail. Hon. members will realize that the powers of the corporation are being changed. The present powers of the corporation are those required to fulfil its objectives and purposes, which are to make, to administer and supervise farm loans. That is about as far as the powers granted to the corporation in the past would go. The corporation has a staff experienced in farm appraisals and farm land transactions deployed throughout the agricultural areas of
May 2, 1972

Canada. We think that with this background the amendment will permit the minister to utilize this source of expert knowledge through the assignment of responsibility for other administrative programs. The first one that we have in mind is the land transfer program of the small farm development plan.
The second main change, Mr. Speaker, is authorized capital. The Minister of Finance is authorized at the present time to subscribe $56 million to the capital of the corporation and to lend the corporation 25 times this capital, or $1.4 billion. An estimated $245 million will be left unexpended as of March 31, 1972, so an increase of $10 million, permitting the borrowing of an additional $250 million, will provide for the future lending program of the corporation for some time. Hon. members will realize that this is $495 million in total. When that requirement is met or if it is met in four or five years or however long it takes, we will be back to parliament with further amendments.


An hon. Member:: You will not be back.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says that I will not be back. By that time I will have been around for 20 years, almost as long as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Maybe that is long enough, but I am pretty sure that my colleagues will be over here.


An hon. Member:: Which colleagues?


Mr. Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: He will be the first one back.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: In addition to the specific purposes for which loans may be made, the act authorizes loans for any purpose which is necessary-I underline the word "necessary" because that is in the act at the present time-to the efficient operation of the mortgaged farm. This provision has been interpreted rather restrictively because of the word "necessary". The revised wording will replace it with the two words "will facilitate", so that loans may be made for any reasonable purpose related to the acquisition, operation, maintenance or development of the farm business. We have some cases which we would like to explain in more detail to the standing committee, when this bill goes there, relative to the significant difference between "necessary" and "will facilitate" and what it may mean in the practical application of the act.
A further point, Mr. Speaker, is that in one of the amendments we will change the requirement so that loans will be made to Canadian citizens or to landed immigrants within the meaning of the Immigration Act. From then on it is intended that loans will be made to assist only persons who are Canadian citizens or who intend to be permanently domiciled in Canada. At the present time, as hon. members know, it is legally possible to make loans to other than Canadian citizens or landed immigrants. We believe they should be primarily, or perhaps even exclusively for the benefit of Canadian citizens and landed immigrants.
Another major change is with respect to the maximum amount of loans. This matter is dealt with in clause 4. Hon. members know that the present loan limits for individual farm operators, which are $40,000 maximum
Farm Credit Act
under part II and $55,000 under part III, were established in 1964. Limits for multiple owner operations, that is, from $80,000 for two and up to $100,000 for more than two under part II, were established when the bill was amended in 1968. The amendment in this bill provides for a maximum of $100,000 to any farmer alone or jointly with others or in respect of a single farming enterprise. The size of individual farm units is increasing steadily, labour is being replaced in many cases by capital and the purchasing power of the dollar has decreased a little during recent years-


An hon. Member:: He did not even smile.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: -so that mortgage credit in amounts and for the terms required is not available from other sources. Thus, the limits for individual farm operators that were set in 1964 are now in our view inadequate for meeting the needs of many farmers, particularly those who wish to take advantage of more advanced technology and mechanization. Such farmers incur many costs.
The principle of relating loan ceilings to the number of farm operators rather than to the size of the business has proven in practice to be inequitable for individual farmers employing hired labour or people other than those with an equity in the farm unit. The principle has also proved inequitable, I suggest, in situations where the farmer operating his farm is assisted by sons or daughters of minor age, compared to two or more owner operators in a farming operation or a form of partnership. We want to correct that situation.
There is to be another change. It deals with secondary, non-farm enterprise. Perhaps it might be better to describe it as dealing with non-agricultural enterprise, although it deals with farms or is related to farms. Although the act authorizes the corporation to provide credit for the development on the mortgaged land of a secondary enterprise not being an agricultural enterprise, the corporation is not permitted to take the ability of the farm to produce non-farm revenue into consideration in establishing the appraised value of the farm to determine the upper limit of the loan.
This amendment will permit such values to be taken into consideration and will permit loans to be given which are more in keeping with the property's actual potential for carrying and servicing the debt and all the amortization charges associated with the loan. It will also make it possible for many small farmers to make better use of their resources without being entirely dependent on agriculture.
There is to be another major change as well. The change I am about to refer to is not a mere updating of the law but is a major change. Loans on land will be subject to the life interests of those who want to remain there. This amendment authorizes the corporation to lend on the security of farmlands with respect to which a right to use the buildings-particularly the home, although it can be broader than that-is retained by any person for a period not exceeding his lifetime or the lifetime of his spouse.
Situations can arise, particularly under plans such as the small farm development plan, where a retiring farmer

May 2, 1972
Farm Credit Act
selling his farm will be able to retain, if he wishes, the use of the buildings for a period not exceeding his lifetime or the lifetime of his spouse. The purchaser of such a farm who is eligible to borrow may wish to finance the purchase through a loan from the corporation. If this bill passes, such a provision can be incorporated in the terms and conditions of the loan.
We also intend to change the minimum age of borrowers. The present act does not permit the making of loans to farmers under the age of 21 years. This provision is specifically written into the act as it is at present. There is evidence of a general inclination to lower the legal age from 21. This has been done, actually, in a number of provinces. With the minimum age removed from the act, the corporation will be guided by the applicable provincial laws which set the minimum age at which persons can contract for mortgage loans. Therefore, anyone who is of legal age in a province and who is entitled to enter into contracts under provincial law will be able to enter into contracts with the Farm Credit Corporation in that province.
Provision is to be made for joint loans. Situations arise where it is reasonable to make joint loans between individual farmers, between an individual farmer and a qualified farming corporation, for example, which could be a family farm corporation, or between qualified farming corporations although the act does not specifically authorize the making of such loans under the particular circumstances. The amendments in this bill will permit the making of such loans, in reasonable circumstances, both under part II and part III of the act. One farmer may also allow part of his land to be mortgaged as additional security for a loan for another farmer. This is usually done, of course, in the case of a father who wants to put up security for his son. This provision does not limit his eligibility for a loan on his own behalf under part II of the act. The same provision will now apply with respect to loans made under part III.
May I now mention briefly the matter of the relationship between the eligibility of part III borrowers and the Farm Improvement Loans Act. Section 33 provides that if the indebtedness of a part III borrower exceeds 75 per cent of the appraised value of his land, he must obtain approval of the corporation before being eligible for a farm improvement loan. As I said, our experience has indicated that this requirement is unnecessary and it is therefore being withdrawn.
Those are the main features of the amendments to the Farm Credit Act, Mr. Speaker. There are other features, of course, and I am sure that they will come up during our discussion. One of them is the adjustment of interest rates on loans that have been made.


Mr. Benjamin:: I will bet they are up.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, that matter will come up. I do not know what the hon. member is trying to do, but I am not in an argumentative mood. I know that the farmers of Canada are anxiously waiting for this bill to pass and I will certainly not be party to any discussion tonight or at any other time which will delay its passage for one moment. I know hon. members opposite have said around the country that Bill C-5 is a good bill and that we should proceed

with it as rapidly as possible. I fully concur. On the other hand, some hon. members have been saying around the country that the government is not really serious about getting this bill passed right away and that it is merely election bait.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I want to demonstrate my sincerity by saying that we should pass this bill as quickly as possible so that our farmers can benefit from its improvements. I return to the matter of the adjustment of interest rates. The Farm Credit Corporation, the Department of Finance and the Department of Agriculture have been seized of this problem for a long time. As hon. members know, interest rates charged by the Farm Credit Corporation have declined from a high of 8f per cent to 7 per cent. Some farmers have outstanding loans at higher than current rates; the interest rate paid is more than 7 per cent.
We have looked at many alternative ways of dealing with this problem. We have looked at the example set by CMHC in connection with house mortgages. That organization reviews mortgages every five years and as interest rates move up and down they are adjusted accordingly. That option may be open to us. Another option may be allowing farmers to refinance loans. We would not need to amend the act for that to be done. It could be done now. If we amend the act, we must be careful that we do not buy debts. In other words, allowances must be made for further development of a farm. This matter raises some problems.
Could I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker? I will finish my remarks tomorrow.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We want to hear more.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, on April 26,1 asked the following question of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Benson):
Has the United States government indicated to Canada any intention of phasing down its base operation at Goose Bay or has it indicated its intention to maintain operations as at present?
This is basically the same question I have been directing at intervals for almost two years now to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) and the Minister of National Defence. I receive the same cryptic answer each and every time-"Negotiations are continuing." On January 21, 1971, the Secretary of State for External Affairs said in this House, as recorded at page 2616 of Hansard:
May 2, 1972

It is not the intention of the U.S. government to declare Goose Bay surplus to U.S. requirements. They intend to retain the base."
On the same day, January 21, 1971, the same minister announced publicly that negotiations had commenced between Canada and the United States for renewal of the base lease which expires on December 5 this year. I have repeatedly questioned the minister during the past 13 months. The answer has always been, "Negotiations are continuing". Yet, Mr. Speaker, there was a statement made in Washington on March 15 of this year by Major General Joseph R. DeLuca, United States Air Force budget director, to the effect that the Goose Bay air force base is to be phased down.
It can be readily recognized that there has been uncertainty among the residents of this area ever since it first became known that the lease was being renegotiated. That uncertainty is even greater now because of the statement made in Washington and the uncertain future that faces these people. They have been suspended, or I could say paralyzed and they are very right in demanding some assurance from their government as to what the future holds for them.
There are approximately 8,000 people in the Goose Bay-Happy Valley area. Many have spent their lifetime there. The American government has no right to treat them this way, and the Canadian government has no right to allow the American government to do it. The base is the economic lifeline of this area. If the Americans are planning to withdraw, Canada should be ready to move in and follow up the recommendation made more than two years ago by the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, namely, that its strategic position on the north Atlantic makes it an ideal location for a reopening of defence operations there.
I do not have time to repeat all the arguments which I presented to this House 14 months ago. I am just demanding that the government give some assurance to these people. If the spokesman for the government is planning to stand in his place and give an extended version of the previous answer, that negotiations are continuing, I suggest that he save his breath and go home now. I am not interested in international negotiations. At the same time, I do not expect the government to blurt out details of negotiations that have not been concluded. However, the people of Goose Bay and Happy Valley are interested in their future and the government should recognize the fact that they deserve an answer and an assurance in this regard.
The spokesman for the Secretary of State for External Affairs might say that his business is to be concerned with the intricacy of negotiations. The Minister of National Defence might say his business is the defence of our country. However, I would point out that hon. members opposite who form the government must have an interest in people. The future is suspended for 8,000 people in my constituency. No one is telling them anything. I hope I will receive more in the way of an answer than I have as a result of my probings in the past 14 months.
Mr. ].-R. Comtois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence): Mr. Speaker, it is appreciated that the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Peddle) has a natural concern for the future of opera-
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion tions at the base at Goose Bay because this base represents a very substantial element within his constituency. The agreement covering the leasing to the United States Air Force of certain facilities at Goose Bay was entered into on December 5, 1952. This agreement was for a term of 20 years and is due for renewal by December 5 this year.
The hon. member is aware, as we are, that the United States is exercising certain economies in its defence budget. In recent testimony before the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations, a military official informed the committee as follows:
The Strategic Air Command basing structure will be modified during fiscal year 1973. McConnel Air Force base, Kansas, is being transferred to SAC from Tactical Air Command. Glasgo Air Force base, Montana, will be reactivated as a contractor-operated installation assigned to SAC. Goose Air base, Nfld. is programmed to phase down.
In recent weeks the member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador has addressed questions to both the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Benson) concerning the future of Goose Bay and the United States involvement there. He has been informed on each occasion, and as recently as April 26, as reported at page 1651 of Hansard, that negotiations are under way on the future of United States operations at the base and that when additional information is available it will be provided to him.
Like most governments today, the U.S. government is concerned about costs, and in this particular instance about the cost which the operation of the base at Goose Bay represents. They therefore are exploring with us the possibility of adjustments to the present arrangements which might reduce the costs. Service to service discussions are continuing but it will probably be a little time yet before the outcome is known.


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, on April 20, 1972, I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) whether in view of the deen concern over the Minister's statement that we could not afford the bill for health care, and the statement that there was a scandalous waste in Canadian health services, he would make a statement to the House so that parliament might know what the real facts were.
That there has been a galloping increase in health care costs from 1963 to the present there is no argument. In 1959, the total health bill amounted to $1,290 million. Ten years later, in 1969, the total health bill was $4 billion. Medical services now cost about $200 per person per day, and it is estimated that in ten years time the cost will be more than $600 per person. If anything is needed to demonstrate the incompetence of governments to operate business successfully it is, surely, this admission of almost complete failure to operate efficiently in the health care field.
An attempt is now being made to operate on the basis of about half the number of general practitioners needed, making it impossible for general practitioners to under-

May 2, 1972
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion take health care in the preventative field in the way they might otherwise do, or in the very early stages of sickness so as to prevent the development of more serious diseases which lead to periods of hospitalization at $50 or $60 per bed per day, often in ultramodern surroundings which are quickly outdated. Many patients could be cared for in motel-type rooms on each side of a central corridor, without elevators and elaborate equipment. This would be efficient and would place the patient's comfort and safety first and at less cost, according to some experts in the field.
The minister states, and I agree with him, that it is difficult sometimes to get a doctor, and people are neglected and die needlessly. Who is responsible for this situation but the present government which imported about half the doctors needed in the last ten years? Who is responsible for the present government not living up to the principles laid down in the Hall royal commission report? Who brought in full medicare? It was not the provinces, it was the federal government and it must accept responsibility for the failure to provide the necessary medical manpower.
I have repeatedly asked the minister to operate medical schools during the summer semester. He states he is willing to co-operate with the provinces, and a couple of years ago he indicated this was almost ready to take place. What has happened since that time? Speaking in Napanee, in an attempt to answer a question regarding medical care he said his department had undertaken a number of studies and analyses of medical manpower. These studies show that there is need for an increase in number and an improvement in the status of general practitioners.
Furthermore, what about the 600 qualified students who were ready to enter the field of medicine last fall but were turned away from our universities? In that year we took over 1,000, many from other countries with a much lower standard than ours and with a need much worse than ours. The minister states that millions of Canadians, mostly the poor, cannot get a doctor and die needlessly. I ask the minister whether this was not the very reason the government brought in medicare, so that this 30 per cent of the population could get the treatment they needed. This indicates a complete failure to cope with the situation, and it is getting worse.
Approximately 95 per cent of the health dollar today is spent on curing diseases and only 5 per cent on preventing it. The minister states he wants to put the lid on health costs and cut the amount given to the provinces, yet he admits we are short of doctors, particularly general practitioners. He will not provide the funds necessary to obtain doctors. This is the key to the situation. Why does the minister not consider running medical schools the year around, since nearly all a doctor's education is now provided for by the state, paying the student doctor a living wage so these individuals would be out earlier, trained and earning a good income, paying income tax and paying back the loan, which is tax deductible, with the stipulation that the regional areas without doctors would be looked after first?
What has happened to the nurses being trained to take some of this 20 per cent load off the general practitioner? How many hundreds are being trained, and on what basis? Are they on a fee treatment basis or are they on salary? When do they become doctor's assistants, and what is the difference in the training and qualification between the nurse on her own and the doctor's assistant?
The government has indicated, and I disagree entirely, that doctors indiscriminately admit patients. I believe that the doctor considers conscientiously all the facts and uses his skills in deciding whether or not to hospitalize a patient. Every case is different, home surroundings are different, yet the bureaucrats behind desks want to run the doctor's conscience.
I originally asked the minister to make a statement to the House on what the needs are and the solutions to meet them. After all, we have had no clearcut statement in this regard. The very suggestion of a deterrent fee is obnoxious because it hits the poor the hardest. This was the reason for medicare. The public has a right to know what national health care is doing, how it is run and what the proposals are that will not cut the quality of care they received before medicare was brought in.
These proposals must improve the situation. How we can do this with health costs increasing by 13 per cent and the gross national product by 9 per cent? The critics hint at too many operations, too many expensive procedures. If this is true it should be drawn to the doctor's attention, or does the computerized world get out of touch?
In any event, I hope the minister will make a statement covering what is new and what he proposes to do in leadership and legislation to meet the present health crisis that he talks about.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I doubt that in the few minutes allotted to me I can answer all the questions of the hon. member.
I strongly reject the charges which the member seems to lay against the government and I must tell him that the problem raised is not new.
The considerably increased costs of medical care concern not only the government but also the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro), especially so in recent years. This is why he suggested at the federal-provincial conference in November 1968 the establishment of a special committee which would be asked to study the matter.
The committee established in January 1969 has published a substantial report in three volumes. That report, submitted at the conference held by the ministers of health in December 1969, included in all 350 recommendations.
The hon. member should know that the prime responsibility for health services is a provincial one. He should therefore recognize that most of the recommendations made by this committee should be implemented by the provinces.
As for this government, it has introduced, at the last federal-provincial conference, a new financing arrange-


ment. We have realized that personal care, in Canada, is among the most costly in the world. So, this government has proposed to the provinces a new formula to enable them better to administer health services and to reduce costs considerably.
We believe that nothing should prevent us from providing more Canadians with the best care, and this, as soon as possible and at reduced cost. This government has not only suggested a more appropriate formula than that introduced a few years ago, but has even suggested tnat a special fund of $640 million be set up to finance the whole restructuring of the care distribution system, in accordance with the particular needs of each province.


William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, I asked a question in the House of Commons today about the very pressing necessity in terms of the transportation of grain from western Canada to our customers overseas. The problem pertains to grain doors on boxcars and their inadequacy. I pointed out that this matter was brought to my attention by the Estlin, Gray, Riceton and Bechard area of my constituency.
The only answer I received from the minister was the comment that the problem exists in northern Saskatchewan as well. I suggest, with all due respect, that that answer is not good enough. I should like to read into the record a letter I received from the Gray pool committee and the others involved. This is a letter sent to Mr. R. G. Hodge, assistant superintendent, Canadian National Railways, Regina:
We wish to bring to your attention the urgent necessity of grain doors at the four shipping points of Estlin, Gray, Riceton and Bechard.
From the information that comes to us we have found out that it is not just a local situation.
With the amount of grain there will be to move right away we feel that extraordinary measures should be taken to remedy the situation as soon as possible.
This letter is written as a result of a joint pool committee meeting of the above points held April 27,1972.
Yours truly,
Leroy Moats,
Secretary, Gray Pool Committee.
copies to:
Hon. Otto Lang Mr. Bill Knight, M.P.
Cy McDonald Mr. A. Milistone
Allen Blakeney, Premier of Saskatchewan
Leader Post, Regina.
This whole question has been on the minds of the agents of elevator companies for a long time, yet no answer is forthcoming. The question relates to the problem of a type of cardboard grain door presently being used. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) suggested on
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion previous occasions that he had met with private interests to discuss the problem of these grain doors. I wonder if he has taken the opportunity to meet representatives of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool Association which represents most of the grain agents in the province of Saskatchewan. I doubt it.
With regard to this whole question of grain doors, it has been brought to my attention that a new type of grain door has been patented by an agent in the constituency of Fraser Valley West in the Burnaby region. This gentleman patented a door made out of plywood surrounded by rubber so that it can fit very easily into a boxcar. It is far more efficient than the door now being used.
Each time we direct a question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board concerning transportation we are asked to direct the question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson), particularly on days when he is not here. Then when we direct our questions to the Minister of Transport we are at times referred back to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. The all important question is: Who is in charge of transport? Frequently the answers we receive are that the matter is under active consideration or that the minister is consulting those involved. The buck is passed continually between the two cabinet ministers. The question is whether there is a minister in the House who happens to be a minister of action.
In this whole area of transportation I have asked questions of the Minister of Transport regarding the leasing of boxcars from the United States for the movement of grain. He told me that he had been in contact with the CNR and will be in contact with the CPR in future. I have asked him questions regarding the priority of the railroads in terms of the $5 million allocated to buy flatcars at a time when there was a hue and cry in the west to buy hopper cars for the movement of grain.
We are not getting answers to these questions from the representatives of government departments concerned. I hope that this evening we will receive a direct and comprehensive answer to this very important problem of grain doors for boxcars, for the purpose of improving the shipment of grain to our markets. It may seem to those who are not familiar with the movement of grain that this is not an important matter, but to the farmers who are moving their grain it is an extremely important question to which I hope we will receive tonight a direct and comprehensive answer-a better answer than we received this afternoon.


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister oi Transport):: Mr. Speaker, following the question which the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight) raised in the House this afternoon, the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board obtained the following information from the two railway companies regarding the current position of grain doors in the province of Saskatchewan. Canadian National Railways informed the minister that except for those lines west of North Batt-leford, west of Kindersley and west of Biggar, all railway grain stations in Saskatchewan are supplied with wooden grain doors. Occasionally the supply of wooden grain doors is depleted at individual stations, and in this event paper doors are substituted until such time as the supply of wooden doors is replenished.
1848

May 2, 1972
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion On the Canadian Pacific Railway, problems have arisen in the past due to deterioration of the standard wooden door posts because of the repeated nailing of grain doors to the cars. To alleviate this situation Canadian Pacific began a process of replacing the wooden posts with nailable steel posts. In 1970, 2,900 cars were so converted. A further 3,272 cars were converted during 1971, and in the current yer 2,828 more are scheduled for conversion. Therefore at the end of 1972, 9,000 cars will have been converted. The nailable steel posts have been extremely
successful and have brought commendation from the grain trade. In addition, a further 3,500 cars have been modified by the application of plywood at the doorways and this has proved very successful.
In December last these upgraded cars constituted more than one-third of all Canadian Pacific cars unloaded at Thunder Bay and Vancouver and this porportion is expected to increase as more modified cars enter grain service. I hope that the information given in this answer will be to the satisfaction of the hon. member.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.28 p.m.

Wednesday. May 3. 1972