1973-11-28

PRIVILEGE


Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege involving answers given to me yesterday by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) in the case of John Meier and documents concerning him that ended up in the hands of the United States Attorney's office. The minister stated that Meier's documents were given to the internal revenue people in the United States when in fact it has been made public knowledge since then by the minister's own department that these documents were passed directly to the U.S. Attorney's office. In his answer to my question yesterday the minister said this could not be possible, that the only reason documents were passed back and forth between the two governments on a normal basis was so that the man's application could be checked out by the internal revenue service.
It would seem to me there is a lot more involved in this whole story. If you agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that I have a question of privilege based on the minister's answer yesterday and the statement made by his staff since then, I would hope that this whole matter could be referred to a committee of the House for further investigation, because when personal documents concerning a resident of Canada are passed to a foreign government I think all Canadians deserve to know exactly what is happening in this regard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Burna-by-Richmond-Delta has given the Chair the notice required by the Standing Order. I have given the matter some thought and I really do not think I can agree with the hon. member that a motion should be put to the House to send this grievance to a committee of the House. I would refer hon. members to Citation No. 113 of Beau-chesne's Fourth Edition. I will not read it at length, but I would refer particularly to one line which has been quoted on a number of occasions in the past:
But a dispute arising between two members, as to allegations of facts, does not fulfil the conditions of parliamentary privilege.
On this basis I do not think the Chair would be well advised or supported by precedents and the rules in allowing a motion to be put at this time.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the text of a November 23 memorandum of understanding on the United Nations Emergency Force between Canada and the Secretary General of the United Nations.


REPORTED DIVERSION OF OIL SHIPMENTS DESTINED TO CANADA-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to propose a motion under Standing Order 43 which I think all hon. members can support. It arises from recent reports that several large foreign owned oil companies have diverted oil shipments contracted for the Canadian market. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave):
That the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources table a list of the companies which he knows to be involved in such diversions, an estimate of the total amount of oil involved, and any additional information which he has on these contracts.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion proposed by the hon. member requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity and the hon. member's motion cannot be put.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
[Stage Direction]
November 28, 1973
Order Paper Questions
[ Text]
[Stage Direction]
2.	Of this number (a) how many resigned from the service in each of the past three years (b) what were the reasons given fo such resignations?
Mr. Stevens: 1.	In the fiscal years ending March 31, 1971, 1972 and 1973, what was the total expenditure by the government in the private sector for (a) Computer hardware (b) Computer software (c) Data Processing Consulting Services?
2.	Under each category, who were the five main suppliers to the government from the private sector and, in each case, what was the amount of governmental purchase and was the purchase a capital or rental purchase?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: 1.
Government expenditures in the private sector in the past three fiscal years for the Electronic Data Processing goods and services referred to in the question are reported as follows:
Year Ending
(a)	Computer Hardware (i)
(b)	Computer Software
(c)	Data Processing Consulting
March 31, March 31, March 31, 1971	1972	1973$	$	S
19,100,000 Note (ii) 1,800,000
24,500,000 Note (ii) 2,200,000
26,550,000
240,000
2,770,000
Notes: (i) The sums shown for computer hardware are based on equivalent annual rental including maintenance.
(ii) The first year in which data on computer software acquisition has been centrally collected was fiscal year 1972-73.
2. Data regarding suppliers' market share has, in the past, been accumulated by periodic surveys which have not been conducted every year. In the year ending March 31, 1971, the five main suppliers of computer hardware to the government were, in descending dollar volume: IBM Canada Ltd., Burroughs Business Machines Ltd., Sperry Rand Canada Ltd., Xerox Data Systems Ltd., and Digital Equipment of Canada Ltd. In the year ending March 31, 1973, the five main suppliers to the government, again in descending dollar volume, were: IBM Canada Ltd., Sperry Rand Canada Ltd., Honeywell Information Systems Ltd., Burroughs Business Machines Ltd., and Xerox Data Systems Ltd. Exact dollar amounts are not known at this time. Data regarding suppliers' market share in respect of computer software and data processing consulting services is not available at this time. It should be noted that a consolidation of the acquisition of data processing goods and services within the Department of Supply and Services has been completed during this past year. This action coupled with the implementation of the electronic data processing policy approved by the Treasury Board in November, 1971, will serve to provide government with comprehensive financial and other management data on its use of data processing resources.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: 1. As of
April 1, 1973 18,636 (Note: only full-time personnel, both supervisory and non-supervisory, are 'being considered above).
2. Information on resignations is available for only the previous fiscal year (April 1, 1972 to March 31, 1973). (a) 846. (b) Outside employment, 93; Return to School, 65; Personal Reasons, 467; Number who resigned and gave no reason, 221.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	How many Farm Credit Corporation loan approvals were processed for the fiscal years 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973 to date, in each of the district FCC offices of Vegreville, Vermilion and St. Paul, Alberta?
2.	What was the aggregate amount of the loans approved in each of the offices and what was the average amount of loans processed?
3.	What is the principal amount outstanding in each of the offices at the present time?
4.	(a) What are the names of the legal firms who have been, and are acting, on behalf of the FCC in each of the offices for the same years (b) how many applications were handled by each of the legal firms?
5.	What is the average legal fee that is charged by solicitors to process applications?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: The Farm Credit Corporation advises: 1.
				1973 to
				September 30,
1970-71	1971-72	1972-73	1973Vegreville	.... 22	24	38	90Vermilion	.... 38	27	40	22St. Paul	.... 42	22	15	312.	Aggregate Approved	Vegreville	.... 588,100	565,100	1,213,600	2,902,500Vermilion	.... 902,800	883,800	1,340,400	905,900St. Paul	... . 998,400	415,200	383,300	1,158,000Average Amount	Vegreville	.... 26,732	23,546	31,937	32,250Vermilion	.... 23,757	32,733	33,510	41,177St. Paul	.... 23,771	18,872	25,553	37,3543.	Principal Amount Outstanding	Vegreville	. . . . -	-	-	20,080,402Vermilion	-	-	8,378,989St. Paul	
-	-	-	8,999,828


Mr. Orlikow: 1. How many employees of the Post Office Department are classified as inside workers?

4.	(a) Blonsky, J. A. (Moshansky & Blonsky), Vegreville, Alberta. Gulak, B. J. (Gulak, Robertson & Baynton), Lloydminster, Alberta. Vlan, J. F. (J. F. Broda & Co.), Edmonton, Alberta. Lagasse, J. L., St. Paul, Alberta.
November 28, 1973

1973 to
September 30,
(b)	1970-71	1971-72	1972-73	1973Blonsky, J. A.	37	18	25	38Gulak, B. J.	38	21	36	19Ulan, J. F.	15	10	15	12Lagasse, J. L.	33	21	13	265.	Fees paid to lawyers and law firms acting as legal agents for the Farm Credit Corporation in the placing of loans are paid by borrowers by deduction from their loan proceeds and the Corporation does not maintain records of amounts so paid.


Mr. Schellenberger: Over the past 10 years, what was the total number of increases and decreases in federal support prices to cream producers in Canada?


Eugene Whelan: Over the past 10 years the total number of increases and decreases in the federal support level for manufacturing milk (and cream on equivalent basis) was: Increases 5; Decreases Nil. In addition dairy products have been supported over the past 10 years by offers to purchase at specified prices.


Mr. Godin: In the area served by the Quebec Regional Office of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, for each of the years 1971 and 1972 (a) what was the amount of overpayments to various unemployed persons (b) what amounts were recovered (c) what was the cost of proceedings taken in such cases?


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: In the area served by the Quebec District Office:
	1971	1972
	*	J
(a)	283,014	613,227(b)	204,861	567,760(c)	Where proceedings were taken the cost was added to the amount to be recovered.


Mr. Nesdoly: Within the past 24 months, was there a Japanese trade mission to Canada wishing to purchase uranium oxide (U308) from the government stockpile or from the production of Eldorado nuclear mine at Uranium City and, if so, what were the results of the negotiations?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: There have been several Japanese missions to Canada during the past 24 months but none was for the purpose of purchasing uranium. Such overtures are
Order Paper Questions
normally made by electric utilities through their sales agents.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	Are any employees of the government now attending a university, or receiving other training, outside Canada at public expense and, if so, in each case, what is (a) the name of the individual (b) the department concerned (c) the job concerned
(d)	the nature of the course (e) the location of the course (f) the extent of the course (g) the amount of subsidy or other public payment (h) the reason for the course (i) the extent of previous training taken by that individual at public expense?
2.	In how many cases is the public servant, who is attending courses outside Canada at public expense, accompanied by his/her spouse and, in each case, what part and what amount of the expenses of the spouse are met by the government?
3.	Of the public servants following courses outside Canada at public expense in the period from January 1, 1970 to June 30, 1973, how many (a) were employed previously in the office, or on the staff, of a Minister of the Crown (b) were promoted in the Public Service in the six months prior to commencement of their course outside Canada?
4.	What was the name of each such person previously associated with a Minister and what was the name of the Minister?
5.	What was the name of each such person promoted and what was (a) the nature of (b) the reasons for the promotion?
Return tabled.



INCREASE IN MONEY SUPPLY

Mr. Howard: 1.	What is meant by the term an increase in the money supply?
2.	By what method or methods is the money supply increased?
3.	For each month in the past year, by how much has the money supply increased over each preceding month?
4.	What effect does an increase in the money supply have upon the purchasing value of the dollar?
5.	For each month in the past year, by how much has the purchasing value of the dollar decreased over each preceding month as a result of an increase in the money supply?
Return tabled.


Mr. Cossitt:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would refer the parliamentary secretary to questions Nos. 2398, 2941 to 2950 inclusive, and 2956 to 2965 inclusive, which request information of the amounts of money paid to lawyers hired by the Department of Justice during a certain period of time, and also information in respect of lawyers hired by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The first of these questions has been outstanding as far back as June 26, and I can see no valid reason whatsoever for the government taking five months to make such information available. The fact that these lawyers comprise a "who's who" in Liberal party circles would seem to be no reason for delay. Finally, I really believe it is time the government discontinued the practice of delaying answers to certain questions for the obvious reason that they may shed more light on its shabby record in governing this country.

November 28, 1973
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Hellyer:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege with regard to questions 2529 to 2538 which have been on the order paper since July 19. They are not complicated questions. They simply ask for statistical information. The failure of the government to provide the information indicates either gross incompetence on the one hand or a cover-up on the other.
This is not just a question of lack of courtesy on the part of the government. Something more fundamental is involved. The minister has already given the Canadian Association of Architects part of the information I have requested in these questions. In other words, he has taken the liberty to provide information to a private organization which he has refused to make available to parliament. Personally, I think this is a shameful situation and in fact is a breach of the privileges of the House. Is the minister satisfied that the opinion of the Association of Architects of Ontario is of more value to his deliberations than the opinion of parliament would be in respect of these matters?
The other day the Prime Minister told us we would do better if we gave notice of our questions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member except for just a moment. He rose on a question of privilege. The hon. member has failed to give the Chair notice of his question of privilege. It is not about something that has risen in the last minute or so. He is referring to a situation which, according to his complaint, has existed for some time. Perhaps in those circumstances hon. members would be well advised to heed the Standing Order and give the required notice in order to facilitate matters. I assume the hon. member is rising on a point of order rather than on a question of privilege and he will be heard on that basis.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the other day the Prime Minister suggested that we give notice of our questions. I should like to repeat that when we do give notice, as in the case in point, no answers are given. When we do not give notice we receive shallow, superficial or misleading answers. We just cannot win.


Mr. Basford:: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Trinity may I say that in respect of most of the questions to which he referred answers have been approved by me. Those answers and the translation thereof are in the process somewhere and I presume will appear on Monday.


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the point of order raised by the hon. member for Leeds. Until this government changed the format of the public accounts it was the practice that the names of all lawyers hired by the Department of Justice were shown and the amount each received was also shown in the public accounts. This government discontinued that practice and is now keeping that information secret. The hon. member for Leeds is entitled to that kind of information. It used to be public and should be made public again.


Mr. Reid:: Mr. Speaker, on the question raised by the hon. member for Leeds, the matter of the people employed

on the basis of a contract by CMHC is still under discussion because it has not been traditional to make available that information. CMHC is considered to be an independent corporation.
I also wish to bring to the attention of the hon. member for Yukon that up until today some 3,344 questions have been placed on the order paper and 2,755 have been answered or 82 per cent. I would point out that this is the greatest number of questions ever put to any government and there has been a greater percentage answered up to this date than ever before by any government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary mentioned the number of questions that have been answered by the government. The reason the government encounters so many questions on the order paper is that we are not getting answers in the oral question period or in committees. I draw attention to the fact that on the order paper there are questions going back to January 4-some of them from our friends on the left-January 18, February 28, March 9. Let the government answer those. The reason they do not is that for the most part the answers will prove to be politically embarrassing for them, and they are deliberately keeping public information secret.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to members of parliament rising on points of order relating to questions on the order paper.


An hon. Member:: Thanks, Al.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: But I do object to an experienced member like the hon. member for Trinity using a point of order or a question of privilege to make an attack on the government which he is incapable of making in a more effective way elsewhere.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Also, I refuse to accept the practice whereby the hon. member for Yukon can suggest that there has been any cover-up in the response of the government to questions that had been put by members of the opposition. My parliamentary secretary has stated that in this session alone we have answered more than 2,700 questions. The right hon. member for Prince Albert, who is shaking his head, should go back to the record of his five sessions in office during the twenty-fourth parliament. We have answered more questions in this session than the government of the right hon. member did in the more than five years when he was prime minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, there is one point to be made, that hon. members who are genuinely interested in getting speedy answers to questions and who want to use some discretion in putting questions down can co-operate in that process. But what has happened, and it is obvious
November 28, 1973

today, is that since the research establishments of the various parties have been funded they have been the main source of most of the questions on the order paper.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If we want to remove obstacles in the way of feeding information to the House, then I suggest that the principal obstacle can be removed by directing research staffs not to send in indiscriminate and useless questions, the answers to which can be found in the favourite document of the Official Opposition, the Canada Year Book.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Threat!


An hon. Member:: Blackmail!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I see seven or eight members to my left who wish to rise.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker, I have a right to rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have no objection to recognizing the right hon. gentleman. He has the same rights as others and will be recognized in due course. But I am wondering whether we will achieve very much by pursuing a debate such as this for a good part of the afternoon. Perhaps we should set aside a special period of time to discuss this important subject. I believe that for the moment the right hon. member for Prince Albert seeks the floor on a point of order raised originally by the hon. member for Trinity.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the gratuitous remarks of the minister I would advise him that during my period of office there were so few Liberals in the House they were not able to ask the number of questions that are being asked now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: It's going to be that way again.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, we answered the questions and we answered them truthfully.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Withdraw!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that interruption came from a member who is not dry behind the ears yet. We did not follow the course being followed by this government of treating the House with contempt and refusing to answer questions or neglecting to do so when there might be any embarrassment in the answers given.
Order Paper Questions


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Would the hon. gentleman stand and be recognized? I would also point out that so far as starred questions are concerned the ordinary practice is that they shall be answered within two to four days.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John George Diefenbaker: Not by this government, that is true, but the practice is that they would be answered within that period.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: You are still dreaming.


John George Diefenbaker: What is happening today is that not only can we not get answers but when questions are asked the government decides, to apply the words of the hon. gentleman, that the questions are of such a nature as not to appeal to the sensibilities of the government. Mr. Speaker, we are not asking questions on the basis of pleasing them; we ask them for the information of the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Trinity rose on a point of order and a debate has followed, with views expressed by both sides of the House. I respectfully suggest to hon. members that the point has been made. The Chair has noted the representations and submissions made by hon. members who have taken part in this exchange on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Trinity, but I wonder whether we should not at this point proceed to the next item of business.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Trinity has had the floor on the point of order and I really do not think there is much to be gained by pursuing the matter. The hon. member can speak only once to a point of order. He has already spoken. I would hope the hon. member would agree with me that not much can be gained by starting a new round of exchanges on the same point of order.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, arising from the intervention of the government House leader, I must say I was flattered by his attention, but I would have been more impressed if my questions had had the same attention two or three months ago.
I would also like to speak to the allegation that the questions asked by this side of the House are prepared by research officers paid for by the Crown.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Do you deny it?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I can tell the House leader through you, Mr. Speaker, that in the majority of cases of which I am aware this is not the case, and it is certainly not the case with respect to the questions I have put down.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Much has been made of the statistics showing that the government has answered a high proportion

November 28, 1973
Order Paper Questions
of the large number of questions asked. Statistics can lie. Far more important than the percentage of questions that have been answered are the number of questions and the importance of the subject material which have been left unanswered.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is restating the argument he made originally. That is not a new question of privilege.


Mr. Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the point of order which was raised by the government House leader. While I hesitate to do so, I do it because I believe my integrity as a member of this House has been impugned.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: think it is worth pointing out, Mr. Speaker, that since I first sat in the House on January 4 I have only put two questions on the order paper but it took three and a half months for these guys to answer the questions. I could not get answers through the regular mail because these ministers refuse to answer mail.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I see nothing new in the point of order being raised by the hon. member. I wonder whether hon. members feel that we are achieving very much by a number of members rising one after another to make the same point. It seems to me that the point has been made and the hon. member is now repeating it. I wonder whether that achieves anything.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, surely when the government House leader and his parliamentary secretary impugn the integrity of people in this House they should be required to withdraw their statements-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: -
and not attempt to abuse the rules of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Any allegation that it was the research office instead of myself that asked these questions to try to get information is completely wrong. In giving statistics with respect to the number and percentage of questions answered the minister and the parliamentary secretary were, of course, misleading the House, perhaps unintentionally, because they do not understand the situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Notices of motions for the production of papers. Order, please. The hon. member for Leeds rises on a question of privilege.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for taking the time of the House but I feel this is a question of privilege and quite legitimate. A few moments ago the Parliamentary

Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Reid) said in reference to certain questions I have on the order paper which have not been answered that it was traditional-those were his words, I believe-not to reply to such questions in regard to CMHC. I feel that is a reflection on the privilege and right of every member of the House to ask questions. Surely the right to ask questions and have them answered in this House is based on the right of the people of Canada to know. The people have a right to answers and information. I think it is a breach of privilege when we have to sit here and listen to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) offer a bunch of lame excuses covering up the inactivity of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Notices of motions for the production of papers.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 258 is acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents and to the authorization of the government authorities concerned.
[ Translation]


Mr. Speaker:: Under the conditions and reservations mentioned by the parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that motion No. 258 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND GOVERNMENT OF P.E.I. RESPECTING TRANSFER OF PROVINCE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 258-Mr. MacDonald (Egmont):
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents between the Government of Canada and the Government of Prince Edward Island and/or other persons or agencies, with respect to the transfer of Province House in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island to the Government of Canada, together with the land on which such building stands and any additional land or buildings related to that transfer.
Motion agreed to.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
November 28, 1973


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary would tell us when he is going to get around to producing the documents asked for under motions Nos. 248 to 251 inclusive and what excuse he has for the delay?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, this is a problem that we have had with all motions because the terms of the Official Languages Act require that these documents be produced in the House in both official languages. We have had some difficulty in having the answers to motions for papers prepared for the House of Commons given special priority by departments. We have instituted a program now to contract out translation of these documents. I will look into the hon. gentleman's problem and see if I can accelerate the process of translation.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who has told the House that he anticipates a prospective shortfall of 125,000 barrels of oil a day from non-Arab countries as a result of the supplying companies invoking the force majeure clause. Can the minister give us, in respect of the first quarter of 1974, January, February and March, the prospective shortfall in the number of barrels per day with respect to each non-Arab country? In other words, will he break down that
125.000	barrels a day in terms of each non-Arab country?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the 125,000-well, the full
200.000	barrels a day is the expected worst figure on shortfall, and I would have to check how that was made up by the technical liaison committee. That is the source of the information.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I express my surprise that the minister should be unable to give the House this information on a matter of such importance as this which he has put before the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Can he give us the names of the Canadian companies who have been notified of any anticipated cuts in their deliveries of oil originating in non-Arab countries with respect to the first three months of next year, and the amount of the shortfall in respect of each Canadian company?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr Speaker, as I pointed out in my remarks the other night and, indeed, pointed out
Oral Questions
to the hon. gentleman yesterday, this is an estimate of the maximum down-side that the Canadian companies could be faced with if, in fact, there was an allocation. There has not, in fact, been an allocation. What we are doing is, we are indicating-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: The minister is irresponsible and incompetent.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might read to the House my remarks, as recorded on page 8179 of Hansard:
My understanding at the moment is that this redistribution has not taken place but the companies have indicated there is a prospective interruption under the force majeure provision of the supplying contracts.
There has been no interruption. What we have asked the companies to do is to state to us the worst possible situation they think they would be in if there were interruptions this winter, and that figure is an aggregate. The companies, of course, are the eastern Canadian refiners.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House the minister told us that a number of international companies had invoked the force majeure clause and that this accounted for the reduction in the prospective deliveries of oil to Canada. I want to ask the minister whether any international company has told any Canadian company that in fact the force majeure clause will be invoked. In view of the statement the minister put before the Canadian people that we could anticipate cuts of 125,000 barrels per day from non-Arab countries, creating grave concern particularly in eastern Canada by this statement, what justification did the minister have in fact for making that statement about the 125,000 barrels per day shortfall?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition rose on a point of order. Perhaps I could respond on one. I said in my statement the other night and I said yesterday that we had calculated the worst possible position Canadians could be in.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: And, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition should not try to twist the words I used.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister whether he has received word from any Canadian oil companies that they are faced with a prospective shortfall in the delivery of oil from non-Arab countries? If so, what companies are they? He must know them. He made the statement the other night. This is a very important question. What companies are they and what are the prospective cuts or shortfalls they are faced with? If the minister by any chance is so negligent in his office that he has not got this information at his fingertips, will he produce this information soon?

November 28, 1973
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would go again to the words I used in the House-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: What are the names?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I protest the attempt by the Leader of the Opposition to twist in this way.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The fact of the matter is that we took the House and the country into our confidence as to what the maximum exposure would be for Canadians if the force majeure clause were exercised. I hope the Leader of the Opposition will not try to mislead the House and the country in any other way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the Leader of the Opposition, then the hon. member for York South, and then the hon. member for Temiscamingue.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, if the minister did not indicate to the House yesterday that some international oil companies had indicated to the government they were going to invoke the force majeure clause in their contracts and the minister's officials had advised him that they were apparently within their rights in doing this and he could do nothing about it, if he will tell me that he did not say yesterday that there was actual anticipation of the invocation of the force majeure clause in the contracts, I will certainly withdraw any questions I have asked him today.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think Hansard speaks for itself in this regard and I will rest on the words I used yesterday, not on those the hon. gentleman used.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister should resign.


Mr. Alexander:: You have been destroyed, Don.


SOURCE OF ESTIMATE OF POSSIBLE SHORTFALL IN OIL DELIVERIES FROM NON-ARAB COUNTRIES-POSSIBILITY OF REALIZATION
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister that Hansard does not answer the questions asked and that he cannot hide behind the words in Hansard. I want to ask the minister, following up what the Leader of the Opposition asked, whether the suggestion that there would be a 125,000 barrel a day shortfall from suppliers in countries other than Arab countries was a calculation made in the office of the advisory committee or in the office of his department, or was it an estimate

based on inquiries made from Canadian companies under contract with the supplying companies?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I repeat, I will stand by the words in Hansard, which indicate what I just suggested. I also remind the hon. gentleman that I indicated the figures were arrived at by the technical liaison committee, which I have described several times in the House as made up of representatives of my department, of the National Energy Board and of the Canadian refining companies. This is the estimate arrived at by the technical experts on all sides.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I don't believe it.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether, as one would expect a responsible minister to do, he asked for the details of these estimates made by this committee? Presumably he studied those details, because if he did not I cannot understand how he functions. Did he see the working papers on which those estimates were based and did the working papers contain any information as to the companies or amounts involved with respect to each of the companies?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, I would not examine the working papers of the committee. I think I am entitled to accept the judgment of my advisers in this regard who have been in liaison with the industry, and I do so.


David Lewis: The minister is emphasizing that all he did was to give an estimate of the worst situation that could occur. Is he now able to inform the House and the people of Canada, particularly those east of the Ottawa valley, whether he has reason to expect that this worst estimate will be realized or even any part of it, or can he now say it will not happen because of the fact he has no knowledge of any reduction due to action under the force majeure clause in the contracts of the supplying companies?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I really cannot respond to that because it depends on the extent to which the Arab embargo is continued, the extent to which it is applied to one or another of the other countries and the extent to which different suppliers to Canada might be affected by it. I cannot give that estimate. I repeat, the over-all estimate about the down-side is the figure I gave in my speech the other day.


David Lewis: I think I understand a little about a force majeure clause. Has the minister looked at any of the clauses and is he suggesting to the House that the mere fact a supplying company may not have enough supplies to deal with all its customers entitles it under any such clause to breach a contract with a company in Canada? Is that what the minister is saying?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it depends very much on the clause entered into in this industry between suppliers and customers. I have not, of course, examined the force majeure clause-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
November 28, 1973


Donald Stovel Macdonald: -because the particular supply contracts are not documents in the possession of the government of Canada.
[Transla tion]


REFUSAL OF GOLDEN EAGLE CANADA LIMITED TO DELIVER FUEL OIL IN RIMOUSKI AND MONT-JOLI-REQUEST THAT MINISTER INTERVENE
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, a while ago I wanted to speak about the point of order raised by the Leader of the Official Opposition. The hon. member for York South and the minister have just mentioned the force majeure clause. For about two weeks, we have been hearing that eastern Canada and especially Quebec have sufficient oil reserves for 52 days. Yesterday, I received telephone calls from the area of Mont-Joli and Rimouski in the lower Saint-Lawrence valley complaining that Golden Eagle Canada Limited heating fuel distributors were refusing to deliver fuel until next Monday because they were waiting for the price increase of December 1. Is the minister aware of this and will he take action to force Golden Eagle Canada Limited to deliver the required fuel to the people of Mont-Joli and Rimouski?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of this situation, but 1 thank the hon. member for having brought it to my attention and I shall make the necessary investigations.


OIL EXPORT TAX-DISTRIBUTION AND USE OF PROCEEDS-MEASURES TO PROTECT CONSUMERS WHEN PRICE FREEZE EXPIRES
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. On November 14 last the minister was asked a question in committee with regard to the $1.90 per barrel export tax on crude petroleum. Did we understand him correctly to say that either directly or indirectly the entire tax will go back to the province where the resource is located or be used in the province where it originated?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the position I took then and several times both inside and outside the House is that the proceeds of the export tax will go back in the first place to put the producing province in the position it would have been if its oil had been sold both for export and in on the domestic market at the higher price which they have been deprived of by the price restraint. At the same time, we indicated that the federal government would embark upon joint venture investments to further energy resources in the producing provinces with the balance of the proceeds.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: So there will not be any understanding, did we understand the minister correctly that 40 to 50 per cent of that tax will go back to the treasury of the resource province and the remainder of the tax will be used for technological research and/or development within the province that produced the resource?
Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That is right, Mr. Speaker. It will depend very much on the actual royalty position of each of the producing provinces. In effect, these funds will be going back. Those in federal hands will be going back in federal programs for the purpose of stimulating resources in those provinces.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not want there to be any misunderstanding because we get one answer one day and another the next. I even gave the minister notice of this question. Did the minister not say to the committee, and is this not what he intended to say, that 40 to 50 per cent of that tax would go back to the treasury of the province where the resource is developed and the remainder would be used for development within that province? Surely he can answer that question with a yes or no so we will understand him.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is in effect what I said.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: One further supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are not making much headway. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Calgary North for a supplementary and then the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Will the minister make it very clear at this stage what mechanism or alternative measures will be suggested to replace the export tax when the price freeze goes off so that the consumers of Canada will be protected against the high cost of fuel and gasoline?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we will be bringing forward a draft bill to the House for first reading to deal with the export tax and the continuing system in this situation. With regard to the question of the economic rent to be yielded by an increase in the western part of the Canadian market, we have had discussions with several provincial governments on this question. This may indeed relate to the kind of royalty programs they are planning on instituting in the near future.


REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF ESTIMATES, CONTRACTS, AND OTHER DOCUMENTS RELATING TO SUPPLYING OF OFFSHORE OIL
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to go back to the question of supply and force majeure. In light of the minister's appearance tomorrow night at 8 p.m. before the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee, can we have his assurance he will make available on that occasion copies of relevant estimates, contracts and other documents relating to the supply of oil to Canada from offshore sources, particularly a copy of the contract between Creole and the Canadian Refining Company?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am sure I can bring information as produced in the technical liaison committee. I can give no assurance that I will be able to produce private documents that are in the hands of the contracting companies.

November 28, 1973
Oral Questions


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Will the minister ask the Energy Board to secure such a copy?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As the hon. member knows, the Energy Board secures a great deal of information on a confidential basis. I am not sure whether I would be at liberty, having obtained it on that basis, to make it public in a parliamentary committee.


OIL-EMBARGO LIST OF SAUDI ARABIA AND LIBYA- CANADIAN POSITION
Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said a few minutes ago there had been no interruption in supply of foreign crude oil to Canada. Will the minister say whether Canada is on the embargo list of Saudi Arabia and Libya?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the situation is that Canada is not on the embargo list in the same sense as the United States-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What sense?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: -in the sense there will be shipments coming to Canada through Canadian ports, although subject to the 25 per cent reduction resulting from Arab production cutbacks. However, Saudi Arabia and Libya refuse to ship through Portland, Maine, in bond to Canada.


Peter Colwell Bawden: Mr. Speaker, would the minister comment on the fact there has been no Saudi Arabian crude arrive at Portland for Canada since October 23, and will he say what efforts are being made to obtain oil and why he has been unable to explain to Saudi Arabia that this crude is actually bound for Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the fact that none has arrived seems to me to be consistent with the position that the Saudis have taken. We have had our diplomatic representative go to the capital of Saudi Arabia for the purpose of laying forth the Canadian position, but they have not been prepared to take what they regard as a risk in shipping to a United States port, which they feel might in some way advantage the United States.


SUGGESTED NEGOTIATIONS BY GOVERNMENT WITH VENEZUELA AND OTHER COUNTRIES FOR DIRECT PURCHASE OF OIL
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact we are now getting some idea of the power of these huge multinational companies with regard to shipping products from one area to another, can the minister say whether or not he has started negotiating with Venezuela or any other oil exporting country for the purchase of oil directly from these countries instead of going through the medium of multinational corporations?
(Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale).]


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As we have said in relation to Venezuela, the information we have is that oil available to the Venezuelan national petroleum company is fully committed at this time. They have elected not to take additional oil in the form of crude oil instead of royalties, and at the moment they have no additional oil for export. Given the tightness of the international situation, there does not seem to be very much scope for the hon. member's suggestion.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary regarding the price of oil in this country. Can the minister say whether he is prepared to grant the energy supply allocation board power to control the price of oil domestically in this country?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the powers of the board will be contained in the bill which will be coming before parliament shortly.


PROPOSED EXTENSION OF OIL PIPELINE TO MONTREAL- DISCUSSION WITH QUEBEC
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
In view of the present serious crisis in the transportation of Alberta oil to eastern Canada, and since the extension of a pipeline from Sarnia to Montreal is, I believe, an urgent matter, can the minister say if his department is now working on an agreement with Quebec on the installation and operation conditions of a pipeline joining Sarnia and Montreal? If so, when will a definite plan be submitted to the Quebec government?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we are now concluding discussions on this subject. We shall be meeting this week with representatives of pipeline companies. Such a meeting shall be held also with my Quebec counterpart, perhaps next week, or at a date still to be set.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and concerns an incident involving a Canadian citizen who has been imprisoned in Tanzania. On September 26 a young Canadian citizen, Thomas Serjeant, while flying to Cape Town, was forced to land in Tanzania where his plane was confiscated and he was imprisoned and has remained in prison without being charged. Can the minister tell the House when he first learned of this incident and what action he has taken to obtain this young Canadian's release and to ensure his safety while in prison?
November 28, 1973


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we learned of the imprisonment of Mr. Serjeant in Tanzania on October 6. He was placed in detention on September 26. We made our first representations immediately; we have made them periodically since. Mr. Serjeant has not been charged. He is being held in detention under the authority of the President or the Prime Minister for matters involving state security.


Walter C. Carter: In view of the fact this incident occurred on September 26 and that Canadian officials in that country learned of the incident one week later, can the minister tell the House why it has taken six weeks to inform the family of the whereabouts of this Canadian?


Mitchell William Sharp: As far as I understand, Mr. Speaker, our office got in touch with his family at the request of Mr. Serjeant immediately upon gaining access to his place of detention. I do not think the officials are at fault in this respect. We are doing what we can to get Mr. Serjeant released but, as I say, the Tanzanian authorities say this is a matter of state security and that the case is being handled on that basis. We are following up as best we can, and I do hope we will be able to get charges laid or obtain his release as soon as possible.


CAPABILITY OF LAND TRANSPORT TO MOVE OIL TO MONTREAL-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and I believe he has received notice thereof. On Monday the minister told the House, as reported on page 8149 of Hansard, that the capability of the land transport system to deliver any substantial quantities of crude oil or petroleum products was not high and that he would give figures at a later date. Having regard to the Prime Minister's statement on November 22 and the minister's reference to overland oil movements on Monday, can the minister now tell the House what specific measures the government has taken to establish an overland oil supply system to Montreal, and how much oil is being handled per day by this system?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, at the moment there is no truck and rail movement, and as long as shipment is possible through the St. Lawrence Seaway it will not be necessary to resort to this higher cost system. The estimate we have at the moment is that a level of about 40,000 to 60,000 barrels per day might be obtained, but in order to meet this figure very substantial investment both in loading and in unloading facilities will be required in addition to the improvement of available tank cars used for this purpose. The ministry of transport at the moment is completing a survey with the two national railways in regard to this question and has also been in touch with major trucking firms, and I understand will be able to be more definitive on this point within a few days.
Oral Questions


William Herbert Jarvis: Can the minister give his assurance today that the overland oil supply system mentioned by him and the Prime Minister will be adequate to meet oil shortages in eastern Canada after the freeze-up of the St. Lawrence Seaway?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we anticipate that, unless there is a dramatic improvement in the figures I have given, there will be a shortfall.

[ Translation]


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a
question to the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare?
In view of the fact that last week, the minister, addressing the Canadian Tax Foundation announced, according to an Ottawa daily, his intention of setting aside his guaranteed annual income policy, I should like to ask him, in view of the circumstances, whether he intends to continue to apply the policy introduced some time ago or to give it up?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to state here, very clearly and categorically, that the government is maintaining the policy put forward in April of last year, namely, to guarantee an income to all persons who are unable to work or who are so considered, as well as a supplement to all other groups of persons.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Is the minister now in a position to give us a progress report on the mediation taking place with respect to the dockworkers' dispute at Halifax and Dartmouth, and can he advise the House whether he is optimistic about an early settlement? If not, what plans is the government preparing?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. I believe he will be relatively pleased to know, and certainly I and the government are, that a settlement has been arrived at today, we believe. A memorandum of agreement is being drawn up and we hope it will be signed today. However, I would advise him that it is, of course, subject to ratification.
Oral Questions


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
[Stage Direction]
November 28, 1973

Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In light of the final report of the Unemployment Insurance Commission advisory committee which revealed very extensive abuse and harassment of claimants by benefit control officers, and in view of the pious denials of such practices by both the minister and his head office officials, can the minister inform the House what steps he intends to take to ensure that justice is accorded to those who were unjustly disentitled or disqualified under the conditions criticized in the final report of the advisory committee?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, in my reply to the chairman of the advisory committee, which was tabled at the same time as the report, I indicated that a great number of steps had already been taken. The information on the activity of the committee was very valuable to us, but we did not await the publication of the final report to take suggestions which have been implemented long ago. These steps are outlined in that document and in the statement I made to the House two or three weeks ago.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will be recognized on a supplementary, after which the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, what steps does the minister intend to take to make sure that those who were disentitled or disqualified unjustly over the last six months will now receive justice in respect of that disenti-tlement or disqualification?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the appeal system has been available to claimants who felt they were unjustly disentitled or disqualified. I think they were very few in number. The appeal system is working well.


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize the hon. member for
Brome-Missisquoi.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member rises on a point of order. I apologize to the hon, member for Brome-Missisquoi; he will be recognized in a moment.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the minister has just told the House that the people who were treated in that manner can go through the normal process of appeal. They have 30 days in which to file an appeal and some of these cases took place five months ago.


EXPORT OF OIL PRODUCTS THROUGH EASTERN CANADA
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the unprecedented quantity of petroleum products being directed from Canada to the United States through eastern Canadian customs points, I direct this question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. On what grounds has the National Energy Board issued this unprecedented number of export permits, what are the countries of origin of the crude oil involved, and are the products which are going through these border points at such an unprecedented rate being exported as surplus to Canadian requirements?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, one would have to know the time frame, but most of the oil products in this country are now covered by export control and no valid export can take place without a specific judgment by the National Energy Board that a particular shipment is surplus to Canadian requirements. If the hon. member would indicate the specific time frame and also the border points involved, I would be glad to get the details to answer his question.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question based on the following statement yesterday by the minister, to be found at page 8179 of Hansard.
My understanding at the moment is that this redistribution has not taken place but the companies have indicated there is a prospective interruption under the force majeure provision of the supplying contracts.
Would the minister now inform the House exactly which companies he was referring to?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about eastern Canadian refineries. I would point out to the hon. member that this is a different situation from the one he referred to in the first part of his question. He referred to the exporting of products from Canada. This is covered by the National Energy Board. The companies in question would be the various eastern Canadian refineries. I would be glad to get a list of them and the locations, which are generally publicly available.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION TO ENSURE &quot;FORCE MAJEURE&quot; CLAUSE IN CONTRACTS NOT USED TO DETRIMENT OF CANADIAN CONSUMERS
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In light of his broadcast statement to the Canadian people that Canadian consumers will not be allowed to suffer, will he direct the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to ensure that those very doubtful contracts are not invoked to the detriment of consumers of petroleum products in Canada?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a suggestion by the hon. member
November 28, 1973

that we intervene in the course of these private contracts. I will consider the suggestion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


OIL-REQUEST FOR NAMES OF COMPANIES THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY &quot;FORCE MAJEURE&quot; CLAUSE IN CONTRACTS
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I refer him to page 8172 of Hansard, specifically to questions asked yesterday by the hon. member for Calgary South, who wanted the minister to tell us whether the force majeure which is being suggested by the oil supplying companies is as a result of their being cut off at the source by the producing countries, and therefore they do not have the oil, or whether it is because the supplying companies have decided arbitrarily to deliver the oil to some other country. The minister's answer was:
-my understanding is that it has been a decision of the supplying companies, and it may be related under the conditions of the contracts they have with other countries to other supply obligations.
A little earlier, in response to a question by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr, Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member should ask his question now.


Erik Nielsen: A little earlier, when replying to a question by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain who asked for the names of the supplying companies, the minister's reponse was that he would check into it, presumably to inform the House. I ask the minister now whether he has checked into this matter and has the names of the companies and, if he has, will he please disclose them to the House of Commons?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, may I respond to the hon. member by pointing out that, as reported on page 8179 of Hansard, I stated:
My understanding at the moment is that this redistribution has not taken place but the companies have indicated there is a prospective interruption under the force majeure provision of the supplying contracts.
As to the supplying companies, there are, of course, inter-company contracts between affiliated firms, and there are many others as well. I will be glad to see if I can get a list of all of them.


An hon. Member:: You'd better get it.


POSSIBLE DIVERSION OF CANADIAN OIL IMPORTS- MAGNITUDE OF INTERRUPTION OF SUPPLY
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in respect of
Oral Questions
contracts between Canadian companies and supplying corporations. On October 25 he told the House, in relation to the possible diversion of oil for Canada by international corporations:
I think I might adopt what someone has said that such action would not be a crime but worse than a crime. It would be a gross blunder. I hope we have made that message very clear to the companies operating in Canada, and we hope it is understood by them.
I should like to ask the minister what he has been given to understand by the Canadian companies, whether he has received word from any Canadian company of a prospective interruption of supply, and how many barrels a day this would involve.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I have, indeed, Mr. Speaker, and I have an undertaking on the part of companies that the government of Canada will be advised if there is to be any allocation of supplies otherwise than would be expected. My information is that there has been no reallocation at the present time and, as I have said several times already, we will let the House know exactly what the possible reason is in the event there is such an allocation.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, has the minister received any specific word with regard to any prospective reallocation or interruption of supply? Has he received from a Canadian company any specific indication of a prospective reduction in supply?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Not at the moment, Mr. Speaker, but we did receive an indication from them of what the possible interruption could be if that situation came to pass.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta and then the hon. member for Assiniboia.


IMMIGRATION
John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Two days ago I gave him notice of a question which I asked yesterday. Since his answer yesterday, the minister's assistant has made it known publicly that the minister's answer was incorrect. Could the minister tell us today whether in fact the government did transmit documents to a foreign government, who authorized the transmission of those documents, and is it generally government practice to pass documents relating to citizens and residents of Canada to foreign governments?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I believe the only inaccuracy in the answer I gave was in respect of the recipient of the information that was transmitted. I thought at the time it went to Mr. Meier's lawyer. This practice is customary,

November 28, 1973
Oral Questions
and I think quite rightly so. We do have a reciprocal exchange of information between our people who are investigating applicants for landed immigrant status and officials of the countries from which they come. When we ask for such information from the agencies of other countries, we certainly must be prepared to reciprocate when they ask us for information. This is a routine matter. In view of the serious concern always existing in Canada about the possibility of criminals entering this country, I think this is only wise and, indeed, that we should be very thankful such an exchange of information is available to us.


John Douglas Reynolds: Is it a fact that this information was sent to the United States Attorney's office for use in prosecuting a case, and was not a communication between the two governments for information?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I indicated yesterday that we had conveyed this information to the United States internal revenue service. They indicated to us that they had, inadvertently and in error, passed it along. They sent us a letter of apology indicating that such a mistake would not happen again.


PURCHASE OF PETROLEUM BY CANADIAN COMMERCIAL
Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to earlier questions and is addressed to the Minister of Supply and Services. In view of the fact the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has instructed the Canadian Commercial Corporation, under the responsibility of the Minister of Supply and Services, to use the funds supplied for the defence contingency fund, under the authority of the Minister of National Defence, to purchase oil supplies around the world and in view of the fact it has already purchased 40 million gallons of petroleum, I should like to ask the minister whether in fact there are sufficient funds available and, if not, what action is proposed by the government to ensure that there are funds available to meet this contingency operation?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, there is an ample supply of funds, but there is a shortage of oil on the international market. If we can find oil and negotiate acceptable terms, to cope with present conditions in Canada, the government will then make available to my department the necessary funds for the purchases.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to advise hon. members that we have reached the end of the question period, or just about. Perhaps hon. members might allow the Chair to recognize the hon. member for Temiscamingue and the right hon. member for Prince Albert before calling orders of the day.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
David Réal Caouette: I should like to ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs a question which concerns all the members of this House as well as the pensioners of the Department.
Recently, I drew the minister's attention to case No. SC-18023 involving a Mr. Lionel Bertrand who was requesting a pension adjustment. On September 26 last, the minister replied that it would take several months before the Commission would make a decision. Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister whether there actually is an energy shortage in his department since it takes that much time to take care of veterans who wish to adjust their pension.
[ English]


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the hon. gentleman's request is no. We are pretty well supplied with energy in my department. We have 24 commissioners listed and 24 working. The Pension Act is being dealt with quite well. If the hon. member knows of any cases which he feels should have priority over and above what seems to be the case, I will be glad to get the information for him.


REQUEST THAT COMBINES INVESTIGATION BRANCH SECURE FROM OIL COMPANIES CONTRACTS CONTAINING &quot;FORCE MAJEURE&quot; CLAUSE
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Having listened during the last couple of days to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources explaining the difficulty in which he finds himself, it would appear that there is a serious morass of neglect of the Canadian people on the part of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I would ask the Prime Minister this question. In view of the threat or potential threat of Canadian subsidiaries carrying out the wishes of their mother countries under agreements which allegedly contain the clause to which reference has been made over and over again, will the Prime Minister have the combines investigation branch get in touch with these companies and have them produce the contracts which allegedly have these provisions within them? I ask that this be done because if they are protecting themselves behind such arrangements, then they are indeed, in my estimation, committing offences contrary to the Combines Investigation Act. I ask the Prime Minister whether he will act so that we will know what is in these contracts. Surely the Canadian people should not be made subservient to a group of oil companies which apparently have no regard for Canada as a whole.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
November 28, 1973


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, without conceding the premise of the question, I think the question itself raises a problem in that it seems to indicate a misunderstanding on the part of some hon. members of the answers given and the position taken by the government and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. If the right hon. gentleman will refer to the discussion that has taken place, I think he will understand that the purpose of the minister in giving the figure of
200,000	barrels a day was to indicate what the worst situation might be as a result of the force majeure clause being invoked, should it be invoked and applied. Obviously, the minister is making this point in order to indicate to Canadians that the situation might be serious. This is a different purpose altogether from the position of the government with regard to these corporations.
It should be quite clear from the government's actions in August, in September and in November that we will do everything within the power of the government of Canada to ensure that the Canadian public interest will be respected. We will use every means to ensure that Canadian control is established over any corporation operating within Canada. We cannot, of course, affect the operations of corporations outside of Canada. I think another example of the government's determination is in the bill which was given third reading just a few days ago-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: I really was never good at solving hieroglyphics, but having listened to the right hon. gentleman I ask him this question. Will he get in touch with the combines investigation branch and have this matter looked into? He says that in August, September and November the government paid great attention to this matter. All I can say is that if that is all the government has done, it has not acted on behalf of the Canadian people.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Mr. Lachance:: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lafontaine is rising on a point of order.


Georges-C. Lachance: Mr. Speaker, I stood up several times today anxious to ask a supplementary, but I was unable to do so. I am not complaining nor do I blame those who have had a chance to ask their own questions, but I noticed that such supplementaries are sometimes asked as late as ten minutes after the main questions have had a reply. Would it be possible, Mr. Speaker, where supplementaries are concerned, that they be asked immediately after the main questions? I had one I wanted to address but I did not because it was five minutes after the minister had replied to the first question. But on the subject of supplementaries, whether they are asked by government or opposition members, it seems to me that they should be asked right
Protection of Privacy
after the reply is given to the main question. This could give each hon. member the opportunity to ask his question when he wishes to do so. I am raising this point, but with no intention of filing a complaint. I simply wonder whether, under the circumstances, a supplementary asked ten minutes after a reply has been given to the main question would really be a supplementary. Let me add, Mr. Speaker, that tomorrow I will want to address a supplementary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


Mr. Bell:: Mr. Speaker, I am sure our members would agree to this question if it would help to clear up the oil problem.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is obvious that we have two points of order at the same time. The hon. member has made a representation which I am sure will be noted by all hon. members who ask supplementary questions.


Mr. Hales:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that for the last two days, if not three, the clocks in this chamber have all shown different times. They are still wrong. I suggest that members of the House are entitled to better repair service than that.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, November 27, consideration of Bill 176, to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability Act and the Official Secrets Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs; motion No. 2 (Mr. Atkey), motion No. 3 (Mr. Diefenbaker), motion No. 13 (Mr. Lang) and the amendment thereto of Mr. Atkey.
Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned last evening I had just had an opportunity of briefly stating my position on the use of evidence which is obtained illegally. I stated that my basic value judgment was that the public must, at all costs, be assured of the honesty and integrity of the police forces of this country, and that as between the very important value of protecting the public against the commission of crime by criminal elements and the protection of the public against the commission of crime by police, to the extent that it is necessary to make a choice we must make the choice in favour of protecting them against any illegal action by the police. The public must be assured that those who protect society are themselves beyond crime and suspicion of crime.
However, as it appears before us, I think the issue is somewhat narrower than that. I think there is a general

November 28, 1973
Protection of Privacy
disposition among members of the various parties to agree with the value position which I have enunciated, and the real question is to attempt to determine which of the positions that is or could be before the House through amendment is the one which is best adapted, not only to the assertion of this basic value judgment but also to the variant situations which may arise.
The hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) has presented, through his amendment, one of those variant situations and I believe it is very useful to the House that he has done so. This is the amendment in which he proposes that evidence be not necessarily excluded if there was a mere irregularity in the obtaining of the authorization by the police. In a case where the police had proceeded on the basis of what they thought was a valid authorization, it would indeed be excessive to prevent evidence which is obtained in that way from being used subsequently.
However, there are several other situations in which I think a strong case can be made for admitting the evidence. One of those was raised by the New Democratic Attorney General for British Columbia, Mr. Macdonald, in the letter which he sent to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang). He raised such questions, for example, as:
Does the amendment barring evidence indirectly obtained, unless the interception is "lawful", bar evidence of an offence, e.g. murder, obtained during an interception lawfully authorized for an entirely different crime?
I will not go on to the larger problem which he raised as the second problem in his letter, but the first is an indication of another type of problem which can arise. There is a third type of variant situation where the interception which takes place might be by criminal elements themselves and yet the police might stumble across this evidence or obtain it in the course of another investigation. I am referring to the evidence which was obtained by wiretapping, not illegally by the police, but illegally by some third party. In such a case is it reasonable to penalize the police by preventing them from using this evidence?
What we are doing, in effect, in a provision which excludes tainted evidence from being used is saying to the police that if they do not follow the law there will be no percentage, no advantage for them in using such evidence. But in the case where illegal wiretapping has not been carried out by the police but by criminal elements in our society, it seems to me that such a penalty would not be appropriate.
I had suggested last night that I had in mind the presentation of an amendment which, if I were to present it, would take care of this last situation where interception has been by criminal elements. But I have decided not to present it, at least at this time, because I understand that the Minister of Justice would like to test the House on a broader subamendment to the amendment of the hon. member for St. Paul's which is before us, and as a procedural matter I would not want to stand in the way of the House expressing its opinion on that broader question.
While I may subsequently return to my amendment, I would not want to prevent the expression by the House on the broader and very important question which might be posed to us. Therefore, while expressing my concern about the intermediate situations, one of which is dealt with in the amendment placed before us by the hon. member for

St. Paul's and while stressing the fact that there are other intermediate situations of which I think it would be useful to take account, I have decided not to present any amendment at this time.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the amendment moved by my colleague, the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey), is acceptable to the minister. We tried very hard to come up with a series of qualifications which would meet all the cases; for instance, that indirect evidence must be relevant, that it is not inadmissible by reason only of a defect in form or irregularity in procedure and, lastly, that to exclude it as evidence may result in justice not being done. Surely these three tests should meet any alarms expressed by the minister and by the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan). I think we have had, in the last couple of days, some evidence of a more forthcoming attitude on the part of the minister toward some of the suggestions we have made to improve the bill. I hope very much that the House can accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for St. Paul's and that we can go on to discuss other sections of the bill.
I sense a straining on the part of the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville. Listening to him was rather like listening to somebody appearing in a court of law with a rather bad case. I think that if he were in another forum in which he has distinguished himself, such as law school or the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, he really would not promote this argument. I hope that the law reform committee, when it deals with the law of evidence, which in my humble opinion is one of the most outdated sections of our law-speaking personally, not for my party-will abolish the indirect evidence rule once and for all, not only in wiretapping but in any other form. I think that most lawyers, or at least the lawyers I am in contact with, would agree.
In the committee there was a more than two to one majority on this issue. I thought that we were sort of bellwethers in the wiretapping matter for a reform in the law that has been marked down for generations, Perhaps I am over simplifying the matter, because I think we lawyers of the British legal tradition have paid a great deal too much attention to what I consider an illiberal and outmoded concept of law, namely, that you can have the fruits of illegality. It is high time that Canada faced this issue.
I eagerly anticipate a decision of the crusading law reform commission on this subject, and I am sure this was the motive that appealed to the substantial majority made up-as the hon. member for St. Paul's said-of all parties who voted on this issue in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. So I hope very much that the majority that was present and made a deliberate and considered recommendation for a reform in the law will not be overturned by a backward attempt to reverse the decision that I thought was made in good faith by a committee where partisanship played a very small part, if indeed any part.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the minister rising on a point of order?
November 28, 1973


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: No, Mr. Speaker, I am rising to take part in the debate on the amendment to the amendment. I appreciate the continuing efforts of all members of the House to arrive at positions, on the protection of privacy bill, which will meet the needs of our society in assuring its security, with due regard for individual privacy, and at the same time allow a very carefully controlled minimum availability of electronic intrusion devices to the law enforcement officers.
The amendment proposed by the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) in my view would be extremely narrowing in the extent to which it would allow a judge to admit evidence in a case which came before him. It is clear that when evidence before a judge is relevant, and when he deems it necessary in the interests of justice to admit it, he would still have to exclude that evidence if we adopted the amendment proposed by the hon. member for St. Paul's unless it also, in addition to this qualification, fell within the situation of having been kept out only by reason of a technical defect. In other words, it would be only in that very special situation that the amendment would play any part in allowing the judge to admit the evidence.
The logical counterpart of that is that when there was not a technical defect in the way in which an authorization was sought, notwithstanding that the evidence was relevant, notwithstanding that the judge felt that in the interests of justice the evidence ought to be admitted, there would not be admissibility. It is to cure that that I propose to move an amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for St. Paul's.


Erik Nielsen: An amendment to the amendment to the amendment!


Otto Emil Lang: I have emphasized that the law itself contains important sanctions to deal with the conduct of policemen who might be tempted to obtain evidence in an illegal fashion. Last night I referred to the fact that there is a penalty of up to five years in prison for anyone who engages in unlawful conduct in connection with a wiretapping. I think five years in prison is certainly a stiff penalty. In addition to that, there is provision in the bill for punitive damages of up to $5,000 which can be awarded against a person who engages in unlawful wiretapping, and which can be awarded at the discretion of the judge, in a fairly interesting and unusual way, to the person who has been the subject of or has suffered from the basic illegality of the wiretapping.
I do not want to repeat the arguments in favour of the introduction in court of evidence which is important to it. However, I would refer to the words of Mr. Justice Car-dozo who, in looking at this question in the contest of the American rule, said, if it is evidence which is relevant:
The criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered ... A room is searched against the law, and the body of a murdered man is found ... The privacy of the home has been infringed, and the murderer goes free.


Erik Nielsen: That is in connection with a search warrant.


Otto Emil Lang: For the benefit of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), I am talking about a situation where a
Protection of Privacy
constable has blundered and the murderer has to go free. It is quite clear that this was in the context of a warrant rather than a wiretap; but the point and the principle are the same, that justice is denied in the court relating to the murder because of some other matter that has gone on. I quote another United States case, Irvine v. California, in 1954, where the court said this:
Rejection of the evidence does nothing to punish the wrongdoing official, while it may, and likely will, release the wrongdoing defendant. It deprives society of its remedy against one lawbreaker because he has been pursued by another. It protects one against whom incriminating evidence is discovered, but does nothing to protect innocent persons who are the victims of illegal but fruitless searches.
That is really the gist of the argument to allow evidence that is relevant to come before the court when it is extremely important that it be admitted.


Mr. Fairweather:: Could we have the citation?


Otto Emil Lang: The citation is 347 U.S. 128, 136 (1954). It was the judgment of the court. I can get the names of the judges for the hon. member later. The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) quite rightly pointed out to me that my original motion had perhaps too broad a sweep in two respects. In the first place, it would allow even the private communication itself in certain circumstances, which our original bill would not have done. Secondly, the words in my original amendment would indicate the judge was to consider just the case before him, whereas it would be better if the view were taken that the honourable judge, in considering whether evidence should be admitted, looked both at the question of the case before him and the question of deterrence arising from the exclusion of evidence, to the extent that that is a deterrent.
It is really to meet those needs that I propose to move an amendment which would have the effect of allowing the judge to admit evidence, but not the private communication itself, in circumstances where there was a taint of illegality concerning the way in which the evidence was obtained, particularly through wiretapping. I do so particularly because I remain concerned about the problem for a court which is faced with cross-examination by defence counsel trying to assert that there may have been something illegal in the background of the evidence.
I emphasize to hon. members my great concern about this, that we might let ourselves fall into the dangers that exist in some of the jurisdictions where a court is faced with having to allow defence counsel to explore for a negative, that is, whether or not there is something in the background of the evidence. If we allow the judge to say in any case that this evidence is so necessary that it will be admitted, then he can eliminate the fishing expedition of defence counsel in those circumstances.
I propose, therefore, Mr. Speaker, to move the following amendment, seconded by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde):
That the motion of November 27, 1973, by Mr. Atkey to amend motion No. 13, a motion to amend Bill C-176, be amended by
(a)	adding after paragraph (a) of the substituted text the word
"and",

November 28, 1973
Protection of Privacy
(b)	striking the word "and" at the end of paragraph (b) of the substituted text and substituting therefor the word "or", and
(c)	adding immediately after the word "that" in paragraph (c) of the substituted text the following:
" , in the case of evidence, other than the private communication itself, "
The effect of this amendment, Mr. Speaker, would be to allow the judge to admit evidence which is relevant and which is needed, in the interests of justice, in the case of a technical defect-very generally-and in the case of evidence other than where there was a technical defect in the application or authorization where he does, in the interests of justice, consider it necessary taking into consideration both the case before him and the value of the deterrence of not admitting the evidence and not ever the private communication, in those circumstances only the evidence that might have been obtained as a result of it. He would therefore be able to allow justice to be done in those circumstances and would be able to allow the evidence to go in when he felt it was essential that it be admitted.
I take it the thrust of the section, as it would then stand, would be a general rule of not admitting evidence that was related to an illegal wiretap, but with certain exceptions that the judge could focus on when he felt it necessary. I do not think the judge would ignore the fact that the primary rule was to keep it out unless it was needed in, and that we would have an important variation in the rule of evidence in this regard. I commend the amendment to the House, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Erik Nielsen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have some reservations about the right of the minister to move what, in effect, is an amendment to an amendment to an amendment.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: No.


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) says no, but I do not treat the motion to amend that was originally advanced by the minister as other than an amemdment. Perhaps he does. The question before the House, before the minister's motion was placed before us, was whether or not the section should be accepted in its present form. The minister chose to move that that section be amended, and then the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) advanced an amendment to the amendment that was placed before us by the minister. There has to be a limit to amendments, and it would appear that Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, 1958, at page 169, citation 202(1), (2) and (3) confirms this. I shall read that citation for the record:
(1) To an amendment, when proposed from the Chair-
I suggest to the Chair that the amendment here described is that which was moved by the minister in the first instance.
-an amendment may be moved-
That phrase would refer to the amendment of the hon. member for St. Paul's.
-but only two amendments can be proposed at the same time to a 
question. Some limit is necessary, and the usage has grown into law that an amendment to an amendment is allowable, but that no motion to amend further can be entertained until one of the two amendments is disposed of. There is no limit, however, to the number of amendments to a question provided they come within this principle.
That is to say, if I read the rule correctly, that there is no reason why the minister cannot move his amendment; but he must wait, in my submission, for the disposition of the amendment that is before us made by the hon. member for St. Paul's. Paragraph (2) of that citation reads:
(2) As the proposal of an amendment to an amendment originates a fresh subject for consideration, the new question thus created must, to prevent confusion, be disposed of by itself. An amendment, when undergoing alteration, is therefore treated throughout, as if it were a substantive motion upon which an amendment has been moved. The original motion, accordingly, is laid aside; and the amendment becomes for the time a separate question to be dealt with, until its terms are settled.
I take it this is what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was referring to. Paragraph (3) of that citation reads:
-the purpose of a subamendment is to alter the amendment, it should not enlarge upon the scope of the amendment but it should deal with matters that are not covered by the amendment; if it is intended to bring up matters foreign to the amendment, the member should wait until the amendment is disposed of and move a new amendment.
That, Sir, is what I suggest to the minister. I do not question his right to move the amendment which he seeks to move. I question his timing. In my submission, the amendment of the hon. member for St. Paul's must be disposed of before the minister can defend his amendment. That submission, of course, is based on the premise that the minister's original motion is in effect a motion to amend, the substantive question before the House being the clause in the bill itself. In those circumstances we would have before us three amendments, if the amendment now being proposed by the minister were to be accepted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, at the appropriate moment one of my colleagues, or I might do it myself, will be indicating opposition to the substance of the minister's proposed subamendment; but at this point I should like to suggest, in the minister's defence, that he does have the right to move what seems to me to be a subamendment.
There are times, for example, when we have amending bills-but nevertheless a motion to pass an amending bill is a main motion. Standing Order 75(5) provides for putting down motions at the report stage. Third reading is not before us. The only thing that is before us at the report stage is a motion. I submit, therefore, that the rule that there cannot be more than two amendments does not apply in this case, because in practice what we do at the report stage is to deal with a motion. Of course, a motion can be amended and subamended. My interest is not only in defending the minister, but also the right of all members to move subamendments in cases like this.


Erik Nielsen: I wonder if Your Honour would recognize me for a moment, in order that I may fill in a point that I neglected to make.
November 28, 1973


Mr. Speaker:: I have no objection to recognizing the hon. member. He has already spoken on a point of order, but realizing the importance of the matter perhaps he should be seen. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I should recognize the hon. member and remind him that it is subject to allowing the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) the right of rebuttal, and so on and so forth.


Erik Nielsen: I will be brief, Mr. Speaker. I neglected to anticipate the argument made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). If we are to accept the principle that there can be such an amendment, and the principle that other hon. members may wish to make amendments of this nature, we could conceivably be confronted with a dozen subamendments on this question. I submit that the rule was never intended to be extended that far.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the only point I want to make is that the stricture the hon. member has made is correct. There cannot be more than two amendments,-that is, one amendment and one subamendment-before the House at the same time. If we have a dozen amendments, we will have to wait our turn. It seems to me that it is applying the rule beyond its limits to say that when there is before the House only one motion and one amendment, there is not the right to move at least one subamendment.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I think the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) was correct in saying there must be a limit. I think that after this amendment has been moved we shall have reached that limit. That is where we are for the time being.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, the citation in Beau-chesne's referred to by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) in supporting his case is beside the point. It begs the question, for it proceeded on the assumption that the motion which the minister moved is an amendment. That is the very question at issue.
Since the argument of the hon. member for Yukon is about form, I think I am right in saying that in form, whatever may be its effect, the minister has moved a motion, to which we are entitled to move an amendment and a subamendment. At that point we reach a limit, until the subamendment has been disposed of. With that in mind, I did not proceed with the subamendment I might have moved, in order to allow the minister to move his subamendment.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank hon. members for their advice, and I thank the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) for raising this very important point of order which has worried the Chair for some time. I appreciate that there can be only one amendment and a subamendment before the House at the same time. If the subamendment is defeated, then a different subamendment can be brought forth for the purpose of amending the amendment. The question is
Protection of Privacy
whether we have before us now three amendments or only two.
I have always felt, in thinking about the possibility that this objection might be brought forward for the consideration of the House, that the interpretation of Standing Order 75(5) should be that this is a substantive motion with notice. That probably makes the difference, in that the Standing Order provides that we will have on the order paper a substantive motion with notice, which puts it in the category of a question subject to amendment and subamendment.
I must confess that I still have some doubts about the matter, and because I have these doubts I have been thinking about the problem for some time, wondering when it might arise. This is the first time the point has been raised. I would think hon. members might be entitled to the benefit of the doubt and that the Standing Order might be interpreted in this way, that what we have before us is a substantive motion subject to amendment and subamendment.
If I have any serious doubt about what is proposed by the minister, it stems from the fact that by the subamendment he is attempting, in a way, to amend his own motion. I think the subamendment ought to have been moved by another member of the House rather than by the minister himself. What has been done is, to me, very difficult to accept from a procedural standpoint. This is not an amendment which must be moved by the minister himself or seconded by another minister. I hope my suggestion will be taken into account and that the subamendment will be moved by another hon. member and seconded by another seconder. This having been said, I thank the hon. member for Yukon for raising the point. I think we should give the matter further thought.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, in order to help the consideration of this issue and to speed up discussion of this bill, I will be pleased to move the particular amendment referred to, seconded by the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay).


Mr. Speaker:: Has the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) leave to withdraw his amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment to motion No. 13 (Mr. Lang) withdrawn.


Marc Lalonde: That the motion of November 27, 1973, by Mr. Atkey to amend motion No. 13, a motion to amend Bill C-176, be amended by
a)	adding after paragraph (a) of the substituted text the word "and",
b)	striking the word "and" at the end of paragraph (b) of the substituted text and substituting therefor the word "or", and
c)	adding immediately after the word "that" in paragraph
(c)	of the substituted text the following: " , in the case of evidence, other than the private communication itself,"


Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, for a minute I thought the minister would find difficulty on his own side of the House in getting support for the subamendment

November 28, 1973
Protection of Privacy
now before us. I can tell him that there is not much support for it on my side of the House. Indeed, having looked at it briefly it appears that the amendment moves the bill back to the position which it occupied before it went to committee after being read the second time. Hon. members will recall that when the bill was read the second time, in May, section 176.16 provided that direct evidence legally obtained would be excluded, but indirect evidence illegally obtained would be admitted in evidence at the subsequent trial. That is the effect of the minister's amendment.
When the bill was before the committee, the minister arranged for an amendment to be moved respecting legally obtained evidence. It was defeated resoundingly. That amendment had been proposed by a supporter of the minister's party and was based on the memorandum which the minister himself had prepared and circulated among members of the committee. Following that resounding defeat in committee, an amendment moved in my name carried by a vote of 5 to 11. It enjoyed the support of members of all parties present.
The minister, despite all our attempts to accommodate his difficulties with regard to motion No. 13-difficulties associated with defects in form and procedural irregularities-has come back to the House and, after all the fancy footwork he has done, has attempted to restore the bill to its original form. Indeed, without being technical, I suggest that the minister has gone back further; his position, as reflected in the bill, is further back than that reflected in the bill originally. I should like to explain myself. His position has receded with respect to direct evidence illegally obtained; in other words, with respect to the tape itself, the operation of which might be illegal. I gather that from reading the amendment. With regard to any direct evidence, the tape itself which is illegally obtained may be brought forward if the court, in the subsequent proceedings, finds it to be relevant. If the evidence was illegally obtained as a result of a technical defect or irregularity, then that direct evidence, although illegally obtained, can be brought into the subsequent trial.
Hon. members should realize that this provision was not in the original bill which the committee in its wisdom saw fit to amend. The minister, by fancy footwork-as I am sure hon. members realize-has amended an amendment of an amendment and has tried to do indirectly that which he was unable to achieve directly in committee. I am, therefore, most reluctant to support this attempt of the minister in trying to do that which he failed to do at an earlier time.
[ Translation]


Mr. Francis Fox (Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes):: Mr. Speaker, I absolutely want to participate in this debate because of all the practical impacts which the motions of the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) and of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) might have on the administration of justice and on detection and prevention of crime.
The bill we are dealing with today is naturally very important in many aspects and first because in our society, as demonstrated by recent events, no-one is safe from

wiretapping. The bill clearly states by whom and under what circumstances wiretapping is possible. It is also important because it is an admission that at an age when crime has no frontiers and enjoys all technical facilities, it is essential that we allow to those whose foremost mission is to prevent crime and protect society the use of devices that will enable them to discharge their responsibilities efficiently and legally. Finally, this bill is important because it is an attempt to determine what has always been a problem in the field of criminal legislation-fair balance between the right of the individual not to have his privacy violated without justification and his right to be protected as he should be while not allowing crime to remain unpunished or allowing criminals to benefit from their destructive actions with impunity.
I would like to enlarge on this last aspect and speak on the amendment from the standpoint of admissibility or inadmissibility of illegally obtained evidence. Tradition-nally our criminal law, derived in this connection from the British rules on evidence, recognized that evidence obtained illegally were not admissible for this reason alone, that the role of a court was to ferret out the truth, shed as much light as possible on truth so as to come to a conclusion with a full knowledge of the facts. In Canada, that has been the stand taken by the Supreme Court.
On the contrary, American jurisprudence puts forward the rule whereby evidence obtained by unlawful means is inadmissible. Such a rule, known as the rule of exclusion, was approved mainly because it was looked upon as a reliable deterrent against the use of unlawful means on the part of police forces: to recognize the admissibility of unlawfully obtained evidence is, in a way, to support a breach of the law by people who should be the first to have respect for it. That is what the American Supreme Court stated in the case Mapp v. Ohio, in 1961.
That American position, even though sternly criticized throughout the years, remained the same. I very humbly point out, Mr. Speaker, that the mistake here is precisely the wish to correct a situation that is deplorable, I admit it, by changing some rules concerning evidence. This bill already provides a penalty for the unlawful use of bugging devices, namely imprisonment or a $5,000 fine. There will never be any effective penalty against that offence. The Americans excluded the evidence, but the outcome was not the one they hoped for: to prevent unlawful evidence from being actually obtained. People acting in such a way should be punished. To have the underworld benefit from it, as was suggested by several members of the Progressive Conservative party, and which was indeed experienced by the Americans, is not a desirable thing, Mr. Speaker.
It was precisely in order to correct such a situation that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) moved an amendment allowing the judge to decide, considering all circumstances, whether unlawfully obtained evidence should nevertheless be admissible. For it must be recognized, the fact that evidence can be considered illegal can be the result of a simple technical error, and moreover, that is what the hon. member for St. Paul's has finally admitted last night.
The opposite would penalize society and put the courts in an extremely difficult position, in the case where, for example, a serious crime has been committed, the only
November 28, 1973

available evidence, the interception of communication, would be inadmissible. What really matters, Mr. Speaker, is to throw the light on a case, to find the truth about what happened and to determine who is innocent and who is guilty. If a situation were created such that this prime duty of justice is impeded by various technicalities enabling a criminal to go scot-free, then justice would be unable to play its role.
With regard to electronic eavesdropping, I recognize that, in the past, too often it was practised without any restriction whatever and that, as a rule, to be accepted as proof, any communication should have been intercepted legally. The act states specifically in which circumstances electronic eavesdropping is allowed, and it is imperative that policemen respect the act. I would therefore ask all my colleagues to avoid creating a situation that would favour the criminals, as is the case in the U.S.A.
For all those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is imperative not to adopt the American rule whereby proofs obtained illegally are excluded but rather to allow the court, as suggested by the Minister of Justice, to decide on its admissibility because it is pertinent and thus allow justice to be done.
The Minister of Justice quoted a decision made by the distinguished Justice Cordozo about forty years ago. I believe that this quote should be repeated since it shows clearly what would be the result of passing even part of the exclusion rule implemented in the United States. Justice Cordozo said about this case:

The criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered. ... A room is searched against the law, and the body of a murdered man is found. . . . The privacy of the home has been infringed, and the murderer goes free.
[ Translation]
The solution to the problem of illegal wiretapping should not benefit the criminal. The sanction should concern the person guilty of illegal wiretapping. This approach of the government is consistent with our traditions and we should maintain it because of the significant protection which this bill gives the citizens by defining specific conditions for wiretapping.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be fair to say that the members of the New Democratic Party oppose the motion of the minister, the amendment of the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) and the subamendment of the minister. I have found in this debate-I have said this before-that although the minister is very competent, he is very rigid. He seems to think that if there is agreement, we are all acting impartially; but if there is disagreement with the minister, we are acting in a partisan way. That just is not so.
If you review what has happened with regard to this particular section of the bill, you will see that on second reading there was a clear indication by members of the Progressive Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party that we opposed this particular clause. The bill went to committee. There the hon. member for St. Paul's was instrumental in bringing forward an amendment which was accepted on a vote of 11 to 5. That does not seem to
Protection of Privacy
satisfy the minister. He is now attempting to do indirectly what he could not do directly in the committee. If he had had his way in the committee, all evidence, whether direct or indirect, legal or illegal, would be admissible in court.
We feel this is a question of principle. The amendment in committee was very clear and should be accepted. If we accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for St. Paul's in committee, we would be following the American law and we would probably be accepting the direction in which the English courts are going on this principle. I recall reading a publication by Professor Stanley Beck in regard to wiretapping. He said that one of the most salutary directions you can give the police is that any evidence, whether direct or indirect, obtained illegally shall not be admissible. I think this is the basic principle on which we should operate.
This was the thrust of the amendment of the hon. member for St. Paul's. It is rather unfortunate that the hon. member for St. Paul's brought forth an amendment to the motion of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), because he has clouded the issue. However, I can appreciate the reason he did so; he is attempting to get certain members within his party to accept his amendment rather than accept the motion of the minister. What the hon. member is really doing is opening the door and confusing the issue. What the minister is doing in his subamendment is turning full circle and going right back to the original position that he took in the bill. The members of the New Democratic Party oppose this, and we oppose it very strenuously.
In his argument the minister said that one of the reasons he opposed the amendment that passed in the committee was that it would cause delays in the courts. Just from my own experience in court I would say I think the minister is probably proceeding on a wrong assumption. I think he is overstating the case in regard to delay. There are delays regarding confessions in court, because we have a voir dire to determine whether a statement will be admissible on a voluntary basis. If there is any evidence that the statement was obtained by force or threat or promise, then the statement is not admissible.
I do not see the same type of problem in regard to wiretaps. What I see happening is that Crown counsel will present the authorization for the wiretap at the commencement of the trial, and at that time defence counsel would have to raise any objection he had to its validity. Both from your own experience, Mr. Speaker, and from mine we know that once the authorization is tendered it is the same as tendering a by-law in a case or tendering a certificate of analysis in a narcotics case. I just do not see any real delay there.
I think we should be in the forefront in regard to protecting the liberties and privacy of all Canadians. I do not think we should get ourselves into any worse position than our friends in the States and the possible trend that will occur in England. As the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) said, and said very strongly and persuasively, administration of the law does not stop at the court door. It starts when a person is apprehended for the commission of an offence and ends when that
8236

November 28, 1973
Protection of Privacy
person is reintegrated back into the community. We have to operate on the basis of faith and on the basis that the administration of justice will be fair at all times. This type of amendment will not lend itself to that approach; it will create ill-feeling between an accused and the Crown, between the police and the community, which is not the type of relationship that we want if the final solution is the reintegration of an accused back into society.
We have had some experience in the matter of search warrants. In many cases the police enter a house without a search warrant although they know they should have one. They take the law into their own hands and take their chances. I have the feeling that the same will happen in regard to wiretapping. Many policemen will be very zealous in the performance of their duties, will take the law into their own hands and act accordingly, and in many cases illegally.
Therefore, we in the New Democratic Party feel that all the safeguards that can be obtained should be obtained, and these should be set forth in the bill. We were rather proud of the amendment set forth by the hon. member for St. Paul's in the committee, which was very simple, very clear and very understandable in law, to the effect that any evidence, whether direct or indirect, obtained by illegal means shall not be admissible.
What the minister has done in his motion, what the hon. member for St. Paul's has unfortunately done in his amendment, and what the minister has done in his subamendment, will not help to make the law clear, precise and understandable. For this reason and for the other reasons I have stated, we in the New Democratic Party will oppose all three.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, there was a time when my rising in my place in this chamber to raise the question of wiretapping was greeted with a good deal of scorn by hon. members opposite. I recall their scoffing, their jeering, when in 1963 and 1964 I attempted to alert the members of the House of Commons to the fact that certain members' telephones were being bugged or tapped. I was almost laughed out of this place. There was another member who was alert to the danger at the time, and he is still with us; I refer to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) who also raised this matter at the same time as I did. Indeed, I think he raised it first.
Since that time I have periodically raised the matter in the House of Commons, and each time members opposite have jeered and made all sorts of attemps to belittle and to put down the danger that is inherent in electronic interception and electronic intrusion. Indeed, the venerable fourth estate is not free from criticism in this regard, because they too entertained quite a doubt as to the validity of the questions I was raising on those occasions.
Now all of a sudden, since the Watergate affair has arisen in the United States, the question becomes respectable. Now when any member stands in his place and discusses his fear of surreptitious bugging, it is a respectable subject-and I am grateful for that. It is even a respectable subject for the fourth estate to speak about now. No longer am I pictured as an alarmist. No longer are articles written asking me to come forward with proof

that these things are happening. The fact that they are happening is now accepted, accepted by reason of events south of the border. So even out of that untidy mess down there some good has come, in that we are now seeing the serious fashion with which the members of the House are tackling this subject.
The fact is that a remote-controlled amplifier and microphone no larger than the head of a pin can capture a conversation and transmit it by wire for a distance of 25 miles. A parabolic microphone without wires or radio transmitter can catch the conversation of people in a boat in mid-lake and record it on shore. The switching of a single wire can convert any telephone in Canada into a live microphone conducting sound, even when the telephone is in its cradle. Cameras the size of a cigarette can photograph a room two blocks away by moonlight. Infrared light techniques permit a room to be watched and photographed from an adjoining room through apparently opaque walls, while wall microphones, of course, can hear and record anything said in such a room. Radio pills substituted for the subject's aspirins and lodged in his stomach can transform him into a living electronic beacon. The investigator's dream-making his subject a walking transmitter and enabling the investigator to hear everything the subject says to anybody else, or even what he mutters to himself-can be realized by the wiring of a person's clothing.
The electronic pill in the stomach of people is nothing new, although this must play havoc with the digestive operation of the subject. There are transmitters so small that they can be mounted as a tooth in a dental bridge.
The corollary to all this, as revealed in testimony before the House of Commons Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, is that our telephone can be tapped, our office bugged, our files photographed, our physical movements monitored, our communications recorded-all this without our knowing anything about it or having any right of recourse or any protection in law. The Orwellian society of 1984 may be here already. The open society has become the bugged society. The struggle for freedom is being mortgaged to the parabolic microphone. The zones of solitude are being occupied. There are no more sanctuaries. The erosion of privacy is the beginning of the end of freedom.
Those are not my words, Sir, they are the words of the minister of justice who preceded the minister who now holds that portfolio. They are the words of the now Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) in a speech he made in September, 1969, to the Canadian Bar Association's annual meeting in Ottawa.


Mr. Peters:: It sure isn't the present minister.


Erik Nielsen: No, it certainly was not the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang). If you will permit me to finish one additional quotation from the speech of the minister, he went on to say:
But this is not all. The right to privacy goes not only to the core of our being as individuals, but to the core of our collective being as a society. John Stuart Mill wrote that "The worth of a state in the long run is the worth of the individuals composing it." A state that demeans its citizens demeans itself; a society that mocks the privacy of individuals mocks itself.
November 28, 1973

I could not endorse more that kind of approach. When I look at this bill and compare it with what that minister had to say on that occasion, I find very little resemblance to what is being attempted now and to the general philosophy that was stated, quite properly and so well, by the minister of justice in 1969.
The minister has made quite a case on the particular clause being considered by way of amendment, amendment and amendment; but I think that case is a weak one. I am not familiar with the minister's background and the extent to which he has actually practised law. He has disappointed me on previous occasions in this House in his capacity as Minister of Justice coming, as he does, from a law school which I know has turned out many noted barristers in the country. I well recall, for instance, his defence of payments illegally being withheld under wheat legislation and his attempt to build a case to support that illegality. He has sounded in this debate exactly the same as he sounded then.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Even Eugene Forsey left the Liberals on that one.


Erik Nielsen: The minister has a very weak case and he is trying desperately to shore it up, but as a former professor of law he should know he cannot succeed. He wanted, in the bill in its original form, the illegality that evidence be accepted in court if it met only two tests-one as to relevancy and one as to justice being done. I cannot bring myself to vote for a law which will come out of this place that will make legal that which is illegal. Let me put it in the converse: I cannot vote for something that sanctions illegality, and that is essentially the position being taken on this side of the House.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: It not only sanctions it, it puts a premium on it.


Erik Nielsen: As the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) suggests, this involves not only the question of sanctioning an illegality but it puts a premium on that illegality, which is even worse. The minister feels that the police forces of the country will somehow be restricted or circumscribed in their investigatory process if we do not go along with sanctioning illegality. I cannot accept that. From my experience, the police would have no difficulty in operating under a law which required an order of a judge to permit this kind of electronic intrusion into the privacy of individuals. I cannot think of a single instance in which the police would be inconvenienced by being required to obtain an order of a judge in order to take advantage of the provisions permitting electronic activity by the police.
What is far more important, Sir, is the fact that there will be judicial control exercised in this whole area. The section as it was originally in the bill, and as it would have been restored-and then some-by the minister's motion to amend, would do away with the requirements of obtaining judicial sanction for this kind of activity. If that occurred it would be a foot in the door toward a police state, as far as I am concerned. I do not want any of my remarks taken in any way as suggesting there has been overzealous activity on the part of police forces in this country, or that I am somehow red-necked or bigoted
Protection of Privacy
about the functions of our police forces. That does not go with my background. My background has been very closely associated with police activity, starting with my father. However, I do say it is simply bad, in terms of philosophy, to permit uncontrolled police activity, and the best form of control we can exercise in instances such as this is control by the judiciary. After all, that is why the judiciary exists.
A great case has been attempted by the minister to the effect that sometimes there are urgent situations when a judge cannot be found in order to get the necessary order. I do not buy that. Contrary to some figures which have been stated in the House-and I believe the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) suggested there were 600 judges in the country-allow me to suggest that there are 600 judges in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec alone. For the whole of the country a more accurate figure might be closer to 900 judges who would be authorized under this legislation to grant the kind of order required.
Nor do I go along with those who advocate that all they should have to do is go to a judge, say they want an order and get it. In my view, in all instances where applications are made for wiretapping they should be supported by sworn assertions or applications complying with the requirements set forth in the legislation. That imposes no limitation and no restriction on police activities. In matters in which I have been associated with Crown prosecutions, search warrants have been obtained in the dead of night and in the early hours of the morning-but always supported by the sworn statement of the applicant that there was reasonable or probable ground to believe the crime would be committed, had been committed, and so on. That does not inconvenience the police force or the court one iota.
In my practice, which might be a little unusual having regard to the nature of the country I represent in this parliament, I have made a chambers' application before a judge who was out fishing 200 miles from nowhere. I have obtained injunctions over the telephone on applications properly supported by sworn affidavits. If these things are possible, and they are possible, there is no reason for opening the door as widely as the minister would wish, thereby creating the possibility of abuse. I say that every possibility of abuse exists, and therein lies the danger.
In my submission, we should make it reasonably easy for police officers and police forces in the country to obtain the kind of permission this bill would seek to give them; but at the same time we want some kind of control exercised over the granting of that facility. There has been a great deal of time devoted in this debate to the question of the admission of direct and indirect evidence in trials where that evidence has been obtained by a wiretap which has been installed without a judge's order. That, Sir, I cannot accept at all. I know there is the argument that this kind of evidence comes under the simple relevancy rule now, so that if a police officer or officers exercise powers without a search warrant, or under a search warrant that is deficient, notwithstanding that they have obtained evidence illegally that evidence is admissible at a trial at the present time. But we should not be extending that kind of principle. I disagree with the minister when he says that
26695-9i

November 28, 1973
Protection of Privacy
the principle is the same. We should not be extending that kind of principle to legislation such as this.
I have had personal experience where, for instance, officials of the Department of National Revenue have backed up a two-ton stake truck to the door of the office of a lawyer in my riding and have carted away all his files and his safe in order to examine them. Another example, which the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) raised in this House as well as myself, was the case in which officials of the Department of National Defence together with the RCMP swooped down on a sleepy alpine village in northern British Columbia and invaded the privacy of well over 20 homes, all without a writ of assistance. With that kind of power there seems to be little need for electronic surveillance to be permitted in cases, for instance, under the Income Tax Act which would be permitted without the amendment of the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey).
Yesterday the minister used a very interesting phrase. Perhaps it was a quotation he was using. He said that it is not a game where liberty triumphs when the police are defeated. I agree with that, but it seems to me to be a little inflammatory in a debate such as this, because that sort of a cliche can be reversed and be just as true. There is something else I wish to mention with regard to evidence illegally obtained. It has to do with the Crown's prerogative in the prosecution of all cases. It is in the interest of justice-this appears in all legal textbooks-that the Crown in prosecuting a criminal case should place all evidence before the court whether that evidence is for or against an accused person. However, in my experience, and I have been involved on both sides of the fence in the courts, the Crown does not follow that precept. What the Crown in fact does is to introduce the degree of evidence sufficient to obtain a conviction, and goes no further. Even if one could find the fairest of all Crown counsel, the experience on my part at any rate has been that the police, when they place a case before Crown counsel, often leave out evidence which they genuinely do not believe to be of importance in obtaining a conviction. So there is no guarantee that evidence obtained by wiretap will suffer any better fate.
The minister says that the amendment of the hon. member for St. Paul's is narrow. He compared the wiretapping situation with the search warrant situation. In my opinion they are not the same at all. The minister made a great pitch about the fishing expedition which could be embarked upon by defence counsel.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired. He may continue his remarks with the consent of the House. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Erik Nielsen: I have just two more points to make, Mr. Speaker. The first has to do with the remarks of the minister concerning fishing expeditions by defence counsel. I agree with the member of the New Democratic Party who resumed his seat just before I rose: it is a very simple matter, and all counsel has to do is either object at the time the attempt is made to introduce this king of evi-

dence by the Crown, and it is normally introduced at that portion of the trial in any event and would not be held over-


Otto Emil Lang: Fishing with regard to any evidence.


Erik Nielsen: Fine. The minister concedes the point I was about to make in respect of introducing the wiretap evidence at the Crown stage of the case. The minister referred to any evidence at all. Let me deal with that. Only one question need be asked once this bill becomes law and that is: Was the evidence or the conversation, whatever it might be, obtained pursuant to the provisions of this legislation? That is all that has to be asked and the police officer or whoever else it might be has to say either yes or no. If he says yes, it is all admissible. If he says no, then you embark upon a course of questioning to establish whether or not the evidence was obtained properly; and if it was not, it should not be admitted.
I see it as being that simple, at any rate. You would do this in the same way you would test a certificate of access either in a narcotics case, in a case of impaired driving or whatever. I see the minister shakes his head. However, that is my view of it. I have yet to be convinced by his arguments, as obviously he has yet to be convinced by mine. It is far better to let defence counsel go on fishing expeditions than have an unbridled licence to law enforcement agencies and others to go on fishing expeditions on the private telephone lines of citizens. That is what would happen, because we are not simply speaking here about police officers or about peace officers; we are speaking about the enforcement provisions in all sorts of other statutes.
The last point that I want to make is by way of a warning once again. I placed a series of questions on the parliamentary order paper some time before July. The one to which I shall refer is question No. 1849. Those questions were answered in Hansard of July 11, 1973. These were questions that I placed on the order paper with respect to the activities of the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group which comes under the jurisdiction of the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand). Paragraph (d) of question No. 26 was as follows:
(d) has the Security Advisory Committee considered or developed a scheme (under Defence Research Board Shirley's Bay) to utilize the central telephone system in Ottawa to keep under surveillance in Ottawa and, if so, was this done at the suggestion of Col. Dabros of the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group, formerly the Security Planning and Research Group.
I do not believe that establishment is any longer at Shirley's Bay, and only in that respect might the question be relevant. The simple answer to that question, if it was not being done, should have been a resounding and emphatic no. But the answer to it, at page 5501 of Hansard for that day, is:
It is not considered in the public interest for reasons of national security to disclose the details of security and intelligence activities.
By that negative answer every Canadian, certainly in the Ottawa area, has cause to wonder whether the inference which is inherent in the question is in fact the case. If it is not being done, and if no such plan is ready to be
November 28, 1973

set in motion, then there should be at once an immediate and emphatic denial by the government. That denial has not been forthcoming and in my view it should, otherwise no one in the Ottawa area can rest easy that his telephone is not being kept under surveillance.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the debate. I am particularly interested in the amendment and the subamendment, specifically in the amendment that was put forward in the committee and the decision that was made on that amendment. I was also interested in particular to watch the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) when the member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) asked him whether he would not apply the normal criteria for admissible evidence.
I think the hon. member for Yukon used the analytic reports and the chemical analysis reports, one affecting drunken driving and the other affecting forensic medicine laboratory tests. The minister shook his head. I presume he has a new set of regulations that he will bring out to establish whether or not there is legality or illegality. I was surprised to hear the remarks he made on the amendment when he pointed out that if, for instance, it was a case of murder and by legal or illegal eavesdropping in the course of some other operation evidence was obtained without any justification under the law, it would be accepted. I gather from my reading of his interpretation of what is legal that he probably put security police in private agencies such as Pinkerton's in the same category.
I listened with interest also to the speech of the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin), which I think demonstrated the thinking of the Liberal Party with regard to law an order. There is a total and unique phobia in the province of Quebec, which results probably from their civil law and which was probably created by the Liberal Party that the police cannot be wrong, that everyone is guilty until proven innocent and that whatever the police may do, they are right. The thinking of the people in the province of Quebec in that respect is disastrous. They disregard their individual rights and freedoms and I am shocked by the way they are willing to give them up. Thank God the Anglo-Saxons in this country do not have the same qualms about standing up for their individual rights.
It was mentioned the other day, in an expose which turned out very well for justice, that 137 policemen in their three ton trucks, with tarpaulin on top, arrived at the basement of a hotel. They included provincial and town cops-every cop they could pick up in the area-and they swore in the deputies as well. The indication is that they had made a number of arrests, supposedly on marijuana charges. Three of the ten people who were arrested there and who were found in the pub were charged with drinking under age, which of course leaves seven who perhaps were smoking pot and perhaps were not.
So there were seven innocent people sitting in the beer parlour, and 137 policemen raided the place. Good God, there must be something wrong with society and something wrong with intelligence and the sense of justice in this country. Does the judge give out so many warrants that policemen can raid a place on marijuana charges in that way? No wonder the minister thinks it is all right to
Protection of Privacy
obtain illegal evidence. He would be agreeable to anything.
I suggest that if after the next election the university board of directors considered the minister for the position of dean of the university from which he came, and listened to any of the remarks made by his peers, it is doubtful that he would even be considered for the position of janitor in that institution.


An hon. Member:: What about a county court judge?


William Arnold Peters: I suppose that politicians can always be appointed county court judges. There are probably 10,000 of them in Canada, and this is one of the problems. You can get a warrant for anything, from anybody, at any time. I suppose that even security branches that are not directly connected with the government can obtain warrants, if they wish, from some judges.
An interesting thing happened in Ottawa last Friday night, fairly close to home. It concerns what the police do, how they do it and whether or not they bother with the legality of wiretapping or whether they try to find, as the minister says, some evidence from their investigation that will warrant the use of wiretapping for which there is no legal justification. As you know, Mr. Speaker, a large percentage of the protective staff in this building are veterans. Most of them served overseas. If you look around this building you will see all of the protective staff wearing ribbons that set them apart from most Canadians.
Last week a member of the protective staff received a phone call from his wife. She was hysterical. A Mounted Policeman had walked into her bathroom while she was taking a bath, walked over to her, did not show her a warrant-warrants are not of too much importance to the Mounted Police-only showed her his badge and told her to get out of the tub. She told him to get the hell out of there, that she didn't have to get out of the tub. He ordered her out again, and then the RCMP searched through the apartment and dumped all the medicine pills out on the floor. She had a little bottle of black beans that she was going to plant, and they dumped them on the floor. They took the buttons out of the button bag. I went to the place later and looked through the apartment, Mr. Speaker. They had dumped all kinds of stuff into cooking utensils. They had cleaned out the refrigerator and shifted everything from its proper place.
When this lady protested to the officer, he kept insulting her and telling her to mind her own business. He asked her, "Where does your husband work?" She told him her husband was on the protective staff of the House of Commons. He then said he hadn't asked her what her husband did, only where he worked. I made inquiries from the narcotics squad and found out that that night there was a big raid going in Ottawa. I suppose that, like the traffic cops, they have to appear to be doing something. I should mention that the building containing the apartment is owned by Mr. Assaly, a very influential man in Ottawa. I am not aware whether or not Mr. Assaly runs the hashish operation in Ottawa, or whether the RCMP think Mr. Assaly runs the hashish operation, but they did have a warrant for one apartment in the building.

November 28, 1973
Protection of Privacy
The warrant was not for the apartment in which this lady lives, nor for the other apartment in that building which is presently occupied. I might add that the building itself is going to be torn down very shortly. The warrant they had was for a basement apartment, and the RCMP broke into it. They also took their dog into the apartment, and it cleaned up on the cat's food. Of course they have the dog to smell around the place. It's a very nice dog. Since then I have met him. As I say, he's a nice dog, but hungry.
Mr. Speaker, this woman was insulted; she was assaulted. There was absolutely no justification and no excuse for that. In my opinion there was no excuse for that warrant to be issued. If they want to go after Mr. Assaly they should make out the warrant in his name, go to his home and go after him. As I say, maybe the police believe he runs the narcotics operation in Ottawa. They may even believe that one of our protective staff runs it. But, if they do, they should have got a warrant for his apartment.
The apartment in the basement which they broke into had had nobody living in it for two months. I presume they must not have been following the case that closely. To the Minister of Justice and to the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand), if anything had been found in this lady's apartment, illegally or not, I suppose it would not make any difference. That would prove the case so far as they were concerned. But I suggest that is going to the extreme. I gather that the police were raiding throughout the Hull-Ottawa area that night. As a matter of fact, it was very hard for me to get hold of anybody in charge of the raid. I finally had to find them in Hull. Whether they drink coffee there, or whatever the arrangement is, I don't know. Anyway, it appeared to be a very big operation. Maybe they do this every week. But if the Minister of Justice is right in what he says, then every member of this House had better think about what the hon. member for the Yukon said a few moments ago when he asked if the total telephone structure of the city of Ottawa was being tapped, and the answer was, "We cannot tell you for security reasons."
I suggest that the police on their marijuana raids should start at the edge of the city and go through every house as they come to it. They could have a judge with them in a car and have him write out a search warrant after they have found something in a house. Better still, the Minister of Justice should be honest with this House and tell us that all he needs is a writ of assistance, instead of this legislation, that can be supplied to all his agents throughout the country so that raids can be made any time at all. If that were done, then I am as sure as I am that I am standing here that we would enforce law and order. In fact we would have a gestapo. We would have a nazi regime. This would be a fascist state. I am also sure there would be less crime and that criminals would be punished much more speedily. But, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that not one member of this House wants that to happen, yet every member of the House knows of instances where it does happen.
When this happens, what are people to do? Does this particular person have to go out and hire a criminal lawyer and lay charges of assault and maybe even of battery against the police? I may say that this was a fellow by the name of Kruger. Somebody asked me what I would

have done. I said I would have had Constable Kruger immediately on his way to the Arctic, to Inuvik or somewhere like that, and stick him there. And I would see that he remained there, if I were his superior.
Certainly we can have law and order, Mr. Speaker. But some hon. members seem to believe that this simply means arresting a lot of people, convicting a lot of people and putting a lot of people in jail. We already have more people in jail in Canada than many civilized countries of the world.


Erik Nielsen: And they are getting out quickly.


William Arnold Peters: No, they are not getting out; they are escaping. They get on top of each other; they make a pyramid of themselves to reach the top of the prison wall, simply because the place is so crowded. When he is asked about escapes, all the Solicitor General does is tell us that we have bought another piece of land, that we are going to put up another prison building and that will solve the problem.
As I say, we can use law and order in this country. But if we abuse law and order there is always a response, and I suggest the time is coming shortly for that response. This particular gentleman whose wife was insulted and assaulted did not make any bones about it-that if he had been home he would have shot the guy. I suggested to him that he do it in self-defence, to make sure the guy was coming in when he shot, rather than going out, because it is a little easier to prove self-defence if the guy was hit in the front rather than in the back.
I still believe laws have to be obeyed, Mr. Speaker, but I do not believe any person can walk into your house and search it without a warrant. And I do not believe such a warrant should be easily obtained. If the police come to my house with a search warrant for marijuana, they don't have the right to go through the house, find an unregistered firearm and charge me with that offence. If they are looking for marijuana, they don't have to go through my refrigerator. I don't know much about marijuana these days-maybe that is where you keep marijuana-but the police certainly do not have to dump all kinds of medicine pills out on the floor and empty the aspirin bottle to see whether there is marijuana in it. Marijuana, so far as I know, is grass. It does not look like pills. At least this guy should have known what he was looking for, and I really do not know why he had to do a full examination of the lady. I do not believe he was providing any gratuitous medical information to her. This was an insult to the man and an insult to the people, and it is an insult to me, Mr. Speaker. It should be an insult to every Canadian unless you believe your police forces should be a gestapo. If you do, the rules can go out the window.
As I understand it, two or three people used to make all the decisions for the gestapo and there were no difficulties at all. The courts and justice were very quick. We do not think that way, yet the minister is suggesting in this instance that if you get illegal evidence and that illegal evidence is worth while, no matter how you came by it, then you have a case. He is saying that the end justifies the means. That is what justice was saying when they
November 28, 1973

invaded the Assaly apartments in Ottawa, that the end justifies the means. Maybe that is a form of harassment and maybe the minister agrees that it is.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that any minister of justice who does not believe in justice, who believes that illegality warrants whatever action was taken in that illegality and that the fruits of that illegality are acceptable, is a disgrace to this country-an outright disgrace, and I am ashamed of him, I am ashamed of the actions of some of the police, I am ashamed of an area and I am ashamed of a newspaper like the Brantford Expositor that comments favourably on the fact that 137 men in uniform made a raid on a place that contained ten people, that ten arrests were made, seven of them kids under the age to be in that establishment for drinking purposes.
Mr. Speaker, some members of this House were very proud of the 400 arrests made in the province of Quebec. They said it should happen, and were very proud of the fact that they passed legislation that did not allow them the full benefit of the law, that did not allow most of them even to be charged. To my knowledge there were no convictions in any of those arrests. Only seven or eight charges were laid in 700 or so cases. The people of Quebec should look at this; I am thinking particularly of the hon. member for Louis-Hebert.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: She is worth looking at.


William Arnold Peters: Leaving aside all the other problems, if they think they have a problem they should look at the city of Toronto. Their problem was not really that startling. They should look at this, Mr. Speaker, because they agreed to it. They agreed that you waive the law, that the law does not apply to police, that the law does not apply to the state, the law does not become effective; the only thing that becomes effective is justice appearing to be done and that justice should appear to be done where you have proved the case, whether there was any case at all in the first place or whether or not it was even your intention to establish a case.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this subamendment fits into exactly that kind of feeling, where you allow not only the police but any agency to obtain illegal information and you allow a judge to look at that information and make the decision on whether it has any bearing on a conviction that may be obtained. Then it is said that not only will the evidence be available, but that we will accept the tape as material evidence. The minister does not put in any protection to say that the person who obtained that illegal evidence is not excused from having committed a crime, but that he will go to jail for a five-year period. He forgets about the illegality of the collection of the evidence and says that under certain circumstances this evidence will be accepted.
I am surprised, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure other hon. members are, but not all of them are prepared to do something about it. The Liberal member representing the particular person that I spoke about when the problem was brought to his attention said, "Don't bother me about this; I am not interested." Mr. Speaker, some are not, but I am sure most members of parliament are interested in providing law and order for the Canadian people and in seeing not only that the people have law and order but
Protection of Privacy
that law and order is demonstrated in a way that appears to be just for all. This kind of amendment is a disgrace and a continuation of some of the practices of this government over a period of years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I shall not attempt to follow my esteemed colleague, but I should like to say another word or two about the subamendment which is now before us. When this subamendment, now in the name of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), was first proposed by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) I defended its procedural admissibility. But I indicated then, as my colleague the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) has indicated since, that we do not like it at all.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this is one of those cases where amongst other things one has to look at the little two- and three-letter words, words like "or" and "and". As we have indicated, we do not approve at all of the effort of the Minister of Justice to re-establish the admissibility of indirect evidence or, as we prefer to call it, evidence illegally obtained. I recognize that the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) did try to improve the effort of the Minister of Justice by adding to the conditions under which such evidence might be admitted.
A significant thing about the amendment of the hon. member for St. Paul's is that he strings together his three conditions by the use of the word "and". In other words, such evidence can be admitted only if it meets all three of the conditions, namely, being relative, being inadmissible only for technical reasons and being the kind of evidence that if it is not to be admitted might seem to cause justice not to be done. All that the Minister of Justice has done, really, is to take out one of those "ands" and put in an "or". Just a little change.


Ronald George Atkey: It changed the whole thing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A two-letter word instead of a three-letter word-but the result, if the minister's subamendment carries, is that this kind of evidence can be admitted if the first two conditions are met by themselves or if the third condition is met by itself. It seems to me that putting it that way, the minister is asking for the door to be opened wide. Therefore we are completely opposed to the subamendment moved by the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is the House ready for the question? The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt).


Mr. Leggatt:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like to see the Hansard debates correct, and I am referring to the debates that occured on November 22, 1973, at page 8067. During the debate I had indicated that there was a report from Quebec that two more lawyers had been bugged and wiretapped. There was an interjection from the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin) indicating to the House that this was not by the police. I think the record should show what is correct, because in

November 28, 1973
Protection of Privacy
today's Montreal Gazette the first page carries the headline "Police bugged lawyers' offices" and the article reads:
Electronic bugs found in the offices of two Montreal lawyers last week were planted there by police officers, Justice Minister Jerome Choquette admitted yesterday.
Choquette told the national assembly that members of Quebec's special organized crime squad had spied on the lawyers' offices for more than two weeks last February.
I think the record of the debate should be correct and should show that there has been extensive police wiretapping of lawyers' offices.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. The hon. member should have risen and asked for permission to make a speech. I do not think he has raised a point of order. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: The question is on the subamendment to motion No. 13 moved by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde). All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is it the wish of the House to defer the vote?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), the recorded division on the proposed amendment stands deferred.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions and I think it would be agreeable if we were to return to motion No. 2 standing in the name of the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey), and motion No. 3, standing in the name of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is it agreed that we return to the consideration of motion No. 2, as suggested by the minister?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is the parliamentary secretary rising to speak to motion No. 2?


Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I could use the extra $4,000 and would be prepared to work hard. Perhaps Your Honour knows something that I do not know.

I am speaking to motion No. 2. I think it is fair to say that the definition section of the bill, particularly that part of the definition section relating to offences, has caused difficulties. It is fair to say that the minister and the department have experienced difficulty in arriving at an appropriate definition of "offence". The department originally suggested that "offence" as included in this bill should be limited to indictable offences. It was the intention of the minister and of the department, I am sure, to include the more serious offences in the definition section and that is why indictable offences were considered.
As has been explained to the House, it is not necessarily correct to say that wiretapping can be undertaken only where there is a serious indictable offence. For example, someone who has a grudge might seek permission to wiretap an individual that may have been charged with drunk driving or some other offence to be revenged on the accused and lead to his conviction.
Recognizing the catch-all provision, if you will, of the definition section in the bill, the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) properly endeavoured, in the spirit in which the minister and the department were acting, to group by way of amendment the offences with respect to which wiretapping could be undertaken. The offences listed are the only offences for which wiretapping could be undertaken. They are the only offences which would be considered when an application is made. That is the kind of precision which is needed in any definition section.
Following the efforts of the hon. member for St. Paul's in this regard, I believe the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome), the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan), the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) and the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) indicated some of the difficulties which might arise in cataloguing very carefully each and every offence, inasmuch as one might leave some offences out. Further, in categorizing offences it is possible that offences might be included which should not in the view of the House be included.
Recognizing this, Mr. Speaker, members on both sides of the House have endeavoured to work out a compromise. The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) has more than once said that the strength of this chamber lies in its ability to solve problems which cross party lines. One of our strengths is that we can get together and work out a compromise which, although it may be criticized and may not be acceptable to everybody in the House, represents a sincere effort and good will on the part of members on all sides. In that way it is often possible to do that which seemed impossible at the outset. We do not run into a situation in which one can say some are all right and some are all wrong. We compromise. Our positions are not all black and not all white. An accommodation is reached by members on both sides of the House.
I thank the hon. member for St. Paul's and the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) for being good enough to look over a proposed amendment and for making many recommendations for deletions and additions. It is on that basis that I will be moving an amendment to the motion proposed by the hon. member for St.
November 28, 1973

Paul's. In considering the matter, it is important for hon. members not to lose sight of the fact that despite all the exceptions this bill, basically, is a bill to prevent wiretapping. I think everyone in the House agrees with that. Heated debate has been generated by the exceptions that are included in the bill and about the conditions under which wiretapping should be carried out. Nevertheless, we should not in this debate lose sight of the fact that the main purpose of the bill is to prevent wiretapping.
On that basis, and not wishing to belabour the point, I move:
That motion No. 2 to amend Bill C-176, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability Act and the Official Secrets Act, be amended by deleting the quoted text therein and substituting the following:
"offence" means an offence contrary to or any conspiracy or attempt to commit or being accesssory after the fact in relation to sections 47, 51, 52, 58, 62, 76.1, 76.2, 76.3, 78, 79, 80, 108, 109, 110, 121, 178.11, 178.18, 218, 247, 281.1, 303, 305, 306, 312, 314, 325, 326, 331, 338, 339, 383, 389, 407, 408, 410, paragraph 186(1)(e) and paragraph 294(a); sections 4 and 5 of the Narcotic Control Act; sections 34 and 42 of the Food and Drugs Act; section 192 of the Customs Act; unlawful distillation, selling, offering to sell or purchasing of spirits contrary to section 158 and 163 of the Excise Act; or any other indictable offence in respect of which there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe that it forms a pattern of similar or related offences by two or more persons acting in concert, and that such pattern is part of the activities of organized crime.


William Arnold Peters: You are trying to get rid of the bootleggers in your area.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I have copies of the motion, in both official languages, for the benefit of Hansard. I heard the comment about bootlegging in my riding. That has never been a problem, although I suggest in earlier days we were known in my area as great rum runners. That activity has been cleaned up owing to very effective and efficient police service.


An hon. Member:: Did you drink any rum?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I was not there at that time to drink any. All my drinks came out of a milk bottle.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member sits down, as it is very difficult to know what these offences are simply by referring to sections, could he say what they are? Those of us who were not participants in the discussion concerning this compromise have no idea what we are agreeing to.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I think the point of the right hon. gentleman is valid. I do not wish to labour it, but I did speak to two or three members of his party and also to members of other parties and we went over each and every section. I will be very happy to quickly run down these sections-maybe not all, because they are quite lengthy.


John George Diefenbaker: Otherwise the record will not mean anything.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The sections I have referred to deal with treason, intimidating parliament or a legislature, sabotage, forgery of or uttering a forged passport, sedition, hijack-
Protection of Privacy
ing of aircraft, endangering safety of aircraft in flight and rendering aircraft incapable of flight, taking offensive weapons and explosives on aircraft, breach of duty in relation to explosive substances, causing injury with intent by use of explosives, possessing explosives without lawful excuse, bribery of judicial officers, MPs or MLAs, bribery of peace officers, public officers, etc., frauds upon the government, perjury, unlawful electronic surveillance, unlawful possession of electronic eavesdropping equipment, bookmaking, murder, kidnapping, forcible confinement or abduction, advocating genocide, theft over $200, robbery, extortion, breaking and entering, having in possession property obtained by crime, theft from the mails, forgery, uttering forged documents, threatening letters and telephone calls, fraud and fraudulently affecting the public market price of stocks, using mails to defraud, corrupt secret commissions, arson, making counterfeit money, possession of counterfeit money and uttering counterfeit money. Those are the sections referred to in the Code.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What else is there?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: There are many more. This list, I might say, was gone over very thoroughly. There are quite a few others which we deleted as a result of representations made by the hon. member for St. Paul's and the hon. member for New Westminster.


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) is quite correct in suggesting that this amendment has been arrived at in a spirit of compromise. Perhaps Your Honour will forgive me if I gloat a bit when I say that this amendment represents, at long last, an acceptance by this government of the principle that offences must be specifically listed in the act. Until this amendment was brought forward there was no indication from the government that there was any acceptance of that principle. I regard this as an important victory for the establishment of that principle.
A number of members were helpful in the debate on this particular motion in pointing out some technical and legal problems in the original list that was submitted in my motion No. 2. I confess that some of those legal and technical problems were quite justified. In particular, I single out the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wool-liams) who drew on his great experience as a criminal lawyer in the city of Calgary to point out some very real difficulties.
It was as a result of comments by that hon. member and other hon. members on both sides of the House that I suggested to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) that he and the law officers of the Crown take a serious look at the list of offences and, within the confines of the principle I was attempting to put forward, come up with a list that might attempt to meet their needs and would be an acceptance of the principle. I can report that that was in fact done.
There were a number of offences which I thought should be excluded and the government has been helpful in listening to arguments about the necessity of excluding those offences. I mentioned in particular income tax eva-
8244

November 28, 1973
Protection of Privacy
sion and those offences cut out of the amendment that were first suggested by law officers of the Crown as perhaps being an overreaching of the original intent of the bill. One other aspect of the amendment I was happy to see come forward for the first time was the acceptance of the principle that where there is a pattern of offences by persons acting in concert, and I am talking about indictable offences other than those in the list, the pattern of activities on the part of organized crime could be the subject of an application for authorization to wiretap.
The term "organized crime" is not a legal term. It is not in any of our formal jurisprudence. However, I feel confident that our judiciary, as they attempt to assess the applications that come before them for authorizations, and as they are met with arguments by Attorneys General and other agents on certain groups of minor offences which form part of a pattern of activities which are a part of organized crime, will provide the flesh and bones of that term and soon develop a jurisprudence unto itself. This will be useful. It will meet the needs of both freedom and the law enforcement officers as they carry out their duties.
In acknowledging that the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton is acceptable to me and I believe to my party, I wholeheartedly concur in his suggestion and his repeating of the fact that the primary emphasis of this bill is perhaps not that which has been the subject of discussion throughout much of this debate; it is to prohibit wiretapping; it is to prohibit the possession, purchase or sale of electronic eavesdropping devices and prohibit the disclosure of information obtained as a result of illegal wiretapping. Throughout all our dealings with this bill and this amendment we must never lose sight of the fact that these three prohibitions are the main object of the exercise in which we are engaged. The country needs these prohibitions, and needs them soon.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that we have now come to the point of expanding the amendment originally introduced by the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey). A very valid question was asked across the floor of the House as to what offences will be left after we have extended them to the list just quoted by the hon. member on the government side. I am reluctant to accept this new list. It seems we are extending it to every major offence.
I want to give some particulars of the offences that in my opinion obviously lead to abuse of this immoral activity of wiretapping. The amendment seeks to allow wiretapping for purposes of the Narcotic Control Act and the Food and Drugs Act in areas of trafficking, or being in possession for the purpose of trafficking. If we think back to the kind of scenario we could expect as soon as we have a police force seeking to obtain evidence against someone being in possession of drugs, not necessarily for the purpose of trafficking, obviously it is a fait accompli. They would have a prima facie case of wiretapping against anyone they suspected to be in possession. They probably would not know the amount of the drug, and they would not be able to say definitely whether it was there for mere possession and use or whether it was in possession for the purpose of trafficking.
Therefore, under this amendment you open the whole door to wiretapping for every kid who is smoking a

marijuana cigarette. It is certainly common knowledge that the use of marijuana among the younger generation has reached epidemic proportions. We have evidence that over 50 per cent of high school children have used the drug. I do not condone the use of marijuana, but with something used as extensively as this I do not think we should be expanding this provision so as to wiretap every kid at high school who happens to have a marijuana cigarette. Yet under the terms of this amendment that would be the result, and this is why I cannot accept it.
I am pleased there have been some negotiations between the hon. member for St. Paul's and the justice minister which removes some of the proposals, but I must say I am concerned that within this list of offences we still have section 82 which deals with sedition. This allows the police to wiretap conversations to determine whether a private conversation between one person and another advocates the forceful overthrow of the government. This is a pretty serious and severe step in terms of freedom of speech. Therefore I would oppose the section on sedition being included in the particular amendment; and I might also say it was included within the original amendment to the bill of the hon. member for St. Paul's.
As I look at these offences I observe we have already dealt with trying to control bootlegging, the possession of alcoholic spirits and conversations that may or may not be seditious held between private persons. Certainly there are areas where one could suspect political eavesdropping. Any offence in connection with the operation of a public office could easily lend itself to political surveillance. The real lesson is that once you get into the issue of wiretapping you open a bottomless pit.
I should like to come back to the original point which we made in this House last week, and it is this. We can tamper with the bill all we want, we can try to amend it and then amend our amendments and go round in circles. But the trouble is that we are dealing with an immoral activity, and it is immoral activity on the part of the police. Amend the bill all you like, but you will still not make it a satisfactory bill. My party will oppose the subamendment presented to the House to amend the motion of the hon. member for St. Paul's.


Mr. Joe Hueglin (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, this is a debate which very largely has been entered into by members of the legal profession. As one who has had very little connection with the law except in so far as it has acted to protect me, I have been very interested in what has been transpiring during this debate. My intervention is to very greatly commend these members for the efforts and the time they have spent here. A balance is being developed and achieved in this bill, largely, I believe, as a result of the urgings of Conservative members. It is a fine example of our system in operation as between opposition parties and the government.
There are two important philosophies included within this bill. The first is that no unauthorized individual should be able to exercise electronic surveillance over any other citizen in this country. This is one of the most important things that has been done here to protect ourselves. What we have seen with Watergate and other
November 28, 1973

different matters is very much on people's minds today. In addition, there should be stern penalties for such an invasion. Because a law without penalties is meaningless.
The second philosophy is that authorized representatives of the government, having obtained their authority from a judge of the land first of all, be empowered to use these modern devices, these things that have made our lives different from all other lives in the past, to fight against those who, by their acts, harm the well-being of innocent citizens. It is clear that individuals should be forbidden the right to invade the privacy of others. It is equally clear that those empowered to protect us all must be provided with the most up to date means of so doing.
This bill will empower the police to use these devices, not in a manner where they can be misused but, rather, in a manner that ensures that such surveillance is always regulated so there is no temptation for those few individuals who exist in every profession to abuse their power.
As a result of suggestions put forward by Conservative members, the original bill is being improved. It is being improved in that no law enforcement officer will be placed in the postion of having to take the risk that his evidence will be thrown out of court because he acted first and sought permission later, or because of some minor technicality that might develop. This is something that very often plays upon the mind of those outside the legal profession: a minor technicality can cause a case to be thrown out of court, and it seems to them that justice sometimes is not done as a result. Thus we are ensuring use of evidence that is needed to convict criminals.
Under the changes that I hope will be accepted, many of which are on their way to acceptance, there will be a roster system among judges so that permission may be obtained at any time, night or day, to meet a sudden emergency need for authorization. Secondly, the judges shall accept the evidence as long as permission has been granted in substance, whether or not the technical aspects of the granting have been met in every way. It is very important that our police and law enforcement officers be able to obtain quickly something that is needed for the public good.
This bill protects individuals from each other. It allows the police to use modern means to combat crime, and provides that they can obtain this authority at any time of need and not have to face the problem of seeing hard evidence thrown out because a "t" was not crossed and an "i" was not dotted. I welcome this bill in its amended form because it will be a step in two directions: it ensures the preservation of one individual from another, and it offers assistance to law enforcement officers in their actions to control the criminal elements in our society. These are steps that can be accepted by all who are concerned about liberty under the protection of the law and its agents.
Today the two principles of protection of individual liberty and protection and security of individuals from lawless elements are being extremely well put together in this bill. This is taking place, from what I have seen, as a result of give and take between government and opposition. As a result of the urgings of our members, the police will be allowed to have all necessary powers to fight lawless elements in areas in which they threaten the safety of both individuals and the state. The bill will
Protection of Privacy
clearly state the necessary steps that the police must take, and at the same time it will preserve the essential privacy of those who have done no wrong from unneeded invasion. This bill, if it proceeds along the path that seems likely today, may very well be remembered as one of the finest that this parliament has yet produced.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the amendment to motion No. 2 moved by the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen). All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more th'an five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to agreement reached earlier, the division on the amendment will be deferred until a later stage. I gather it is the understanding of the House that we will now proceed to motion No. 3 standing in the name of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). Am I correct in that regard?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.
[ Translation]


Mr. Raynald Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I read very attentively the amendment proposed by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). Because of the late hour, let me simply move an amendment which reads as follows:
That Motion No. 3 to amend Bill C-176, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability Act and the Official Secrets Act, be amended by
(a)	striking out the following words and numbers appearing in
lines 3 and 4 of paragraph (b):
"lines 23 to 28 inclusive at page 11"
and substituting the following:
"lines 1 to 14 at page 10, the words "or a permit given under subsection 178.15(1)" in lines 27 and 28 at page 11 " ; " and
(b)	adding to paragraph (b) the following:
"Applica- 178.15 (1) Notwithstanding section 178.12, an tions to	application for an authorization may be made ex
specially	parte to a judge of a superior court of criminal
appointed jurisdiction, or a judge as defined in section 482, judges	designated from time to time by the Chief Justice,
by a peace officer specially designated in writing for the purposes of this section by
(a)	the Solicitor General of Canada, if the offence is one in respect of which proceedings, if any, may be instituted by the Government of Canada and conducted by or on behalf of the Attorney General of Canada, or
(b)	the Attorney General of a province, in respect of any other offence in the province,
26695-10i

November 28, 1973
Authorizations in emergency
Certain interceptions deemed not lawful
"Chief
Justice"
defined
Protection of Privacy
if the urgency of the situation requires interception of private communications to commence before an authorization could, with reasonable diligence, be obtained under section 178.13.
(2)	Where the judge to whom an application is made pursuant to subsection (1) is satisfied that the urgency of the situation requires that interception of private communications commence before an authorization could, with reasonable diligence, be obtained pursuant to section 178.13, he may, on such terms and conditions, if any, as he considers advisable, give an authorization in writing for a period of up to 36 hours.
(3)	For the purpose of section 178.16 only, an interception of a private communication in accordance with an authorization given pursuant to this section shall be deemed not to have been lawfully made unless the judge who gave the authorization or, if such judge is unable to act, a judge of the same jurisdiction, certifies that if the application for the authorization had been made to him pursuant to section 178.12 he would have given the authorization.
(4)	In this section, "Chief Justice" means
(a)	in the Province of Ontario, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court,
(b)	in the Province of Quebec, the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench (Crown side),
(c)	in the Provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Alberta and Newfoundland respectively, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court,
(d)	in the Province of British Columbia, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court,
(e)	in the Provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan respectively, the Chief Justice of the Court of the Queen's Bench,
(/) in the Yukon Territory, the Chief Justice of the Territorial Court,
(g) in the Northwest Territories, the Chief Justice of the Territorial Court."
Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to table, in both official languages, the amendments I move, seconded by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Caron) to Motion No. 3 moved by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the motion presented by the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay), seconded by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Caron). If I read the motion again it would take us beyond six o'clock. I assume copies have been made available. The motion contains some technical aspects, but perhaps the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) would wish to speak first on its acceptability.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, on May 8 I spoke in the House concerning this bill. That was before the bill came before the committee, where it was considered at great length. While I made various criticisms in general, I think I could epitomize my criticism by pointing out that the feeling was that, while I was opposed in general to wiretapping, I realized that circumstances would arise from time to time that could justify this course being followed, provided no open season was permissible for police officers, enforcement officers, Attorneys General or the Solicitor General to 
allow wiretapping to take place without judicial approval in advance.
The essence of proposed section 178.15 as originally placed before the House would have allowed the Attorney General of a province, the Solicitor General of Canada or an agent specially designated in writing for the purposes of the section by the Attorney General of a province or the Solicitor General of Canada, if he were satisfied that circumstances existed which would justify the granting of authorization for the interception of private communications, but the urgency of the situation required that interceptions should commence before an authorization could with reasonable diligence be obtained, on such terms and conditions if any as he considered advisable to grant a permit for the interception of private communications between persons, and that right would exist for a period of 36 hours. To me that constitutes the embodiment of a most dangerous provision whereby the right to privacy of Canadians would be subject to an invasion which after 36 hours could result in dangerous implications to the freedom of the individual.
I said that as far as the general principle was concerned, I was opposed to it. But realizing the expansion of crime which is taking place and the difficulty of assuring justice to the nation, while at the same time assuring the freedom of the individual against insidious attacks by those who would take shortcuts through our system of justice, perhaps this could be considered a proper course.
We argued very strongly. I do not wish to name all the hon. members who took part, but I would say a word of commendation not only in respect of the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) but also the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt), who in the amendment he offered to this House represented in essence what I have argued for and against. I think all of us will appreciate the fact that while strong words were expressed, because of the nature of this bill, essentially those words were based on the fact that only under a judicial system properly enforced can there be that freedom that gives equality to each and every one of us.
Crime is rampant. There is no question about that. Contempt is shown today for police officers to a degree that did not exist when I came into this House. While police officers always must be subject to the searchlight of public opinion, they have the right to ask that citizens stand behind them and support them when they are doing their duty. All of us who have the viewpoints I expressed on May 8 realize since that date, as was mentioned earlier this afternoon, the revelations of Watergate mean that parliament must be careful. It is difficult to understand what has happened in Washington and to realize that the finest principles of justice in the British tradition were swept aside by a coterie surrounding the President who placed the welfare of a political party above the needs and the welfare of the state.
Much has been made of the fact that there is international crime and that it is difficult to secure convictions. I was amazed to read in the report of the Mounted Police that in Canada, in one year beginning April 1, 1971, there were police reports and investigations concerning rack-
November 28, 1973

eteering and organized gangsters in respect of 95 cases. That is a tremendous challenge to the law enforcement officers of our country and, above all, to the assurance that Canadians shall be protected against the invasion of those who find it advantageous, monetarily and otherwise, to establish themselves in Canada.
Because of this I again repeat a suggestion I have made on other occasions. It is, whatever may be the advantages of the legislation now before this House, the time has come for the establishment of a royal commission on crime, representative of federal and provincial governments, to look into this question which has become in our nation a multimillion dollar racket which requires, above everything else, the fullest investigation and the fullest knowledge of the subject.
The hour approaches six o'clock. If the House will permit, I will in a moment suggest our adjournment. Suffice it to say at this time that the amendment brought
Protection of Privacy
forward by the hon. gentleman is representative of an endeavour to ensure the preservation of the rule of the law under the judiciary. It removes many of the dangers, if not all the dangers, reflected in the section as it stood originally. While I will not go so far as to say it satisfies everyone, it represents an example of what parliament can do when in the face of criticism from the opposition, joined by members supporting the government, there is recognition that it is in this place that freedom is assured. I think that in this amendment, to which I will later make somewhat extended reference, there has been a give and take which has removed a major portion of the stigma in the bill as originally introduced.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Despite the condition of our clocks, perhaps it could be recognized now as being six o'clock. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, November 29, 1973